HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:39:28 GMT


In article <1992Sep15.160329.21856@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:


>> We now have near-universal availablility of many recreational drugs,
>> so it is absurd to say that the WoD keeps people from getting drugs.
>> Therefore, its only possible benefit is in discouraging use by people
>> who would otherwise become addicts, and then only if they don't become
>> addicted to something else.
>> 
>> Does it actually do that?  In particular, do the CRIMINAL sanctions
>> do that?  Where's the evidence that there are lots of people who
>> would become cocaine addicts, but don't because they're worried
>> about being punished, and aren't addicted to anything else either.


I'm not a cocaine addict because:
	a) it costs too much
	b) it destroys the brain
	c) it counter-productive
	d) it's something the lower-classes do
	e) it could land me in jail
	f) it could get me fired

Granted, the threat of criminal prosecution is a lesser concern, but
it is still a concern.  If one person feels this way, then (I guess by
some form of mathematical induction), there are others who would too.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:46:16 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

:You have the right to pursue that million dollars if you so please. No where
:is it written that the government WILL make you happy. Just that you have the
:right to pursue it. Don't you think it's just a little bit funny that only
:the US and South Africa are the *ONLY* industrialized countries in the *WHOLE*
:world that think health care is a commodity?

Could it be that in the U.S., people are just too independent to willingly
submit to the kind of governmental "nosiness" about their private lives
that would be the result of a government-sponsored and run national health
insurance program.  I have a professor who only somewhat jokingly made
the comment "In Sweeden, it seems like whenever you sneeze, you generate
another record in the government's files."

Of course, I'd also be willing to bet that it is because insurance companies
play such a major role in the U.S, and hence the world's economies.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'll have to check with my 
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 Dad."  -- Dan Quayle before 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				running for the Senate
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		"Go ahead; you won't win."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle's dad	
Marrou/Lord in '92
From: Dave Caulkins <dcaulkins@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 04 Sep 92 10:01 PDT
Subject: Re: Poverty
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tam:-582510079:cdp:1588800009:000:287
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dcaulkins    Sep  4 10:01:00 1992


If Fred Sears is into alternate spellings for Dan Quayle's name:

"Bush/Quale 92"

I suggest "Quail":

"To draw back in fear.." (Second College Edition, Webster's
Dictionary).

I certainly quail when I think of the very real possibility of Dan
as a presidential candidate in 96.

Dave C

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:39:04 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:
: >awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
: >>@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

: >>- "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
: >>- what is detestable"
: >>-	   --Leviticus 18:22
: >>
: >>You left out the death penalty part.
: 
: Which death penalty part?

Actually, there is no literal death penalty attatched to this verse,
at least in my version (New English).  The "force" for the command
is to the effect of "I am God.  You will do all this because I say
so, and I can cut you off if you don't listen to me."

: Hope this clears things up... can't tell you about Paul, but I believe 
: he never married......

Paul married before his conversion, but divorced when his wife could
not accept the change.  This is the basis for the one reason Roman 
Catholics will accept a divorce as non-sinful (the "Pauline privilege") --
a divorce is OK if one person converts to RCism, and his/her spouse
cannot accept the change.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'll have to check with my 
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 Dad."  -- Dan Quayle before 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				running for the Senate
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		"Go ahead; you won't win."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle's dad

Marrou/Lord in '92


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:20:37 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>P.S.  By the time you read this, they may be claiming 12 to 14 Nobel
>laureates endorsing the Clinton/Gore plan.

Oh geez.  Now we'll have to hear Bush rant and rave about "those liberal
laureates".  They don't have any family values.  Now there are some
REAL issues.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:00:22 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Distribution: usa

In article <ncmntj+.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

|> -- 
|> Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
|> (415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax
|> 
|> A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
|> the populace should be afraid of.

Hey, Crisp, how about your own record?  This is the umpteenth time I politely ask
you to please indicate the source of your Hitler quote in which you claim he said
that the first thing to do is to disarm the people.  I see you are not using that
quote anymore.  Instead, you are making some general statement now that does
not relate at all to the issues at hand in the presidential campaign.  

I really would like to know where you got that quote from.  I'd like to find the
German original.  Why don't you just say where you got it from?  That should
not be so hard, or is it?

    Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4202 tx.politics:4864
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 05:54:53 GMT
 <fjQBr*+V0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Sep2.223137.2281@news.eng.convex.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep2.223137.2281@news.eng.convex.com>, Patrick F. McGehearty writes:

> In article <fjQBr*+V0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >  The quickest and best way to reduce health care costs is to do these
> >things:
> ... some interesting ideas
> 
> on the malpractice issue, how about 4:
> delicense incompetent doctors (losing too many malpractice suits
> relative to others with similar caseloads should be enough evidence for a
> serious investigation).  Get serious about it.  Doctors should do this one
> in self defense.

Interesting idea.  However, in the current judicial system, a doctor stands a
very good chance of losing a case even though there is no malpractice involved.
So, it is possible to have a doctor lose several without actually having committed
any malpractice.  (This is especially true for obstetricians.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4319 alt.politics.bush:4318
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep7.205113.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>     If you're a fan of science fiction, there is a book that you
>would probably love reading: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance."
>No cable is necessary!

I suppose the obvious reply would be that the Republican Platform
verges on fable & fantasy, or at very least surrealist literature.
Perhaps with a Lovecraftian twist here and there?  No cable necessary,
but a barf bag is recommended.  (though I believe someone noted that
he'd like to have a copy of the platform because he ran out of toilet
paper)


--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:18:25 GMT

In <1992Sep09.230151.21511@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.191421.17961@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|>                                      What do you propose should
>|> happen to the vast majority of us who don't have the money to cover
>|> medical care in the event of a catastrophic illness?  Let us die?

>Well....yeah.  When did medical care become an inalienable right?

Well, given that this interference in the free market to eliminate
insurance would deprive a lot of us of the ability to get medical
care, it is just as if the federal government stepped in and said that
only the wealthy were entitled to medical care.

[Remember, what I wrote was in response to a proposal to ELIMINATE
INSURANCE.  Seems like something that a good libertarian would want
left to the free market, wouldn't you say?]

>|> If a doctor doesn't have malpractice insurance and loses a
>|> malpractice suit, what do YOU think he's going to do after he loses
>|> all his money?  What kind of incentives do you think that will create
>|> for others to become doctors?

>Why should we give incentives for people to choose a particular
>profession?  I don't consider it to be a tragedy if an incompetent
>doctor leaves the profession.

I don't consider it a tragedy IF HE IS INCOMPETENT, either.  However,
there is no guarantee that a doctor losing a malpractice suit IS
incompetent (juries are funny like that).  In addition, the proposal
my response was written to called for intervention in the free market
to eliminate insuarance.  This isn't giving incentives, this is
artificial intervention in the free market to create disincentives.

This would lead to many fewer doctors being willing to undertake the
risks of a 'bad' malpractice suit in the first place, and there would
therefore be fewer entering the profession (simple risk-averse
behaviour -- see any economics text; or, you can simply study the
statistics about how many obstetricians are getting out of that line
of work -- not because they're incomeptent, but because they can't
afford to pay the insurance and they can't afford to be sued and
lose).  This decreased supply would lead to even higher costs for
health care, which would leave even more of us unable to obtain it
(insurance isn't allowed, remember?).  Simple effects of supply and
demand.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.john-palmer
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:46:50 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>> Perhaps, Mr. Matrix, Bill Clinton will find ways to PREVENT wars from
>> occurring without the loss of lives. I would consider that man a real

>	Bwahahaha, yeah just like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and
>Kennedy/Johnson did, eh?

How did this people get into this discussion?  Are you saying that
they didn't serve in Vietnam either?  Well that's kind of obvious.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:58:46 GMT

In article <CKD.92Sep6184416@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

Jude G. Federspiel in a previous article writes:
>
>Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for drugs, and that no
>one would defend their legally bought drug supply from somebody
>out to steal it, possibly resulting in death.
>
>
>
>>Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for money, and that no one
>>would defend their legally earned money supply from somebody out to
>>steal it, possibly resulting in death.
>>
>>Time to outlaw money, I guess.
>>--

What percentage of people growing up with constant exposure to and use
of illegal narcotics like cocaine, for example, would kill or rob for
them?  I don't pretend to know, but I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 
would kill or rob for money, which _everyone_ lives with.  But nice try.


>>Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
>><ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
>>System Administrator| *3D0G            
>>EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:32:27 GMT

In article <farenebt.716179954@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>
>>In article <BuD5GD.IHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
>>encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
>>witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
>
>His highness Robertson forget to blame feminists for:
>world hunger, the war in Yugoslavia, famine in Somalia and the hole in the ozone
>layer. Am I forgetting something?

Sure, the other side of the coin by equally as fanatical liberals who blame
Ronald Reagan for: 

  o  AIDS (he's passing out dirty needles).
  o  Urban crime (I saw him in LA looting his ex-wife's home).
  o  Teen pregnancy (nevermind).
  o  Wealth (the country got wealthy in the 80s thus individuals
     also became wealthy).

PS. How's Clarkson's Hockey Team looking this year?

Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:56:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.204037.4477@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith) writes:

>Clinton plans to raise taxes on those making over $200K to $250K ( top 2-3% ),
>keep them the same for those making between $80K and $200K ( top 20-25% ),
>and lower them for those that make less than that.

Clinton's plan will raise maybe $15 to $20 billion (the top 3% earns about
$300B and Clinton will take an additional 5%). In fact, it will be less
than this since the added taxes will discourage the creation of wealth.

Clinton's plan promises a quarter trillion $$ is deficit reduction and
new spending.

$250 billion - $20 billion = $230 billion.

Question: where does the other $230 billion come from?

>So as you can see, most peoples "mother and fathers" will benefit or at least
>will not lose from Clinton's tax proposals.

As you can see, Clinton's plan won't generate the money he needs. He must
therefore raise the taxes on the other 98% of us to get the vast majority
of the money.

No, Clinton doesn't admit to this but it follows given a cursory examination
of his proposals. The question remains: is Clinton stupid or does he think
we are stupid?

>Please check your facts more carefully before dealing misleading information.

Please analyze your facts more carefully before delaing misleading
information.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5143 tx.politics:5169
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:06:45 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep11.222723.20772@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>What do you base this assumption on?  Clinton plans to raise spending
>by about 70 billion.  That's only 5.5% of the total government
>expenditures.  I don't like it either, but I think you're exaggerating.

It's based on what happens when you raise tax rates on the upper class
and other such tricks that Clinton is proposing.  If my tax rates go up,
I will be investing every spare dollar in the nearest tax-sheltered
investment I can find.  Millions of other upper-class taxpayers are
going to be doing the same exact thing.  That will reduce tax revenue,
not raise it.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5345 talk.politics.misc:45363 alt.politics.bush:5066
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:02:37 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <9099@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
> In <1992Sep14.142835.16612@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> >The reason I haven't bothered to be as thorough on this thread is that
> >I make it a rule NEVER to debate with rude and obnoxious individuals. If
> >somebody with more class would like to debate this issue at a polite level,
> >I will be more than happy to continue.
> 
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> I guess this means that the good doctor never talks to himself.  
> So far doc you have been the one who has been rude and obnoxious.
> 
> I guess you consider it rude for us to point out just how big an A**hole
> you have been.  It takes a lot more than some fancy degree to give somebody
> class.  I guess you aren't educated enough to figure that out for
> yourself.
> 
> -- 
> --Mark
> My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
> 
> 

And I suppose Al has been the height of decorum. :-/

Again, I suggest you go back and read the whole thread again before you
throw stones and see who started this annoying and tiresome flamefest.

I admit that the "redneck" comment was in somewhat bad taste, but the
purpose of the comment was not to be "elitist" (as was falsely suggested
by Al) but to comment on the
lack of informed voting by a large segment of the population due to
in-bred biases and irresponsible natures. Until you have lived with it,
I don't expect you to understand it.

Lastly, you are the only person keeping this flame war alive at the moment.
I'm sure other posters, as well as myself, would appreciate you knocking it
off.

Norman (for you anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:59:25 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Michael Edelman writes:
>>
>>Actually, I admit that's my big concern with all this.  Clinton has
>>some very good proposals that are worth implementing and which will
> 
>Which we never seem to hear the specifics of.
> 
Ask Jack Kemp if you want to hear the specifics. Clinton has absorbed
a tremendous number of Kemp economic proposals. A return to 70s style
rococo extensions of the Great Society is definitely not in the cards
if Clinton wins. 

-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:54:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> It's based on what happens when you raise tax rates on the upper class
|> and other such tricks that Clinton is proposing.  If my tax rates go up,
|> I will be investing every spare dollar in the nearest tax-sheltered
|> investment I can find.  Millions of other upper-class taxpayers are
|> going to be doing the same exact thing.  That will reduce tax revenue,
|> not raise it.

I don't disagree with your general premise.  I just thought your
500-800 billion additional deficit prediction was an exaggeration, and 
I wanted to know how you arrived at that. 

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton