HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: : A good reason to vote for Clinton
Date: 17 Aug 92 03:12:08 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu



Bush does not care very much about the things that to me are important:
investing in our economy, helping the poor, the unemployed, providing people
with education and health care, and so on. The Bush administration, and before
that the Reagan administration, had a "hands off" attitude, that even ignored
welfare reform. Clinton is for workfare, which becomes mandatory after two
years of being on welfare.

Bush cares the most about international affairs, and puts the concern of
Kuwait citizens, for example, above our own. He is more concerned with the
international price of oil than providing care for the uneducated at home. 

It is clear now that the large military build up initiated by Reagan was
completely unecessary in the early eighties. Although this build up slowed
during the mid eighties, it did not do so fast enough, and combined with an
inability to reform welfare and other entitlements led to a quadroupling of the
national debt. Today, the interest payments on that debt are said to be the
largest single expenditure of the budget. The responsibility for this rests
largely on the Reagan-Bush administration, and the impotence of George Bush as
a President. 
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41061 alt.activism:15214 misc.headlines:5806 sci.econ:7001
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:51:44 GMT
	<1992Aug20.192934.29839@vexcel.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug20.192934.29839@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
<   In article <1992Aug20.021305.3644@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
<   >
<   >	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
<   >do not automatically translate into more money.
<   >
<   >Brett                                                      


<   Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
<   economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
<   something to do with it.

	Do those 7 years also include the 1982 tax increase (TEFRA)
	which was billed as a "down payment on the deficit"; you
	DO recall that part of the "deal" was a reduction in
	spending that never appeared?

	And how about the 1986 tax increase?

<For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
<tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.

	Tell me how to stop Congress from spending $1.5 for every
	$1.0 in revenue.
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Democratic Congressional Record (was The Bush Record)
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.180709.7618@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>voracek@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov (David Voracek) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug18.151421.26912@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> The Bush Record 
>>|> ---------------
>...
>> The Democratic Congressional Record 
>> -----------------------------------
>...
>
>>Switch the word around a little and what does it matter....
>>The country is run by Congress and the President....
>>congress appropriates the bills
>
>throw all the bums out and start over.  

 

One of the things that I've read over the net and other sources recently is a
claim that this Congress is "the worst one ever".  I do wish that these poor
people would remember that we have had FAR worse legislative branches throughout
our history.  The most striking example would be the Radical Republican Congress
of 1865-1880.  This particular group wanted to punish the former Confederacy
for daring to split from the Union.  They went so far as to garner influence
to put their own representatives in the southern governorships as well as stock
the legislatures of the same states. Voting rights for the former CSA were
practially non-existent.  Abraham Lincoln was able to keep them in check until
his untimely death.  Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat (was this the only
presidency that had a split ticket President/VP ?) tried to maintain Lincoln's
Reconstuction plans (minimal reprisals for CSA) , but nearly got impeached
for his efforts.  The vote was one vote short of removal.  Many historians
firmly believe if the impeachment vote would have been successful, the U.S.
would have fallen into a dictatorial state. As it turned out, Johnson was
still no more than a figurehead president, as he had no real power for the
rest of his term.

 
However bad one might think that today's congresscritters are, keep in mind that
things have been worse in this country.  Anyone want to take on the 
know-nothings of the mid '40s?

Tom H.



-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40838 talk.politics.guns:19680
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:26:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <92233.022616MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
> >Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
> >of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
> >the conventional police, the deciding factor in any modern-day
> >American revolution/insurrection/whatever...
> 
> A word of friendly advice: don't cross-post this to talk.politics.guns!
> I posted similar sentiments elsewhere recently, not knowing that it
> was cross-posted, and was deluged with replies from people who had
> already planned out the entire insurrection in detail!
> 
> I don't know what this means, but it does make me nervous.

Stop and think about that.  If random, unconnected citizens play with 
scenarios for such an event, who really believes that no one in the federal 
government has put any together?  

Nervous indeed.

(Take a Valium, and for heaven's sake DON'T read the FEMA charter.)
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Monetarism
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:16:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD


	It gives me great pleasure to counterpost another Phil Hallam-Baker
article, since his views are patently and outrageously liberal, and this
man generally covers his ass well, bit this time:

In article <1992Aug19.214955.14413@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <Bt8p51.DEv@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
>writes:
>|>In article <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
>|>writes:
>
>|>>It's not unusual for men of 80 to be entirely disconnected from reality and
>|>>unable to accept a flaw in their pet theories. ...
>|>
>|>    To the contrary, Milton Friedman's theories are well supported by
>|>    the economic realities throughout the world.
>
>Where? Even Thatcher trashed Monetarism after it took the ecconomy into a
>nosedive in 1980. Friedman had to resort to the theory of rational expectations
>(a wrongly stated version of Russel's paradox) to explain why his theories
>suddenly stopped predicitng.

	As with Keynesian economics, it is simply unfair to use Monetarism
to do the job that fiscal policy should be doing. The economic situation
would have been much, much worse in both the US and Great Britain had they
not pursued tight money policies to shore up years of flabby 
social-labour-liberal fiscal policies. As history goes on to show, the 
inability to run a tight fiscal ship has serious consequences in the
long run, and I see no support for the assertion that this somehow
invalidates monetarism as either economic theory or a guide for
macroeconomic policy. Friedman, unlike Keynes, never promised us a
rose garden.		

>
>
>|>    Compare that, for example, to a theory of economic productivity
>|>    that another Nobel Prize Winner Paul Samuelson was advancing.
>|>    He once stated that "people in Eastern Europe and the SU are more
>|>    productive, because they spend more time working [don't go on strike]"
>|>    He must have gotten his NB from the same "entirely bogus enterprise 
>|>    set up to honour right wing looney tunes" (I wish they had taken
>|>    his high school diploma away instead:).
>
>OK I'll modify the statement :
>
>An entirely bogus enterprise set up to honour right wing looney tunes and
>discredit the left wing by honouring left wing obvious looney tunes.
>
>I don't have that much respect for the some holders of the genuine Nobel prize

	Unfortunately, if Bill Clinton gets elected, we may just get
a chance to do some real left-wing looney tunes microeconomic tinkering.

	I would really like to introduce such "progressive reforms" with
a degree of salt before jeopardizing my retirement and my children's
future. Monetarism hasn't been perfect, but it HAS been the only economic
that worked politically for the past 20 years. Mr. Hallam-Baker should really
give the Devil his due.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:      Canada Has Pneumonia!
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan

In article <1992Aug20.025347.6566@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
|> In article  , GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu         writes...
|> 
|> >     I visited Toronto last weekend.  Totally illuminating!
|> >     Cool phrases on Canadian news channels like:
|> > 
|> >       " And the Art Museum of Ontario may reopen next year "
|> >       " with the petitioning of the Toronto Symphony for
|> >         bankruptcy "
|> >       " if layoffs continue at their present rate, 1992 will
|> >         supersede the 1990 all-time record for layoffs "
|> > 
|> >    11% unemployment!?
|> >    $7.40 for two ice teas and fries!?
|> >    $10 / hour for PARKING!?
|> > 
|>
|> I might have a partial answer for this. In the latest issue of Rolling
|> Stone magazine they have an article (p33) that says: 
|> 
|> 	"Canada has lost an estimated 460,000 jobs since signing
|> 	a free-trade agreement with the United States in 1989."
|> 			William Greider
|> 
|> It doesn't come out and say that the job loss is directly because
|> of the free-trade agreement, but it sure does imply it (the article
|> is about the expected job losses from the NAFTA).
|> 

Must be all that cheap U.S. labor and high polluting U.S. industry.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:59:05 GMT

In article <l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> Tim Buckley) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
>|> 
>So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
>to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
>etc.

If you had read my preceding posts carefully I don't believe that you
would make this statement.  All my posts dealt with both sides of the
issue and the consistency of the arguments involved depending on which
of two assumptions one chooses to accept.  Giving you the benefit of the
doubt I assume that you wrote this before my clarification was posted.
It was a clarification that I at first deemed unnecessary but it soon
became clear that there was some uncertainty.  In my most recent post I
discussed that the difficulty comes in when the one person's right to
life is butted up against another's. 

The two cases you have mentioned are two such instances.  The death
penalty and war both require society to make judgments about whose right
to life takes precedence NOT whether the right to life takes precedence.
Without the right to life there are no other rights.  It is fundamental.
That IS (or should be) why we go to war (to defend our (or others) right
to life) and that is why we have the death penalty (to protect the right
to life of our citizenry).  Consistent and cohesive arguments can be
made in opposition to the death penalty and war this, again, is because
of the difficulty involved when two equal rights juxtapose each other.

Tim

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39684 talk.politics.theory:3669
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:58:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

> This is not true. Bush had a "pork-barrel" of proposed recissions
> that was close to $8 billion a few months back.

OK, I'll admit that I tossed out a $1 billion number as a rhetorical
flourish rather than as a serious estimate of the value of the
recissions proposed.  Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, etc.

Fair enough.  But the number that I remember is $3.6 billion--and most
of that from the cancellation of the Seawolf project.  And $3.6
billion amounts to about 1% of this years deficit.  In my mind, this
qualifies as window dressing, not a good start on budget cutting.

> More to the point, though, is that he has had some proposals
> on entitlement caps that would save much more than this.

But he hasn't specified how such caps should operate.  Should SS
checks be cut to stay under the caps?  Should COLAs be revoked?
Should people be removed from the Medicare/aid rolls?  Should
Oregon-style rationing be imposed on these programs?

Without specific proposals, the caps amount to more rhetoric and
window-dressing--and more avoidance of the real fiscal choices that
will have to be made.

> Too true. Bush has studiously avoided picking losing fights, and fighting
> pork barrel against Congress is normally the most difficult. 
> The net result, unfortunately, is that the Democratic Congress
> has pretty much gotten its way on these budgetary matters.

The Democrats may control Congress, but I don't think that it is wise
to try to blame a whole party.  Serious members of both parties have
proposed real cuts, and members of both parties have rolled pork
barrels.  The problem is cowardice on the part of too many members of
both parties.

(For example: Hank Brown is highly rated for fiscal responsibility by
the conservative Taxpayers Union even though he is a Democrat.  The
"Lead or Leave" initiative is headed by Tsongas and Rudman and is
bipartisan in nature.)

When you vote, examine your congresscritter's record.  And don't just
rely on windowdressing schemes like the Balanced Budget Ammendment.
And when in doubt, throw them out.

--Scott
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 23:24:33 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 7580@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <l8lb20INNllb@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> 
> > So the fact that he died, makes his earlier statements unreliable?
> 
> No, it makes them at the very least questionable -- and at the most
> unverifiable. 

It also is called hearsay and is not admissible in a court of law.  The target
of these type of charges cannot cross-examine it's accuser.


Bob De Guc
voter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39880 ca.politics:6804 ba.politics:4533
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:52:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <l8lkevINNrno@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #In any case, both Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear
# #prohibitions on homosexuality.
# 
# They have pretty clear prohibitions on LOTS of things.  I had a ham
# and pineapple and cheese calzone for lunch today, and I've got a
# cotton-and-linen sweater that I wear around work when it is too cold.
# By a literal reading of Leviticus, I'm in a seriously sinful state,

Yup.  The New Testament is not similarly limited.  It contains its
own prohibitions on homosexuality, separate from the Levitical
code.

# David Chase

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:31:45 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] In alt.politics.bush, MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu (Melissa Brown) writes:
] 
] > Is it just me, or does all this talk about family values smack of
] > McCarthyism?  The political climate is scarey.
] 
] I read an interesting editorial piece in the paper today.   It asserted
] that 'family values' is a code word for the issue of women's role in
] today's society.
] 
] Hmmmmm.


Well I can't speak for the 
KneeJerkBleedingHeartWimpLiberalStooges
that have been in the white house for the last 12 years,
but when Good People talk about restoring our GodGiven
WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues we sure do NOT mean
anything like McCarthyism....

Why that 'tax and spend' deomcrat was a Threat to the FreeWorld,
and thank GOD that Nixon Stopped Him Dead In His Tracks!!!!

What this Country NEEDS is a Restoration of
WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues, and
the Return to TRUE PIETY!!!!!

Why If women were at Home making babies
as is Their GodGivenReproductiveResponsibility
there would be NO 'so called' economic problems,
as Decent hard working, God Fearing Men would
be able to get the JOBS that these 
'GoodOldGirlRadFemManHatingBallKrushingDykeWannabeeTypes' 
have taken away.

Yup, Restore: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
and everything will be Right with the USA,
and General Motors will be the Number One 
car Maker in the World again...

We'll be able to Leave it to Beaver,
as Father Knows Best.

ciao
drieux


ps: an their Restore Our God Given Rights
to concubines....



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:44:41 GMT

In article <11743@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>It's a start.  But I understand that a lot of signs were carried
>as well decrying "yellow journalism" against NAMBLA.  It sounds
>like the community is still quite divided about child molestation.

The reason people are railing against "yellow journalism" is because it
reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals as child molesters.  It is not
because they support NAMBLAs goals.


FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:19:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.185505.6152@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Aug16.014713.3298@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:

There are two reasons for this posting.  One is to make fun of Doug Holtsinger.
I'll get to that in a bit.  The other is to inform folks that there is another
poster at the machine "galen."  Putting "galen" in your killfile will probably
have the effect of killing his posts too.  Be fair.  If you want to zap me
use "gjh" instead of "galen."  If you have any problems let me know, and
I'll try to find other ways of discriminating.

}That is a lie, President Bush does not oppose health care reforms.  I just
}finished watching an interview of President Bush by David Brinkley and
}Bush mentioned that his administration did have a health care reform plan.   

Doug, the first part is not contradicted at all by the presense of a plan.
I don't know if I can substantiate this, it seems somewhat like common 
sense to me, but I know I sure won't retract it.

On another note, I have a real problem with Doug being refered to as a
"fucking moron."  That might imply to some people that he knows something
about sex...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40298 ca.politics:6889 ba.politics:4609