HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:54:38 GMT

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>>But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>>>have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>>>positions where abortion does not become an alternative?
>>
>>Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?

>It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place.  If men
>don't participate, then women can't have abortions because they are
>not pregnant, right?

My most sincere apologies, I had no idea that there were so many men
out there having abortions.

                          -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39449 talk.abortion:31553 alt.politics.bush:1440
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:59:00 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug13.183438.25997@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug13.140530.26145@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
|> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
|> 
|> >farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|> 
|> >>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
|> 
|> >>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
|> >>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that
|> >>> they would remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or
|> >>> granddaughter; all equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents
|> >>> support of their right to choose.
|> 
|> >> You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?
|> 
|> > Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
|> > hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
|> > the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.
|> 
|> I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
|> and that all of them are pro-choice.  
|> 
|> Doug Holtsinger

The statement is that all women should have a choice.  What they believe
in and think about is up to them.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40677 talk.politics.guns:19608
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Date: 20 Aug 1992 00:31:24 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>I'm no expert on weaponry or insurrection, but... if push came to
>shove, would the presence or absence of weapons -- even "assault
>rifles" -- in the hands of civilians really make much difference to
>the outcome?  Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
>of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
>the conventional police...

Even if all of the Armed Forces and National Guard were to side 
against the people, they would still have a _very_ hard time: All
together, they number only about one million people, less than 0.4% of the
US population (I think this number is combat troops, not including
support personnel.) A real "popular uprising" would probably involve
the support (e.g. for food, medical care, etc...) of most of the
population, and at least 5% of the population actually fighting.
In such a situation, government forces would be outnumbered 10 to 1 (and
unlike many modern revolts, the rebels would all be armed.)

A more interesting question is whether or not modern weapons (tanks,
attack helocopters, etc...), available mostly or entirely to the
government, would be able to overcome a hostile civilian population
and a substantial numerical disadvantage. While I'm no expert, I think
this wouldn't call this a sure thing for the government.

				       Frank Crary
				       CU Boulder
				       (even though I'm
				       still using my
				       Berkeley account...)
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deja Vu All Over Again (Was: Clinton becomes vulnerable)
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:12:47 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>The objective in Yugoslavia is quite different.  It is one of separating the warring
>parties, of supplying people with food and medicine.  Politics will always bind the

And how do you propose to do this, when the two warring factions are as
intermingled as they are in Yugoslavia.
Many of these people were neighbors before the fighting started.

>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
-- 
--Mark
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: FDA Uses Guns Against Health Industry
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:34:57 GMT

This is absolute fact! In fact, 3 months prior, the Sundown Vitamin Company
based in Hollywood Florida, sent out their catalog with a full middle
page spread discussin it and what we can do to stop these bast__ds!
For those not familiar, the SDV company advertises in Prevention Magazine
on what seems to be an every other month basis.

Len
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 3611 of sci.med.aids:
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:03:00 GMT

If we want a health care system like Canada's, we would need to:

	Install a national 10% health care sales tax

	Cut doctor's salaries in half.

	Reform tort laws to protect doctors from malpractice.

	Establish a rationing system to limit costs.

The last violates the new disabilities laws, the third would never get past
Congress, the second would require the AMA's cooperation (ie, let more doctors
graduate from med schools, etc ), the first would be political suicide.

Therefore, a Canadian health care system is impossible to implement in this     country.
 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39935 ca.politics:6823 ba.politics:4542
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:43:29 GMT
	<1992Aug10.201246.2874@BofA.com> <Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of 11 Aug 92 13:33:48 GMT

In article <Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

> to the discussion.   But all these high-tech geeks and nerds
> (of which I am *not* excepted), who are oh-so-careful to 
> have the latest rev of their VGA card's Windows drivers 
> and the pre-beta copy of Microsoft NT, are still stuck in 
> the 19th century when it comes to their thinking tools. ) 

The narrow and vapid nature of the state-sponsored and 
state-mandated public education, no doubt.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39732 alt.politics.clinton:1941 alt.politics.bush:1589
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:00:57 GMT

In article <#16mbcn.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <92Aug14.134331edt.118@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>
>>Disarming some assault-rifle touting ultra-right religious fanatics
>>and put them in concentration camps seems to be a good idea.  Pat
>>Roberson can be the camp spirital leader.  
>
>
>
>No prior restraint! If these folks are criminals, put them in jail.
>If not, leave them alone.
>
I think the last Shah of Persia said the above also.  ;->  
>-- 
>Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk "I accelerate for Liberals"  (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>While his VP wannabe is calling out for an "Environmental President",
>Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's home state's rivers are contaminated
>with chicken feces that came from the company that has time and again
>ferried him around in their private jets. Gore claims that Bush and the
>Republicans protect the polluters and not the people, yet his boss to be
>is the one guilty of the very sin he despises. Keep up the good work, Al!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Schmidling is simply wrong.
Keywords: Israel is a democracy?
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:40:16 GMT

In article <26352@life.ai.mit.edu> gwydion@gnu.ai.mit.edu.UUCP (Mercenary Programmer) writes:

>dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves) writes:
>
>>This is utter  crap.  All Arabs that live in Israel proper can
>>vote and there are Arab members of the Knesset.   This means
>>that Israel is a democracy in  every sense of the word.
>
>All the Arabs that live in "Israel proper" and all the Arabs whose
>very lives and destiny are directly controlled by the Zionist
>government in Jerusalem; these two groups - are they the same?  Are
>there Arabs who are ruled by the Zionist government, yet have no
>representation in it?

Yes, because for 20 years, they refused to negotiate, or to work
towords peace and freedom.

>>de.moc.ra.cy \di-'ma:k-r*-se-\ n [MF democratie, fr. LL democratia, fr. Gk
>>   de-mokratia, fr.] de-mos + -kratia -cracy 1a: government by the people; esp
>>   : rule of the majority 1b: a government in which the supreme power is
>>   vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a
>>   system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections

>>In what sense is Israel not a democracy?  Only in the sense that it
>>does not allow the advocacy of the violent overthrow of its 
>>government.

>Israeli is not a democracy in the sense that the Israeli goverment can
>put any of a million Arabs in jail, or break their bones, or shoot
>their children, yet none of these people has a single vote or voice in
>the rulings of this government.  Government of the people?  Are these
>Palestinians not people?

They are not citizens.  The Arabs living in Jerusalem in 1967 when it
was anexed were granted citizenship.  Those living in areas that
Israel does not want to rule forever are not citizens.  Their fate
will be decided by negotiations.

Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.025347.6566@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:


   >>this is very funny. you just mentioned a set of countries EVERY one of which
   >>has a healthier economy than the US as well as being more socially advanced.
   >>how are these societies stuck or declining. AND THE USA IS NOT !?!?!?!?!
   > 

   >     I visited Toronto last weekend.  Totally illuminating!
   >     Cool phrases on Canadian news channels like:
   > 
   >       " And the Art Museum of Ontario may reopen next year "
   >       " with the petitioning of the Toronto Symphony for
   >         bankruptcy "
   >       " if layoffs continue at their present rate, 1992 will
   >         supersede the 1990 all-time record for layoffs "
   > 
   >    11% unemployment!?
   >    $7.40 for two ice teas and fries!?
   >    $10 / hour for PARKING!?
   > 

Toronto is just one part of Canada.  Parking is a lot cheaper in
Regina, I assure you.

   I might have a partial answer for this. In the latest issue of Rolling
   Stone magazine they have an article (p33) that says: 

	   "Canada has lost an estimated 460,000 jobs since signing
	   a free-trade agreement with the United States in 1989."
			   William Greider

   It doesn't come out and say that the job loss is directly because
   of the free-trade agreement, but it sure does imply it (the article
   is about the expected job losses from the NAFTA).

What about the recession, though, which hit Canada first and harder?
How many jobs has the US lost since signing the FTA?

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:13:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92Aug20.134342edt.136@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:

>Any reasonably sane and educated American would understand:
>
> 1) There has been, and is, a recession *throughout* North America.
>    (I was shocked to see my hometown in Connecticut last year with
>     stores boarded up and homeless people on the streets for the first
>     time ever.  Also, I was just in the Bay Area last month and heard
>     endless TV and radio stories about layoffs, state government
>     financial crises, and draconian cuts in courses and instructors
>     in the Cal. State colleges and universities).

   True, we're in a recession.  But there are many economists (and 
   probably witch doctors, bag ladies, and tea-leaf readers  -- I'm
   not sure "economist" carries much weight) who note that this one
   is rather different:

     The first several quarters after a recession are usually characterized
     by agrressive growth.  This one is different.

     This recession is/was characterized by companies that were in the black
     shedding thousands of workers -- in past recessions companies typically
     only had massive layoffs when they started losing money.

     In addition to dealing with the recession, the US economy is trying 
     to absorb the workers laid off as a result of massive DoD cuts.

     Most recessions are characterized by massive debt-reductions but
     corporate and personal debt in the US have only declined a few
     percent and government debt has not declined at all.

     There has never in any postwar recession been a fiasco like the 
     current California budget nonsense.   These and similar budget
     problems in major cities, other states, and at the federal (US)
     level are more damaging to the economy than past recessions because 
     government is a bigger part of the economy.  

   Obviously where you stand depends on where you sit, but I'm no kid
   and I've been through a few downturns in my day, and I don't recall
   seeing so many long-term gloomy projections in any previous recession.


>Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
>Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
>University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
>Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg


   Just out of curiosity, do you expect Canada to ratify NAFTA?  I 
   saw a poll recently suggesting that a strong plurality of
   Canadian citizens are opposed to it, since they feel they already
   came out on the short end of the earlier agreement with the US.


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:43:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.214352.10497@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Patrick Sugent, I see merit in your position that the economic problems in
>this country are due in large part to the "changing times."  Problem is,
>though, that our Republication leaders haven't noticed.  They're still trying
>to cling to the 50's when the US had little competition.  That's a MAJOR
>reason we need to change our leadership NOW!  Come on - this is the 20th,
>almost the 21st, century. Let's find some leaders who can deal with that.
>
>
>"I'm don't want to change the world; I'm just trying to live in it." 
>				(Molly Goldberg, 50's sitcom character)

  Not a wholy invalid point.  The problem is, how much is Clinton a
real change or just a masquerade for old guard Democrats in Congress.
Clinton, at one time, had my support.  He lost it with his continual
leftward swings.  I note in particular his caving in to "status quo"
teachers' unions and his shredding of Tsonagas for proposing a plan to
cut entitlements.

  In other words, I don't trust "Slick Willie" to do the right thing,
even if he knows what the right thing is.    We may need change, but
we don't need change for the worse.

  I could go on, but what would be the point.  If only Kemp were running.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:17:33 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.180942.2170@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:

>What about Duke?  How much support does Duke get from organized Republican
>bodies?  I wouldn't vote for Buchanan, but to compare him to Duke is a bit
>excessive.  Is it ok for me to equate Harvey Milk and Ernst Roehm because
>both are or were gay politicians?

You have completely missed the point.

David Duke and Patrick Buchanan are to republicans what NAMBLA is to
homosexuals.

Shit, I am trying to point out how ridiculous it is to say "Why don't 
homosexuals distance themselves from NAMBLA" and deny that any other
group has fringe elements.





FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:17:32 GMT

In article <16n43bINNh9h@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:

}I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
}are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
}born.

Of course he could have noted just as correctly that people are 
generally those who have already been born.  His audience is made
up of such people.  Everyone who is "pro" anything has already been
born, probably made it out of the first grade, too.  It's like saying
people who wear glasses probably advocate ears!  (Yes, I realize
there are people without ears, and I in no way wish to denigrate them
nor do I wish to imply that they need be in any way afraid of people
wearing glasses.)

I have no idea what kind of a "pro" Mark Russel is except that he is a 
"pro"fessional comedian, and, as such, is probably more concerned with 
laugh potential rather than deep philosophical content.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Inflation and Carter?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:30:50 GMT

In article <64289@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>One of the speakers at the Republican convention was rather emphatic about
>blaming Jimmy Carter for having a high inflation rate.
>
>Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
>inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
>Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").  Am I
>misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
>as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.  On the
>other hand, I was barely sentient then and my have my sequencing
>wrong.
>

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.

>By the way, someone should tell the Republicans that Bill Clinton is
>the Democratic candidate.  They seem to think that they are running
>against Carter and Dukakis...
>
>--Tim Smith

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.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39134 talk.abortion:31361 alt.politics.bush:1258
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:43:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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

> 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. 

Does Bush make an exception where the life or health of the mother is
in jeopardy?  I know that parliamentary tricks were used to prevent a
vote on a plank allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.

--Scott
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Republican Congress (was Re: The Bush Record)
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:20:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush