HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice stats
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:55:58 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.061127.8415@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.180114.7366@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>You already have choice guaranteed by the supreme court. The "pro-choice bill"
]>was all the way to one side of the issue. This is why it is a nonsense 
]>issue. The supreme court has shown that even with a conservative majority,
]>it is not going to prevent women from having abortions, for any reason,
]>early in their pregnancy. What more do you want?
]
]Pro-Fetus activists have harrassed so many doctors and shut down so
]many clinics that many women, especially (mainly) in rural areas, can't
]get an abortion. They would have to raise enough money to make the trip

As long as these people are simply exercising their first amendment
rights, no law is going to change that, and I don't think you want a
supreme court appointee who would!

]to a larger city that provides abortions, take the time off work to go 
]there, spend money for a hotel room because of the waiting periods
]involved in many states. The final cost of the abortion (in time and money)
]is much, much higher than for an urban woman. There *are* reasons why
]Pro-Choice activists are against things like waiting periods, marital
]and parental consent. 

This just breaks my heart. These people (in almost all cases) are
simply using abortion as birth control. They had other choices. If they
can't put up with a one day waiting period, then they shouldn't
have gotten pregnant in the first place! For those for which it is
a severe hardship, I'm sure that the pro choice groups can take care of
them.

By the way, the reason many rural clinics have shut down is not due to
the pro-lifers, it is due to the high cost of malpractice, which requires
an urban practice in order to generate enough revenue to pay for the
insurance. Here in Arizona women have to come to the major cities
for any Ob/Gyn procedures for that reason. There have been no pro-choice
harrassers.

As far as parental consent... why should a hospital require parental
consent for emergency treatment, but not for abortion? Abortion is a medical
procedure with potentially dangerous health consequences, and yet my
daughter can get one without even telling me, but if she is hurt in an
accident, the hospital will want my consent before even giving her an aspirin.

They aren't fighting these things just for the


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.165143.5084@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.155832.23601@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>

>it was mis-regulation.  If you want to reference a de-regulated
>banking system, we had one prior to 1933 which operated quite
>well.
>
>--Al Date 
>


Really! It worked so well that just many of them were failing, many 
depositors were losing their money, there were serious runs on the banks
causing more failures. Perhaps that is quite well in your view. It is not
in mine. It is quite probable that if FDR had not declared a bank holiday 
they all would have failed.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer







Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:47:06 GMT

Here is a flyer being passed out by the Ohio Republican Party:

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

                        Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant

Bill Clinton says he wants to do for America what he has done for Arkansas.
But he has failed to move Arkansas up the ladder during his years in the
state house. Arkansas' labor conditions, environment, and conditions for
children rank among the worst in the country, according to studies by the
Southern Labor Institute, Institute for Southern Studies, and the Center
for the Study of Social Policy.



                                   Labor:

        49th in overall worker climate;
        46th in labor opportunity; and
        50th in youth employment.



                                Environment:

        42nd in percentage of polluted rivers and streams;
        47th in per capita toxic chemical releases to surface water;
        42nd in per capita toxic chemical releases to air;
        41st in ozone depleting emissions; and
        43rd in per capita spending on air pollution.



                                  Children:

        45th out of 51 in children's well-being;
        45th in low-birth-rate babies;
        49th in child death rates;
        47th in teen violent death rate;
        45th in single teenage births; and
        42nd in percentage of children in single-parent families.



                   Don't buy Clinton's "New Covenant" until
                        you've seen his OLD Covenant!



                    Paid for by the Ohio Republican Party, 
                172 E. State St., Ste 400, Columbus, OH 43215
                        Robert T. Bennett, Chairman

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

Verification of the accuracy or the relevance of the above claims is left 
as an exercise for the reader!
---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hulsej@lclark.edu (Jose Hulse)
Subject: Re: Billy and Foreign Policy
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:20:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.054725.4512@lclark.edu> larryw@sun.lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl) writes:

>ANYWAY, here it is:  In the past four years, the world has gone through more
>change than in any other four years in this century.  There have been many
>positive changes, but new problems have been created too.  Now that the
>leadership in Israel has changed, and that country is now faced with an
>uncertain future, the last thing we need in the oval office is an amateur.
>It should also be noted that if we lose George Bush, we lose Jim Baker also,
>and there is no way that Clinton can come up with a better replacement.
>Jim Bakers work has been tireless, and he has been very tough with Israel.
>Now that the leadership in Israel has changed, it seems that progress is 
>possible.  And since they have few friends in the region, U.S. support and
>leadership is crucial. 
>
>You have to believe that the domestic situation has been affected by 
>things beyond the Presidents control (for the most part!). For example,
>a hostile Congress and Senate, an unstable Europe, and the natural 
>cycle of the U.S. economy.  It seems that all of the bad press that
>is leveled against Bush is over domestic issues, and it is not entirely
>his fault! 
>
>Therefore, with the world situation still in the balance,
>don't elect a guy who doesnt know the ropes.  Bush may not be a great 
>president, and he may not be the best person in Washington, but with the
>choices we have, there's no other way to go.
>
>- Lawrence
>-- 

Larry, Larry, Larry:

While I share your admiration for James Baker, I think that Clinton will be
able to get a suitable replacement for him.  Admittedly, Bush's experience
in foreign affairs is a point in his favor, but he and his advisers
suffer from truly vestigial views on the path to prosperity.  In order for
us to continue to be effective on the world scene, we need to re-establish
THAT for the long term and rekindle a sense of national community and
purpose.  We will NOT get this with Mr. George "More of the Same" Bush and
Mr. Dan "Foot in Oral Cavity" Quayle.

>__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>**larryw@lclark.edu**  |STEVIE for presidend     | "In human relations 
>Writer, Musician,      |CHRISTINE for VP         |  kindness and lies are
>Laker fan, Blazerhater.|LINDSEY for Sec. o' State|  worth a thousand truths."

--Jose'

-- 
_______________________________________________
Jose' Hulse  hulsej@lclark.edu | hulsej@agora.rain.com
Clinton/Gore in '92! Put People First!
Bush/Quayl--Just say noe!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: Causes of the "Cultural Elite"
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:06:18 GMT

In article <rdippold.711922999@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>Oh yeah, those who advocate the destruction of freedom would make just
>great defenders of freedom.  Libertarianism has been around for at
>least 200 years.  Socialism only 100.  You're seeing the retreat of it
>because it doesn't work.
>-- 

Gee, I thought libertarianism started at the University of Chicago.  I guess
that means the University of Chicago has been around for 200 years.  News to
me.

Yes, libertarianism is sweeping the globe.  One domino after another falls.

Norm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Subject: Re: Southpaws?!?
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:36:49 GMT

In article <DWELLS.92Jul17094656@fits.cv.nrao.edu> dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells) writes:
>On various occasions TV cameras have shown candidates signing
>documents and, unless my eyes have deceived me, the following three
>statements are true:
>
>Bush is left-handed.
>Clinton is left-handed.
>Perot is left-handed.
>
>My impression is that only about 10% of the population are
>left-handed, so the odds are about 1000:1 against this combination
>occurring randomly. Is it telling us something? What about Andre
>Marrou?
>
>--
>
>Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells@nrao.edu
>National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
>520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
>Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N 


Obviously, it's a sinister plot.
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Date: 22 Jul 1992 01:17:52 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul20.200509.21614@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> And there seems to be a direct relationship between taxing people less and
> economic boom.

As we have seen in the past 12 years, there is also a direct
relationship between going massively in debt and an economic boom.

> or how about this, who spends money most wisely/efficiently:
> a. The government who spends someone else's money.
> b. An individual who spends his own.

People spend money for their own good.  Governments spend money for
the good of the society as a whole.  (Or at least relatively so.)
These are totally separate issues.

> It is not the Presidency which appropriates funds, it is the House of Reps.

Who has the technical, legal authority to spend the money doesn't seem
to matter -- it's a matter of leadership.  The president is
responsible for setting the overall direction of government and
providing leadership for the legislative branch.  Congress followed
Reagan's leadership quite a bit, and look where it got us.  They
haven't been following Bush so well, because they see the hole we've
gotten into and don't want to get deeper.  We need a president who can
lead Congress, AND knows enough to lead it in the right direction, and
Bush fails on both counts.

	Wayne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Perot....GONE!
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.035331.9338@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>What do net-Perot people have to say?  You are, potentially, a powerful
>voting bloc and will have great influence at least until November on
>American politics.
>

A third party to bring competition to the Demopublican Party
would be nice. But, perhaps as a long term goal for subsequent 
elections for the house and senate. We'll see.

John Korman






Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Time/CNN poll 18th July
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:42:15 GMT

In article <u4R9NB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>aras@ms.uky.edu (P. I. Arasu) writes:
>
>> Heard it on NPR today, 18th July:
>> 
>> Bill Clinton 49%
>> George Bush	29%
>> Undecided 	22%
>> 
>> margin of error 4%
>> 
>> 
>
>Just out of curiosity, I'd love to see what polls looked like for the 
>last few campaigns - at various parts of the campaign.
>
>I recall that in 1984, Mondale had a fairly large lead over Reagan 
>shortly after the Democratic convention, but it steadily faded as te 
>election got closer. Very similar story with '88. I was 17 in '79, so I 
>wasn't paying that much attention to the polls. Anybody remember/feel 
>like looking it up?

Year  Candidate    Poll Before    Poll After    Election
--------------------------------------------------------
1976  Carter (D)   53             62            50
      Ford (R)     29             29            48

1980  Reagan (R)   37             38            51
      Carter (D)   29             39            41

1984  Reagan (R)   53             53            59
      Mondale (D)  38             39            41

1988  Bush (R)     37             37            53
      Dukakis (D)  47             54            46

("Before" and "After" mean before and after the Democratic convention.)
This table was in the WSJ a while back.

Note that in 1976, Carter had a 33 point lead, but he ended up winning
by only 2 points.  Note also that in every case, the convention "bounce"
was more than wiped out by election day.  This year, however, it is
impossible to determine what the convention bounce was since the
convention coincided with Perot's disintegration.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:51:54 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.202032.20852@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]
]>I am almost ready to hope that he wins too. That way, it will be clear
]>who to blame when the country goes to hell in a handbasket. As it is
]>now, the Democrats in congress are able to hide behind George Bush
]>and blame him for everything but tornados in Kansas.
]
]I'm not so sure. By winning, Bill Clinton will have won a referendum on the
]past 12 years being a failure, and when he throws this country into a depression
]he will simply say that the country was now reaping what the Republicans
]had sown for the past 12 years. It sounds far fetched, but when you have a
]vindictive, spiteful media behind you, nothing is impossible. Hell, they've
]managed to convince the American public that Ronald Reagan,
]who brought 8 years of economic growth and won the cold war, wasn't that
]good after all. Tell a lie long enough, and the people will start to believe it.
If fear that you are right. No matter what sort of screw-up Clinton turns
out to be, the media will blame it on Reagan.

On the other hand, it would be fun to be the opposition and have a real
focus. Fighting the democratic congress is almost impossible, because people
are fixated on the president, rather than the real problem.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:40:06 GMT

koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:

>BUt he[Thomas] was clearly unqualified.  The ABA gave him the lowest rating 
>of any Supremem Court nominee in 50 years, lower than Bork. 

Whatever people thought of Bork, no one ever said he was unqualified.
Bork was probably one of the most qualified people to be nominated
for the Supreme Court. Its just that he was too far to the right for
most people, and besides, the current nomination process has proven
that people with distinguished careers cannot be nominated because
they will certainly offend some people. Hence a blank slate
who says he never discussed Roe v. Wade is best.

I really don't understand why blacks push to have a black on the
Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas gives all blacks a bad name (
shows the world that he is the best). Also, blacks want representation
because they want someone who will identify with their problems.
I just don't think that Thomas identifies with them, and besides
Thomas has shown to be a toady of Anthony Scalia. It seems like
Souter and Kennedy are much better for the black community than
Thomas.

							Saurav Chatterjee

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "I'm on a five year plan - BA, MBA, BMW"              ** ** saurav@usa   @
@                                                       *  * (.ece.cmu.edu)@
@ 49'ers III-Peat! - never mind                         *  *  saurav@ocf   @
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** *  saurav@cory  @
@      Copyright (c) Chatterjee Enterprises, 1992        * *  saurav@ohm   @
@             All Rights Reserved Worldwide              * *(.berkeley.edu)@
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** **              @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


 







































Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:08:06 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
	<barrett.711735028@cc.gatech.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 21-Jul-92 Re: The Myth of
the Spendth.. James Barrett@cloudgen1. (1244)

> Anyone else heard about the 3 military bases we own that if sold at
> assessed value, would generate $3 trillion revenue, thereby eliminating
> 3/4 of the *debt*.  I beleive one was near San Francisco, one in Hawaii,
> and one somewhere else in California.

Yes, it was brought up a couple weeks ago.  Someone pointed out that
those figures seemed completely unreasonable, because the value of one
base would have to be larger than all of the private real esate in
California, or something like that.  Do you recall where you heard it? 
Even if it's off by a factor of 10, we could sure use the $300 billion!!!

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Just a question....
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.003006.29485@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.111858.1428@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.233646.9496@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>
>>>Percent Increases in US exports by type (From 1986-1991)
>>>
>>>category                       percent increase    $bn (1991)
>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Iron and Steel                    322%               4.3
>>>Furniture                         296%               2.1
>>>Clothing                          260%               3.2
>>>Cigarettes                        239%               4.4
>>>Toys,games, and sport goods       233%               2.1
>>>Plastics                          144%              10.5
>>>General Industrial Machinery      142%              17.1
>>>Paper and Paperboard              131%               6.0
>>>Pharmaceuticals                   126%               7.0
>>>Telecoms equipment                122%               9.8
>>>Electrical machinery              122%              30.2
>>>Aircrafts and parts               118%              33.0
>>>Textiles                          114%               5.5
>>>Scientific Machinery              101%              16.6
>>>Power-generated machinery          82%              16.7
>>>Specialised industrial machinery   80%              16.6
>>>Computers                          66%              25.6
>>>Chemicals                          62%              15.2
>>>Cars                               55%               9.7
>>>Vehicle parts                      29%              12.1
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>  (I'll leave the rest of the table off, but you can find it in the January
>>>18th, 1992 issue of _The Economist_.)
>>>
>>	I've got a feeling this table's a little misleading. Did Iron and
>>Steel exports go up from $10million to $42.2 million (my numbers, used
>>as an example), giving it a percent increase of 322%, but Tobacco increase
>>from 10 Billion ot 33 Billion? Those numbers are just pulled out of the
>>air, but It'd be nice to see a similar table with "dollar increase" in
>>exports per catagory, which is probably more meaningful, and give an idea
>>of which industries have benefited most in the time period. 
>>
>
>  I think you must be trying to use the table for something besides the point
>I was making.   However, I have added the numbers you requested along
>with some more categories (see above.)
>
>  Furthermore, I do recommend that anyone interested read my source.
>It is rather interesting.

	Thanks Pat, the actual dollar amounts make the case better than
the percentages- The area where the $ value of imports went up the most
were all manufactured goods- instead of raw materials and agricultural
products, as I suspected. Thanks.
>
>Pat
>
>-- 
	-Emmett
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:01:13 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Jul26.170803.26254@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> You might also consider including the idea that Corporations are persons in 
> your amendment. It would seem that the activist Supreme Court in the 19th 
> century gave them many of the rights without some of the responsiblities 
> of persons.

Humm, I wonder if we could use that fact to get some of the jerks who
used leveraged buyouts and junk bonds to decimate and destroy formerly-
successful corporations during the 80's.  (I call them "Reagan's Henchmen").

If the corporations are people, can we charge the junk-bond people with
assault and murder?

-- 
Bob Munck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot