HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Republican Congress (was Re: The Bush Record)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:45:49 GMT

In article <80961@bcsaic.boeing.com>,
lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.230625.5560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
>(Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>>>4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during Bush's term.[1]
>>>>     Bush promised 30 million new jobs.
>>>
>>>But he promised them for *two* terms, and this makes his reelection all the
>>>more attractive. Just imagine, 29 million new jobs in the next four years.
>>
>>Indeed. Give him a Republican Congress and he might well succeed.
>>
>The problem with a Republican Congress is that not only would they effect the
>economy (and maybe even favorably) but they would also start passing laws; laws
>that would reflect the right-wing, religious fundamentalism expressed in their
>platform.  Do Republicans really expect me to go into the voting booth and
>elect someone who espouses views totally anathema to me, just because I might
>be tired of a Democratic Congress.
>
>I might be willing to give members of the Republic Party a chance, if they
>didn't pepper their convention with hate-mongers like Buchanan, Robertson, etc.
> These people are vicious and want to get laws passed that would oppress large
>numbers of people.

Sounds to me like what you really want is a Libertarian Congress,
but you're never going to get one unless you start voting for
Libertarians rather than Democrats or Republicans.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:51:02 GMT

In article <7996@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>>|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>>|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>>|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
>>|> 
>>So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
>>to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
>>etc.
>
>So maybe he should of said the right to life of the innocent.  In the
>death penalty case, the criminal has done something that has caused him
>to forfiet his right to life.  In a sense he has voluntarily given up this
>right.  The fetus has done nothing that warrants the death penalty.  Unless
>you feel that being inconvinient is a capital offense.
	Correction: the criminal *probably* did something to forfeit this
right to life.  Unless you're going to seriously claim that no innocent
person ever has and never will be executed, then you must accept the fact
that supporting capital punishment means supporting a system in which some
innocent people will inevitably be killed.  This directly contradicts a truly
pro-life ethic.

>
>The War against Irag.
>
	Are you seriously claiming that the very lives of the bulk of the
American public were threatened by Saddam Hussein?  Were they also threatened
by the civilians killed by bombing raids?  Was it consistent with a pro-life
ethic to kill them?

>Self defense is still and will always be an excuse to kill.  If the mothers
>life is in danger, than abortion is warranted.  I don't know of any
>abortion bills that outlaw abortion in this case.
>
	So "self-defense" is justified *only* if one's life is in danger?
So if I threaten to break your limbs and cut off parts of your anatomy, you
have no right to shoot me?  Riiiiiiiight...
[...]

>
>Economic interests.
>
>If a breadwiner with 5 kids were to lose his job, and could now only 
>afford to support three of them.  Would he be justified in killing
>two of them?  Are nation would be a lot better off financially if
>we did not have so many people on welfare.  Would we be justified
>in having them killed?
	Of course not; but we're not talking about children here, we're
talking about zygotes, embryos, and feti.  That should have been obvious by
now.

>-- 
>--Mark
>
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: UPI concocts a misleading story about Bush's abortion stance
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:42:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.201552.28786@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

> Regardless of whether Ron edited it or not, the meaning is the same as the
> version I included above - the implication is that Bush supports banning
> all abortions.  

That implication is wrong, because President Bush does not support
banning all abortions.  As it turns out, Mr. Echeverri did not
concoct a lie about Bush's abortion stance, but UPI issued a 
misleading story containing that false implication. (I did 
apologize to Mr. Echeverri in a previous post). 

> Regardless of Bush's stance and the *validity* of this
> implication, it's clear that Ron did not edit it in an attempt to change 
> what it was saying - 

That's clear, but it still leaves open the fact that UPI wrote 
a false and misleading story about President Bush's stance on
abortion, and you and Mr. Echeverri don't seem to want to
recognize that.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bt07sy.BDJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
> Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
> the assumption that the fetus is a human being.

The Model Penal Code, upon which many states base their criminal codes,
defines "human being" as "a person who has been born and is alive."
(Section 210.0(1))

Does the argument now fall apart?  Or are you discussing moral rather
than legal issues?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39820 talk.abortion:31787 alt.politics.bush:1649
From: rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: UPI concocts a misleading story about Bush's abortion stance
Date: 14 Aug 1992 17:47:47 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug14.214259.11532@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>That's clear, but it still leaves open the fact that UPI wrote 
>a false and misleading story about President Bush's stance on
>abortion, and you and Mr. Echeverri don't seem to want to
>recognize that.

Not true.  What i said is that Bush is putting aside whatever personal views
he has for the views of the party, for the sake of the election.  This is a
Bad Thing.  It makes him look like a hypocrite (that is, to those who aren't
already convinced he is one).

5150
"i'm not a clinton supporter, i'm a bush detractor"  - culled from an a.f.d-q
							post's .sig
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:49:47 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article l981hbINNg3b@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>UPI reports that a Hotline-Houston Post nationwide poll released on Thursday
>shows Bill Clinton's lead over Bush to be about 5 points. This is in
>contrast to the ABC News - Washington Post poll which shows Clinton to have
>a 25%-age point lead over Bush. However, the latter was conducted over
>Aug. 14 - 18 before the convention went into high-gear, showcasing
>Reagan, Mrs. Bush, etc.

That was the poll which showed the smallest gap between Clinton and Bush, so it
came to be the one that replaced all the others.  What I found most amusing/
depressing was the alacrity with which the so-called "liberal, biased" news media
commentators began to announce that polls now showed Clinton and Bush to be in
a "dead heat".  The "dead heat" was an interpolation (Republican fantasy) at 
the time, but it immediately became a media reality.  Thus begins the bandwagon
affect that Clinton benefitted from when *he* was the underdog.  When I came to
work today, several people mentioned that they considered the race even now.  ;-(

>        Texas billionaire Ross Perot, who dropped out of the race last month
>but hinted at ways Wednesday that he may get back in, was favored by
>only 1 percent of the respondents.

More media hype.  Perot just wanted to sell his book on national TV, and he needed
one of those "free" TV commercials that he likes to brag about.  "Why pay for some-
thing you can get for free?" he asked his campaign advisors when they planned to
run a suite of paid commercials to counter his sagging image.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40649 alt.activism:15097 misc.headlines:5747 sci.econ:6937
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:29:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: anasazi.1992Aug19.162907.23232
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
]
]|>	Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman
]
]His ecconomics prize is not from the institute that Nobel set up, it is a
]separate, entirely bogus enterprise set up to honour right wing looney tunes.

Nonsense. If this is true, prove it.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:11:16 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.164035.1471@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> 
>> > 2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>> > American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
>> > back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
>> 
>> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
>> portion of society that had income to invest. 
> 
> Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
> was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
> giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?
> 
> In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.

	Reagan's tax cuts were all his, pushed through congress when Reagan
went over their heads to the American people.

	Congress came back the next year and said "if you expect to pass
anything else, you better back off the tax cuts".  They promised to cut
spending if he would reinstate some of the taxes.  He agreed.
	The problem was (and still is) that congress never did their part in
cutting spending.  They pulled the same scam on Bush.  Although Bush seemed all
too eager to raise taxes in the first place.

	In addition, a signal that a veto is futile is when the margin a vote
passes by is larger than that needed to override a veto.  For a president to
veto the bill anyway (and waste time and effort) when there is a government to
be run isn't a good tactic.

	Reagan had no reason to believe that congress would go back on its
word.  Bush should have known better.  He should have gotten it in writing.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 09:16:18 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <Bsu7zs.I3K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> In article <Y!b-WHC@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >In article <BstxFJ.C8z@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> I'd settle for a flat tax as long as there were no deductions.
|> >|> [...]
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >A flat tax would have to be on 'net' income not gross income.  You
|> >need to have deductions which relate to the generation of the
|> >income.  Otherwise you will simply discourage people from earning
|> >income in jobs which have high expenses. 
|> 
|>   I'm not sure this follows.  Jobs which have high up front 
|>   expenses typically also have either high pay (e.g., doctors) or
|>   at least potentially high r.o.i. (e.g., IC's, software, pharm-
|>   aceuticals).  it is unclear to me that the usual factors 
|>   which govern risk taking would not still operate, i.e., I
|>   don't need a government tax incentive to be willing to take 
|>   higher risks for potentially higher rewards.
|>  

Imagine a consultant who spends a great deal of time on the road.
He may earn a high income, but much of that income has to go to
covering his expenses (gas, car repair, hotel charges, etc.).  Compare
this to a worker who simply commutes to work everyday and punches
a time clock.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me to tax the gross
income of the two.

|>   Actually I'm rather surprised to see Mr. Howe, who has often 
|>   sided with the libertarians and quoted articles from the Cato
|>   Institute apparently supporting the idea of R&D or investment 
|>   tax credits.

Where did I say that, or are you simply extrapolating?  Besides,
I don't believe that businesses should be taxed at all, so an
R&D or investment tax credit would be irrelevant.

|>  The very idea that the government can even identify
|>  what sorts of activities are "income generating" would seem to run
|>  counter to such thinking.   I say let the market determine where
|>  R&D investments should be made.

I agree, and it is not what I said above.  I said that when
personal income is taxed it should be on 'net' income, not
gross income.  You must allow for deductions which can be
directly attributable to the generation of that income.  The
government isn't identifying 'income generating' activities,
it's defining what are reasonable expense for generating
income, wherever the income comes from.  Possibilities include
travel expenses, equipment expenses, etc.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Sex education at home Re: Abortion story
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:58:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
+EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+|> :Second, I think one of the whole points of this story is:  SO WHAT if it
+|> :was the result of consensual sex?  Regardless of how it came about, this
+|> :pregnancy was simply *not* something she was prepared to deal with at that
+|> :point in time, PERIOD.  
+|> 	I can't disagree with you there that she wasn't prepared to deal
+|> with the pregnancy, but my point about consentual sex is that was she
+|> willing and knowledgable about the possible consequences of her having
+|> sex? It's not right to treat someone like a little kid one day then an
+|> adult the next. If anyone consents to engaging in sexual intercourse, then
+|> I assume he or she is a responsible adult who understands the risks and
+|> the consequences. It's not right to wash our hands of the problem of
+|> teenage sexual activity and promiscuity (since kids are going to do it
+|> anyway) and then all of a sudden be shocked when "they're not ready! Get
+|> thee to a clinic!"
+|> 
+This all assumes that people are educated about sex and its consequences,
+that they know how to take precautions, etc.  The pro-live religios right
+not only opposes abortion, they oppose such eductation.  You cannot 
+have it both ways.  Children *do not* get sex education at home, and they
+are not allowed to get it at school.  So they get it from each other and
+from television.
	My interpretation of the Religious Right's view is that they
oppose the state educating children about sex education without the
consent of the parents. I don't wholeheartedly agree with them, but I do
understand about how teaching teenagers how to put on a condom in a
class sometimes has a trivializing effect, not to mention the fact that
this doesn't address birth control failure.
	Children should become educated by their parents with regards to
sex because they have the perspective of looking at sex as a sign of
love and committment rather than pure anatomy or birth control. I
understand it is not easy to discuss, partially because parents fear
that the knowledge they accord to their children will be applied too
prematurely. This is becomes a family matter of trust.

+How many times has someone in a movie or TV worried about protection?  How
+realistic are TV/Movie love scenes (~ zero)?  How accurate is the info
+from the "sophisticated kid" down the street?
	Oh my God! Have you stumbled on the truth about the "Cultural
Elite"? Hmm....

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40584 talk.abortion:32424 alt.politics.bush:2123
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:56:45 GMT
	<Bt23ov.CA3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Aug17.024519.6289@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Houston, TX

pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
   How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
   Paul.


In much the same way as pulling life-support from a recovering
patient is 'withholding assistance'.

Roy
--
Roy Johnson, Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
and "So I guess even a sex change couldn't solve all his problems."
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Bush Record
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:40:44 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Aug20.230625.5560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Indeed. Give him a Republican Congress and he might well succeed.

...at destroying what little is left of personal liberty in this country.

No thanks.

>(Proud holder of one of the 19 million jobs created in the Reagan years!)

...fading fast as defense contractors scale back. Get real.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:10:40 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD



Stuff deleted

In talk.abortion, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>!eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>!
>! Her father had stated that
>!he would kill any daughter of his who became pregnant before marriage
>!and she had every reason to believe him.  I wish I'd saved the article;
>!
>
>
>On the other hand if her father were really that serious about killing
>his daughter over premarital pregnancy, then I am very grieved over the
>situation. 

Your concern is touching.

>His statement certainly is not indicative of a very healthy
>family relationship.

A brilliant deduction!

>If he cannot accept that sometimes threatening to
>kill someone doesn't help, then the father truly does not understand
>how to encourage trust and love in the family. 

Absolutely brilliant!

>Besides, if he did kill
>her, he'd be charged with TWO counts of murder.

Now that should be a really comforting thought to her!


>        I submit though that this stance is not taken by all fathers to
>their daughters. 

Yes, but the "RIGHT TO LIFE" amendment would apply to all daughters,
wouldn't it?


>This story is very tough to swallow, 

Now, faced with a world where Beaver and Wally are only TV
characters, he must reject reality and call the woman a liar.

>as I'm sure there
>are equally emotional stories that the pro-lifers ("forced-birthers")
>can write up and submit to the net. 

How does that disprove the veracity of her story?

>No side wins in the above story

We are not discussing "sides" or "winning", we are discussing
a unquestionable human being (although she is only a woman)
who had to make a life threatening decision to assure her survival.

>: she
>did not need to have performed a self-induced abortion, and if she had a
>legal abortion, I doubt this action could have helped her relationship
>with her father.

Missed the point again, did we?

>Making abortion available to this woman I doubt helped
>her family be more closer and more trusting.

We are not discussing how to make families "closer and more trusting".
We are discussing the termination of a "human life", or the removal
of fetal tissue which has the "potential for human life".  Personally
I can't remember being born, I was hardly human, but then me memory
ain't what she used to be...what was the question again?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ