HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:35:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <01GP8SO80X0W000ZHN@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
  (STEPHEN TICE) discusses Original Sin:


>|...The people who are responsible for this mess are the ones
>|who year after year have been calling for bigger government
>|and porkbarrel spending (definitely not me).   Those are the
>|people who should pay...
>
>
>Yes they should pay directly. Indirectly, you (and I) are also
>responsible as well -- we willingly paid taxes which fed the hog.
>
>You'll say you had no choice since the law forcibly requires
>contribution. Fact is, you chose to live in a way that fed the
>power system

  What the F**K are you talking about?!  Thake you Thorazine and
  go sit in the corner!

>credit. Please answer this, Which is more powerful -- writing
>letters and making speeches -- or sending money?? The answer I
>think is both, so you've only succeeded in negating your own
>contributions at best.

  In the US you go to jail if you don't pay taxes.  


>Your taxes feed the madness

  Well, you're the expert -- I'm not going to argue with Stephen 
  Tice on the subject of madness.

> Notice how big-government is involved in each.

  And notice how that's how Ross Perot made his wealth, also.  


> And you have to take responsibility, and give responsi-
>bility when you offer change. Recognizing that as tax-payers
>*we are responsible*

  31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Energy Policy (II)
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<CINDY.92Sep27152546@solan10.solan.unit.no>
	<1992Sep30.234209.12290@s1.gov> <9435@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:13:20

Mark Wilson writes:
>In article <CINDY.92Sep27152546@solan10.solan.unit.no>
>cindy@solan10.solan.unit\.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>
>>There's still another issue, however, and that issue is space.
>>Say an average bus or light rail car holds 40 people.  That bus
>>takes up much less space on the road than 40 cars each holding one
>>person.
>
>It seems to me that you are assuming that all buses will be filled to
>capacity all of the time.
[much more deleted]

I apologize if the rest of the post, deleted from Mr. Wilson's
follow-up, didn't make it clear that i was talking about heavy
traffic situations, specifically rush hour, and parking situations
in high-density areas of cities like downtown business districts.
These are the situations in which space is the biggest problem.
I am well aware that buses are typically not full at mid-day and on
the last few runs of the night (although on Fridays and Saturdays
here, that last bus can be packed!).  During those times it doens't
matter much as far as space goes whether people chose mass or
individual transportation, but that doesn't eliminate the advantages
of a good mass transportation system for those times when space
_does_ matter.

>As you expand the mass transit system, you will have to start serving
areas
>where not as many people live or work.  As the people density starts
to
>drop, you will start to have difficulty keeping the buses full.  This
will
>cut into the efficiency of the mass transit system.

Combination systems, where people take individual transportation (i.e.
cars, bikes, and so forth) to areas where they can join up with a mass
system going in to downtown, are an option here.  Again, this keeps
the main roads from being overcrowded by too many people riding one 
per car, and allows the cars to be parked in areas where space is
less of a problem than it is downtown.  

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot treating us like idiots
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:22:15 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <lc3pcoINN66a@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

> Ross Perot continually states that his "campaign" (good choice of
> words for a non-candidate) is driven from the bottom up.  He says that
> the troops will decide if he re-enters the race.  He says that it is
> not his decision.

> If I were stupid enough to believe this then I would believe:

> 2.	He believes there is some chance his "troops" will say he
> 	should stay out, thus the requirment to meet with them.

Nonsense.  On Larry King Live he gave out an 800 number to call if you
want him to get back in the race.  When I called to express my opinion
that he should _NOT_, instead of a live operator (or even a mechanized
choice), all I got was a taped message saying my call had been
recorded.  It looks to me like we're dealing with a stacked deck here.
(And the scary part is that, presumably, this is how he had intended
to run his computerized "National Town Hall".)
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: COUNTER BLITZ -= Strike out against Pork-Party-Politics =-
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:03:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <adams.717879117@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:

>>      o  elections on work days
>>         (rather than simple mail-in voting)
>Simple mail-in voting?  Can you say 'fraud'?  Saturday voting would be just
>fine with me.

I've always liked the idea of 24 hour voting.  With all polling places across
the US opening and closing at the same time.  This would also remove the
problem of western voters being told the outcome of national races before
they have even had a chance to vote.
It would cost more though, you would have to hire more poll workers.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48646 alt.politics.bush:7209
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GOP Cowardice at Penn State and Elsewhere
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:26:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <2729@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> tcking@uswnvg.com (Tim King) writes:

> I witnessed the Secret Service confiscating anti-Reagan signs during a
> Reagan speech in Cincinnati's Fountain Square a few years ago.

Which is exactly what happened at the Dukakis rally here at Rutgers
four years ago: hand-lettered anti-Dukakis signs were confiscated.

> In addition to confiscating the signs, the demonstrators were
> subjected to searches before entering the "cordoned off" square;
> others were not searched.

Again, the same thing at the Dukakis rally.  Bused-in pro-Dukakis
union thugs were allowed to enter freely, but others, whose political
inclinations were uncertain, were subjected to a search.

> So, the shrubs have learned well from their mentor.

So would you like to suggest that Dukakis was emulating Reagan?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49304 misc.headlines:6473 talk.politics.mideast:20770
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:56:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Phil writes:

(How are you, btw?)

>Hey folks I agree with Schmidling!
>
>Boycott Coors beer!

What?!  And put a lot of Denverites out of business?  :-)

>Its *AWFULL* mass produced crap, more akin to perier water than an alchoholic
>beverage.

Well, a joke we have here is that it sure ain't made from
pure Rocky Mountain spring water ... :-)  (But I haven't
tried it either :) 

>I doubt that the Palestinians would be too keen on Arfie.People who wear pillow
>cases on their heads are often not to keen on "arabs" either.

That's 100% true ...

Anisa

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48343 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6007 alt.politics.bush:6997 alt.politics.elections:14506 talk.abortion:39027 alt.politics.clinton:7582
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:04:43 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> If you want to show compassion and a high regard for other people, my friend,
|> the answer is not abortion.  It is a common myth that the Supreme Court's 1973
|> legalization of abortion caused any significant reduction in the number of
|> women's deaths due to complications from abortion, when in fact the numbers
|> are nearly the same (I can get these if you wish).  Furthermore, several

Please post this.  I am certainly interested.

|> surveys, including one by Planned Parenthood, confirm that at least 90% of
|> women who have abortions do so not by choice, but because they believe they
|> are forced to.  That is, they would rather carry the baby to term, but for
|> financial or circumstantial reasons are compelled to abort it.  If only the
|> time, effort, money, lawyers, and other resources being expended on both sides
|> of the legalized abortion issue could be redirected toward allowing these
|> women to achieve what they really want, abortion just wouldn't be an issue.
|> 
Did they say "forced" or that they felt they had "no other choice that 
made sense?"  I'd also like to see your data on this.  I know a number 
of women who have had abortions and *NOT ONE* of them felt like they were
forced to have the abortion.  Is was a "choice" which they made.

I realize that my acquaintences is a rather small sample, but if you
90% number is accurate, it seems statistically impossible for me to know
a dozen women who have had abortions and for none of them to have
believed they were forced to do so.

|> By the way, the issue in this Presidential election is not whether or not to
|> have legalized abortion; it is whether or not to require taxpayers to foot the
|> bill for it.  Over 1.5 million abortions are now performed annually in the
|> U.S. -- how many do you think there will be when it's "free" (i.e. cheaper
|> than a condom)?
|> 
I am sorry.  Did you read a different Republican Party Platform than I did?
The one I am aware of says that a fetus is a person from the moment of 
conception and that all abortions should be outlawed.  Is there a 
reason you re-targeted the issue to one you don't even believe in?
Are you honest?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.012039.19567@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.180310.8796@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ In article <JMC.92Sep29150251@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
@ >I think the interstate system is paid for out of user fees, but the
@ >local streets come out of local general taxes.  Is that right?
@ 
@ 	That is only _partially_ correct.
@ 
@ 	General funds go into roads, also.

>Petrich "forgets" that many auto-specific taxes also go directly into
>the general fund.

	Like what? Give some figures.

	According to the Federal Highway Administration's figures, 38%
of the money spent on roads in 1989 was _not_ derived from user fees
like fuel taxes, registration fees, and tolls, but from general funds
like those from income and sales taxes and bond issues.

>If there really was an auto subsidy from the general fund, if the mass
>transit advocates were really interested in diverting it to their
>boondoggle, said advocates would go after said subsidy and try to get
>it spent on their preferred transportation means.  Yet, they don't.
>They go after auto-specific taxes.

	The public-transit subsidy is 1.5 cents/gallon out of a total
Federal gas tax of 20 cents/gallon or so.

#begin SARCASM

	A huge bite, yessirree. An appalling burden on car drivers.

#end SARCASM

	I think that this is simply some financial legerdemain
designed to assure a stable source of funding.

>Why?  Because they're not really interested in economically efficient
>transportation; they just hate cars.

	Wrongo. Public transit _can_ be economically efficient. Have
you _ever_ counted up the _total_ expenses involved in owning a car?
Hint: it'll likely be quite a lot. I happen to save a _lot_ of money
by not owning one.

	And is one to be a second-class citizen if one cannot afford a
car or would prefer not to drive one?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Call 1-800-LIV-FREE if you want to nuke Washington DC
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:18:05 GMT


In <1992Oct1.164937.1374@panix.com> Mark Eckenwiler states:

|In <1992Sep30.073937.15674@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg sez:
|>
|>If you want to liberate America from the totalitarian grip of oppression:
|>
|>Call 1-800-LIV-FREE
|etc.

|I hope it hasn't escaped everyone's attention that Ipser posts from
|Singapore, which "enjoys" so freedom-loving a government that the Wall
|Street Journal was banned there a few years ago.  I won't even bother
|recounting the story of my Singaporean college classmate who was
|arrested and held without charges for several months.

Ed Ipser is an _AMERICAN_ who was heavily involved with the Libertarian
Party in California a few years ago. I believe he landed a lucrative
employment position in Singapore, which explains why he is posting
from less-than-freedom-loving Singapore.

Obviously, he is getting homesick for the U.S.

[Or, maybe he is actually a secret Libertarian Missionary sent by the
Party to Singapore to infect them with the Dream of Liberty... :-)]

As for the WSJ stuff, which I have followed on and off, it clearly
indicates that Ipser has a big job ahead of him... 
-----
"HCI is PRO-RAPE"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49448 alt.politics.elections:15104
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:36:30 GMT
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Project Athena

In article <NELSON.92Oct4214503@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.235319.4749@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>   There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit; it
>   depends upon how the deficit is funded and what the
>   money is spent on.
>
>Right.  The problem with our deficit is that it was spent on useless
>armaments instead of productive investments.

Many people (those in Kuwait, those in the former Soviet Union, those in
Eastern Europe, those in Germany, Britain, France, would question the accuracy
of the word useless in that statement.

For thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of educated workers, who worked 
in defense industry firms (and all their subcontractors), these
were very productive investments.  It gave america huge technological 
advantages in lots of areas over most other nations--the task now is to
shift that technology to other industries.

>
>--
>--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
>Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
>resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.

Oh, you mean like in the late 1940's when the Allied occupation of Germany
allowed us to create NATO, which brought us an unprecedented 40 years of 
peace in the member nations, which included France and Germany, probably the
two most violently opposed nation-states throughout European history?  Uh-huh.

Or, in the same time period, when SEATO (sp?) [a less know version of NATO 
which stands for South East Asian Treaty Organization {or something like that}
instead of North Atlantic Treaty Organization] was established, which _also_ 
maintained peace amoung member nations?

Look, buddy, war isn't pleasant, but if you are someone who favors having a 
strong defense, it doesn't make you a warmonger or a violent person.  
Sometimes a second "wrong," while not making a "right," can prevent a third,
fourth, fifth, sixth wrong, etc.  Wars _have_ done this in the past.  And
wars have often resulted in more stable, more peaceful situations.

If you talk to people outside of America, many of them are more in touch with
how American arms and military power have benefitted them than Americans
are because for them threats have been much closer to home.  Obviously,
american military actions have hurt many people too, but to mindlessly walk
like a drone into the line of people saying "Unhhh.  Weapons _bad_.  Peace
_good_." is foolish and neither well thought out nor historically 
substantiated.  {sorry, that quote was my best written representation of 
Saturday Night Live's frankenstien character...}


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: RUN Ross RUN (old home week)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:03:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct2.185130.10223@dscomsf.desy.de>, Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>In article <1agrh3INN1m2@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
>writes:
> 
>|>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>|>>waiting for stratocaster....
>|>
>|>(I'm blushing.)
>|>
>|>Hi Suze.  Nice of you to remember me.  Actually I'm voting
>|>Libertarian this year. ;-)
>|>
>|>Stratocaster
> 
>So,  wheres the appology for your previous behaviour?
> 
>You still have not retracted your libel against me.

Gee, Phill if he apologizes for his "libel," you ought to
have to do penance.

And what's this I'm reading about in the another thread 
that you're actually a South African. I thought you were
a Brit x-pat exiled to Germany.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

-- Stephen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48110 alt.rush-limbaugh:5966 alt.politics.bush:6851 alt.politics.clinton:7402 alt.politics.elections:14379 talk.abortion:38762 alt.sex:30964
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:19:24 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

>>: 	Making murder illegal is also a form of self-protection.  Banning
>>: abortion is simply legalizing a set of morals.
>>
>>This statement is not correct.
>	Why not.  You've stated your opinon, now back it up.

	If you hadn't striped the rest of my post, it would be there now!
Laws are made to protect people - in some cases people that are incapable
of protecting themselves. Laws about child labor etc are such. Why is
it that no one is crying that those are "legalizing a set of morals"?
Simple. It's not. It is protecting a segment of human society that cannot
protect itself. The same is true of abortion laws. 
	Note that the main thrust of my opinion is that unborn children
deserve civil rights just like anyone else. I try to avoid making moralistic
statements in this debate in order to avoid exactly the "your morals
are not someone elses morals" claim. Why was it ok for us to impose our
morals on the south with the emancipation proclaimation, and the civil
war? Because a segment of the human population was being denied any
rights whatsoever. Wherever this occurs, we should be disgusted, and
work to change it. Abortion is one such case.

			BBruce

P.S. Would you PLEASE ask one of your friends to show you how to
     trim unneeded lines from articles before you post again?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48001 alt.politics.clinton:7285
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 26 Sep 92 20:25:02 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep26.050847.3122@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
  [adoption debate deleted]
> I am entirely willing to raise a child on my own.  What I am not willing to
> do is saddle a child with a flakey, uncommitted father.  I will not
> fascilitate male irresponsibility by 'doing the noble thing' and having the
> baby but not expect him to be part of it.  I have done too much paternity
> law and support enforcement to put up with absent or half-assed fathers
> because they screw up kids too. 
> 
     The only way this can occur is if you consent to sex with a
flakey, uncommitted, half-assed man.  I can now see one problem
with America -- the issue of character is unimportant when it
comes to the selection of both a sex partner and the President.
(Note that with Gennifer Flowers and Hillary, this is the same selection.)

  [more stuff deleted]
> I think we should reduce crisis pregnancies by having more people be
> celibate.  All we have to do is buy them computers and modems, and turn
> them loose on the net.  Put them in a high volume newsgroup and they won't
> have time for sex!
>
     I agree -- as long as it is not another federal spending program! :-)

     C. Perttunen
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:47:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1ao6gsINN5cu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes...
> 
> 
> Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
>*******************************
> 1.  Shorty errs?  Nope!
> 2.  He's ornery, Sport!
> 3.  Spy on the errors.
> 4.  Open yer shorts, R.!
> 5.  The sorry person.
>*******************************

I love it Dave.

>=======================
>"Endeavor to persevere"
>=======================

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^----- how 'bout the list for this.

-- Stephen

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: ...Meanwhile, in DC-Occupied America...
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:41:10 GMT



This year, the Malaysian economy is expected to grow by some 8.6%.

Meanwhile, in DC-occupied America, the "recovery" drags on.