HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.155755.10597@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes...

> 
>>We're Number One in percentage of population without health insurance.
> 
>>             ============================================
>>                 Percentage of population covered by
>>                  public health insurance, 1990(25)
>>             ============================================
> 
>I wonder how many of the people who read this article noticed the
>little word "public" in the caption here?  So hey, Harel, what's the
>point of the table?  Who cares where we rank in percentage of the
>population with PUBLIC health insurance?  
> 
>So hey, were you trying to mislead or did you just screw up?
>
If you read the WHOLE article you would notice that this was a 
comparison of DEVELOPED countries.

>>                    COUNTRY      PERCENT  
> 
>>                    Australia      100    
>>                    Canada         100    
> 
>....
>>                    United States   21  
> 
>>Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris),
>>Health Data file, 1991: U.S.: National Center for Heath Statistics, Advance
>>Data, No. 201, June 18, 1991.
> 
>>"The main reason we're Number One in percentage of population without
>>health insurance...
> 
>Note that Harel posts no evidence for this.  He just lets us mislead
>ourselves by providing an irrelevant table.
> 
He posted the source! And the whole article. What do you want a term paper?
BTW, where are your sources?

>I'm not sure whether I should believe that you are stupid enough to
>post a lie this stupid or that you are stupid enough to actually
>believe this.
>
Great comeback! Can't wait until you get down to some SERIOUS name
calling.

Disclaimer: My company does not share my views.

Garrett@Ingres.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,houston.general,tx.general,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.185200.1700@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.192139.1954@brtph560.bnr.ca> usscoop1@bnr.ca (Chuck McCusker P015) writes:
>>
>>Because America is a nice country with good values. We protect those who 
>>cannot protect themselves. We feed those who cannot afford food. We are
>>a charitable (sp?) nation who puts the welfare of others above their own.
>>We are not greedy, I got mine you get yours type of people. Come on, get
>>real.
>>
>
>Funny how we've always been considered a compassionate, charitable nation....
>yet we've only had social programs to do it since the 30s.  Once upon a
>time, we helped each other directly.  When a friend or neighbor lost his job
>or was down on his luck, we helped.  Now we want the government to do it for
>us.  We have removed ourselves from the "dirty job" of helping each other.
>Oh, how compassionate we are!

How can a neighbor help another if the whole town has gone down
the tubes because the local steel mill closed?



--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:51:19 GMT

In article <11726@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
>shun child molesters?

As soon as we can figure out why the heterosexual community doesn't
shun you, I don't see why not.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: LINE ITEM VETO (was Reducing Spending)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:42:04 GMT

In article <Aug.12.12.18.38.1992.5178@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>
>> Is there a single country that provides the president/head-of-state
>> with a line item veto? Does it have a presidential or parliamentary
>> government? Hopefully a political science expert will answer the
>> questions for us.
>
>Several states have line item vetoes for their governors.  

I am aware of that. The questions remain unanswered. I will venture
to guess that there is no such provision in any country's constitution.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:23:39 GMT

In article <Bt8DFn.7uF@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.213218.5943@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>It's unclear that there's a useful distinction, especially wrt one
>>of the most common investments, namely stock.  Suppose Allan and
>>I both buy 100 shares of Disney but I sell mine to my sister
>>at some point in time.  Why does it make sense to tax me and
>>my sister differently than Allan?  Our investment really isn't
>>any different.
>
> The main investment type that underlies this discussion is stock.
> Most stock transactions are not private transactions between
> individuals like you and your sister, but anonymous transactions
> in which stock is simply put out onto the market and brokers and
> exchanges do the rest.  When large numbers of investors do this,
> say in response to some short-term drop in the company's fortunes
> it lowers the stock price.  The *theory* (whether you believe it
> or not depends on which economics deity you worship) is that
> management comes under undue pressure by US stockholders for
> short-term results and so tends to eschew long-term R&D investments.  

Try again.  Investors who have been holding for a while ALSO respond
to short-term factors.  Holding stock for a year doesn't imply that
one, or a thousand, will continue to hold it through some problem, and
it doesn't take many "extra" sellers to drive the price down.

When one "knows" that a short-term problem really is short-term, one
BUYS when the people who think it is an indicator of a long-term
problem sell.  That's an easy way to profit when things turn out as
predicted, when the people who were wrong come back in.

People who argue that the short-term evidence is wrong and that people
who react to it are wrong are free to risk their money on that theory.
If they're right, they'll make a killing, and wipe out the
short-termers.  If they're wrong....

If they're not willing to risk their money on their theory, how can
it be good enough to base tax policy on?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:19:38 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  <1992Aug13.231659.5447@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>
> >>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
>
> >> All human females would have the right to life.
>
> > This does not answer the question asked.
>
> It does answer the question if one believes that all human females
> should possess the right to life.

The question was what happens to the woman's rightS (plural).  Women already
have the right to life.  Therefore, your response did not in any way address
the question asked.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39245 ca.politics:6701
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:23:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.011130.4069@udel.edu>, carroll@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <11669@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# So, by your own standards, yea, homosexuals are disgusting, perverse,
# unnatural creates. But heterosexuals are _exactly_the_same_. For every
# disgusting thing that a gay person does, there are a 5 heteros doing
# something equally disgusting.

That's why straight Americans who don't do IV drugs are dying of AIDS
proportionate to their numbers in the population. :-)

# If you come back to reality, and look at the normal homosexuals and
# the normal heterosexuals, what you'll find is lots of people in long
# term, loving, emotional, stable relationships. In fact, I think that
# open homosexuals generally end up having _more_ stable relationships
# than heterosexuals. (Open homosexuals are generally much more open,
# honest people than the "normal" heterosexuals.)

Yeah, you see it all the time in the gay parades and soc.motss. :-)

# #There's more to life than 18 hours a day satisfying your
# #genitals.
# 
# There's a LOT more to life than spending your life trying to incite
# hatred against a group of people who want nothing but to be allowed to
# live their private lives in private.
# 
# || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     || "Only love

You really are dense, aren't you?  It's because homosexuals insist
on using the government to tell consenting adults what to do in
private that so many people are pissed.  When homosexuals stop trying
to force themselves onto straight people in private, we can talk
about this.  In the meantime, homosexuals need to get the government
out of straight people's lives.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:59:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.181149.27532@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <BsxMC2.3I7@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
|> >In article <Aug.13.08.57.46.1992.3740@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
|> >>from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,
|> >
|> >    I believe the man died in 1988.  How did he die?
|> 
|> Heh, heh.  I was an ACCIDENT!!! :-)
 
 What do the circumstances of your birth have to do with Bush's alleged 
infidelity?
 
 Or are you claiming to be Bush's illegitimate child?
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Pro-Environment. Pro-Education. Pro-Family. Pro-Choice. 
     \_| Pro-Change. Pro-America. Pro-Clinton.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
From: aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge)
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:40:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:

>In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>And there are laws against prostitution. 

>And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
>(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
>that did not exist when such laws were enacted.

	I think there have been medical reasons from antiquity. And medical
reasons have a lot to do with why sexual behavior restrictions come into
existence in the first place. When syphillis first hit Europe is when the
Catholic church started it's dogma of lifelong marriages. It was an
incredible shock to the Europeans (syphillis). 
	Other than that, I think prostitution becomes common whenever the
population is too high. It's one way to waste excess women who can't find
places in households. Look at the Roman setup.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40438 alt.activism:15027 misc.headlines:5709 sci.econ:6899
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Houston, TX
	<BswBy6.ECK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <l8mjoqINNlkg@alcor.usc.edu>
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:48:19

rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
   If the fetus has ITS individual rights, why doesn't it take a stroll out of the
   womb whenever it so feels like it?  After all, being curled up in a womb,
   thrashed to and fro as its mother walks around, it must be a REAL shitty nine
   months... 

If people with AIDS really don't like it, why don't they just stop having it?
I guess they don't have rights...
--
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)
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:58:04 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 11070@kadsma.kodak.com, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
>Yes, inflation was a serious problem under Nixon and Ford. But inflation
>got even worse under Carter. Some might think that the second 'oil shock',
>during which gas prices went from .55/gal to 1.30/gal had something to
>do with this, but many prefer simply to attribute it to Carter personally.

OK, I'll bite.  Why would anyone reject the idea that the more than double rise
in gasoline (& don't forget other oil products) caused inflation?  And what could
Carter personally have done to cause inflation?  Did he so irritate shopkeepers
with his liberal attitudes that they hiked prices in order to compensate themselves
for their anger?

>It worked in '80, and '84, and '88. Why drop a winning formula? After all,
>research shows that presidents are elected primarily by getting people
>to vote *against the other guy*, and by creating the association in
>peoples' minds between Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton, the Republicans
>are simply trying to apply some social science.

Yes, we'll see if the grand experiment works this time.  Social scientists have
come up with the theory that Americans are awful stupid.  This next election will
be a good test of the theory.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Wildly regressive taxes
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 23:44:14 GMT

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
tax?

It seems to me that this accounts for a significant chunk of your average
low income wage earner's salary.  While virtually none of the Rich (tm)
person's earnings.

Why is it that we have hoards of people complaining about federal income
taxes, and no one says $#!+ about FICA?

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:39:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> Michael Polen:

[Sorry, if you missed the debates]

|> !1	The only purpose of sex is reproduction.
|> Well, if nature (since I guess I can't say God or Allah or
|> whatever) had a purpose in sex, that's generally what it is.
|> 
|> !2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 
|> As our religious and social standards have it, only in marriage is there
|> the committment to deal with rearing children. As unmarried teenagers
|> may not be able to handle rearing children, sex should be reserved for
|> marriage.
|> 
|> !3.	Sex is a sin, for which the penalty is pregnancy.  Sure puts an
|> !	interesting slant on the wonderfulness of parenting and the meaning
|> !	of "family values."
|> Well, premarital sex is a sin (at least in my Southern Baptist church).
|> Adultery certainly is.
|> Sex itself is a gift that is shared between two people that love each
|> other, according to my pastor.
|> 	This does seem very interesting that the statement asserts that
|> pregnancy is a punishment, or a disease. That explains a few things:
|> abortion is the only "remedy" that can cure the "afflicted."

|Thank you Emil, for explaining that all of your opinions about sex, family,
|and abortion are based in your southern baptist religion.  How about
|letting some of the rest of us live by the opinions of our religions?
	The only opinions written that I KNOW are based on the
congregation I used to attend is written in #3. Number 1 is not a
religious statement at all. #2 is my understanding of how marriage is
perceived by society, again not religious.
	The Southern Baptists are also quite split, if you didn't
already know, between moderates and fundamentalists. I've had one pastor
from each camp preach sermons to me back home. We have a doctrine as
other religions are also based on their own; what it is, you'll have to
look it up in the World Almanac.
	Of course, in some Southern Baptist Churches, dancing and
drinking are absolute sins too. If they knew I'd been learning the
lambada in the den of the Blue Devils... :)
	I offered my religious opinions to invoke a discussion and a
debate, to demonstrate the opinions of others who I know well; I did
mention "at least in my church" and "according to my pastor." I am
interested to know how "your" religion differs from "my" religion on
that last point.

-- 
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?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:42:21 GMT

>silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>| [Earth First!, animal-rights terrorists]
>| 	While neither Earth First! nor the animal-rightists are liberals
>| in the classic sense, the general worldview they share springs from the New
>| Left philosophies of the 1960's. These New Left philosophies were 
>| originally expounded by classic liberals, and hence the inheritors or heir-
>| apparents of such philosophies are still commonly regarded as 'good
>| liberal' by John Q. Public.
>
>Would you care to draw a rational connection between Earth First!
>and the animal-rights terrorists, on the one hand, and any of
>classical liberalism, modern liberalism, or the Democratic party
>on the other, and thus relieve me, and I suspect many, of the
>impression that you have written something fantastic and absurd?

	Mr. Fitch, the connections do not have to be rational to 
exist. My paragraph above is fairly clear on the tenuous nature of
the connection between true liberalism and eco-terrorists. That 
there appears to be a connection in both the minds of the terrorists
(main PETA types, Earth Firsters! are fairly anarcho-Libertarian) and
in the minds of the public and newsmedia, that is enough to forge 
such a connection.

--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva			I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences	today.  You're in luck.		     ||
|| Stanford University						     ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 20:13:24 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Richard Crisp) writes:
|> All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
|> disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
|> Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
|> mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
|> 
|>>Very dangerous man, indeed!
|>>-- 
|>>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|>>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

OK.  I give up.  Where did Clinton propose a National Police Force,
and where did you see "all of this talk."  I saw only one mention
(unsubstantiated) on usenet before this comment of yours.
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com () writes:
>The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
>Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
>reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
>raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the
>sales tax several times,.  They also said that Arkansas' tax system is
>regressive, meaning the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income taxpayers.  Note that this is meant as information and not
>as an "our boy" vs. "your boy" type of argument.

As a point of information, can you apply the same rules to Bush's record and 
tell us how many times he's raised taxes?  Let's just compare 4 years of Clinton's
record to 4 years of Bush's.  Recall that the Republicans have always been careful,
in looking at their own record, to distinguish between "taxes" and "user's fees"
on luxury items, etc.  If you apply the new rules to Bush, looking across the entire
federal government, does Clinton even come close to Bush as a tax and spend
candidate?
-----
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40793 talk.abortion:32606 alt.politics.bush:2236