HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.061844.2304@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>
>>I disagree with this statement.  Majority rule is the basis of any
>>democratic republic.  The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the
>>rights that the majority agree to are fairly distributed.  But the
>>rights exist because of majority opinion.
>	Wrong.  They are guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights
>and are specifically NOT subject to majority rule.  The majority may not,
>for example, decide to establish a State religion and ban all other forms
>of religious expression.  It may NOT vote to censor all news media on the
>basis of political content.  And so on.  

Sorry, Chuck, you are wrong.  These rights were initially granted by a
simple (at least by state) majority (I don't want to go into
constitutional history but will if pressed).  Any of these rights may
still be modified if changes are made to the constitution.  If enough
Americans want the Lutheran religion to be the law of the land then they
can pass an amendment to that effect.  That is the point of democracy.
Majority rules in most cases.  In the case of constitutional rights the
percentage changes (simple majority isn't enough) but the majority still
rules.

Tim


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40828 talk.abortion:32640 alt.politics.bush:2259
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:38:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
!Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
!|> >>It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place. If men
!|> >>don't participate, then women can't have abortions because they are
!|> >>not pregnant, right?
!|> >
!|> >My most sincere apologies, I had no idea that there were so many men
!|> >out there having abortions.
!|> >
!|> >                          -rocker
!|> 
!|> The initial question involved putting PEOPLE (read: Men and Women) in
!|> situations where abortion does not become an alternative.  Since conceiving
!|> a child is a joint act between a man and a woman, then men are capable of
!|> NOT getting a woman pregnant.  No pregancies, no abortion.
!|> 
!|> So men, indeed, can help put women in positions where abortion does not
!|> become an alternative.
!
!So we are left with the following alternatives:
!
!1	The only purpose of sex is reproduction.
Well, if nature (since I guess I can't say God or Allah or
whatever) had a purpose in sex, that's generally what it is.

!2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 
As our religious and social standards have it, only in marriage is there
the committment to deal with rearing children. As unmarried teenagers
may not be able to handle rearing children, sex should be reserved for
marriage.

!3.	Sex is a sin, for which the penalty is pregnancy.  Sure puts an
!	interesting slant on the wonderfulness of parenting and the meaning
!	of "family values."
Well, premarital sex is a sin (at least in my Southern Baptist church).
Adultery certainly is.
Sex itself is a gift that is shared between two people that love each
other, according to my pastor.
	This does seem very interesting that the statement asserts that
pregnancy is a punishment, or a disease. That explains a few things:
abortion is the only "remedy" that can cure the "afflicted."
-- 
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?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:35:37 GMT

In article <BsvGA4.M14@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  I mention deconstructionism because most posters here on Usenet
>  still cling to the 19th century notion of words having fixed meanings.

No, they reject the "modern" notion that words have no meaning.

They notice the bashing that Perot got in certain circles for using
"you people" (while pointing out, accurately, AAs get hurt when
society fails and rich white billionaires don't, so the distinction
was honest, unlike Clinton's "we'd all get hurt", knowing full well
that he wouldn't) while other people can use code words without a
single mention.

They then conclude that the "no fixed meaning" theorists are really
just partisan advocates that reject any notion of "Sauce for the goose
is sauce for the gander".  Considering said advocates emphasis on
"equality" ....

If you insist on behaving as if "modern thought" is nothing more than
a rhetorical club, don't be too surprised when people treat it as
such.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:42:54 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Too little, not too much

In article <1992Aug17.132255.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>, dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
> Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
> the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
> abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
> that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
> situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
> for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
> 1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>    insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.

	Started by Carter.

> 2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
> American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
> back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
portion of society that had income to invest.  With predictable results. 
Statistics show that during the period from 1979 to 1988, approximately 85% of
the "poor" rose to higher economic levels.

> 3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
> rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
> monumental deficit in the 90's.

	True enough, but congress has been doing it for a lot longer.  And
Reagan's gone but congress is still spending.

> Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
> that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

	Read the "Derailing the Reagan Revolution" posts that start today.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40166 ca.politics:6862 ba.politics:4566
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:46:22 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11774@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> 
|> Conservative and Orthodox Judaism do not accept homosexuality.
|> 
Care to give some hard numbers, such as I did, to show this?

|> Look, if you find the Bible to be offensive to your sexual preferences,
|> fine, but don't pretend that it doesn't directly prohibit homosexuality
|> in the Old Testament.  If you want to argue that those rules are out
|> of date, say that.  But the Bible is very unambiguous about homosexuality.
|> 

It's also unambiguous about eating pork.  How was that bacon
you ate sinner?


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 03:05:45 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug13.211625.2271@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.202758.18277@csrd.uiuc.edu>
> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >
> >>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> >
> >>>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> >
> >>>>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
> >>>>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
> >>>>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that
> >>>>> they would remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or
> >>>>> granddaughter; all equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents
> >>>>> support of their right to choose.
>
> >>>> You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?
>
> >>> Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a ta
> >>> hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
> >>> the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.
>
> >> I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
> >> and that all of them are pro-choice.
>
> > Sorry, Doug, but Chris was not insinuating anything like you claim here.
>
> Yes, he did insinuate that "_all_ women" are pro-choice,

This statement is not correct.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Inflation and Carter?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 05:44:59 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

One of the speakers at the Republican convention was rather emphatic about
blaming Jimmy Carter for having a high inflation rate.

Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").  Am I
misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.  On the
other hand, I was barely sentient then and my have my sequencing
wrong.

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

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:38:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.231739.19261@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>I still consider myself to be the only rational choice for people
>who are both pro-choice and fiscally sane.

	How do you define "fiscally sane"? And in what way is Barbara
Boxer a "big spender"?

	Government spending is easy to object to in the abstract, but
when one gets down to nitty-gritty details, then things become much
harder. One person's pork barrel often becomes another person's
bringing home the bacon. :-)

	If I had to make any contribution, it would be in the manner
of slimming down some of the Government bureaucracy. Not too long ago,
the head of the US Postal Service announced that he was getting rid of
30,000 out of 130,000 managerial positions. I wonder how much more can
be done along those lines.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39702 alt.politics.clinton:1928 alt.politics.bush:1574
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:56:27 GMT

In article <BszCBt.1so@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <19294@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>
>>
>>In article <1992Aug11.180605.9290@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
>>}   Don't count on any savings on the 100,000 jobs he wants to cut from the
>>} federal government.
>>
>>In fact in his "plan" he calls for the creation of a "National Police Corps"
>>with 100,000 new police officers.  Just a coincidence, I suppose.
>
>    This is not a new idea: the Soviets have had a national police
>    force for decades.  Ever heard of NKVD?
>
Ever heard of RCMP?  The very people who kept law & order in the Canadian
West back in the old days, I suppose you want to say that the local town
American Sheriffs did a better job, isn't it?   Why do you need 
any US Marshall, DEA, CIA, SS(Secret Service), NSA, FBI?   Maybe combining
some of the above into a National Police force is a good idea?   

>    The next logical step will be the creation a "National Correctional
>    and Labor Camps Administration".
>
Who do you think is controlling the federal prisons?  
>
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:58:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

<2A83356F.17896@noiro.acs.uci.edu>
<Aug.8.07.32.33.1992.23113@math.rutgers.edu>

In <Aug.8.07.32.33.1992.23113@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott
Cromar) writes:

>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>> This of course still doesn't guarantee that a man with such an abundant
lack of  
>> principles as GB would actually do anything. But with him at least there is
 
>> hope.

>I don't see how Bush offers any hope of responsible fiscal policy.  If
>he had offered EVEN ONE responsible budget proposal, I might agree
>with you.  So far, all I've seen have been four consecutive fiscal
>borrow-and-spend nightmares.

Unfortunately this is not how the game is played.  If Bush hopes to have
any chance of influencing the outcome of budget process, he has to start
with a budget that has at least an outside chance of passing.  Otherwise
congress will just laugh in his face, go off in a corner and come up
with a budget of their own.  (Not that they don't do this anyway.)

The game is called politics, it has nothing in common with logic or
morality.

IMO, Bush has become fatally infected with the go along in order to get
along attitude that has become pervasive in Washington.  I would love to
see Bush take a moral stand on some issue, and actually fight for that
issue, knwoing in advance that he will probably lose.

The attitude of the current White House seems to be that if they don't
believe a fight is winnable, they won't waste any time or energy on it.
This is why people are starting to believe that Bush does not believe or
stand for anything.

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:51:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.195426.20499@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nwnexus!jbrindle
>From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
>Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
>Message-ID: <1992Aug18.195426.20499@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>Sender: sso@nwnexus.WA.COM (System Security Officer)
>Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
>References: <1992Aug16.214114.8647@wetware.com> <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu>
>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:54:26 GMT
>Lines: 13
>In article <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>>spending.  
>>
>
>
>ok, look who's done so much damage to the budget that our GRANDchildren will
>still be paying  it off--couldn't be reagan-bush, could it?

     It's the politicians.  Passed by Congress, signed by the President.
 
     It is simplistic and absurd to try and lay the whole thing at
the President's feet.
 
     To eliminate the deficit solely based on what is precieved as
"Regan/Bush's spending" would require you to *eliminate* the Defense
budget, just to start, and not even Clinton suggests that.

     The President may submit a budget, but not penny one is spent
without Congress' say-so.  If 2/3 of Congress decided to be fiscally
responsible, they could *ignore* the President entirely.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Re: Drug regulation by FDA(Was: Re: Private Discrimination)
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:33:01 GMT

	I beleive that the best position for the FDA is to give it
the status of something like UL or CSA where you can choose
to purchace a product that has been approved and listed as such.  
	

--
 +-(c)--------------------------+   Freedom is to the soul is what  
 | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |   fresh air is to the lungs, and  
 +------------------------------+   knowledge is to the mind.  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40951 talk.abortion:32751 alt.politics.bush:2338
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:37:11 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

>Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
>rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
>fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
>assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
>human being.

>The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
>that the fetus is NOT a human being.  If one accepts THIS assumption
>then the woman's right takes precedence and again no inconsistency is
>found.  The point is that there is no inconsistency in either argument.
>It simply comes down to which assumption about the fetus you are willing
>to accept.

>Tim

would it end the abortion debate if all the pro-life zealots 
agreed to carry the unwanted fetuses to term?  certianly this
would be easy for all the females, but i am sure that our
modern medical technology makes it possible for the pro-life
males to carry the fetuses to term.  this should make everybody
happy!!!  pregnant women wouldn't have to have babies they 
don't want and could guiltlessly give up the fetus.  the 
pro-life folks can be tickled in personnaly "saving" all those
babies.  

i can think of only three excuses for this not being common
today 1) medical technology, 2) ignorance, and 3) willingness. 
well, (1) is not a limit these days; (2) is not a problem, since
the idea has been brought forth; and (3) is only a problem if the
pro-life folks will be too inconvenienced to "save the unborn".


my modest proposal:}.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:54:56 GMT

In article <80346@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> [Airbus is #2 because of government subsidies and maybe it will make a profit soon]

Why didn't you use your own company as an example? After all, it's #1.
Or did it manage despite not being subsidized?

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:55:03 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.023553.20420@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>>How come the only solution the Dems can come up with is blame
>>>Reagan/Bush and raise taxes yet again?
>>
>>Well, unfortunately, Kemp is not running for president (not yet,
>>anyway). So how does _Bush_ propose to alleviate the tax burden on
>>the poor? Does he think they'll benefit from a capital gains tax cut?
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
>opportunity for ALL to advance!  

And now, the logical question would be, did the tax cuts do this?

Glancing through my econ text, "we emphasize again that the changes in
labor supply that occurred were small.  For example, one study [Jerry
A. Hausman and James M. Poterba, "Household Behavior and the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, _Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 1987]
estimated that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 increase labor supply of men
by 0.9% and the 1981 ERTA increased the labor supply of men by only
0.4%.  This small response of labor supply contradicts the
supply-siders' claim that the tax changes would have a dramatic effect
on economic behavior."  (Macroeconomics, Abel/Bernanke)

One thing the capital gains tax cut did was fuel speculation, creating
a boom on Wall Street if nothing else.


--
But this is.