HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: School Choice (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:56:08 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <l8l9kiINNhnl@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> In article <Jtb-vy#@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> I don't follow your line of reasoning.  A tax credit system still 
|> |> requires all taxpayers (whoever or whatever they are) to pay for
|> |> 'public' education.  The key difference is that the taxpayer can 
|> |> direct his education funds to an educational institution of their
|> |> choice.  Whether you are a parent or not, you have the same choice.
|> |> You fund the school that you want to fund.  If you have no preference,
|> |> the government distributes the money where there is the most demand.
|> |> I suppose the only caveat is that you couldn't fund a school which
|> |> nobody wanted to attend.
|> |> 
|> You mean that I can take my tax credit even if I have no children in
|> public or private schools?  

If you are supporting someones education you can take the tax credit.
You could choose to support your neighbors kid, your grandchild, etc.
Your entire neighborhood could start a school and pool tax credits
for funding.

|> Can I use it to buy self improvement books?
|> Can I buy a new home computer?  Can I take a skydiving class?  (Saying no
|> to this last question is OK)

No, the credit you receive is for money to be spent on primary school
education.  The purpose of the money doesn't change, you just have
more discretion over where the money gets spent.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
From: gc@isag1.twuug.com (George Colt)
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Organization: Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:20:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
: 
:  glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
: >In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
: >>And there are laws against prostitution. 
: >
: >And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
: >(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
: >that did not exist when such laws were enacted.
: 
: Then I'll give you the medical reason that did exist at the time. 
: Syphilis.  Until the advent of penicilin in the 20th century, syphilis
: was as deadly a disease as AIDS is today.  There was just as much
: medical justification to pass the laws then as there is today.
: 
:Tom the non hacker

Stupid reason. (No Tom, I'm not calling you stupid, just the "reason")
People are going to screw no matter WHAT silly laws are passed against
it. If you want to control disease, make prostitution explictly legal,
then regulate it as you would any other industry. Regular medical
checkups, etc., and maintaining a client list in case a "dose" does
get loose. I know, being on a client list sounds kind of scary, but if
it was explictly legal, there would be no stigmata attached to it so
it wouldn't really bother anybody. Besides, think of some of the
"lists" you're already on (IRS, FBI, Credit Agency, etc.). I'd rather
be on a hooker's confidential client list any day! Just as a side
note, I live in VA now, and I lived in Nevada for ten years before I
moved here, so I've seen both "sides". I'll take legal prostitution,
thank you.

George
-- 
|      Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc.        George Colt          |
| UUCP      : ...!uunet!isavax!isap2!colt       2125 Smith Ave. #200 |
| Email     : colt@isap2.isa.com                Chesapeake, VA       |
| Voice     : 804 642 9009                      23320                |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:35:18 GMT

From article <gnfy0q_@rpi.edu>, by jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson):


[ HUNDREDS OF LINES DELETED ]


> 
> What  the hell does  this have to do  with any specific belief system?
> This is more a characterisic of human beings than of anything else.


[ HUNDREDS OF LINES DELETED ]



What does this have to do with ANY of the newsgroups you posted this to?

Please edit the Newsgroup line and move this "discussion" to talk.religion
and/or talk.abortion.


Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: anne@cs.UAlberta.CA (Anne J.R. Nield)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:13:33 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:


>I'd have a lot more sympathy for people making this argument if it
>applied to other choices, choices that one can't even legally exercise
>outside one's home state.

>Surely if 24 hours an undue burden and an insult, it is so in general,
>and not just when we're talking about abortion.  Surely 3, 7, or 15
>days is even worse.

>Why is abortion the only choice worthy of respect?  After all, we
>believe pro-choice advocates who say say "we don't like abortion, but
>it isn't our decision to make", so why doesn't that apply to other
>choices she might make, choices that said advocates may not like.


Huh?  Did I miss something here?  I really think I should stop reading
this thread.  WHAT OTHER CHOICES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FOR HEAVEN'S
SAKE???

Yikes (again)

Plus -- can we get back to Dan Quayle?  If I want to read endless
drivel about abortion, I can get the Republican Party manifesto --
or whatever it is they publish for the masses.

An

>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:25:21 GMT

In article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>It's like Bush's answer on Dateline NBC last night, where he reiterated
>Quayle's opinion that an abortion should be the choice of the woman, as
>long as it's a relative of his.  Bush has shown again and again that he
>thinks he's above the law.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ummmm, I think abortions are legal in the US.

If Bush had said "I want to kill people with my own hands and not be put
on trial", well, THAT'S thinking you're above the law.

Just nitpicking,
XOXO

Alan


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:56:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.165401.10396@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Bush supports the balanced budget amendment, Clinton does not.  And a 
>whole bunch of Democrats in the House don't support the amendment either. 
>
>We need a President that will rein in the spending habits of Congress,
>not one that will rubberstamp every spending bill that crosses his desk.  

I assume that you mean that Bush will be such a president.  I'd like to
know what makes you think so.  He sure hasn't done a very good job of
reinning in the spending habits of Congress so far.  I don't think he'll
do any better in a second term.

I have a question about this balanced budget amendment:  whats the point?
I'm not against the idea but people make it sound like if we pass this
constitutional amendment then the budget will be balanced.  Congress still
needs to raise more money or cut programs with or without the amendment.
I don't think an amendment is going to give them any more guts

I think quite a few states have called for a constitutional convention for
the purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment.  This at least makes
sense because its the states forcing the federal government to get its act
together.  I don't understand congress proposing this amendment.  Why don't
they just balance the budget without the amendment instead of wasting
their time on the amendment and then still having to balance the budget.

Besides, what if they don't balance the budget after the amendment is
passed.  What can we do about it: fire them, throw them in jail, make them
pay the debt?  I doubt it.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1748 alt.politics.elections:10658 talk.abortion:31951
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Aye, the rub: (was Re: Abortion is Stealing!)
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:53:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug16.032749.636@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes...

>Has Bush ever made such a statement (#1)?  He has expressed opposition
>to abortion.  He has expressed a preference for adoption.  He
>has stated that he will follow his conscience concerning "matters
>of life".  But I am not aware of an occasion where Bush has said
>"abortion is murder".

Here we get to the point of my original posting.  Either Bush believes abortion
is murder or he doesn't.  Personally, I cannot see what would be wrong with 
abortion if it *isn't* murder (not that I believe that it is).  I'm 
genuinely interested in seeing if such a claim would be defensible.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:51:09 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug22.023904.6175@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU sez:
>In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>>a Republican Senate.
>
>No, it didn't.  The Repubs had a senate majority for TWO years of
>those EIGHT years, not the six years that Luck asserts.  Maybe things
>would have been no different if the repubs had the senate for six
>years, maybe they'd have been worse, but there's no way to know
>anything more than "it happened with a repub president and a demo
>congress".

I'm not sure which 8 years you're referring to, Andy.  Is it '80-'88,
or some period more specifically relevant to the debtor/creditor
issue?

If you meant the former, you're certifiably wrong.  The Republicans
captured the Senate in 1980, and held it until the 1986 election.

If you meant something else, well, don't mind me.

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:15:43 GMT

In article <13AUG199211260307@rosie.uh.edu> st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.180923.29615@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes...
>>If Clinton's children did something legal that he disapproved of, do
>>you think he should abandon them?  No?  Then why is Bush wrong for
>>doing the exact same thing?
>

>But the primary difference here is that Bush wants to make something
>illegal, thereby condemning everyone who commits the act, but will not
>hesitiate to countenance the same activity on the part of people in
>his own sphere.

No, that's not a "difference", let alone a "primary" one.

We can assume that both Bush and Clinton would pay for a lawyer if
one of their kids/grandkids committed murder.  Does that mean
that they're pro-murder?  Of course not.

Suppose that said murder happened under circumstances where
both have advocated the death penalty.  Does such support mean
that they're really not in favor of the death penalty in those
circumstances, or that they're being hypocritical?  Of course
not.

The abortion case works out the same way.

-andy is pro-abortion, but won't misrepresent bush to advance that cause

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2354 tx.politics:4303
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Convention review
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:20:58 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

It's over and here's what I got out of it:

B+ for Quayle, for giving a good speech. Good delivery, lot's
of Clinton bashing. I still wonder if he thinks about 1996..

C for Bush. Same old stuff. Some credit for tax hike apology.
Blame congress doesn't fly. You can't take credit for all the
good stuff and blame the bad stuff on someone else. The illogic
of being a masterful statesman and foreign policy maker,
yet a hapless victim of democrats in congress doesn't fly.
Looks like an attempt to do a Truman. Calling Clinton
Carter II is just an attempt to mask the Bush record.

Family values...yea, we're all for 'em. The negative stuff
I think will back fire. The arrogance was heavy. Look, the
people really don't like any politicians very much these days.
Trying to put horns on the demos and halos on the republicans
is just down right dishonest. 

One last comment: All of this stuff about tax and spend demos
wanting to ruin the economy and create some American version
of Russia, besides being hysterical, makes me ask this question.
Why? Why would the mysterious "liberals" want the sink the
ship they are in? I think "liberal" is the new boogey man.

Oh yes, I think Dole is grinning from ear to ear tonight.
He shows some vision, along with Kemp. Bush gave us hollow words
and Dole is probably set for 96...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1964 alt.politics.marrou:817 talk.politics.misc:40367 alt.politics.elections:10787 talk.politics.theory:3710
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:39:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

<In article <24922@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:

<   The thing is that christianity has shown a penchant for this sort of
<   thing. Apart from the inquisition I'm thinking of:

<   The Crusades.
<   The Genocide of the Incas.
<   The murder of complete villages in Europe who were accused of "Heresy"
<   (ref: Simon De Montfort, The Albigensians, The Gnostics, various others...)
<   The European Witch-trials (one third of the female population killed in
<   some areas).

<   So this "aberration" seems to be a regular feature of christianity.
<   It's a reasonable question to ask whether a penchant for mass-murder
<   could be expected from a creed whose god is also depicted as having
<   a very strong genocidal and murderous streak.

	I note that all of those events occurred rather a while back.

	However, let's continue in this direction: socialism, as
	religion, has killed more than all previous religious
	crusades.

	* The 1920's purges of "kulaks" in the USSR
	* The 1930's purge of the Communist Party of the USSR
	* The 1930's purge of Communists by the NSDAP in Germany
	* The 1930's purge of the Army in the USSR
	* War in Europe from 1939 to 1945, instigated by Socialists,
	  continued by Socialists.
	* The killing in Cambodia

	And so forth and so on. Now, it will be argued that
	"those actions weren't carried on by REAL socialists"....
	but that's the same argument as "the crusades weren't
	carried on by REAL christians".

How about saying that such atrocities are a *HUMAN* tendency.
Human's have a tendency towards killing or destroying those who are
outside of their own group. 

Now their own group may be defined by ideology, regionalism, classism,
racism or just about any other *ism that you can think of.  Religion
is unfortunately just another idea, that people are willing to kill for.

Are you arguing that if only there were no religion, then the world
would be a better place.  Less hatred, intolerance, etc.

I think not.

I personally think that if people would truely follow the teachings of
Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. instead of trying to kill all those who
didn't, the world would be better off.

--My opinions are mine and mine alone, unless someone else claims them
first.
-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2513 alt.politics.elections:11289
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:17:43 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
 <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <1684AE0AC.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>

In article <1684AE0AC.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
(Michael Edelman) says:
>
>In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
><JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>>a Republican Senate.
>>
>This absolute nonsense. I believe I've already posted an explaination of
>how US investment overseas is grossly undervalued on the books. The US is
>not a net debtor nation.
>
"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Apparently Mr. Stockman disagrees w/ you.  You don't know anyone named
"Laffer" do you?

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University             "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                   -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Military records
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:54:45 GMT
 <16849C793.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> <4731@news.duke.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <4731@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
>
>From Mark Stencel in the Aug2092 Washington _Post_, here are the details
>of military service of the candidates for President and Vice President.

Well, this is nice, but a sample of two ain't so big.  Let's look back
at the election of '80 - Jimmy "Liberal" Carter and Ronald "Hawk"
Reagan:

*  Jimmy Carter -
 - Graduate of the Naval Academy;  served aboard a nuclear (Jimmy would
say "nucular") submarine;  Resigned his commission to return to Plains
and take over the family business when his father died.

*  Ronald Reagan -
 - Member of California National Guard (hmmmm...);  transferred to
Signal Corp at start of WWII;  spent war as fearless American soldier
in numerous films.

>Emil Thomas Chuck               DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993        1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC     AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
>August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993  Duke football? What's that?

I guess this is all relevant somehow.

Jeff Luck                               -STANDARD DISCLAIMER HERE-
CES Systems Office                   "Quayle and Pat Robertson are
Penn State University                 backstage trading war stories...."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                             - 1988 Election Joke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1368 alt.politics.marrou:752 talk.politics.misc:39343 alt.politics.elections:10425 talk.politics.theory:3650
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Abortion (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 13 Aug 1992 16:15:00 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug13.004750.20555@esd.dl.nec.com>, mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
|> 
|> You are crossposting this to every group EXCEPT where it belongs:
|> 
|> talk.abortion
|> 
|> 
|> PLEASE TAKE THE ABORTION DISCUSSION TO:
|> 
|> talk.abortion

Abortion is a political issue, and is expected to be a major factor
in this years election.  This is the correct forum to discuss this
issue, althought cross posting to talk.abortion would be a good idea.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1519 alt.politics.clinton:1905 alt.politics.perot:1273 rec.humor:26061 talk.bizarre:25914
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:10:37 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> If Clinton's children did something legal that he disapproved of, do
> you think he should abandon them?  No?  Then why is Bush wrong for
> doing the exact same thing?

Am I the only person to notice that "Senator William Clinton" is an anagram
of "Win mental clitoris loan"?


mathew
-- 
Buddy, can you spare a paradigm?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton