HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:43:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.042609.5671@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Well, in Canada, we're just over 100 years old, and we're talking our
>>constitutional problems to death, not slaughtering each other like
>>the Americans did at a similar point in their history.
>
>Well we did talk for a long time before the Civil War too. When we decided
>separation was better than continuing talking, the North took exception
>to the idea and the shooting began. We'll wait and watch to see when
>the shooting starts in the Great White North. Then we'll come in and
>clean up the mess like we always do. Or throughly bollix it up, one 
>or the other. Hey! You Canadians *do* have oil don't you? Otherwise
>we won't bother.
>

Actually about all we have left is tar sands oil and a lot of natural
gas...the trouble is that we have something that is more valuable than
oil...which is water...and in the next century, more wars will be
faught over water than anything else.  The United States will
eventually come for our water...         

Actually, it's Canadian peacekeeping forces that usually end up
cleaning up the messes left by US and Soviet sponsored proxy wars.

We aren't going to start shooting each other...the potential for
violence is small...the Quebecois just aren't that violent
and were rather horrified with the FLQ experience twenty years
ago...the extent of any violence might be a little civil disobedience
by aboriginal groups who might not want to go with an independent
Quebec.

Gerald
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: unc health care study
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:46:58 GMT
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Here is a press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign.
 
 Clinton Campaign Statement on University of North Carolina Health
Care Study
 To: National Desk, Political Writer
 Contact: Avis LaVelle of the Clinton/Gore Campaign, 501-399-3840

   LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Aug. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Statement of George
Stephanopoulos, Clinton/Gore communications director, on a health
care study released by University of North Carolina:

   "This study has one simple conclusion: Bill Clinton's health plan
would control costs and create 2.2 million more jobs than George
Bush's approach.
   "Bill Clinton supports comprehensive health care reform that
controls costs; George Bush wants to protect the insurance companies
and stick the elderly with the bill.  George Bush's hatchet plan for
Medicare benefits and do-nothing cost control scheme would increase
costs for families, but protect profits for insurance and
pharmaceutical companies.  The study released today shows just how
costly the Bush approach is.
   "What would happen under George Bush's assault on Medicare and
Medicaid?  According to the University of North Carolina study, the
Bush Plan would result in:
   -- 2.2 million jobs lost as health care costs continue to spiral
      out of control;
   -- Health costs consuming 12 percent of the income of elderly
      Americans by 1997; and
   -- 60 million uninsured Americans by 1997.
   "We need comprehensive reform, not piecemeal cuts.  The Clinton
Health Care Plan offers an approach that will control costs
throughout the health system and increase access and affordability.
  The Bush scheme will cost jobs; comprehensive reform will create
them, as health costs get under control to the benefit of workers and
businesses alike."
    ------
   NOTE: The study was conducted by Dr. Kenneth E. Thorpe, associate
professor of health policy and administration at the University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill, School of Public Health.  For copies of
the study contact UNC News Services at 919-962-2091.  Thorpe is
available today for interviews.  Call him at 919-966-7375 (work) or
919-408-0168 (home).
   Thorpe, who has testified before congressional committees about
several national health-care proposals, specializes in national
health insurance, financing health care and other public and private
health care cost issues.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:05:34 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug29.195729.2987@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:

>>	d: strongly discourage unplanned pregnancies and unprotected sex
>>		-stronger education on these issues
>>	        -parents will be responsible legally and financially
>>		 for their pregnant or sexually transmitted diseased 
>>		 minor children. this also includes male children 
>>	         who got female minor's pregnant.

>This probably violates ones constitutional rights...

Which ones?  Seems like a pretty minor extension of tort law to me.
The legally responsible bit might be a rpoblem, depends how you define it.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42702 talk.abortion:33930 alt.politics.bush:3402
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 29 Aug 1992 04:16:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <Btq1vz.9sK@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.211013.6338@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>Perhaps you forget that the unborn may, in fact, be human life? 
>
>Perhaps a petri dish of skin fibroblasts from my arm is human
>life?  (What else would it be, a flatworm?  You're saying these
>cells are not alive, not human, or what?)
>
>Perhaps you're so clueless you can't distinguish between mere
>cells, mere living matter, and a human being?  There is nothing
>special about cells, you kill and shed millions every day.

But those cells that you kill, when put in a mother's womb, do not
and can never, in about nine months, result in a crying, screaming, 
new-born infant.  

However, the "cells" after a conception, when left in a mother's womb
after nine months, can, and often does (unless there is a natural miscarriage
or an intentional extermination of that unborn life) result in a crying
screaming new-born infant.

In addition, the ENTIRE individual is defined at conception.  The mother's 
traits and the father's traits combine to create a new DNA structure
which equates to a new and unique human being.  Abort the unborn and
you will never see that combination again.


>
>>Or are
>>the unborn just a parasite sucking things out from the mother and therefore,
>>we should be allowed to 'exterminate' that pesty parasite?
>
>The unborn, until it starts myelinating the cerebral cortex,
>is a nothing of itself.  If the person in whom it resides
>thinks it is a parasite, it IS.  If the person in whom it
>resides thinks it is a blessing, it IS.  A rose in my garden
>is a prize, the same rose in the cornfield is a weed.

But a rose is a rose is a rose.  Killing that rose is still killing
a rose no matter what frame you are looking into.

>
>>Please, let's not get into it again.  Consult other threads for the 
>>abortion debate.
>
>You get into it and then tell the rest of us not to.  Either
>practice what you preach or admit your essential hypocrisy.

I'm in it have been in it and will be in it.  Time and depth are
other issues to be resolved later.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43650 alt.politics.elections:12374 alt.politics.bush:4020
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:55:17 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
|> >john@anasazi.com                 writes...
|> >> 
|> >>QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
|> 
|> > credit
|> >>Ronald Reagan with winning the fight?
|> >
|>  { much deleted }
|> 
|> >> 
|> >>Nice try, but the evidence is against you. Go ask a Pole, or a Russian,
|> >>whether they think Reagan's policies didn't have a major factor in the
|> >>collapse of the USSR.
|> >
|> >Go ask an Afghani who kicked the Russians out their country. Go ask a 
|> >Lithuanian who kicked the Russains out of their country. Ask any Finlander
|> >how many American's died while fighting Russian's while Helsinki was
|> >bombed. It is arrogant to think that we were responsible for the 
|> >collapse of the USSR.
|> 
|> And it is insulting to find that those who opposed certain beneficial
|> policies, now crow about how the results of those policies were
|> actually "inevitable".
|> Nothing is inevitable.
|> Ideas are important.
|> Actions have consequences.
|> 
|> No, America wasn't solely responsible for "winning" the cold war.
|> But because we were there, and because the right leaders like Reagan
|> were there, the forces of freedom and democracy in these countries
|> were given hope and sustenance.
|> 
No one is questioning the fact that Reagan (and even Bush) had and impact
on the end of the communist party in the USSR.  But there is no basis
for the assumption that it would have been different or taken longer
if Democrats had been elected.

Another way of looking at it is to say that it happened because we
had a Democratic Congress.  Would it have happend faster, slower, etc.
if we had had a Republican Congress?  We can all believe what we
desire, but you cannot make a statement of fact.  You can just guess.

I'll guess that if Democrats had won the last 3 presidential 
elections that the Communist Party would have colapsed 3 days earlier.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42414 alt.politics.elections:11782 alt.politics.clinton:3281 alt.politics.bush:3223
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:10:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>>Democratic in the near future.
>          [...]
>>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
>>               For those with short memories, go look at what
>>               the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
 
>it is clear that he inherited a mess from Nixon and Ford.  Clearly
>his brilliance set up the turn-around in the 80's.
> 
We hear alot about the OPEC oil embargo, and how this was a real
reason for the rise in inflation. However, this is not the 
complete story. Carter pushed the tight-fisted A. Burns out of
the Fed, and replaced him with a pliable Miller. Miller loosed
the reins on the money supply, and inflation took off.

It's funny, but after 12 years of Regan/Bush, we are in Kuwait,
defending Saudi Arabia. Now, these two administrations had 
something to do with these nations becomming our partners 
(especially with our strong ties to Isreal). At least they didn't
muck it all up.

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck)
Subject: Correction
Summary: Change
Keywords: Jean White Women Senate
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:26:22 GMT

To those people who have been writing to me.  There is a correction to be made.
Part of my article got lost in the tranmission.  When I said one of two women -- two was in reference to the Republican ticket.  There are only two Republican women running.  Charlene Haar from South Dakota and Jean White from New Hampshire.
My appologies to all the dems in the house.  

JG
--
/     I am the terror that flaps in the night ... I am Darkwing Duck       /
/     galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu  aka Darkwing Duck                  /
/                                                                          /
/     Let's get DANGEROUS !!!                                              /
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:56:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug26.192751.3708@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> For the record, I have never used a tire iron for any purpose other
>> than that for which it was designed -- certainly NEVER as a weapon or
>> as an instrument with which to threaten anyone.

> No, you just lent it to someone else, who did.

But I was unaware of the intentions of this individual when he
borrowed it.
-- 
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???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Decline Of Rights in the U.S: Will Clinton Reverse This? (Was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:24:15 GMT

<In article <1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
<   dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
<   : 
<   : In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
<   : it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
<   : the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
<   : you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
<   : meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
<   : due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
<   : theory today, though).
 
<Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even charging
<you with a crime! 

	Correct. This power has also been extended to game
	wardens, State and even local police in some States.

<Our wonderfule (NOT!) conservative supreme court has
<upheld this. 

	Can you cite cases, please?

<Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
<believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S. 

	Name them, please. 

<There are also sobriety
<checkpoints, which allow local law enforcement to stop and search people
<without probable cause. 

	Inspired by "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" and passed
	into law by Statehouses around the country.....

<In short, while most people in this country have
<been cheering on the Reagan "Revolution," the Republican administrations
<of the last 12 years have been happily taking away our rights.

	Excuse me, the majority of State legislatures are
	controlled by the Democratic party. I also note that
	the Democrats have recently "beaten up" on Bush
	for "not doing enough in the War on Drugs".

	Please show evidence that Governor Clinton will
	revoke the civil forfeiture laws at the Federal
	level, will use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency
	to repeal sobriety checkpoints and will appoint
	Justices who believe in the right of privacy
	aside from the abortion issue.

	Thank you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:37:04 GMT

rone@aludra.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.115945.2018@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>  Most liberals nowdays don't want the name liberal.

Only because the liberals have let themselves be defined by the "moderate"
Republicans. I am a PROUD liberal.

>>  I say we 
>>call them what they are - hypocrites (only the ones who are).  I
>>put them in the same category I do David Duke - they refuse to come
>>out and say what they really believe, that morality is wrong, that 
>>if you tell someone they're wrong you're intolerant and bigoted, 
>>that if you have any sense of decency at all you're some kind of 
>>neo-Nazi.

Why are liberals hypocrites? I would say that pro-political correctness
people do fall under that category but not mainstream liberals. I do not
believe that morality is wrong but it is immoral when the government tries
to impose one set of beliefs on a country which consists of many different
beliefs. Besides, what is morality? If only a minority of people are "moral"		
as they define it, perhaps their definition of moral needs to be examined.

>>  One more thing - Albert Gore.  The biggest "tax-and-spender" in
>>Congress, a man who was raised with the silver spoon of the politic-
>>ally connected in his mouth.  The only reason I'd vote for him would
>>be to get him out of Tennessee.

>And Dano is SO different in that respect.  Just replace Tennessee with Indiana.

>What the hell IS this tax&spend GOP morons (note: not all GOPs are morons)
>keep spewing?  Will someone please enlighten me?

Let me enlighten you, the GOP's are SOOOOO much different than Dems. GOP's
are not TAX-and-spend, they are BORROW-and-spend. Neither of them seem to
heed the advice of economic moderates like Paul Tsongas (a Dem) and Warren
Rudman (a GOP). Note the constant in there. The 'spend' part is not unique
to either party.

BTW- How will Bush lower taxes AND balance the budget (which he proposes
an Amendment for) at the same time when neither he nor Congress has shown
the fortitude for making tough budget decisions. Although, the line-item
veto is worth a shot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95	FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:20:33 GMT

In article <Aug.24.07.46.02.1992.23208@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
> me that my preference is fisting.  Said homosexual would then quickly
> learn that I prefer to be on the giving end, and that the form of
> fisting that I administer is a more traditional kind than the sort
> that they have become accustomed to.

If every woman who had ever been propositioned by someone they were not
interested in gave a response like this, would the world really be a
better place?

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"IQ describes how big your gas tank is, but it doesn't tell if you're
running on empty." -- Harvey Newstrom (hnewstro@x102c.ess.harris.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: More Discussion of Prejudice Against Homosexuality
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:07:35 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>The bible is a collection of stories passed down by word of mouth.
True for some of it.  Not true for most of the NT.  Except for the Gospels,
Acts, and Revelation, the NT consists of letters and epistles.  They were 
NOT passed on by word of mouth, but widely circulated among believers.
Granted, I can't produce an original letter from Paul, but no scholars I
know of deny that a set of the letters are authentically his.

Note that the Dead Sea scrolls generally support the current versions of
the OT texts...in other words they've been pretty well preserverd for the
last 2000 years...

>There is no evidence to support any of the supposed statements of god or 
>christ.
But the quote that was presented was made by Paul in his letter to the
Corinthians.  It isn't word of mouth.  While there is disagreement about
the meaning of some words, I doubt you'll find any scholars who disagree
that Paul wrote it.

>There is no evidence to support that if god and christ existed and made
>statements similar to those documented, that the memories of the writers
>were that good.  
Yeshua bar Yusef (whom we know as Jesus) did live.  And according to JEWISH
writings was executed.  There are disagreements as to why and how, but the
Jews have no interest in proving Jesus lived...

There is some evidence that a large number of the sayings of Yeshua have
been correctly preserved.  Whether or not they are used in the proper context 
in the NT is a different story all together.

>Hundreds of churches and millions of followers have a vested interest in the 
>translation.
While this may be the case in some instances, you will also find committed
Christians who would just as soon have it be shown once and for all that
Paul wasn't opposed to homosexuality...

Followups set to talk.religion.misc where they belong.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.elections