HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:29:59 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
>Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
>Date: 10 Sep 92 13:15:33 GMT

>In article <exuptr.443.716051820@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep6.153239.18298@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>
>>>BBC, hoping to see GHWB crash and
>>>burn in November.
>>
>>Probably will.  Just hope the democrats don't crash and burn our economy :-)

>Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush!

You are clueless.  And all those who think that the president runs the
country.  We have a Congress that can't even balance their personal checking
accounts.  Only a moron would fail to see the connection between personal
hot checks and a HUGE national debt.

>Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>Well...nothing.  :)

Yes, like it's up to him and only him.  What has Congress done?  Less than
nothing.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Why we should blame Democrats...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:25:07 GMT

In article <BuL6wt.IG5@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>|> But we can blame Congress for pork barrel legislation that the President
>|> can't stop since Congress will not give him the line-item veto, even though
>|> the vast majority of the Governors have it.
>
>Why doesn't Bush just veto the whole thing and say remove the pork
>before I sign it?  And do it publicly so that all the congress-critters
>that voted "yes" can be shamed.  I don't know the details of
>line item veto but it sounds dangerous.  Imagine Clinton vetoing
>the main provision of a bill and signing on the pork!

Last weekend I was watching C-SPAN covering the senate debating
the appropriations of Space Station Freedom. A few weeks ago there
were debates on the Super Collider. All you `vegetarian',
`no pork' `for line-veto' people, can you guess who were for such
programs? (Hint: you can find them at both ends of Pennsylvannia ave).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:51:07 GMT

kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>I don't buy that, in reality I don't think Perot will matter either way. 
>How can you trust a man who backs down and quits after a couple of hits 
>from the press...

I agree, but I don't represent America as a whole. In my state, Ohio,
6% of voters polled say they'll vote for Perot in a three-way race. And
the figure is higher of course in Texas. If Perot enters now with great
fanfare, he is bound to get even more. So where is his support coming
from? Equally from all camps? Maybe. Or are you possibly suggesting a
Bush landslide of sorts so it doesn't matter where Perot's 10% comes from?

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 08:38:45 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Distribution: usa
 <1992Sep3.230545.718@midway.uchicago.edu>
 <1992Sep10.174558.25653@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1992Sep13.235839.8370@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>

In article <1992Sep13.235839.8370@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu
(Mikko H. Lipasti) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep10.174558.25653@dg-rtp.dg.com> gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com
>(Gene
>Gross) writes:
>>
>>Currently, the most conservative estimate I've seen says that some 3
>>million Americans are now infected with HIV.  Better than 90 percent of
>>them do not even know that they are infected.  But one thing is for
>>sure, they will die slow, agonizing deaths, and probably will have
>>unwittingly spread the disease to others for many years before the first
>>AIDS indicators appear.  The last time I checked the average cost to
>>treat an AIDS patient for one year was $177,000.  Multiply that times 3
>>million -- not to mention the thousands who already have AIDS.  Quite a

Where did you get this number??  The best estimate was done back in 1987 by
Dorothy Rice at the CDC.  Her estimate of the average yearly cost was $35,592
and that all hospital costs over the entire lifetime of an AIDS patient
would be 60 to 75 thousand dollars.  A summary of all studies published
in Health Affairs in 1987 found estimates of average annual costs generally
being about $40,000 with total lifetime costs being $100,000.

>>sum.
>>
>
>Let me do the math:
>
>            $177,000 per patient per year
>         x 3,000,000 patients
>        ==================================
>           531 billion dollars per year
>
>Isn't this roughly one-third of the entire federal budget (in the ballpark
>anyway)?
>
>Who is going to be willing to and able to pay for this?
>Since there is no cure for AIDS in sight (can you name one virus that
>medicine has a cure for?), we are talking about at least 531 billion a
>year for the foreseeable future.
>Why isn't anyone talking about this?
>
>Isn't it obvious that we need a lot more than condoms and "safe sex"
>to deal with the AIDS crisis?
>
>These numbers are food for some serious thought...
>
Dennis Shea
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:51:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.141955.26246@news.cs.indiana.edu> mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu writes:
>Thus said mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac):
>>In article <1992Aug31.225012.5750@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug31.183835.29002@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac writes...
>>> Every time I here
>>>>someone bitching because there is not enough student aid or loans available
>>>>I recall all the people I met as an undergraduate whose primary purpose in
>>>>going to college was to avoid going to work and keep the party from high
>>>>school going. 
>>>
>>>I'm going to assume that you haven't been to school in some time.
>>>Becuase school, for middle-class people like me, is something you 
>>>fit around work. (I've been trying to put myself through school for
>>>5 years now.)
>>
>>   I got my undergraduate and graduate degrees during the eighties and I
>>don't think the general campus atmosphere has changed much.  A LOT of
>>partying still goes on in the undergraduate ranks.  I read once that at
>>most US schools the trend is that at the end of freshman year, half the
>>class is gone, at the end of sophomore year the class is reduced by half
>>again, etc..  So the final graduating class size is about 1/16 that of the
>>original freshman enrollment.
>
>Where did you read this?  Most Universities/Colleges I know of have
>graduation rates around 2/3 (i.e. 67% of the new students graduate
>within 5 years).  I certainly know of no place with a graduation rate of
>6.25%.  What University has one?  Surely not Case Western...

   It may have been that as you work your way from the elite private
schools down to the community college level the stats approach this level
as the average for the country.  I could also just be plain wrong (^:} .
I'll try and dig up the facts.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:28:50 GMT

In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
>stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
>for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
>is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
>
>Would this be legal in a libertarian world.

No one blinks when we pay race car drivers a few million to engage in
an activity that will kill some of them.  How is the snuff a mother
film different?

Unless it is, this is no more of a "hard" case for a libertarian world
than it is for our world.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: pat robertson
Date: 30 Aug 92  12:20:00 EST

-> >Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
-> >amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
-> >
-> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
->
-> I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
-> shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be
-> running around loose.
What's more frightening is the fact that Robertson, known affectionately around these parts as The Virginia Beach Ayatollah, is a serious whacko with serious political clout.  "Rev." Robertson has stated that Hinduism is Satanism, his prayers stopped a hurricane (where was he during Andrew?), and, in his recent speech to the Republican National Convention, that "It's time for America to get rid of its left wingers!"

Pat Robertson is a purveyor of neo-McCarthyism (see the above quote), religious bigotry (see his quote on Hinduism), and miscellaneous nonsense.  May he go the way of Jim, Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, and the other Elmer Gantrys who worship at the altar of Mammon and political power."

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Free speech is life itself."
           --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:59:18 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

: I can't even imagine what kind of chaos this country would experience
: if we ever had a Liberatarian president. It would *not* be pretty.
: Luckily I don't think we'll ever have to worry about it. 

Yes, people would have to think for themselves, rather than blindly
accepting the actions of our friends in DC.  Scary thought, indeed!


--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Who cares really?  I've always
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			told everybody I don't care if
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			Danny smoked pot.  I think it
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		would have made him a better
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     person really"
						  --Brett Kimberlin, re. Quayle

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:19:45 GMT

In article <B98VqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>
>> In article <exuptr.443.716051820@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exu
>> >In article <1992Sep6.153239.18298@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue
>> >
>> >>BBC, hoping to see GHWB crash and
>> >>burn in November.
>> >
>> >Probably will.  Just hope the democrats don't crash and burn our economy :-)
>> 
>> Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>> might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush?
>> Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>> Well...nothing.  :)
>
>Sure George did something.  He told us in '88 that he was proud of the 
>Reagan record and was hell bent on continuing those policies.

Continuing the policies of the previous administration means
maintaining the status quo.  In government, that essentially
means doing nothing.
From: pgk@pacersoft.com (Paul Kamp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:03:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacer Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep12.011838.11896@u.washington.edu>,
jkollin@hardy.u.washington.edu (joel s. kollin) wrote:
> 
> 
> >I am not claiming that abortion is an easy issue but I would like top
> >understand why an expansionist view of human life would not apply to a
> >fetus just like it should apply to slaves and war prisoners.
> 
> Well, I haven't heard this one before, so here goes the flamethrower...
> 
> When a clump of four cells can demonstrate its humanity as well as
> slaves or prisoners can, I'll be inclined to take your argument 
> seriously.
> 
Two things, first your statement that 4 cells can not demonstrate its
humanity trivializes the statement I actually made.  It is easy to argue
the extremes of either position to trivialize the other position but that
does not help to solve the problem in a constructive manner.  To get
technical on the wording I used in my original posting, I used the term
Fetus (from the greek meaning little one) not the term zygote.  Fetus
usually applies to a fertilized egg after 8 weeks of gestation, clearly
more then 4 cells.

Second, many argued that the slaves and war prisoners could not demonstrate
their humanity because they were "animals" and subject to the laws of
property as exercised by the property owner.

So to get back to the original point of the first posting on this subject,
for you what point can this "clump of cells" demonstrate its humanity so as
to satisfy your definition of who is included in the class of humans and
who is not?  I do not desire to trivialize your postion so I just ask,
would you enable abortions up to 9 months?  6 months?  3 months?

Some other questions to think about while pondering your answer. 
Viability?  What is it?  When does it occur?  It may be different from
state to state based upon medical technical technology available there. 
This problem could actually turns the Roe v. Wade abortion decision upside
down. The right to an abortion is partially based upon unequal rights for
women to obtain an abortion from state to state under the prevailing law
when Roe was handed down.  Would a "fetus" have the same argument as
applied to women in the original abortion decision.  This problem caused
Sandra Day O'Connor to state in an opinion that "Roe v Wade is on a
collision course with itself".

I agree with the original posting on this subject only I would pose the
question a little differently.  How do we, as a nation, heal the division
that exists on abortion where there is no clear consensus?  Does the
problem belong in the courts or should it be part of the political process
where full public discussion on the subject would determine what the law
would be.
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Two More Reasons to Vote For June (was Re: Help protest exclusion...)
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:42:00
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu's message of Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:07:21 GMT

The current issue of Liberty contains the results of a National
Taxpayers' Union study of the net effect on spending based on
legislation sponsored by each Senator and Representative.

Barbara Boxer was number 1 in the entire Congress.  She sponsored or
co-sponsored legislation that would have increased spending by 404
billion dollars in the period from January 5, 1991 through April 5,
1992.

Her closest competitor was Representative Johnston of Florida ($369
billion).  The top spender in the Senate was Bob Kerry at $245
billion.  Ted Kennedy was down at number 3 in the Senate and number 83
overall, with a paltry $138 billion in sponsored spending increases.

As far as Bruce Herenson (sp?) goes, the last I saw him he was on
Crossfire defending Dan Quayle's attacks on Murphy Brown, saying how
Quayle-jokes at the Emmys proved that Hollywood is controlled by
leftists, and pounding the Republican Family Values drum...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:24:02 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <t8tpbzjf@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.224116.13550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>[Lots of stuff deleted...]

>>>I think he was probably talking about the industrial democracies.

>>That's not what he said.  A lies is a lie is a lie.

>Unless it's told by a Republican, at which point it becomes a mistake, right?

In particular?  You have to look at the case to decide whether a
mistake is plausible.  Are you really suggesting that Harel is so
stupid that he doesn't know that more Americans ahve health insurance
than Bangladeshis?

>>>The
>>>health care situation *for the population as a whole* is worse in the USA than
>>>any country in Europe (with the obvious exception of Yugoslavia as was), in
>>>addition to Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan Korea etc. etc...

>>Evidence please...  To begin with, please define "The health care
>>situation for the population as a whole."  I don't think you can and I
>>think your statement above is just someone blowing hot air and
>>propaganda out their ass.

>OK, how about this? How many people in Europe, Oz, NZ, Canada and Japan (I
>haven't got the stats for Korea...) have no health cover? Answer NONE. 35
>million Americans don't: that's over 10% of the population. THAT makes the
>health care situation worse in the US than in those other places, if you
>happen to care what happens to other people.

So, in other words, the sole measure of "The health care situation for
the population as a whole" is the number of people with health
insurance?  Does that mean that the US "health care situation for the
population as a whole"  will improve if we get the super rich to buy
themselves healthcare?  Doesn't the quality of the health care
available matter?  Shouldn't Canada lose some points because of their
waiting lists and because they have to export many urgent cases south
of the border?  Try again.

>As for the hot air crack, I always take it as a good sign that I'm on the
>right track when someone who disagrees resorts to personal abuse. It's a
>typical response from those who know they hold the moral low ground...

Well, Chris, worrying about who is "more moral" is the typical
response of those who know they will lose if they rely on the numbers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:45:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.210623.6097@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>
>>	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>				                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>votes.  
>
>BZZZZT!  Error trap.
>
>The New Alliance Party's candidate in 1988, Lenora Fulani, got barely HALF
>as many votes as the Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul.  
>
>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes.  Fulani got only 217,219.
>How is that "almost as many"?

Close enough, considering that Ron Paul got not much more than 1% of the votes
of Dukakis.

>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
>
>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES 
>PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  

... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
MORE THAN 5%.

>The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party BY ANY MEASURE.
>Comparison with the New Alliance Party in this regard is downright 
>ludicrous!

And the New Alliance Party (what the hell do the stand for anyway ?) is
America's fourth-largest party by any measure. Party #2 got almost 100 times
the vote of party #3. Party #4 got more than four times the vote of party #5.
Party #3 got about twice the vote of party #4. So it seems reasonable to
consider the two partys about in the same league of importance.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot