HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph Clark)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:21:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <l92jteINNf5n@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes...
> [long discussion about public vs private schools deleted]
>
>I have no disagreement that the public schools system needs to be
>severly improved.  I do not believe that a voucher system will
>cause that to happen.  If a voucher system were put in place
>*AS PART OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM PROGRAM* I would consider it.
>But I will not allow any part of the funds I pay (with no more
>children in public schools) to be used to avoid fixing
>the problem by satisfying a few children.
> 
>This consideration would does not include, however, in diverting
>any funds to a school financially tied to any religious
>organization (note that I said financially, not philosophically). 
>It seems to me that this would allow education to become a
>fund raising opportunity, which would be public funding support
>for religion.

Every church-related school I have ever seen is *subsidized* by its
congregation. The idea of raising money through operating a church
school is preposterous.

Ralph
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:04:47 GMT

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug18094404@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>   Granted, but this seems unduly harsh for those cases in which birth
>   control fails.  Even if a method has a 95% success rate, the odds
>   are that it will fail 40% of the time every 10 years.
>
>You'd think they'd take the possibility of failure into account.

What do you suggest then?  Abstinence?  Including married couples?
Ten children families?

>
>  The individual,
>   even by taking responsiblity in using birth control (the distribution
>   of which is opposed by the Republicans),
>
>That's news to me.  Or do you mean *funding* distribution of birth
>control (about which I've seen nothing either)?
>

The cheerful attacks on Planned Parenthood?

>   is not necessarily in control of her fate.
>
>Who is ever 100% in control of their fate?  You pay your nickel, you take
>your chances.

True, true, true, but doesn't this seem a bit less than compassionate
when something goes wrong?


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Bush and Abortion (was Another good reason to vote for Bush)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:52:15 GMT

In article <Aug.12.18.59.06.1992.15088@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   
>
>The platform committee specifically refused to allow ammendments to
>the platform to insert these exceptions.  I didn't hear Bush
>protesting.  Is he just out of touch with hs platform committee, or is
>he letting the right wing of his own party run roughshod over his own
>convictions? 
>
>--Scott

The 'smart' answer is that the two words 'Bush' and 'convictions' don't
belong in the same sentence. However, in this case, it appears that in
fact the platform language does go considerably beyond Bush's views, as
expressed in a recent interview wherein he states that he would support
a family member's decision to have an abortion, though he would not
encourage it.

Sounds very much like a mainstream pro-choice position, and seriously at
odds with the GOP platform.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:22:48 GMT

liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:

>In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
>>
>>Very dangerous man, indeed!
>>-- 
>>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax
>>
>>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
>>
>>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>>seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
>>disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
>>make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
>>new order blindly.

>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.  

And who defends you when they come for you??

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:44:51 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 4495@news.duke.edu, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>:hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>:...
>:The biased media calls any kind of Bush attack sleaze politics and praises
>:the Clinton campaign.  That's not going to stop Bush.
>	The media are covering every COUNTERATTACK by Clinton more than
>the attacks by Bush lately. Although this does show that Clinton won't
>make the mistakes of waiting too long to be defined by his opposition,
>this coverage is stifling Bush from making any substantive criticisms of
>Clinton.

You are being too charitable to Bush.  He could be out there with his own plans
and attacks, but he really hasn't done anything except react to Clinton.  If you
strip away his reactions to the Clinton challenge, there isn't much there to report
on.  So far, Clinton has been able to define Bush, rather than the other way around.
I would agree that the media has tended to favor Clinton over the past two months,
but they always try to turn an election into a horse race.  Now that Clinton is the
perceived leader, you are seeing more attempts to put Bush in a favorable light.
Expect more "He's gotten a raw deal from the press" press coverage in the future, 
added to Bush's expected post-convention "bump" in the polls.  

>	The problem is that Bush will NEVER get the positive coverage
>that the Clinton-Gore camp is receiving...

I disagree.  All Bush needs is one halfway decent event--a dramatic improvement in
a government economic indicator, a successful military venture, a flashy diplomatic
resolution (e.g. of the Bosnian situation)--and the press will be all over the place
with "Has the Clinton juggernaut been stopped?" stories.  The last thing the media
wants is a cakewalk election.  Campaign season doesn't really get under way until
Labor Day, and Bush gets to wear the cherished mantle of the underdog going into the
election.  He is far behind now, but momentum now begins to build in his direction.
Don't be surprised if it's neck and neck on November 7.

-----
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:30:20 GMT

In article <Bt07FC.ABD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> No, Dean, you have a later draft, sort of.  Those rights are
> specifically referred to only in the Declaration of Independence.  I
> think it is fair to say that the Constitution builds on that.  You may
> disagree.  But I think my contention is well founded.  (BTW I'm pretty
> sure that I never stated that those rights were mentioned in the
> Constitution.  If I did I was wrong.  If I didn't please don't misquote
> me.)


You were talking about rights on the societal level.  I assumed you
meant rights that apply to all Americans.  If they're not in the
COnstitution, they don't exist except as found in the penumbra of
the Ninth Amendment.

Do please learn something about the law of the United States before
you make these assertions about what rights we all have.  I see that
you missed the point of what I was saying about not finding those rights
in my copy of the Constitution because you don't understand that the
Declaration of Independence is without force of law, and that the
rights we enjoy are defined by the Constitution and not the
Declaration.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40018 ca.politics:6846
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:47:38 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> One difference: I have found "homosexual = liar" to be true far more 
> often than not.  I have repeatedly made it clear that not all 
> homosexuals are child molesters, and some are quite hostile to 
> child molestation, and yet many of the homosexuals on the net keep
> claiming that I said that all homosexuals are child molesters.  I
> keep correcting them, and they keep saying it.  
> 
> The other generalizations above I have found to be false FAR more
> often than they true.


One difference: I have found "Optilink = liar" to be true far more
often than not.  I have repeatedly made it clear that not all
Optilink-ers are stupid twit liars, and some are quite hostile to
lying, and yet many of the Optilink-ers on the net keep claiming that
I said that all Optilink-ers are liars.  I keep correcting them, and
they keep saying it.

The other generalizations above I have found to be false FAR more
often than they are true.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush and Bosnia
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:52:16 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA


I find it interesting that many  (not all, many) of the people who, earlier
in the year were proclaiming that Bush would get us in a war in order
to boost his popularity ratings are now declaring that the reason Bush
is not sending troops to Bosnia is that he is afraid that if something
were to go wrong it would hurt his popularity ratings.


-- 
--Mark
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: I demand
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:10:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.234248.12001@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
> Why not everyone on the net? Why does being employed at the same
> location make them any more responsible for Cramer? Can I hold all of
> Cornell responsible for anything you say?
> 
> I don't have much respect for Clayton, but I have even less for this
> sort of collective guilt trip / thought police action. Clayton is
> responsible for what he says - not anyone else. 

  Obviously, you haven't been paying attention then. Melinda is doing
a verbatim parody of Clayton's ranting and raving that the "gay community"
shun NAMBLA, and whatever other ludicrous bug he has up his butt (and 
there are many, I suggest RAID). If you consider Melinda's request 
idiotic, then you have only made the point of why Clayton's requests
are so inane, offensive, and childish.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:36:09 GMT

In article <19AUG92.21584972@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

> So can we charge George Bush with neglect?  He is willfully withholding 
> medical treatment from human beings with Parkinson's disease, diabetes and 
> other painful and deadly conditions.  

That is a lie, President Bush supports fetal tissue research, but he 
opposes using fetal remains from elective abortions.  

> He knows that fetal tissue transplants can help these human beings, but 
> appartently he hates human life so much that he'd rather throw away this 
> material than use it to save lives.

The people who hate human life are those who are unwilling to  
protect it in the first place. 

----
Chris Lyman has continued to quote me out of context.  Pay him no heed.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:37:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug18.151018.27120@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>]Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
>]poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
>]years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
>]opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!
>
>You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
>twelve years.

  I'm not sure what Mr. Moore's point is.  That we should be grateful
  that the economy's not in even worse shape?   The fact is that jobs
  have NOT trickled down.   There was a time in the US when someone 
  without a college education or the brains of a rocket scientist 
  could get a job sufficient to support a family on.   The 80's were
  good at creating two kinds of jobs:

  1.    High-end white collar jobs, and even these are in short supply
        now -- the computer industry, for instance, has seen a net decline
        in jobs in *each* of the last 4 years according to EE Times. 

  2.    Dead-end diddly-squat jobs like flipping burgers at MacDonald's
        which are insufficient to support a family on.

  But the great core of US job growth in the past -- factory jobs, 
  construction jobs, and similar work for non-degreed people who are 
  simply willing to learn a trade and work hard, are not there in
  reasonable numbers.   

  The bottom line is that we have an outrageously high unemployment
  rate and no sign of any impending improvement.   Look at last week's
  issue of _Fortune_ magazine.   As business magazines go, Fortune
  is on the conservative end of things, compared say, to Business
  Week, or event the Wall Street Journal (or certainly the Economist).
  The cover story was on "The Job Drought" .  They made grim predictions
  for job growth in the US, suggesting that unemplyment rates will
  continue to be high, perhaps reaching 9% in several years.   And
  amazingly they actually advocated some sort of industrial policy!
  When a magazine like Fortune starts talking in those terms you
  know things are desperate!


---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:39:28 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Elizabeth Levy:
>>> = (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>>> I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>>> wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

>> A newborn is independent of its mother the way a fetus is not.

>So in situations where a newborn is dependent on a single person
>for survival, should that person be allowed to kill the newborn? 

Of course not, DJR.  Everyone knows that.  Have you been skipping your
therapy sessions again?  (What a fucking Looney Tune.)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40022 ca.politics:6850
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:24:08 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> In article <11682@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug10.015137.16592@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amhe
> # #Unless, of course, you're participating in Typical Optilink Lying Fashion 
> #                                                     ^^^^^^^^
> # And now part three: (for Clayton)
> # 
> #    I will not generalize the statement of an individual to those of a group
> # 
> # Dave "deeply offended and awaiting your soon to arrive apology" Manley
> 
> When homosexuals stop acting like a big hive brain, and stop
> insisting that they must be treated as a group, they will stop
> being treated as a group.

No you won't.  You've already shown everybody that it is YOU who think
of homosexuals as a "hive."  Why do you criticize all homosexuals for
the ads placed by an individual in a magazine?  Or for the appearance
of material from NAMBLA in bookstores in SF?  It's because you want
everybody else to see us this way - YOUR way.  If you were interested
in the objective truth, you would not refer to the substantial
opposition to NAMBLA as "a small percentage" or whatever your
reverse-hyperbole-of-the-week is (what is the sematical opposite of
hyperbole, anyway?).  If you wanted to discuss us as we are, you would
not ignore posts from me, mike@gordian, kane, dauber, pierce and others
who have said the same thing:  NAMBLA only /thinks/ they are one of us.
The parade organizers thought they deserved a place in the parade.  A
lot of people along the route thought otherwise, and booed and hissed
as NAMBLA went by.  And yet, you describe us as "a big hive brain."

You know, I live in Long Beach, 3rd largest gay population in the state.
I've never seen NAMBLA literature anywhere.  I've never seen it in West
Hollywood, either, or San Diego, for that matter.

I've seen more about NAMBLA since I started reading ca.politics a year
ago than I have seen in my entire lifetime.  In fact, you talk about
NAMBLA more than Roy Radow does.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: Is George running for First Lady?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:26:57 GMT

I agree with Bill Clinton. Based on all the Hillary bashing
by the republicans, it appears that George is running for 
First Lady.  At the very least, it appears that he hopes to 
ride to re-election on Barbara's skirt tails. 

James L. Heilman
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.013321.7273@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.224120.4058@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>But should a woman give up her life for the fetus's, given your
>>assumptions?  After all, it's alive.  Take this to the logical
>>extreme.  Given that a woman's rights are "subservient to the right to
>>life of the fetus", shouldn't we strap the woman down for the term of
>>the pregnancy and anesthetize her, so there would be no danger of the
>>fetus coming into contact with hazardous substances or various other
>>accidents?  She'll be free to go after giving birth.  After all, the
>>woman is the carrying case for the fetus, and no more than that.
>
>Is this the "I have the right to have sex but I don't have the
>responsibility for the consequences" argument?  Rights entail duties,
>you have a right to your life and I have a duty not to take it and
>vice versa.   Of course, one can argue that the fetus is not alive...

Granted, but this seems unduly harsh for those cases in which birth
control fails.  Even if a method has a 95% success rate, the odds
are that it will fail 40% of the time every 10 years.  The individual,
even by taking responsiblity in using birth control (the distribution
of which is opposed by the Republicans), is not necessarily in control
of her fate.  (I feel the same way about FDIC, even though free marketeers
claim that there will be discipline through the market.  What happens in
those cases in which the market discipline fails?  People's lives get
ruined by circumstances that are beyond their control, and not their
fault.)

>
>Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
>I don't know why but I like sparring with Ms Levy!

Gee.  Thanks.  I try.


--
But this is.