HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-800-HITLER2?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:08:27 GMT

goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>    I am not a supporter of Ross Perot, but I do not view him as a danger
>    to the constitution.  The danger is goverment spending rising faster
>    than the GNP, the budget deficit allowing our politicians to buy
>    votes now, and let us all pay later and, most of all, the ignorant
>    voters who pay 200B anually in interest on the national debt, yet
>    are convinced that it will be their kids, not them, paying it off.
>    That is, if they have kids, otherwise it will be other people's kids.
>    Few seem to realize that the kids might choose to default on the debt...

I don't view Perot necesarily as a danger to the Constitution but I am
disturbed at the near cult-like following of his supporters. It's his
followers that follow him, for the most part!, almost blindly.

At least with Bush and Clinton, we know a lot more about where they
stand. It may not be as much as we would like but we certainly know
a lot more about them then Perot.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"If you don't vote, you don't count!"
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	"Eligible non-voters are hypocrites."
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"It is better to have clean hearts and dirty hands than 
 dirty hearts and clean hands."   ---Rev Jesse Jackson			

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America:  Apartheid in Health-Care
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:00:14 GMT

The Decline of America:  Apartheid in Health-Care


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Should health care be a fundamental right?"

1968, 1975, 1978 polls:         over 75% yes
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In a 1988 Harris poll 90 percent of the public responded that everyone
should be entitled to care "as good as a millionaire could get."
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

=============================
Study: Insurance affects cure
=============================

Uninsured patients and those on Medicaid were less likely to receive
three common treatment for heart disease than those with insurance, a
study of 37,994 people in Massachusetts has found. The e study
examined The care of heart disease patients admitted to more than 100
Massachusetts hospitals in 1985. Researchers looked at three common
but expensive treatments: angiography, use to diagnose heart disease;
and bypass grafting and angioplasty, procedures to treat blocked
arteries.

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

For tons more info and documentation [ie footnotes for cited
information], use the GET command on the file named HEALTH INSURANC
[sic]

    ======================================
    To get a file named FILE NAME from the
    archiver (files are two words  separa-
    ted by a space), send the 1-line message

    GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

    to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
    [or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
    ======================================

    Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
    files available with the GET command.

e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:23:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep28.144035.1872@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <BvAGBD.FJo@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
>> In article <01GP8SO80X0W000ZHN@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
>>   (STEPHEN TICE) discusses Original Sin:
>> 
>>> And you have to take responsibility, and give responsi-
>>>bility when you offer change. Recognizing that as tax-payers
>>>*we are responsible*
>> 
>>   31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!
>
>Stop whining about your 12% state tax.  Nobody is forcing you to live
>where you do.  If you don't like it, move.  



  As I was telling David Scharfe:

  A large amount of state spending is federally mandated.  This
  has been a common ploy among the Republicrats during the last
  decade or so: the NON-TAX TAX.  They make a law requiring that
  corporations or states provide certain services, offer certain
  protections, etc, but allocate no funds to pay for them!  The
  company or the state is stuck with the bill.   This way the 
  Demopublicans can say, "See?  We didn't increase taxes!"

  In any case the 12% state tax figure IS relevant since your premise
  was that as a "wealthy" person, I wasn't taking enough responsibility.

  However, for your sensitive ears I'll be happy to amend my statement:
  31% federal tax is ENOUGH responsibility!

  There, happy?

>Also, care to guess what that 12% state tax rate would go to if you 
>tried to balance the federal budget entirely with spending cuts? 

  Depending on what programs were cut, who knows, it might even go
  down.  Remember, we now have a libertarian Republican governor 
  here, so we start seeing a reduction in taxes.


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48819 ca.politics:8310 ba.politics:5746 soc.motss:41274
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: FY '93 Budget Due October 1st  --  Pork Party's Edict
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:08:00 GMT

There is only one political party in America, 
no different than in the x-SU. They are the

	  == THE PARTY OF PORK ==

and they want your income, your children's
future income, all the resources of America, 
and later the world.

The evidence of their greed is the Federal
budget to be made legal & binding this week.

That will be $1.5 Trillion dollars in Taxes.
Income which is lost to you for investment,
so it's not just this years earnings that's
being robbed from you, but your investment
income. That's why America's savings are so
low, and why the rich get richer off the
work of the rest of us. 

Proof, is that huge budget being passed while 
there's a $4 Trillion dollar federal debt.

If you want to know who the Party of Pork is
then go down to the library and look at how
they vote in the Congressional Record or the
Congressional Quarterly and Weekly Report. 

The Congressional Record is the daily tran-
script of the Senate and House while they're
in session -- better than C-Span -- it's ALL
there. If these aren't in you libraries, ask 
why not? If there's a government repository,
try there. Such information should be part of
every library, and part of the news as well.

It's not. The Pork Party doesn't want you to
know how your money is spent. They don't want
your opinion about how it should be spent. 
All they want is your money, and they try to
convince you that they know how to spend it
better. 

The Media, especially the "News" Media, are
almost all beholden to the Pork Party whether
leftist or rightist. That's why you aren't 
hearing anything about the budget "hearings" 
now. The "News" has a job to do, to distract 
you with any kind of soap opera tactic they 
can. And though they usually just omit the
truth, they also twist and spin facts into
outright lies. The proof is that budget,
which you aren't being told about.

The only "gridlock" in Washinton DC is the
gridlock over how to squeeze more money out
of you with "give and take" -- give a token
here, a promise there, and take more either
directly or by forcing more laws on you to
force you to spend money for the corporate
products of the Party of Pork. The proof is
that budget -- a "bipartisan" compromise to
screw the working people of America, and 
your children, and your grandchildren....

And if you vote for the status quo, or fail
to vote against them -- then you are selling
children into Tax-Slavery. The proof is the
new fiscal year Federal Pork Party Budget,
which will give birth to yet another pack of
Pork Party Programs -- this week.
 
Campaign talk is fine, but the proof is the
FY '93 FEDERAL PORK PARTY BUDGET -- due now.

Here it comes again.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49229 talk.abortion:40160 alt.activism.d:3487
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:29:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.
>What about making a choice for life??

Many do, every time a baby is born, someone made a choice for life,
or had it forced on them.


Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: George Herbert Walker Bush, the "Environmental President"
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:03:00 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>(And no, I'm not exaggerating.  The Bush administration really did
>approve a regulation today which would permit strip mining in National
>Forests and National Parks.)
>

Take it from someone from Kentucky: strip mining is a Bad Idea. And
a worse reality.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48785 alt.rush-limbaugh:6282 alt.politics.bush:7319 alt.politics.clinton:7958 alt.politics.elections:14758 talk.abortion:39636 alt.sex:31450
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Society thing...
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:53:41 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Sep30.201523.24410@wetware.com>, drieux, just drieux writes:
>Or Are You not one of 'Those "ProLifers"' who understands
>the Pure Sanctity of Life gambitry to the point where
>allowing one's actually born daughter to be raped is
>an acceptable choice in life.

Hey, there's a biblicalPrecedent(tm) at work here, doncha know...

Lot (he of the salty wife) sent his two daughters out to be raped by the
perverse populace of Sodom 'n' Gomorrah when they rioted outside his
door....I guess that was acceptable then, so if it was good enough for Lot,
I guess it's good enough for Randall Terry...

Of course later, after he *conveniently* got rid of his wife, he took his daughters
out to the desert and knocked 'em both up and said "oh gee, I was drunk and
I didn't realize I was screwing my daughters....even though we three were the
only ones out here..." 

There's Lot for you, one the MajorRighteousDudes of the Old Testament. 

Yah right,

JZ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49021 ca.politics:8353 ba.politics:5786
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Doesn't *everybody*? ...
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:10:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>> 
>> Isn't geography at least offered as an option in American schools?
>
>I went to public elementary, jr. high & high schools from 1968-82. I
>had some geography in 5th grade because my social studies teacher
>liked geography, or thought it was important, or something: there was
>no textbook, and it was not part of any "official" curriculum. 
>Although my high school was considered one of the two best in town
>(South Bend, Indiana), geography was not offered. ("Social studies"
>
>The only thing I learned about history in public school was that
>"history is boring." I have since discovered that it isn't, and am
>still angry about being so thoroughly misled.

That is a bummer and just plain sick (the lack of geography, not you). 
Where in the US did you go to school?
I had a 9th grade class called "Geography", which was required, and it
included learning about the different tundra, climates, and
'natural structures' of the world (for lack of a better term),
among other things.

We had a blank map of the world, and had to fill in every country and
its capital.  I aced that test, and loved that class.
Why I majored in Computer Science in college, I'll never know.
(But at least I now do international work and have a good excuse for putting
maps all over my walls....!)

I mean really!  I genuinely thought all US schools taught geography in
one formal way or another.  Is geography still taught today to kids?
Or are globes now an ancient item in schools?  This makes me want to
get back to basics in schools more and more, and scrap these 'touchy-feely'
courses...and I'm a liberal!

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Kathryn Scholl  -- Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark --
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA  01701, USA
 Internet: uvmark!scholl@merk.com, UUCP: uunet!merk.com!uvmark!scholl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dahead00@nx28.mik.uky.edu (Zippidy Do Dah)
Subject: Re: Real Change!
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:08:17 GMT

In article <37221@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> bro@elm.circa.ufl.edu (John Bro)  
writes:
> 
> Real change is rightly an election issue,  but  our  strategy  is
> dead  wrong. No president, Clinton, who I favor, Bush who I voted

(lots of useless political drivel deleted)

Keep this crap in political discussion groups not alt.sex you moronic  
toady from hell!!

Now if you want to discuss the sexual preferences of the political  
canidates (or other stuff tying sex and politics together) you can come  
back and post here...  otherwise take you useless, decaying, impotent  
carcass out of this newsgroup for the rest of your mere mortal lifetime...
We got more important stuff to talk about here... ( Say what time does the  
tv go off)......

(clever sig would have been inserted here but your'e just not wort it)


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48672 alt.rush-limbaugh:6236 alt.politics.bush:7234 alt.politics.clinton:7858 alt.politics.elections:14693 talk.abortion:39497 alt.sex:31386
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:04:24 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Bv9KLv.KA8@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Sep24.154852.21811@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>
>>In article <Bv20t2.JEx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>>	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>>>consent to sex.
>
>>Please provide some documentation for this assertion. (Hint: so far not one
>>person has shown that this is anything more than a personal opinion.) I, for
>>one (as I think I've mentioned repeatedly) do not share this opinion.
>
>	Documentation?? You're screwed in the head. Now listen. You should
>have learned this in school, but in case you didn't I will tell you:
>
>	Having sex can result in pregnancy.
>
>	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
>activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
>avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
>are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
>to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.
>
>			Bruce

Yes, I would agree that most people who engage in sexual activity know
this, and if they're interested in avoiding conception, they use birth
control.  They are still risking pregnancy.  HOWEVER, if that contraception
fails, THERE IS A RELATIVELY SAFE, LEGAL (for the moment) ALTERNATIVE.
It's really not my problem if YOU don't like it, at least until you and
your ilk make it illegal.

In brief:
Consent to sex = consent to sex
Contraception  = attempt to avoid pregnancy
Attempt fails  = can have an abortion
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy, since there is an
Alternative    = abortion



-- 
    +==========================+===========================================+
    |Kristy Patterson          | What is the law?      NO SPILL BLOOD!     |
    |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | Who makes the rules?  SOMEONE ELSE!       |
    +==========================+============================Oingo Boingo===+
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:35:45 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <BvCIDF.6MB@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> It is impossible to have a rational discussion with one who has
>> compromised his rationality in order to achieve what he perceives to
>> be a "higher" goal.  [...]

> It is equally impossible to have a rational discussion with one who
> has nothing of value to add.

For example, Dave Scharfe, who merely states the obvious here in a
curious non sequiter.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Presidential Debates
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:31:41 GMT

What is Bush doing?  If the main reason for avoiding the debates is
his disputes with the format, why did he wait so long to do anything
about it?  Is he trying to use time pressure to force Clinton to
accept whatever terms he chooses, or make it look like Clinton is
the one rejecting the debates?

There seems to be a pattern with a lot of Bush's rhetoric.  There have
been a large number of bills which the Prez publicly and energeticly
fought, only to submit a new bill almost exactly like the old.   Why?

Granted after such a long battle there might be fewer stupid pork
amendments/loopholes, but I can't think of any other _positive_
reason for it.  It positions him a little better in the partisan
Capitol politics to get the other guy to at least look like he is
backing down, but this obsessive concern for appearance and prestige
comes at our expense, both in tax dollars and in informed policy
debate.

It is rather weird to wait till now to start what could be protracted
debates about the format, especially since he isn't ideologically
committed to a particular format.

Is all he wants simply to say that he is the one responsible for
the legislation/debates/policy shifts?  Are positions something
he takes only for political gain and not for their own sake?

Is he trying to muck up Clinton's travel schedule, is he that petty?

Is he afraid that a debate would pop his campaign's delusion that Bush
can get re-elected?




-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:58:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.173710.24217@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>"If there has turned up any solid evidence that a partially
>developed fetus (like 12 weeks or less) is conscious and aware, then I
>would
>agree that it is indeed a child.  Otherwise, my fine friend, your
>posting is a prime example of fascist bullshit."
>Allow me to take this from another perspective -- has anyone ever
>proven that a partially developed fetus is NOT alive?

Oh blast, here we go again.  <-- my favorite Dr. Who quote.

"Alive" can mean:
1) performs functions such as metabolism.
2) is, by itself, a "living being" independent of other living beings.

Every single time I've seen people claim the fetus is "alive" in an
anti-abortion context, they've proceeded by getting the audience to agree that
the fetus is alive in the first sense, and then sneakily shifting to the
second.  (The word "human" seems to suffer a similar fate.  A fetus is
certainly human in the sense that you can speak of a human hair or human
blood cells, but that doesn't make fetuses people.)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Improving the nation's infrastructure
Date: 27 Sep 92 06:29:32 GMT


On the 4th of June this year (1992) Democratic Senator Albert
Gore of Tennessee introduced a bill, S. 2813, as a companion to a
pending House bill, H.R. 2772, that would establish in the GPO
[Government Printing Office] a single point of free online public
access, through federal depository libraries, to a wide range of
federal databases that contain electronically stored public
information. The Gore bill would also provide public access to 
agency databases through computer networks like the Internet and
the future National Research and Education Network (NREN) for a
fee, not to exceed "the incremental cost of dissemination." The
House bill, the GPO Wide Information  Network for Data Online
(WINDO) Act of 1991, will be considered at a hearing tentatively
set for July 23 before the House Administration Committee. The 
full text of the new Senate bill, the GPO Gateway to Government
Act of 1992, is in the Congressional Record on page S7600. It was
referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. 

A broad spectrum of research, educational and public interest
organizations support H.R. 2772, including the American Library
Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the 
Medical Library Association. Because it will give the general
public access to a wealth of government information, this bill
should lead to a more open government and a better informed 
electorate, aims which, I think we would all agree, are in the
best interest of this country. I would hope that members of the
network community will support this important legislation and
other similar legislation to come by supporting Bill Clinton and
Al Gore for president and vice-president.

	Internet:	bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu
	Bitnet: 	bc151%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
	Audio:		Ken Fisler
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|         Join the   Clinton/Gore '92                      |
|                    Volunteer Email Campaign/Ohio         |
|      Send To: CLINTON-WINS@MAIL.CLINTON-GORE.ORG         |
|      Subject: VOLUNTEER LOCAL OHIO                       |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49715 misc.headlines:6511