HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Clinton supporter thanks President Bush
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:04:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

...for threatening sanctions against the EC and thereby
getting the GATT talks moving again. Bush has done the
statesmanlike thing by biting the fre-trade bullet and
so taking the heat off his successor. Thanks!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: The Presidency
Date: 6 Nov 1992 08:33:23 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov5.141216.25561@exu.ericsson.se>,
ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se (Pat Fargo 6266) writes:

>I am still amazed by the presidential result...
>
>           ...    How can we elect a president from a small
>state, with no federal experience to be in charge of foreign
>policy and the defense of our country?
>

   I'd be curious to know if you were equally amazed when the American
people elected as their president a has-been B movie matinee idol who
once co-starred with a chimpanzee.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,misc.education,comp.edu
From: marco@lia.dei.unipd.it (Marco Pontil 259243)
Subject: Searching Addresses
Organization: Universita' di Padova, Italia
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:12:03 GMT


Hi people !

	I'm writing here to ask for a favour:

	I need the address (postal or E-Mail address)  of the office
	of admission of these universities:

	Chicago St. U. Chigago.
	Loyola U. Chicago.
	Northeastern U. Chicago.
	Roosvelt U. Chicago.
	University of Chicago, Chicago.
	University of Illinois, Chicago.

	University of Wisconsin Madison.
	University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.


	Thanks in advance ...

						... Marco Pontil
						(marco@sabrina.dei.unipd.it)
						(marco@paola.dei.unipd.it)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<BxFopw.3Kw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <jyc.721349863@Leland>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:46:26 GMT

<In article <jyc.721349863@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
<   irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

<   >In article <jyc.721174111@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
<   >I agree with you, but too much of a good thing can be bad (even government! -
<   >look at many other nations where the government controls most of the
<   >nation economically and/or politically you find dissatisfaction and
<   >stagnation [worse than the US].  Too little government is anarchy and
<   >you can get a similar result).

<      I agree that the idea that the government can solve all problems and
<   can bring about permanent, perfect economic activity can utlimately lead
<   to a totalitarianism as oppressive as that based on fascist
<   right-is-might philosophy.  

	Read any of the novels or texts on the Soviet Union
	and tell us about "right is might".

<On the other hand, at least the communist
<   ideal, however misguided it has become, is based on assumptions of human
<   equality, whereas fascism is based on sheer sadism.  To put it another
<   way, communists are lunatics, whereas fascists are animals.  

	No, to put it more accurately: 

		Communism IS Fascism.
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: To the Bush (It's nice, believe me)
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:04:28 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <jyc.720941494@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>
>>           ...      It's also not clear that the USA will survive in the
>>long run if Clinton and his Democratic congress spend us into eternal
>>hell during the next four years.
>
>   Now, now.  This is a time for reconciliation.  The election is over,
>and Republicans should not be bitter that the entire Bush/Reagan agenda
>has been repudiated by the American people for the ludricrous farce it
>was, nor should they feel downcast that that agenda's leader has been
>expelled from office in disgrace.  As for those of us who opposed Bush,
>we should not be arrogant and exult over the spectacle of George Bush
>having to slink back to Texas whimpering with his tail between his legs:
>it would be ungenerous and ungracious of us to congratulate ourselves on
>his having been consigned forever to the cesspool of history's failed
>reactionary ideologues.  Instead, let us all join hands and look to the
>future in a spirit of fellowship.
>
Will he go back to his hotel suite in Texas or to Kennebunkport?  If the
latter, Maine should hit him for all the state taxes he avoided over the past
how many years by maintaining a hotel suite in texas as his "official
residence".
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:43:59 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov12.215213.22165@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.131109.5558@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>>	They've already done that.  Dole was recently re-elected to "Leader of
>>the Pack" :) for the Republicans.  I'm assuming that the Dems aren't going to
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>>unseat the current Speaker/Whip/etc.
>>...
> 
> The Speaker of the House is Tom Foley, a Democrat, who I 
> believe was re-elected and would be expected to continue
> as Speaker.  Bob Dole is a *Senator* and is not eligible
> to be Speaker of the House (if that is what you meant?).

	Nope.

> Bush recently made Dole the head of the Republican party.
> BTW, the head of the Democrats is Ron Brown.

	One of the Reps from Wyoming is heading up the Republicans in the
House.  His name escapes me at the moment.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:59:51 GMT

In article <burleigh.721260295@ogre> burleigh@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Frank Burleigh) writes:
>
>Assuming you're a Lib, my difference with you is that I'm not willing
>to assume that high income and great wealth have anything to do with
>a contribution to society that should be rewarded. 
>
>Of course you led me down this path which is a little different than
>tax rate progressivity... ;-)

Not much to complain about in your article except this; overall quite
well-written and thoughtful.

I really don't think that Brian, nor Libertarians in general, think
that there should be a "reward" for becoming wealthy, other than the
rightful enjoyment of that wealth by its earner/owner.  

What I think Brian IS complaining about is that the "progressive" 
point of view holds that s/he should be PENALIZED for it through 
excess taxation.

Is this fair, Brian?
From: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Sign seen at Bush ral
Date: 30 Oct 92 14:48:00 GMT
Reply-To: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca)
Organization: Travel Online / St. Louis Online - St. Louis, MO

CRB>Bush denounced the Duke run for
CRB>the Gorvernor of LA, along with the republican national committee.

...and let Pat Buchanan speak at the GOP!

CRB>'nough said?  Sheez, get a life!

CRB>Chad

Same to you, Carl.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * Hate is not a family value
                                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.french
From: chungdan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Zhong Qi Iao (Daniel))
Subject: [cars] we need more public transport, not highways
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 01:44:12 GMT


     I posted about (1) that the automobile makers lobbied against the
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit building to the south of the Bay, and
(2) that San Jose (south of Bay) uses general taxes to fund highways.
You know, that we should (1) emphasise of the general public, and (2) use
petrol taxes to fund highways.  The second point is very clear: fairness.
The first point has to do with avoiding the lobbying of big firms.  They
just want to drain the country of money and resources, but in fact we
can have a more efficient transport with trains and buses.

     Please see "soc.culture.esperanto".  I want to get international response.

					*Zhong* Qi-Iao (Mr.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  9 Nov 92 22:57:43 GMT

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

>In article <jyc.721174111@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>I agree with you, but too much of a good thing can be bad (even government! -
>look at many other nations where the government controls most of the
>nation economically and/or politically you find dissatisfaction and
>stagnation [worse than the US].  Too little government is anarchy and
>you can get a similar result).

   I agree that the idea that the government can solve all problems and
can bring about permanent, perfect economic activity can utlimately lead
to a totalitarianism as oppressive as that based on fascist
right-is-might philosophy.  On the other hand, at least the communist
ideal, however misguided it has become, is based on assumptions of human
equality, whereas fascism is based on sheer sadism.  To put it another
way, communists are lunatics, whereas fascists are animals.  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach)
Subject: Austrian Navy
Reply-To: zach@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at
Organization: Technische Universit"at Wien
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:11:19 GMT

The latest "Profil" carried a nice little story:

The mayor of San Francisco invited the Austrian consul to
send a contingent of the Austrian navy to participate in a
naval parade in the San Francisco bay. The consul responded
that he regretted, but "at the date in question, the Austrian
Naval Forces" will be holding maneuvers together with the
navies of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxemburg".


-- 
Richard Zach                         Technische Universitaet Wien
[zach@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at]     Abteilung fuer Formale Logik 185.2
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: burleigh@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Frank Burleigh)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:04:55 GMT

In <BxEGLy.Ku2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>On the contrary, buying the votes of the rich doesn't get you much in an
>election, since there are not very many rich people.  Furthermore, there is 
>a BIG difference between allowing people to keep the money THEY earned and 
>forcing people to cough up money for transfer to others who DIDN'T EARN it.
>It's the difference between me spending MY dollan and me spending YOUR dollar.
>Get it?

Since when do we tax the transfer payments to lower income people?
You sound as though you believe most income to low income people is
unearned...

>>IMNSHO, the "trickle-down" theory allowed the upper few percent to gain
>>about 60% of the income growth throughout the 80's.  

>Indeed, they were alolowed to MAKE that money.  They didn't steal it.

None of it?

>Would like to see the government forbit people from making money?  Do you think
>that anything other than poverty could result from the government outlawing 
>economic productivity among the most able segment of the population?

This is all very interesting, but it seems to me your assumptions are
completely different than, say, mine and that we'd argue this till
we're exhausted.  You assume that all that income and wealth that goes
to the higher income folks results from their talent or greater
productivity.  In many cases, of course that would be true, i.e., many
professions (but can we name counterproductive professions or practices
that bring individual reward but a net bad to society?  Does that enter
the equation for you?).  But on the other hand, some portion of those
gains came because we deregulated or encouraged financial speculation
that have nothing to do with this country's productivity.

Another pitfall of your making this argument *for you* is that it
could lead to the conclusion that transfers of wealth should be taxed
at rates like 100 percent, as Lester Thurow has argued (somewhere),
since wealth received thusly obviously has no merit beyond the right
of the giver to transfer it.

Assuming you're a Lib, my difference with you is that I'm not willing
to assume that high income and great wealth have anything to do with
a contribution to society that should be rewarded. 

Of course you led me down this path which is a little different than
tax rate progressivity... ;-)

--
Frank Burleigh
Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN  47405
CIS 72730,1017; Internet burleigh@ogre.cica.indiana.edu; Bitnet burleigh@iubacs
From: Josef Moellers <mollers.pad@sni.de>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: WANTED: Clinton's platform
Date: 5 Nov 1992 10:37:08 +0100
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, Paderborn, Germany
Summary: Does anyone have B. Clinton's election platform
Keywords: Clinton, election platform


Now that Gov. Clinton has made it, I'd like to ask if someone has a
machine readable version of his election platform (is this the right
thing, I'm interested in his promises).
As I have lost all confidence in our own politicians, I'd like to
monitor how close Mr. Clinton stays to his promises. For that, I need
the document.

As a side note: Does anyone have his address?

-- 
| Josef Moellers		| c/o Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG  |
|  USA: mollers.pad@sni-usa.com	| Abt. STO-XS 113	   | Riemekestrasse   |
| !USA: mollers.pad@sni.de	| Phone: (+49) 5251 835124 | D-4790 Paderborn |
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8338 talk.politics.misc:58829
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  7 Nov 92 22:08:31 GMT


Holly Silva writes: 

>
>Is anyone else out there tired of middle class Libertarians whining
>about the gross impositions placed upon them by the need to give a
>little to the common good? 
>

   Yeah, me.  It seems no matter how huge my kill file gets, I can't get
away from these ranting Randroids that infest the net EVERYWHERE.
These bozos live in an invincible dream world of naive dewy-eyed faith
that if the government would just stop interfering with the ability of
the rich and powerful to do whatever they want to the rest of us, the
inevitable result will be the greatest good for the greatest number. 

   They also seem to combine an immaculate ignorance of political
theory (the question of the necessity of vesting sovereign powers in a
government was settled by Hobbes, period) with an equal ignorance of
basic economic reality.  Most of them for instance would probably flatly
refuse to believe that Americans have almost the lowest taxes in the
world and that the very rich have the lowest taxes in America.  (Note to
those of you about to post a followup demanding that I prove these
statements:  go to the damn library and educate yourself.  If you don't
know the most elementary facts about your own economic situation, don't
expect me to spoon feed them to you.)

   I suspect a lot of this breed are snotnosed twenty year old know it
alls.  I can't believe it.  I spent my twenties screaming at older
people for being right-wing crazies, and now I'm screaming at younger
people for being right-wing crazies.  Jesus, it's enough to make you
swear.  
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8456 misc.invest:13633 misc.entrepreneurs:3269
From: jllee@acsu.buffalo.edu (Johnny L Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,misc.invest,misc.entrepreneurs
Subject: Re: **INTERESTING TRANSCRIPT ABOUT HONDA MOTOR COMPANY AND JAPANESE LCD CARTEL (PBS FRONTLINE)
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:05:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UB


That was great stuff!

I'm definitely ordering the PBS Frontline video tape.


	As an advocate for a 'new industrial revolution' in 
America, I strongly support regulations and limitations for 
Japanese products and Japanese companies.
	But that doesn't mean we should relax and take a breather.
With restrictions and regulations on the Japanese, we should 
regain all the loses that the Japanese unfairly caused. This means
restructuring our old companies, creating new competitive companies
from the old ones, having government play a bigger role in
domestic investing and foreign regulations, and definitely motivate
our younger generation of people to work and work together.
	
	I don't beleive in Japanese bashing. I believe that the 
Japanese were wrong with what they were doing. But, I also beleive
that we were wrong for letting them take over certain American 
markets. It's time we make things right. 

	And I only hope every American out there feels the same
way. Or we will surely face the evitable as told by FrontLine.

					
					John
				
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A Japanese student kill in Lousiana (Gun Control)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.181029.12785@ntmtv> nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen) writes:
>I agree with you.  If we need a driver license to operate a car
>because it is potentially deadly, why don't we need a license to
>use a gun then?

Because car licensing is supposed to address unintentional acts, AKA
accidents.  We don't expect it to address intentional acts, like
drive-bys, get-aways, and so on.  There are significant problems with
unintentional acts with cars, but not with guns.  (Murder/robbery is
an INTENTIONAL act.)

>doesn't work.  What is the point of banning gun owning from
>New Yorkers inside the city when they can go 10 miles out
>of the city limit to buy an automatic pistol legally.

In this universe, it isn't legal for New Yorkers to buy guns
elsewhere, and hasn't been for a couple of decades....

Of course, the quoted message is wrong on other points as well.  The
process for buying automatic weapons anywhere is quite strict and has
been since 1934.  It allows arbitrary turn-downs by any chief in the
chain from the city to the feds.  (CA chiefs deny everyone who doesn't
have a movie-industry connection.)  One consequence of this system is
that legally owned automatic weapons are not used criminally, but it
has had no effect on the criminal use of automatic weapons.

>want to implement it properly, we have to ban guns for the
>whole U.S.A. Then it will be more effective.

Like the cocaine ban.

>There is a big difference here.  Illegal drugs are addictive,
>but owning a gun is not.

The supplier doesn't care why the demand exists.  Guns are useful,
so there will be demand.

>>if I understand the initial intention of this constitutional right, i.e.
>>to protect the citizen against their own government (isn't it what you
>>meant?) citizen should also be allowed to own anti-aircraft missiles,
>>miscellaneous AAA,  heavy artillery, tanks,  mass destruction weapons
>>etc.  to be able to match those fancy toys ``paid by taxes'' as you
>>said.  Otherwise,  what is the point?
>
>You are right Sylvain.  There is no point in owning a gun.

Since 65% of the violent revolutions since 1945 have succeeded under
the circumstances that "these experts" insist are hopeless, perhaps
they don't known what they're talking about.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:12:42 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <Bx8M6t.5Cx@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:
>
>  If the president of the US dies there is a long list of
>"heirs to the throne" starting at the Vice-president.
>But what if the President and Vice-President elect both
>die before they have nominated people to fill the different
>offices of state - who becomes President?
>
>   They can't (?) hold another election for 4 years.
>Does the electoral college decide?  Or is this a
>situation not considered in the US constitution
>
Speaker of the House is next in line, followed by the president pro-temp of the
Senate.   Contrary to what Alexander Haig said - he is not in charge!
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
From: dgt@phy.duke.edu (Dinko Eduardo Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: ok, I get it now.
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:35:14 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.


>
>	Note that  Mexico  and  Canada  are in  North  America. Canadians
>are  not taught that  the  UsA is  number one [My uppercase  's' is  caput].
>I doubt that the  Mexicans  are, either.

>
>							James  Nicoll

Strictly calling a citizen of the USA an American is geographically
speaking, even worse.  In my view (and most  South Americans will probably
agree) North American is a somewhat   better word.  Any suggestions?

PS:  By the way, I actually think that Northamerican is not a correct 
word.  Is that right? 
 
-- 
Dinko Gonzalez Trotter
dgt@phy.duke.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8469 alt.politics.clinton:16948 alt.politics.bush:13810 alt.politics.perot:5451 talk.politics.misc:59755