HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Oct 15th, 1932
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:15:16 GMT
Organization: Organization

In article <1992Oct4.170945.13361@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>        In the current FORBES (60 years ago today...), there is a passage
>>commenting on the errors of the pro-protectionist movement, and how
>>Smoot-Hawley had reduced trade to foreign nations dramatically.
>>
>>	Let's all fax that to Clinton and Gore.
>
>According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton supports free trade.  What
>would be the point of faxing the above to him?
>
>Are you confusing free trade with NAFTA, by any chance? 


  Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
although he still has "reservations".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: Short-Term Profit over Long-Term Good (II)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:00:11 GMT

The Decline of America: Short-Term Profit over Long-Term Good (II)

Percentage of urban passenger trips made by automobile or
 public transportation, selected countries, 1978-87:(43)

COUNTRY          AUTO    PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

United States     82               3
Germany           48              11
France            47              11
United Kingdom    45              19
Netherlands       45               5
Sweden            36              11

------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************************

Passenger miles traveled by rail annually, per capita, 1986-87:

COUNTRY(44)          MILES     COUNTRY            MILES
Japan                1,712     Finland             385
Switzerland            944     United Kingdom      359
France                 660     Norway              323
Austria                601     Spain               244
Denmark                582     Ireland             212
Germany (unified)      493     New Zealand         74
Italy                  450     Canada              49
Sweden                 444     United States       48
Belgium                397     Australia           34
Netherlands            388

Sources: European Marketing Data and Statistics 1991 (London: Euromonitor
Publications, 1991), pp. 416-417; International Marketing Data and
Statistics 1991 (London: Euromonitor Publications, 1991), pp, 538-43.
Original: United Nations/Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC).
******************************************************************

From page 160, 162 of:
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49123 alt.rush-limbaugh:6381 alt.politics.bush:7505 alt.politics.clinton:8177 alt.politics.elections:14939 talk.abortion:40034 alt.sex:31670
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.172434.2532@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf 
Sternberg) writes:

>       And _who_, sir, are you to make that decision?  How dare you, a
>man, who will never have to worry about the future of a child, or even
>of yourself over an issue, pass that kind of judgement?

>       Tom...

>       Hey, Tom!

>       Are all your debators this stupid?

>                       Elf !!!

What? "...never have to worry about the future of a child..."? I don't claim 
to have experienced childbirth in anything but a surrogate and sympathetic 
way but *never* have to worry about the future of a child? What *is* that 
feeling I have regarding my children? Only women (specifically mothers) can
"worry about the future of [children]"?

I resent the implication that I am no more than a sperm donor. My children 
are very attached to me and are bonded to me in a way that is different than 
their bond to their mother but bonded nonetheless. I work hard to try to 
maintain a lifestyle for them which is conducive to their growth, education 
and happiness.

Yes, Elf, I *do* worry about the future of my children. Especially in light 
of the postings I have read on the net lately.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.231059.4394@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.200132.12018@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@  
@  	It is sometimes maintained that American's roads are
@  completely supported by user fees such as fuel taxes, registration
@  fees, and tolls, and not by any funds from other sources, such income,
@  sales, and property taxes, bond issue proceeds, and other
@  miscellaneous fees. In fact, that is demonstrably false. According to
@  the Federal Highway Administration, $71.2 billion were spent on roads
@  in 1989. Of this, $44.3 billion comes from the aforementioned user
@  fees. The other $26.9 billion comes from the miscellaneous sources
@  mentioned above, and is effectively a subsidy. Thus, America's roads
@  are effectively 38% subsidized.

>	Talk about setting up a strawman!  It is also sometimes said that there
>is intelligent life on Mars...thus we can conclude that Mars is devoid of all 
>life since that claim is false.

>	The "other" sources do *not* equate to a subsidy.  How else do you
>propose that a city maintain it's roads other than by a property tax mechanism? 
>Set up toll booths at each driveway? :)

	In principle, that would be the right way to do it, even _if_
it was impractical without some sort of automatic accounting scheme.

	Fuel taxes actually come fairly close to this ideal situation,
since how much one drives is related to how much fuel one uses.

	There might be a problem with collecting such taxes for
certain alternative fuels, such as electricity, however.

How should townships and
>municipalities pay for roads other than through bond issues?  Attributing a
>claim to the "opposition", then knocking down that claim in an effort to
>support yet another method is a time honored tactic.  But it is still faulty
>logic.
>	A "subsidy" is not a property tax, or a bond issue, it is a direct
>payment from the government that allows construction/use at a cost *below* the
>real cost.  Does anyone believe that road construction is done *below* real
>cost?

	This from someone who presumably prides himself on his
expertise in economics.

	If one drives on a road without paying the full cost per
individual for building and maintaining it as a toll, one's driving on
that road is subsidized.

	Furthermore, by this type of creative accounting, some transit
systems, such as BART, are not really subsidized, since they receive
relatively little Federal support. Hah!

>	Nice bit of the Noamster in that post.

	How am I like Noam Chomsky?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:28:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211949.6099@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>
>   I will admit that many of Perot's economic ideas make sense and are
>needed to solve the problems that we have with the deficits and debt.
>

Do you think that Clinton is capable of tackling these problems in a serious manner?
If the answer is 'yes' then he would the one to vote for. I personally think that he
won't be able to. Of course, for Bush the answer is a clear 'no' since we all know
of his disastrous record. For me that leaves Perot as the only alternative. He is
by no means  perfect but compared to the economic disaster the country is facing,
the items you list below are just words to me. 

>   The problem I have with Ross Perot is not with his ideas, it is with him
>the man.  This country cannot afford to have as a President :
>
>	- a person who dropped out of the Presidential race because he
>		didn't think he could win.

Not a good sign. I agree with you.

>	- a person who has an ego the size of the state he is from.

So what? A president having an ego is not necessarily bad.

>	- a person who as a business man got rich from government contracts,
>		individualized tax breaks and the like.

So what? Many people make money from the government: Big farmers, tobacco
growers, big oil, defense contractors, government contractors, .... the list
goes on. I see no direct corelation with this and being a good president.

>	- a person who cannot identify with people unlike himself 
>		(eg. his "you people" comments in July).

This is an overblown issue. Irrelevant just like the 'draft issue' or the
'inhaling'.

>
>   I'm sure there are more points which could be added to this list, and I
>invite others to contribute.
>

I am sure we can. The question is who is going to attack the deficit issue
in a serious manner and the importance of these 'points' compared to it.


John
From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: UPI: Wilson signs gay employment rights bill
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:05:22
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com
In-reply-to: buckmr@rpi.edu's message of Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:39:01 -0400

In article <9209282239.AA21552@client.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

	   California becomes the sixth state in the nation to outlaw
   employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, said
   Assemblyman Terry Friedman, the Los Angeles Democrat who authored the
   bill.

	. . .

	   States with similar anti-discrimination laws include
   Massachussets, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, California became the
7th state.  Clarinet missed New Jersey.

--gordon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: waddell@cs.scarolina.edu (Jeff Waddell)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Oct 92 22:47:29 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:


[Argument deleted]

>	But to your questions. I realize that the complications of
>pregnancy are more than just inconvenient. But they are not as bad 
>as death (exceptions noted, and spoken on many times over). Abortion
>always ends in death. I would not kill someone to cure myself of 
>a sickness (especially a non-chronic, non-lethal one). No one should be
>allowed to do so.

I hate to interject in your wonderful (ahmm) debate, but this statement 
that you make above Mister Varney, I happen to find quite objectionable
because it implies that you view pregnancy as an ILLNESS.  To me, it
most definately is not--and therefore your comparision makes no sense.
Please find a better analagy to express your opinion if you can.  I
would also suggest that most women (if not all) who have abortions
*would not* kill a fetus if they did not feel that it was the only
thing proper for them to do.  I'm not saying I agree with abortion in
general, but I don't believe that I am qualified to make that decesion
for any person other than myself.  I'm curious why you feel that you
are qualified to do this?!

[other stuff deleted]


			Jeff Waddell

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  HeteroSeXualityTheDeathKult Supported By Reasoning.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:02:20 GMT

Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
] 
] If Abortion is murder, and if having sex is consenting to the
] possibility of pregnancy, then yes it is consent to carry the child to
] term.
] 
] 					Tom the non hacker
] 					Read my lips, No second Term!
] 					Buchanan in 92!

and Like unto this,

if consent to sex is consent to gestation,
then
	it is also consent to death by gestational complications.

Since consent to Sex Implies Death
It is a Clear Case of Assault

Hence it Clearly Rests on an Illegal Activity.

Hence if Follows, that IT IS an ILLEGAL Activity.

thus it MUST be outlawed.


Now let us resolve which of the Options we should choose:

1. that consent to sex does not start the chain of implications.

2. that this is a Clear Call To OutLawing HeteroSexuality for
the Public Welfare.....


Fish, Bait, Cut.


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Debate
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:39:11 GMT


Clinton will (or so he said) debate Bush anywhere at any time!

Unless, of course, there is a ball game on the tube!


-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: I see a Great Need!!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:52:45 GMT

keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
] In article <gejLHMq00Vox4KUEcE@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
] >Since I am starting from a basic belief that the fetus, from the moment
] >of conception, is human life, then I am acting in a rational manner that
] >does not impose laws based on morals but on self preservation.
] 
] Since a fertilized egg can divide into twins up to 6-8 weeks after
] conception, how many individuals are present at conception?  When does
] the additional individual appear?  What factor(s) constitute an individual
] in this context?
 
Keith,

I think that this clears up the fact that only the
first born of 'n-tuples' are in point of fact the
'enfranchised' person, and that the others are merely
pretenders to the enfranchisment claimable by Person_At_Conception.

In like Manner is the Grand Question about Persons_In_A_PetriDish,
and why there is NO Grand Demonstration for the protection of
said Persons_In_A_PetriDish....


It is Clear that If there are Persons_At_Conception, that
this is totally independent of the location of this encounter!!!!


Which of course Brings us to the Question of Why Genocidal
Murders, persons who perform In Vitro Fertilization and
implant only half a dozen Persons_In_A_PetriDish are allowed
to Brutally Destroy the Other Persons_In_A_PetriDish out of
mere Pique!!!!!!


ciao
drieux






-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:25:42 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) wrote:
>> So we aren't likely to see adoption mentioned.  Fine.  My aunt and uncle 
>> have been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.

>I assume that your aunt and uncle have specified that they want a _white_
>child without birth defects.  Invite them to broaden their standards. 
>Their wait will shorten appreciably.

    The fault is not necessarily that of Doug's aunt and uncle. I have 
some friends who are expecting to adopt in December. They checked the 
conventional adoption route too and found that the process is slow, 
bureaucratic, and inefficient. They would have been happy with a child 
from any ethic group, but they got the impression that the adoption 
agencies were reluctant to place non-white children with white couples.

    The resolution to my friends' problem was to approach an attorney 
who worked with one of the much-maligned "crisis pregnancy centers". My
friends have agreed to foot all medical bills for the birth mother (who
is in her 3rd "unexpected" pregnancy; neither of her previous pregnancies 
resulted in abortion; she kept one and put the other up for adoption).

    This is a true case, and demonstrates what I consider to be some 
really sticky points. First, although I'm glad for my friends and I 
respect the birth mother for carrying her pregnancies to term, I would
hesitate to describe her behavior as "responsible" or otherwise worthy 
of emulation. The "consequence" of pregnancy apparently isn't sufficient 
to convince her to use birth control or to refrain from sex. I'm not 
exactly sure how this case reflects on the argument that abortion 
encourages irresponsible behavior. At least in this case it appears 
that adoption is what "encourages" the irresponsibility.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:21:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/(phil)
/Some of us belive a private morality. 

???

Some of you also believe in a private Santa Claus; what do either
have to do with the subject under discussion?  

Nondiscrimination is not a morality issue; it is a rights issue.  
At a given level, the right to life or the right to a free press are 
also "moral" issues; but they can be successfully defended in debate 
without ever appealing to the moral facet.



/(phil)
/If you want to rely on the
/State to define and control your morality, well, mental sickness is not
/illegal nor immoral, so go ahead. Just keep out of our way when we puke ...

Gosh, I don't think I can take much more of your piercing thoughts and
penetrating arguments.  You must be studying to be a lawyer; your
arguments are so well-constructed.

The state is acting to protect the rights of its citizens.  Not 
everyone's morality (even your private type) gets to be fully
exercised.  

The extreme right-wing Christians who want to follow
Leviticus in a literal fashion and kill "witches and homosexuals"
are also complaining that the government is interfering with
their "private morality".  They also whine that the "state
is defining their morality" for them.  Oh, well.




/(me)
/    >If he is guilty of trespassing or breaking/entering, or
/    >malicious intimidation, then those are all actionable
/    >offenses, quite apart and separate from his political
/    >beliefs.


/(phil)
//Well, what does that have top do with anything, according to your
//warped reasoning? If he/she/it didn't do it on company time blah-blah ...


Tresspassing, breaking & entering, & malicious intimidation are 
illegal, whether done on company time or not. 

If done on company time, it means that the employee can be fired, as 
well as being criminally prosecuted.  

There; was that clear enough?





/(me)
/    >If you will remember, political affiliation is another
/    >protected category. But that does not make the Democratic
/    >National Committee legally responsible to hire Pat Buchanan.
/    >This is the same thing as the synagogue being forced to hire
/    >the Muslim minister argument--it is bogus.
/    >
/    >People should not be denied employment for non-job-related
/    >issues, Clayton. Seems pretty clear to me.


/(phil)
/Eeeccch. Don't you know communism is dead boy?

So is Galileo.  But neither one has much to do with what we're discussing
here.




/(phil)
/Asshole. 

Jerk.  Moron.  Prickhead.  Asshole (oh, sorry; you used that one).
Bastard.  Retard.  Dogshit.

God,  I never knew this could be so much fun.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:03:00 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...

>  (STEPHEN TICE) discusses Original Sin:

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

So how about the issue? You've paid taxes willingly. You sign the 
witholding forms or pay the tax check, or the property tax, or 
the sales tax. It's you who supplies the life blood of the system. 

Let me make this easy.

If a gun is held to your head with the demand that you kill someone
else or die yourself -- are you any less responsible for murdering
someone else?

The point is that you still acted somehow, and must take responsi-
bility for that. 

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

In the US you die, if you don't pay protection money.

If you do pay, the crook becomes stronger. What moral
choice do you have -- unite and fight, or close down
shop. Then again you could just whine and keep paying,
believing that at some future time it will all work out.

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

So discuss the issue of moral responsibility instead.

>> And you have to take responsibility, and give responsi-
>>bility when you offer change. Recognizing that as tax-payers
>>*we are responsible*
> 
>  31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!

Yes. Too much.

Literally many thousands of dollars a year, if not 10's
of thousands (depending on your deductions), that you *give*
away for the opportunity of having an income in a high cost 
of living area --- as long as you pay-off the system.

You can attack me, and try to distract from the issue,
but the fact remains -- you are responsible. As a taxpayer
you feed the system.

-- Stephen 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49673 misc.legal:18125 alt.politics.usa.misc:88 alt.politics.usa.constitution:530