HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: CFV: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:32:22 GMT

	This is a CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of
	one new newsgroup : talk.politics.medicine  
 	The voting period will be 12-Oct-1992 through 2-Nov-1992  

  In order to vote for or against this newsgroup, you must send a mail
message to the address mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu.  If your site
does not understand that address, you might try:

	mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu@athena.mit.edu
	mit-athena!pit-manager.mit.edu!mail-server
	uunet!pit-manager.mit.edu!mail-server

If none of these addresses works, talk to someone at your site who can
help you address the mail properly.  Posted votes will not be counted.
Votes mailed to the poster of this message will not be counted.

  Your mail should contain one of the following three lines, either in
the Subject or body of the mail message:

	vote talk.politics.medicine yes
	vote talk.politics.medicine no
	vote talk.politics.medicine abstain

The first two lines register a vote either for or against the creation
of the newsgroup.  The third line cancels any previous vote for or
against the creation of the newsgroup.  Multiple voting messages from
the same person must be sent from the same address.  If multiple votes
are received from the same person, the last vote received is the only
one counted.

  You should receive a response to your vote, acknowledging its
receipt, within two days.  If you do not, or if you have some other
problem with voting, you can get help by sending mail to
postmaster@pit-manager.mit.edu.

news group:
 
     Proposed Title:  talk.politics.medicine  

Charter:
       talk.politics.medicine, unmoderated.
A newsgroup to discuss politics and ethics in medicine and related
sciences and fields. Topics may include discussions on whether:
medical care should be socialized; insurance be paid for by the
individual, the company, or the state; or if it is even mandatory.
They may also include discussions on ethics of cross-species transplants;
if fetal material should be used or not; government intervention  
into the health care choices of people (such as permitting (or not)
alternative medicine to coexist with mainstream medicine, nutritional
medicine, or preventive medicine); parental or individual (non)consent to
mandatory immunization or treatment that may violate ethical or religious
beliefs; euthanasia for terminal, vegetative, or severely crippled people,
be it voluntary or non voluntary; and the right to help or refuse care to
patients based on ability to pay, ability to help or care for them, or
based on any disease they may be carrying; or any other related topics.   
-- 
 delisle@eskimo.celestial.com | Nothing is fool-proof, fools are too ingenious.
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: AL GORE - The man with too many faces
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:09:28 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

jeff@don't.want.email writes:

>Did you know that Al Gore use to be PRO-LIFE....

By Pro-Live, I assume you mean anti-abortion.  If you make this claim,
I hope you are prepared to back it up.  So do it.  Back up your claim.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: VP debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:44:44 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <ISBELL.92Oct13210923@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu writes:
|Oh, I should mention one more wildcard factor:  lots of charges, some
|of which were false (according to Peter Jennings) were hurled around.
|If the charges were out and out incorrect, then this might
|retoractively hurt whoever threw out the most inaccuracies.  I'll be
|reading the Times tommorrow.

Quayle wins (or rather, loses) in the inaccuracy category.

Quayle's reference to a specific page number in Gore's book was
false.  Quayle denied that a US gov't program to aid businesses
moving to other countries exists-- the program exists.  Quayle
was also wrong about Gore's voting record.  Just about everything
he offered documentation on seems to have been inaccurate.

Quayle's charge that Gore waffled about abortion funding might
be more substantial.  Gore also played a couple of games with
statistics.

I also enjoyed the way Quayle answered the question about 
the appropriateness of personal attacks by MAKING a personal
attack.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:22:44 EDT
From: Windsor A. Morgan <NHT@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups:  alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
 <1992Oct12.164012.27372@Princeton.EDU>

In article <1992Oct12.164012.27372@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) says:

>He DOES have a lead in Arkansas.  A large lead.  More than twice as much
>as his nearest competitor.  Rather, ask why Bush doesn't have a real
>lead in *Texas*.  (40-35-14)  Or Maine, (30-44-11), or any of Bush's
>other "home states", like Connecticut (33-47-9).

Or in the District of Columbia (Clinton has 71 percent support there).
Then again, as we used to say in college, the Democrats could run a
kumquat in DC and still win.  And who is to say that it wouldn't be a
good idea? :-)
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:24:56 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
>that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
>Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
>But the sight of the President of the United States
>sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
>too sad.
> 


Just remember that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on sleaze, remember
Clarence Thomas and Ted Kennedy. Democracts even use sleaze on others of 
there own party, ie. Holtzman's attacks on Ferraro and Gore's attacks on
Dukakis in the New York primary where he used Willie Horton against
Dukakis. Yes this is where Willy Horton first came to the public ear. Have
you noticed that Willy has not been mentioned by the Democratic leaders this
year after about 3.5 years of non-stop Willy talk.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15751 alt.politics.clinton:9266 alt.politics.bush:8307
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: The Domino Poll
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:07:29 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

On CNN, a group of retired Republicans expressed that Bush was
losing touch with reality. I think they should know well and
Bush supporters should beware that this country can't
survive continued leadership from the geriatric ward.
Russia retired her senile leadership, it's time the
USA did likewise.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:55:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.135647.5914@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>In article <Bw0tDA.IJ0@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>> >In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:

>> >> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>> >> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>> >> independent of who is President and what he does.

>>   This is clearly NOT an ordinary recession with an ordinary cyclical
>>   recovery; if it was we would have already started to see a major
>>   turnaround by now!   Today's Wall Street Journal published another
>>   economic consensus forecast showing only 2.7% growth next year with
>>   some economists adding that if they were wrong then 2.7% is on the
>>   *optimistic* side.   If this were an ordinary cyclical recession
>>   then next year would be 5-6% GDP growth!

>I agree with both posters.  Economicly, GDP growth will be slow for the 
>next few years.  Debt (both private and government) and a shaky financial 
>system (with the FIRRA deserving much blame) will limit the amount of 
>capital for both investment and consumer spending.  Politically, the 
>Republicans will get the blame (even thought there is enough to go 
>around).  Even 2+% annual growth (twice as much as under Bush) and 
>slowly falling unemployment will be enough for the Dems to keep the 
>White House in 1996.  (Remember that FDR kept getting re-elected even
>though there was no real recovery until WWII.)

Assuming Clinton is elected President and that he gets some of his proposals
through Congress (increased Federal health insurance programs, increased
social services spending, increases to the economy, some minor reductions
of defense spending, increases of middle income taxation) then the deficit
will actually go up, investment (for jobs) will go down, inflation will go
up--and we'll be calling Clinton the peanut farmer from Arkansas.

>>   As I've been saying, we will almost certainly have to get serious
>>   about the deficit in the next few years and once we do we're going
>>   into a *depression* with double-digit unemployment and massive social
>>   unrest.  (again, if anyone can make the numbers come out some other
>>   way >please< post them to the net!!).  So I sure don't envy the Demo-
>>   crats if Clinton wins.  

>While there is always opportunity for politicians to screw things up, I
>don't see a 1930's type depression.  

If the foreign banks that are now buying U.S. debt drastically change that
investment, you may see unemployment and inflation in the high teens.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: PA1460008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:44:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.141755.16585@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Oct16.131520.1190@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct16.010232.8678@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct15.125744.4200@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>>> Lets not forget that the (democratically-controlled) Congress has to
>>>> approve ALL spending, revenue-raising, taxes. The President has no
>>>> power to spend money unless Congress gives it to him. Only the Congress
>>>> can borrow money and go into debt. Its in the Constitution (Article 1, 
>>>> sections 7,8).
>>> 
>>>Ever hear of the veto?  If Bush had had more than 1 veto overturned he
>>>might have a case.  But it's clear that he agreed to the budget
>>>compromises.  If he didn't veto the spending bills he's just as
>>>responsible as Congress.
>>>-- 
>>>Doug Andersen
>>>hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
>
>>Bush has screwed on those compromises but again, Congress can absolutely 
>>override him. So the President has the veto power and Congress can
>>override it if they can muster the votes. But only Congress has the
>>authority to raise taxes, raise the debt, spend money, etc. - The
>>President does not have that power.
>
>And how many times has the Congress been able to override a
>Presidential veto in the past four years?  *ONCE*, and *NEVER* on a
>spending bill, tax bill, or tax bill.  So tell me again about how it
>isn't Bush's fault, won't you?

     How many vetoes in four years?  Thirty seven?  Out of how many hundreds 
(thousands) of bills?

     It sounds like the problem here is that Bush failed to stand up to 
Congress.  And while that is certainly a reason not to re-elect Bush, it
certainly places plenty of blame on Congress.
     Bush is partially to blame.  Wholly to blame (as Clinton would have it)
or totally blameless (as Bush would have it) certainly not.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:57:12 GMT

1. bush will appoint baker as domestic czar but i dont have the
foggiest what that will really accomplish.

2. perot will appoint himself as domestic czar but i dont have the
foggiest what that will really accomplish.

3. clinton will improve the health care problem.
that alone will be enough for me. i vote clinton.
-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16022 alt.politics.org.misc:13
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.org.misc
Subject: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
From: nenglish@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:17:57 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

Hi!
I need to know:   Am I crazy??
;^)

Fri. night, 10/09/92, 7pm, on CNN news, 20 min. Lead Story:

DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP

Complete story w/ tapes, transcripts, and witness;
Tapes and evidence pointed straight up to the Justice Dept. and James Baker;
Tapes were gotten by CNN thru the Freedom of Information Act.

Am *I* the only person who saw this story??
I have not heard a PEEP about it since it aired!

Has anyone seen this or heard anything about besides ME??

Nicole....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:45:07 GMT

In article <5906@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>?Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign
>?attack-bitch,
>        *****
>
>Did the AP-wire really say this!!!???

Sure.  All of Bush's staff have been given animal nicknames by James
"Emperor Penguin" Baker III to boost morale, and to create a
animal-vegetable dichotmy to deflect criticisms directed at J.
Danforth "Carrier Pigeon -- Not Potato" Quayle.  Teeter is now
"Blue Tuna", Darman "Giant Sea Turtle", and Skinner "Alaskan Otter".
Bush is now called "California Condor", to emphasize his patience
with the American economy.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: GORE BLASTS STATE DEPT WITCH-HUNT AS OUTRAGEOUS
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:14:24 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

Nice how you left out that this was a Freedom of Information Act search.

Do you always leave out the details?
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:47:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.131330.3641@access.digex.com> buffalo@access.digex.com (Andy Bartalone) writes:
>I dont know where you got your info.....but Perot made virtually *ALL*
>of his money ...... raping the government on contracts, then driving the
>company into the ground, and in doing so bieng "bought out" to step
>down as CEO/Chairman etc....
>


	A little biased, aren't you? He did make most of his first Billion
on Government contracts, he made the other two or so billion selling the
company to G.M. It wasn't run into the ground, in fact, EDS' best years
were after Perot was bought out. But if you're a typical Perot hater, you'll
take these facts and use them against him instead.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: machman@stein.u.washington.edu (the machman)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:58:41 GMT

anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

>In article <blah blah> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>>Bush:
>>	very presidential
>>	relaxed.  Shouldn't have looked at his watch so much.
>>	He fucked up--and I use those words quite on purpose--on one
>>		question:  "how has this bad economy affected you?"
>
>I don't think Bush fucked up at all.  That's the way its been played,  
>but think of the actual questions.  The question didn't make sense:
>"How has the debt (or deficit?) affected you?".  It hasn't affected
>*anyone* yet.  Bush, somewhat astutely, pointed that out by saying that
>it will affect his grandchildren.  (So did Perot.)  Clinton modified the
>question to be "How has the recession affected you?".  Of course, it
>didn't affect him either.  But he managed to concoct some homey story 
>about some couple he met on his travels around the country.

Pay attention.  It was the moderator who modified the question from
"deficit" to "recession".  And if you think the deficit hasn't affected
anyone yet, your head is up there in the clouds along with Bush's.  I also
doubt his story was "concocted" as you are wont to believe.  You think
being in touch with citizens of this country is a bad thing?  

>>Clinton:
>>	very presidential
>>	relaxed.
>
>Well, he was obviously very well rehearsed.  But to his credit, he didn't
>come of as slick or smarmy like he and Gore did in earlier debates.

"Well-rehearsed", or maybe he knows his stuff?  I find it exasperating that
people actually -complain- that Clinton comes across as knowledgeable and
well-informed.

>Don't get me wrong, the thing with enumerating your points to make them 
>seem like !Real Solutions! is pretty slick.  However, I don't think
>many people will see it this way

There's that negative "slick" buzzword again.  What sort of !Real Solutions!
did you hear from Perot or Bush?  Just because Clinton can list solutions
to the nation's problems, that means he's "slick"?  What the hell do you
people want?  Do you want to be spoon-fed platitudes about how we're really
not doing as bad as we could be, or do you want to hear some concrete ideas
and solutions for how we can put this country back on track to prosperity?

>-anwar

						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman        machman@u.washington.edu        david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:23:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.205400.27531@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> >
|> >|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.
|> >
|> >Bullshit.
|> >
|> 
|> Just putting up Mr. Rosenthal's opinions, laddie.

And the "Bullshit" was directed at his opinions, old timer. :-)

|> Anyway, I've seen the "democracies don't go to war with each other" claim
|> made a number of times, and I haven't seen a refutation yet.

I can't think of any two communist nations which warred with each other
either....

|> Listen:

I'm all ears :-)

|> the point of this article was the make a case, albeit not
|> wonderfully strong, for what Mr. Rosenthal calls democratic realism,
|> and its superiority over realpolitik (I believe I've called it
|> "realism" in past posts). 

Indeed, and I don't think it did a very good job.

|> I'm sympathetic towards the former school
|> of thought: realpolitik seems to be an empty, amoral game without
|> clearly articulated ends beyond the accumulation and retention of
|> power for power's sake. 

Power is the ability to make reality conform to your wishes.  Without
power, you can't do _anything_, moral or amoral.

|> I'd prefer our foreign policy to have at
|> least some grounding in a moral system, and promoting and supporting
|> fledgeling democracies is far, far better than propping up despots to
|> gain positioning in a global game of chess.

Well, me too.  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15519 alt.politics.clinton:8951
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Sales taxes and FICA (was Re: Raising taxes on the poor.)
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:00:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>I don't recall exactly how many times (2?) and by what amounts,
>but wasn't Clinton responsible for raising the taxes on GROCERIES
>in Arkansas?

Dunno.

>Any economists care to ellaborate on the regressive nature
>of consumption taxes, especially those on things required 
>to sustain life?

Sure, sales taxes are regressive.  So are state lotteries, usually.
And more to the point, apparently so is FICA (Social Security, for
those who don't follow).  Interestingly, Senator Moynihan (D-NY)
tried to reform this (and the use of the SS Trust Fund to "cover" federal
deficits) but got nowhere.

The other question is:  how big a tax is this, and what other taxes
are levied on the people of Arkansas?  The only thing I know is that the
average *total* per capita tax burden in Arkansas is small in comparison
to most other states.

>Here's a layman's view:
>
>Take an example.  Two families of four.  One making $20,000 (subsistance).
>The other making $100,000 (rich?, comfortable?).  

But wait:  you're making up numbers here, aren't you?

>Family #1:  Has to use $8,000 per year on food to survive 
>(~$5/day/person).  If the tax on this is 5%, then they pay $400, 
>or 2% of their total income (start rolling in other consumption 
>taxes like those on clothing needed for schoold & work, and the 
>percentage of total income really jumps!)

But wait:  aren't you making these nubmers up again?  And what about
FICA, which is an even *larger* proportion of their total income.

>This couldn't be any more unfair!  A family barely surviving paying
>2%, and a rich/comfortable paying 0.8%.  (Anyone with the actual
>numbers of what the current tax rate is & what families of different
>income levels pay for groceries would be greatly appreciated).

I agree, so until somebody posts them, DON'T MAKE THE NUMBERS UP.  You
could end up embarassing yourself.  I wouldn't be surprised in the
least if Arkansas had a pretty baroque tax system, but I can assure
you that California has one that is at least as weird, and probably at
least as regressive, despite the actions of a decade of Republican
governors.

jking