HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tad@sdf.lonestar.org (Tad Dowe)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:43:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.214925.24184@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <21851@rpp386.lonestar.org> John F. Haugh II,
>jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org writes:
>>In article <BxMFIq.FJ8@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
>writes:
>>>I'm not sure it wasn't a case of their economy collapsed from the burden
>>>of defense spending only shortly before ours did...we were lucky.
>>
>>Our economy is nowheres near collapsing. 
>
>True, but a large part of the deficit and the burgeoning debt that you
>conservatives are so quick to blame on us liberals was due to this
>wasteful and unnecessary spending. Furthermore, calling this economy
>healthy can only be done by sticking your head firmly in the sand.

Your comments are the ones that display sand in the ears and eyes. Defense
spending is *not* the cause of the deficit; it is really the only spending
of any significance which can be blamed on the Presidencey, however. So,
liberals use it to misrepresent (read lie) about the real cause for the deficit:
congressional spending in welfare, medicare and other social programs.

If defense spending were to be cut in half, it would not make any significant
change in the deficit. Now, if welfare and medicare were treated equally, the
deficit could be reduced in no time.

Tad

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:09:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.173354.20182@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>
>	Is this a reported fact of just something to stir up
>debate on the net...
>
>
It's total bullshit.  I doubt Clinton has devoted even one second of
thought to the EEOC since the election, much less who is going to run
it.  In any event, No one in the Clinton camp has said anything about
who is going to be in the new administration (except that Clinton will
be President and Gore will be Vice President).

Paul.
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba interferes in internal Cuban affairs
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:05:07 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Nov14.054118.12614@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R.  
Moore) writes:
>](Miami) The senior military commander of one of the most militant Cuban  
>]exile organizations stunned the anti-Castro movement this week by  
>]announcing that he had worked as a spy for Cuban intelligencesince 1979.
>]
> ]He said he decided to make his role public rather than wait for it to  
> ]become known if the Castro government falls.
> 
> Looks like the rats are starting to leave the sinking ship (The People's
> Paradise of Cuba).

Hard to say.  They might have discovered him by conventional means, then  
given him the choice of being turned or letting it be known to the  
Cuban-American community that he was a Cuban spy.  Under those conditions,  
a lot of people might get religion.

Apparently the FBI had some nice video footage of him having an  
interesting conversation with a Cuban UN "diplomat."  Which means he was  
cooperating with the US for a while.

The movie rights to this story--Cuban intelligence funds and directs  
attacks on Cuba while US intelligence arrests the same people and prevents  
the attacks--should be valuable themselves.  Kevin Kline for the Cuban  
intelligence officer (reprising his role as Otto in AFCW, only as a  
left-winger), script by some ex-pythons, Cary Grant for the US intell  
officer, a young Hepburn for the love interest, directed by Preston  
Sturges.  

"It's a double bluff."

Well, we could dream.

--
Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns.
drm@esl.com  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:07:44 GMT

>In article <1992Nov18.223918.11569@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>How about any of the following:
>
>1) She's crazy
>2) She was jealous
>3) political power (Head of the EEOC?)
>4) money ($10,000 per speech)
>5) didn't want a conservative black on the court
>
>How many possibilities do you need?

 Actually Anita Hill probably didn't lie. It was Judge Susan Hoerchner
who lied. Read the American Spectator special report, it proclaims
that Hill had always proclaimed she was harassed in the spring, while
she didn't work for Thomas until the Fall. Once the feminists found out
about it, they let Sue Hoerchner go to work on Anita Hill.
 Anyways can't wait to ask Ms. Hill these questions when she comes to
Purdue in February.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop
School of Nuclear Engineering         |   when I'm passing by!! They say
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory |   all my flavors are guaranteed 
c/o Purdue University                 |   to satisy!!" Van Halen 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60525 alt.rush-limbaugh:9853 alt.politics.elections:23998 alt.politics.clinton:17323 alt.politics.bush:13929
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:06:15 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <BxC3Jx.CFE@eis.calstate.edu> Kenneth Mitchell,
> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu writes:
> >Of course, a LOT than Clinton has done strikes me as foolish; but not
> half
> >so foolish as the people who voted for him!!
> 
> How arrogant can you get.....   Those of us who voted for Clinton did so
> because
> he was the only candidate to present a comprehensive plan for the economy
> and our social problems; because Bush did nothing on domestic issues in 3
> 1/2
> years despite grave warnings from the experts (then he wouldn't even admit
> there was a problem); because Bush's honesty and integrity is questionable
> (Iraqgate, Iran contra, dirty campaigning); because Clinton has presented
> the
> only reasonable economic plan for boosting our long-term economy while
> gradually eliminating the deficit; because we are now paying big-time for
> the
> things that were swept under the rug by Ronald Reagan to make our economy
> look so rosy; because the fanatical religious right owns the Republican
> party and Bush; because Bush is a hypocrit (many of the things he accuses
> Clinton of apply doubly to himself---waffling, dishonesty,...). Calling
> those of
> us who voted for Clinton "foolish" is not a substitute for an explanation
> of the
> facts presented.
> 
> Norman
> 

I'm considerably less than impressed with Clinton's non-existant
understanding of economics; his "plans" to eliminate the deficit and
revitalize America's economy strike me as on a par with Nixon's "plan" to
end the war in Viet Nam. That is to say, pure campaign rhetoric, wholely
lacking in substance. 

Your claims about the "religious right" controlling the Republican Party
are COMPLETELY fatuous; while they might like to THINK that they do, they
are no more in control of the GOP than the rooster is responsible for the
sunrise. 

You're right on the mark about Bush; he's only marginally less unqualified
to be President than Clinton is. Like Slick Willie, he believes in nothing
other than that he should be President, and will do ANYTHING to get
elected. His problems with the economy, however, are mostly the fault of
Dan Rostenkowski and George Mitchell, who railroaded him into signing the
1990 budget "deal", whereby Bush broke a promise that he had made, and the
Congress made a promise that they would break. (To never raise taxes, and
to reduce federal spending, respectively).

But to vote for Clinton because you don't like Bush is the political
equivalent of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. And it IS
foolish, and I can't help it if you don't like it. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60238 ba.politics:7135 ca.politics:9583
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 14 Nov 92 17:16:39 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <13162@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Two of three recent scholarly works on child sexual abuse agreed
>that adult homosexuality is often a result of child sexual abuse,
>as I have posted in the past.

	Well, I don't think that even _they_ have any clear proof.

	The development of sexuality is still an unsolved problem.

And yes, I find it not at all
>surprising that NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades, and has
>support from a surprisingly large number of homosexuals.

	How many Gay Pride marches have you been to, O Master
Homosexologist?

	I challenge you to come down to San Francisco next year for
our annual Gay Pride march. It'll be on the last Sunday of June and
it'll be on Market Street between the Embarcadero and the Civic Center.

	Access: either drive and suffer from a Golden Gate Bridge
traffic jam and try to hunt down parking in San Francisco, or else
take public transit: a Golden Gate Transit bus straight from Petaluma,
or drive to the Richmond or El Cerrito del Norte BART station, where
there is plenty of parking on weekends. BART goes right underneath the
parade route in SF, and the GGT buses will stop nearby.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS 
Organization: NewsRUs
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 18:12:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.162237.15748@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>hasn@midway.uchicago.edu  writes:
>>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>I've got news for you -- the future is here.  It's now.  AIDS has peaked.
>>>All of the dire predictions of "one out of three heterosexuals will be dead by
>>>1990" aren't going to happen.  The epidemological pattern of AIDS is such that
>>>there is not going to be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic.
>>
>>I wish what you said is true.  But there is no way that AIDs has peaked.
>...
>>And of the hetro people affected most will be heterosexual women
>>(women have a much larger risk of contracting aids from men
>>than men from women).
>
>That is why AIDS will not reach epidemic proportions in heterosexual
>populations. It's too unlikely for women to pass it on.
>

Exactly.  In 1984 the WHO predicted some ungodly number of AIDS
infections, like 100 million or something, by 1990.  Needless to
say that hasn't happened.

I am in a monogomous, heterosexual relationship.  My wife and I
have never and will never use intravenous drugs not administered
by a health care professional.  I take AIDS seriously, but because
of my behaviour I have an infinitessimally small chance of getting
it (I'd more likely be struct by lightning).

$4 billion is enough for AIDS research.  Other people with other
diseases are suffering, too.  Any more money for AIDS would take away
from research in other important areas.

James
-- 
James W. Brown		-  I dream of the day when conservatives learn   -
			-  the difference between a sin and a crime and  -
			-  liberals learn the difference between a       -
			-  virtue and a requirement.                     -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu 
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS 
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:39:04 GMT

In article  thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> I've got news for you -- the future is here.  It's now.  AIDS has peaked.
> All of the dire predictions of "one out of three heterosexuals will be dead by
> 1990" aren't going to happen.  The epidemological pattern of AIDS is such that
> there is not going to be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic.  If the government ever
> got around to distributing clean needles and funding drug treatment programs,
> you'd actually see numbers going down instead of staying level.
> -- 

I wish what you said is true.  But there is no way that AIDs has peaked.
I am curious to see how you came to that conclusion (and I'm not looking
for numbers, just some indication that the rate of increase is zero).  
IMO, distributing needles and drug treatment programs  may have 
an impact but it will not be too notable.  Any major impact will come
from research via money being put into AIDs research.  

I just heard a CNN poll that most heterosexuals dont take AIDs
seriously (and I have no problems believing that).  To me that indicates
that AIDs, however unbelievable it is, WILL become a heterosexual
epidemic. Why?  Because there are more heterosexuals having 
sex than homosexuals (because there are more hetros period). Plus the
fact that they dont take it seriously means a lot of unprotected hetro
sex is happening.
And of the hetro people affected most will be heterosexual women
(women have a much larger risk of contracting aids from men
than men from women).  In any case thats my opinion.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61391 alt.sex:37330 alt.politics.correct:5864
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:42:38 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov22.215213.2863@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.213027.11164@netcom.com> ssturgis@netcom.com (Scott Sturgis) writes:
>>>
>>>I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.
>>
>>Perhaps in the U.S. at the moment yes. But that will change
>
>There is no indication that that will change.

This is quite true- there is no indication that it WILL NOT change.  Virus
mutation may give way to easy tranmissions.

>
>>>The homosexual community needs to be more serious about AIDS prevention
>>>than the heterosexual community because they're much much more at risk.
>>
>>Again Ted that may be true for the present but the future is a different
>>story. There will be many THOUSANDS more to die before the cure is found. 
>
>I've got news for you -- the future is here.  It's now.  AIDS has peaked.
>All of the dire predictions of "one out of three heterosexuals will be dead by
>1990" aren't going to happen.  The epidemological pattern of AIDS is such that
>there is not going to be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic.  If the government ever

Famous last words on many in the past.  There will never be this or that we
are safe, go on and about your business as usual.

>got around to distributing clean needles and funding drug treatment programs,
>you'd actually see numbers going down instead of staying level.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 


This is a terribly naive position to take.  No one can predict that there might not
be changes in who can get infected and by what method.  Like condoms, needle exchange
and drug treatment may make a difference, but not necessarily cause large declines.
We don't even know how many at this time are infected.

We once thought measles was eradicated.  What happened?

Head in the sand ideology is very dangerous.  Keep in the mind that the majority of
cases in the world are heterosexual.  And you never know what might happen.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61399 alt.politics.elections:24268 alt.politics.democrats.d:664
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:35:48 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:

|>In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
|>>There is no overpopulation problem. 
|>>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
|>>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
|>>advancement, generally.

|>I'm sure that all those countries in Africa will be glad to hear that.

Excuse me, but nobody is denying that there is starvation in Africa.  But
to claim that such starvation is the result of overpopulation is a bit of
a stretch.  If there were only 100 people in Somalia, they would still be
starving.  (Assuming no outside aid of course.)

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61484 alt.sex:37432 ca.politics:9832
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:04:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.044245.18718@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mritchie@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie) writes:
> In article <13326@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov19.163642.17801@cs.ucla.edu>, bigoldberg@igc.apc.org (Billi
>  Goldberg) writes:
# ##                        AIDS Daily Summary
# ##                        November 19, 1992
# ## ************************************************************************
# ##  "Almost One-Third of Gay Men in Study Admit to Unprotected Anal
# ## Intercourse" Washington Post (11/19/92), P. A2
# [body of article deleted]
# 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
# #be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
# 
# So what's your point, asshole?  Why not quote the articles (and they
# were all over the place yesterday) about the *growing* number of heterosexuals
# who are having sex with multiple partners without taking precautions?

1. Because the risks for heterosexuals aren't near as high as for
homosexuals, unless involved with prostitutes or IV drug abusers.

2. Because if any group should be aware by now of the risks involved,
it should be homosexuals, a group that has been devastated by AIDS.

# Frankly, based on polls I've read in the past, one-third isn't bad--
# education is helping, we just need more, as your little article noted.

You mean one-third of homosexuals, many of whom are HIV+, need more
education?  Or is that they can't control themselves enough to 
engage in safe[r] sex?


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: Re: The Secret Service strikes again...
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:06:18 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


>Sigh. I do _not_ believe this... 

>   Secret Service vetoes a target
>   ------------------------------

>      Orlando, Fla. -- A right-wing Young Republican group, bowing to
>   pressure from the US Secret Service, yesterday backed off plans to
>   use enlarged photos of President-elect Bill Clinton as targets for
>   a weekend turkey shoot.
>   
>      "They came down hard on us, saying we threatened the President,
>   things like that," said David Abrami, vice president of the Central
>   Florida Young Republican Club.  "So we canceled it."
>   
>      When Abrami heard the Secret Service was investigating, he was
>   worried.  Yesterday morning, he spoke with the Secret Service, then
>   decided to cancel the event.
>   
>      "We just figured he's head of the Democratic Party right now,
>   and we're Republicans," said Abrami.  "We thought it would be a
>   nice parody.  We didn't mean any ill will by it."

I'm not quite sure if this is even Constitutional. Certainly that's
freedom of expression (at worst) but more likely just a display of
partisan dislike. It's no big deal. I know a group who puts dan
quayle's picture on their dart board (I dont know why they do because
they're a satirical magazine!). I don't know if either is appropriate
but it's certainly not the Secret Service's business to decide. Don't
they have better things to worry about... like protecting Clinton's
cat?
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				
We already have term limit provisions in the Constitution, it's called voting.
===========================================================================
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights; that among
these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 
		----Declaration of Independence

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Campaign strategy
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:49:52 GMT


In article <1992Nov13.152958.2902@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com said:

> > > Campaigns used to be a lot more nasty than they are today. [John
> > > Moore]
> >
> > This makes it okay for the president of the US to call a governor
> > and Senator "bozos" I guess.  'Worse has been done before'.  It's
> > a poor argument at best.  [John Viveiros]
>
> Yes, I think it IS okay. After all, the senator and the governor
> called Bush a liar and a crook.

Not quite the same thing.  "Liar" and "crook" are much more specific
words than "bozo."  A person accused of being a liar can respond by
challenging his accuser to produce a documented lie on his (the
accused's) part and, if the accuser can't come up with one, use that
failure as ammo against the accuser.  Similar situation for "crook" --
the accused can mount a "put up or shut up" retalliation, demanding
that the accuser produce evidence of thievery.  But "bozo" is like
"wimp" -- it's so vague and ill-defined that it's almost impossible to
challenge.  (After all, how do you prove that you're _not_ a bozo?)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:21:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov13.075605.8167@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

|>In article <gYC=9HB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:

|>>This is already happening.  Efficient farming depends on economies
|>>of scale.  What is wrong with large farms?  I repeat, farming is
|>>a business and as such should meet the same criteria as any other
|>>business.  If it can't succeed without government aid, it shouldn't
|>>be operating....

|>Would it shock you to be told that you know almost nothing about the
|>economics of agriculture and that most of what you do know is wrong?

Then please, do enlighten us.  Just what in the above statement is wrong?

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc