HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: School Choice (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 13:51:30 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa 
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug20.151250.28420@cos.com>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> In <4LZ-FrB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> 
|> >Under a tax credit system you would not have to spend one dime of
|> >your money to support a religious school unless that is your choice.
|> >Everyone still has the same obligation to support schooling, the
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >difference is that every taxpayer gets to support the type
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >of education they believe in.  I don't think most people participating
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >in this thread believe that religion class must be mandatory, only
|> >that if the parents want to send their children to such a school
|> >they should be allowed to and not also be required to pay for
|> >a school system which they aren't using.  The parents are still
|> >paying for education, it's not like they can take their tax
|> >credit and buy a car.  A tax credit system gives *every* taxpayer,
|> >whether they have kids or not, a choice on where to spend
|> >their educational dollars.  The thing that doesn't change is the
|> 
|> Gee, does this mean I can spend mine (no kids) over at the local
|> Ford or GM dealers?
|> 

Maybe you could invest your dollars in a remedial reading course.  
Reread the highlighted section above and see if that answers your
question.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2117 alt.politics.marrou:840 talk.politics.misc:40578 alt.politics.elections:10932 talk.politics.theory:3733
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: Anti-religious fanatics
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:41:16 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

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

[much deleted throughout]
|> 
|> >>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.
|> 
|> >Ah, but I submit that the people in charge of the Crusades, The Spanish
|> >Inquisition, the witch burnings, the murder of the incas and so on *did*
|> >believe that they were truely following the teachings of Christ.
|> 
|> That's completely ludicrous!  If they did believe that, then they  had
|> major  delusions  and  would  thus be classified as highly neurotic or
|> even psychotic.  More likely these people knew exactly what they  were
|> doing  and rationalized their actions as justified.  Or in some cases,
|> they could be incredibly naive, e.g. one of the lowly underlings -- in
|> which  case  they  would have been duped by `evil' persons above them,
|> not by Christianity itself.
|> 
|> No mention of the Muslim conquest of North Africa and part of Spain --
|> thus  concentrating  derision  against  Christians.   Of course, since
|> Christianity is the most popular religion of  the  West-European  Male
|> descendants,  that  obviously  heinous  and  most PI group, this is of
|> course justified.  (obligatory ;^) )
|> 
Not true.  Those of us who believe that religion has been a net negative
on the human experience to discriminate against christians.  Its just
that in an environment where the majority are christians, the majority
of comments will be about christians.

|> Not quite.  Sure, many persons wrongly  use  the  Bible  to  `justify'
|> their  ideas,  but  that doesn't mean that people have to accept this.
|> More glaringly, if you're not a Christian you can simply discount  the
|> Bible  as a source of justification.  Not being part of the group, you
|> certainly should not criticize those who claim to be part  based  upon
|> the precepts of  the group itself.  If you can't convince someone that
|> you're right, you eventually have to leave them alone and believe what
|> they will.  Oh,  but you can't do  that, can you?  Not in your nature.
|> After all, you are human.
|> 
Actually, we could happily leave it.  The problem is when someone uses
the bible to justify their interference in my life and in my choices.  The
problem occurs when the bible is used to justify discriminitory treatment
against me.

Please let me leave it alone by leaving me alone.  Stop telling me what
decisions I must make because of your bible.

NOTE:  This is not directed at Kieth.  The implied "you" is those who
would promote religious inspired and belief inspired regulationa and
discrimination.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1736 alt.politics.clinton:2025 alt.politics.perot:1292 rec.humor:26186 talk.bizarre:26196
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:37:02 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

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

Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1394 alt.politics.elections:10447 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2427
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:06:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.164058.20068@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes...
>In article <2A895785.11232@ics.uci.edu> duke@ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:

>>However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
>>decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
>>like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
>>his brain is showing through

>It just show how screwed-up the pro-life position is.  He was pro-choice
>until 1980, when he decided to be vice-president to Ronald Reagan.
>`Who else's can it be?' Of course, it is the woman's decision, but that
>decision can either take her to a hospital or a back-alley clinic depending
>on what the law is.

Agreed.  What really strikes me is that Bush tried to cover his tracks by
saying something to the effect of, "But if my granddaughter stole something, I'd
do my best to support her as well."  Funny, but I always thought that the 
bumper stickers said "Abortion is MURDER," not "Abortion is STEALING."  
Do we really think that if his granddaughter murdered someone that he would
support her choice?

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2100 alt.politics.elections:10916 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2644
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:50:18 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <19768@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>As
>a good example, in North Dakota last year a poll was conducted that made the
>news as North Dakotans Support Abortion.  But when you read the results, you
>find that only 25% support abortion on demand.  The other 75% either oppose

I'm surprised that 25% support abortion on demand, I would have guessed
it was more like 10%.

>abortion in all cases, or support it in certain cases.  The same holds true
>of the Pennsylvania case.  Most polls show 70-80% support the "restrictions"
>in the Pennsylvania law.  The overwhelming majority of the American people
>oppose abortion for purposes of sex selection, convienence, economic hardship,

Sex selection yes, convenience probably, but only a true Reagan
Republican would want to interfere in the private lives of a family if
they decided not to have children until they could bring them up in a
good environment.  Abortion as a method of birth control is disliked by
most people (I assume!?!) but the polls I've seen show overwhelming
support for abortion in *restricted* cases (it's in defining
restrictions, where we have the disagreements).

>etc.  They find nothing wrong with a 24 hour waiting period, or parental
>NOTIFICATION (notice the wording, not parental CONSENT, but NOTIFICATION).
>Abortion on demand is just that, all gloves off, abortion for ANY reason.
>The idea that a child would be aborted just because it was the wrong sex
>smacks of Nazi Germany and in particuliar, Communist China.  It's sick.
>
Agreed

>Now, all you right-headed pro-abortion (cut the "pro-choice" crap), can
>start the flaming, like most liberals, you can't handle common sense.

Most people are not pro-abortion.  If you think that people enjoy the
end of a (potential?!?) innocent human life you are wrong, period.  Did
you feel sorry for 100,000 Iraqis being killed by the American Army.  I
think not.  I did, since we know they really didn't want to be there, and
were surrendering in droves.  
Sometimes things that are unpleasant can be justified, but still
remain unpleasant.  With abortion, total bans would be worse, IMHO.
-- 
John Viveiros     (tjviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1547 talk.politics.misc:39650 alt.politics.elections:10560 talk.politics.theory:3666
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:08:26 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <9g28oB2w164w@incam.new-orleans.la.us> rj@incam.new-orleans.la.us (Ray Jones) writes:
>From: rj@incam.new-orleans.la.us (Ray Jones)
>Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
>Date: Sat, 08 Aug 92 23:11:07 CDT

>elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:

>> get my refund for not having any children to educate? Why should the
>> payout be per child? The pay-in is per *taxpayer*, so why shouldn't
>> the payout be per taxpayer also? Or suppose I want the money I pay
>> in to flow to my sister's children. A fair system should allow that,
>> right? After all, if I pay the money, I ought to be able to desig-
>> nate which child benefits, shouldn't I?
> 
>The opportunity for every citizen to be educated is a cornerstone of
>our country.  No one individual's taxes is enough to pay for any
>individual student's education.  It is only through the taxes paid by
>individuals without children (such as myself), others with children
>who have not begun their education or have completed it along with
>other taxes paid by individuals and corporations that our educational
>system can exist.  Granted, it needs a lot of repair work, but it can
>be fixed and our country would be much worse off without it.


>******************************************************************************
>"Camelot" BBS           rj@incam.new-orleans.la.us
>PRIVATE SYSTEM  	
>Fidonet address         ray.jones@p38.f17.n396.z1.fidonet.org
>VOICE #                 504-436-1826

I've been hearing people claim that 'our country would be much worse off' if 
we did away with public education or, more often,if we had never had it in 
the first place.  Could someone flesh this argument out more fully for me 
and the rest of us?  It seems to me to be the one (the only) argument which 
has any chance of justifying the public educational system; it is certainly 
the one I here the most frequently.  I thought before I launched a full 
frontal assault it would be well to give the opposition a chance to present 
the most cogent reasons on the other side first.

				(k.b.,Iwarnyou,I'mbiased)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2273 alt.politics.clinton:2340 alt.sex:27157 talk.politics.misc:40858
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:48:45 GMT
Reply-To: chf0@gte.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <1992Aug17.182041.16112@isag1.twuug.com>, gc@isag1.twuug.com (George Colt) writes:
|> 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.
|> : 
|> :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.

I admit to just jumping into this thread.  However, isn't it true that
NO known AIDS cases have been traced to legal prostitution?  That
seems to be a pretty strong arguement for legalization.

-- 
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1975 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4596 alt.rush-limbaugh:3705
From: keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Congress Bashing
Reply-To: keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: VERSYSS Incorporated, Torrance, California
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:51:41 GMT


I'm pretty tired of George's whining about Congress.

Get this George, the Congress is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
President.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?
If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
it probably ain't.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are supposed to have
carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Republicans 
just can't seem to stand that.  They keep trying to end-run around
the system.   That's what "school choice" is about, a method of
circumventing seperation between church and state.  That's what
Iran-Contra (and Watergate too for that matter) was about, you
guys just can't stand to work within the system, you have to find 
ways to work around it.

Congress bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately,
this country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so 
easily.

Keith

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.055327.21185@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>In a previous article, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>Because certain US subpopulations have third-world infant mortality
>>rates and one can pick countries that don't have those subpopulations.
>>(The US isn't a nice uniform "industrial" country.  It is a unique
>>geographic collection of first, second, and third world communities.)
>>We know that pre-natal care is the difference between 3rd and 1st
>>world infant mortality rates.
>
>Excuse me Andy, but I was wondering if you could help me out with a
>small question on terminology. What, in your definition, is a 
>"subpopulation" and what defines a person as belonging to such an
>entity?

A subpopulation is a group that has relevant common characteristics.
It may, or may not, have those characteristics in common with
the whole population.

>You see, I always thought "third world" referred to what are also
>sometimes called the less-developed countries, those without a
>_modern_industrial_base_.

Lines on a map don't necessarily mean anything.  There's a car factory
10 miles from my house, but my economic conditions may not be much
affected by it, they may be determined by other factors.

>are talking about rural areas, it doesn't really speak to the question
>of some of the highest infant mortality rates being in inner cities
>such as Washington, D.C.

DC is one of the instances where free pre-natal care hasn't had much
of an effect.  It's also being tried in Oakland and a number of other
large cities.  The experience hasn't been all that encouraging.

>>Should Bush be send in troops to make sure that it is?  No?  Then what
>>should he do to reduce infant mortality in those communities?  The
>>relevant care is FREE; should he bribe them to show up, penalize them
>>if they don't, both?
>>
>>>Why do so many children live in poverty?
>>
>>Because single-parent families are poor.  Did Bush chase away the
>>other parent?  (Govt does go after parents that don't pay child
>>support.)
>
>Did Bush do anything to foster an economy where the "other parents" 
>can find stable employment at a reasonable living wage?

No more than Congress has done.

However, poor parents don't necessarily desert their children.  In
fact, it's a relatively recent phenomena.  Did Bush cause it?  Did
Congress?  How about MTV?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1994 alt.politics.elections:10817 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2605
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:38:16 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <k9LNPB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Hmmm...does that mean there's a Barbara Bush School of Revisionist History
>also?  Given how seriously the Repubs take Hillary Clinton's record and views,
>you can't tell me that Barbara Bush's comments (which almost verge on
>pro-choice) were not planned, staged, and well rehearsed.

Hmm, seems the folks in Louisana don't really support abortion themselves.
But funny should mention Mrs. Bush, she was just on CNN and it didn't really
sound like she supported abortion on demand, in fact, what she said was that
it was a statement that shouldn't have been made, and she restated her belief
in what George had said.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2584 alt.politics.elections:11349 alt.politics.clinton:2667
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 19:03:29 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

> >> It is unreasonable to say "well, he had a plan that we didn't follow,
> >> and that didn't work, so therefore, his new plan won't work either."
> >> We don't know if the first plan would have worked; we didn't follow
> >> it.
> >
> >So, because his original 'plan' is now inoperative, that means he is now und
> >no obligation to try again?
>
> He's obligated to keep submitting year 1 of the plan, reworked to take
> into account changes since the previous time it was proposed.  Are
> you claiming that he didn't?  He says that he has, but that each
> year it has been declared dead on arrival and the demos have gone
> on with a continuation of their plan.

The problem is that there is no extension of the plan past the first year.  The
OMB has no long-term goals for the budget outside of Gramm-Rudman.

>
> What would you have him do?  Veto the budget and let the fed govt
> coast (like CA is doing) until he gets something acceptable?  As
> long as Congress won't accept his plan, that's his only option.

Why not?  He's wielded the veto stamp often enough on abortion.  If he feels
strongly about balancing the budget, why not threaten to veto a bill that will
not conform to an overall deficit-lowering strategy?

>
> >That means that the Bush administration is just as
> >guilty as the Congress on the deficit issue.
>
> No one ever claimed that he wasn't.  We're arguing about how we want
> to get out.  We've been trying the Clinton plan (more taxes and
> "investment") since the 1990 "deal"; is it working?

The Reagan/Bush years have been nothing but borrow and spend.  How is this
different from tax and spend?  What we need is substantive cuts in programs.
Bush is unable to make those cuts.  His budgets are as out of balance as the
Democrats, and he continually has wanted real growth in defense.  Combine this
with the lack of courage on his part to force cuts and we have the current
situation.

If we move away from borrow-and-spend, we stop writing checks agains the
future.  Faced with the prospect of more taxes or less spending (borrowing
removed from the equation), the voters will be forced to allow politicians to
make tough choices.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle