HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randolph@cognito.cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. & intellectuals
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:36:11 GMT
	<1992Aug7.161653.7335@access.digex.com>
	<1992Aug11.092848.14286@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
	<1992Aug11.162314.27117@access.digex.com>
Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognito.ebay.sun.com
In-reply-to: steve-b@access.digex.com's message of Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:23:14 GMT

I was reading a Camera & Darkroom article on a depression- and WW
II-era photojournalist group.  The group ended up blacklisted in the
post-WW II red scare and Paul Strand, one of its leading members, said
something that so much echoes current discussions of our two-party
system and of academic freedom that I though it might be intestesting
to these groups.

 "We are all shocked at the listing of the Photo League as a disloyal
organization.  But I don't think we should have been much surprised.
Nor should we feel isolated.  We are the co-victims of something
happenning in the country today that is widespread and which threatens
every American . . .  I think we have to realize that our government
has fallen into the hands of the 'economic Royalists' who through
their representatives, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and
the Cabinet, have gotten control of our government and are really
riding herd on the American people.  I think we must recognize that
Democrats and Republicans now pursue the same policies so that
actually there is but one party today in the United States.  And this
party's foreign and domestic course adds up to one single reactionary
policy . . .

 "We have been picked out because we are articulate people.  The
artist, if he really is an artist, has to tell the truth as he sees
it. . . ."
				-- Photographer and left activist Paul
				   Strand, 1947, on the inclusion of
				   the Photo League on Atty. General
				   Tom Clark's list of 'subversive'
				   organizations.

__Randolph Fritz  sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || randolph@ebay.sun.com
 "Still lurking after all these years."
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:23:38 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 24642@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> 
> I  believe there is a slight confusion.  I took Bush's statement on
> Dateline to be support AFTER THE FACT.  The media and others twist it 
> around and use the logic to something BEFORE THE FACT.  There is a BIG
> difference, and I hope people see the difference.
> 

Nope, the way the question was put to Bush (and to Quyale) was if your
[grand]daugther came to you saying she was pregnant and wanted an 
abortion, what would you do.  Both Bush and Quayle said they would
first try to talk her out of it.  That's pretty hard to do if it's
after the fact.....

Bob De Guc
voter
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Train vs. plane subsidies? (was Re: Private Discrimination)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:12:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: LLNL

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug20155241@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Aug20.065031.18600@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

:<	   There is a third option: going by train. Although a train will
:<   be in motion longer than an airplane will over the same route, trains
:<   are generally cheaper, and often more conveniently accessible. And if
:<   they are fast enough, trains can successfully compete with airplanes
:<   on relatively short routes. Airline travel has actually declined on
:<   some routes served by high-speed trains like the French TGV.

:	Strawman alert!

:	Given that air travel in Europe is much more restricted
:	by government regulations and is MUCH more expensive
:	than train travel, it is specious to declare that
:	TGV "competes" with air travel. TGV is a government
:	owned monopoly, for one thing.

	The TGV is an actual moneymaker; European airlines are
probably not as subsidized as ours.

	Joseph Vranich in _Supertrains_ describes the "Gravy Plane" of
American airline subsidies in gory detail. Any serious fiscal
conservative ought to have a heart attack after reading that.

:	And I defy any train to "compete" with a 737 from
:	Dallas to El Paso, Texas....without a government
:	stepping in, that is.

	Government _already_ steps in -- on the side of the plane. It
is railroad travel that is seriously disfavored here in the US.

	If the _true_ costs were included, the train would undersell
the plane, even though it wouldn't be as fast.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40562 talk.abortion:32410 alt.politics.bush:2104
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:24:17 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>>Except, of course, where Bush's or Quayle's relatives are concerned...

>You wouldn't happen to have a reference for this libel, would you?

>Thought not.

You thought wrong, if you thought at all.

From memory, from a tv interview when asked whether he would support
his grandaughters decision to have an abortion, Bush answered "Well,
who else's decision could it be?". Proving to me that 1) Bush is a hypocrit,
2) Bush has no concept what being pro-choice is about, as he just stated
the pro-choice position while claiming to be pro-life, or 3) Bush is a
hypocrit. I believe the show was Dateline, from last Friday.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:36:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (rocker) writes:
>> = (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>>But didn'tcha know, Rocker...

>>The Y chromosome clearly confers unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge.
>>That's why we should listen and obey our men sans questions.

That wisdom shone through the years, such as how we men KNEW it was the
woman's fault if she had a daughter (semi-useless) rather than a valuable
son.

>>Similarly, all those female hormones that wash through pre-menopausal
>>women interferes with her clear thinking and right judgement.

That, and the "vapors".

>Shit, I forgot again.

See?

>Thanks for reminding me, Elizabeth.  Much obliged.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39244 ca.politics:6700 ba.politics:4443
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:20:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <183014@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
> In article <11673@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <182987@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
# ## Aside from your snide remark, you've done nothing to address the issue.  Who
# ## appointed the US the Global Policeman?  Why shouldn't the EC address the issue
# ## first?  There is nothing inherent to the security of the USA by getting bogged
# ## down in a centuries-long inter-tribal dispute in the Balkans.  If there were,
# ## why not extend that globally to all such disputes?  And if we did, what gives 
# ## us the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign states?
# #
# #What gave us the right to intervene in Nazi Germany?  Answer me this.
# #If they had murdered millions of Jews, without declaring war on the
# #U.S., I guess George Lambert would have wrung his hands about it, but
# #not engaged in such an aggressive action as to intervene.
# 
# Gee, Clayton, you're sounding like one of them thar "fascist bleeding heart
# liberals" all of a sudden.  As you are aware (I think), FDR had to jump through
# several hoops to force a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor so that war might be
# declared on the Axis powers, and Germany as a part of that trio.  The plight

Wrong.  Germany declared war on the U.S. first -- even though it wasn't
required to by the treaty with the Japanese.  Very stupid of Hitler.

# of the Jews had little to do with it; in fact the State Department treated
# Jewish refugees prior to 1941 very similarly to the way refugee Haitians are
# treated today.

I know that, and what's being done to the Haitian refugees is obscene.

# #Does "human rights" mean ANYTHING to you?
# 
# Certainly.  So do concepts like sovereign states and very messy civil wars.

Bosnia wants our help.  Yugoslavia (what's left of it) is engaging in
a war of agression against the sovereign states of Bosnia and Croatia.

# You have yet to answer the question:  Who appointed the US as Global Policeman?
# 
# George Lambert

No one.  I'm sure you're the sort that would see a rape in progress,
wring your hands, and walk on, doing nothing.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39878 ca.politics:6801 ba.politics:4531
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:34:24 GMT

In article <Aug.15.07.50.50.1992.22845@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <Aug.14.12.07.10.1992.21572@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>
>> I suspect that both Bush and Clinton did have affairs.
>
>Do have any _SUBSTANTIVE_ information to lead you to suspect that Bush
>has ever had an extramarital affair?
>-- 
Well, is Bush a Texan or not?

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stoopendous Strategies
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:56:31 EST
 <1992Aug13.162918.3444@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug17.101411.21100@dscomsf.desy.de>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.101411.21100@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.162918.3444@desire.wright.edu>,
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>... 
> |>> You will invite a unification of the Serbian cause and the obliteration
> |>> of the Serbian opposition, which still is Your best bet to check the
> |>> supplies to the partisans and the army. You invite a totally hazy
> |>imbroglio.
> |>> You invite getting into the crossfire of different groups loyal to
> |>different
> |>> warlords.
> |>
> |>	The Serbs are not united in the war effort.  There have been large
> |>anti-war demonstrations.  Units moving into Serbia are more likely to
> |>be met
> |>with parades than snipers.
> 
> Shear wishful thinking, no people greets an invading army with parades
> after they have blown half of it up. The Serbian opposition will
> disappear overnight the minute anyone starts bombing Serbia.

	The French greeted the allies with parades, even after being bombed by
them for four years.

	A sizeable portion of the Serbian population doesn't want war, and
understands that Serbia is behind the agression.

...
> |>population.  Meanwhile, teach Somalians about birth control and get
> |>the
> |>Israelis to teach them how to farm in the desert.
> 
> The Somalis know about growing food, the problem is how to grow food
> with a drought and a civil war. Of the two problems the major one is the
> civil war.

	But I'm not sure that the rest of the world necessarily would want the
USA directing post-war policy in Somalia.

	The UN is there now, and the US is airlifting 200 tons of supplies. 
Hopefully the UN forces will be able to protect the food so civilians can get
to it.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 06:18:17 GMT

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>The whole check-off thing is a puff. There's no line item called
>"Budget Deficit" that you can put money into. Cheez. Bush 
>supporters, how about it? Bogus-Not Bogus?

Bush said under his plan the debt ceiling would reduced by the amount of
money checked off. Since we already have a yearly (at least) crisis of having
to *increase* the debt ceiling or shut down the federal government, the 
showdown would be interesting. And I'm sure George would tough it out.

The sad thing is that even if it would work, the deficit at most would only
be cut 100 billion or so (10% of 1 trillion). So we would still be going
into debt at a brisk rate.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Ponderings of a Non-Partisan American...
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:16:00 GMT

There's gotta be a way to get a handle on all this...

Well it's easy to see from lookin' over the Congressional
Record and the GPO documents that the Democrats and the
Republicans are in bed with each other -- and that all
their rhetoric is just a "Good Party/Bad Party" Con Job
to get tax-dollars out of the rest of Americans who aren't
in cahoots with them.

So instead of providing a checks-and-balances on each other
through a quote-unquote, "divided government," they've really
been doin' their damnedest to take it out of the hides of the
rest of us.

This unholy union of Elephant and Jackass has produced a particu-
larly prolific progeny of Pork. Which suggests a way to see what's
going on. Taken at about a dollar per pound, the debt so far has
produced $4 trillion plus pounds of of live pork. Or 16 thousand
squealin' pounds per each and every of the 250 million citizens of
our Great Nation. Or 8 tons of pork per person, now.

So each of us is 'sposed to be supportin an overly voracious
heard of hogs, which are going to double in size by the year
2000 -- to 16 tons of pork apiece. That of course assumes every
citizen is sloppin' their own heard.

Well obviously this can't continue. My apologies to all the loyal
canines out there, but I'm sure they won't mind my pointing out
-- If you lay down with "hogs," listenin' to that same old siren's
song -- ya gonna become one of 'em.

And then all the lip-o-suction machines can run continously day and
night from now to the Apocalypse, yet no government program can
ever jerk the porcine fat from off your corpulent hide -- nor turn
your muck stained soul from slop to pearly-white again.

Where is your allegiance? Are you a just another party-pig rootin'
in the status-quo, and tryin' to pull the rest-of-us in with scams
about super-power-pork-schemes? And are you proudly marching in the
partisan parade, jerked along by your great mascot, "Unca Rich
Blimpo," and squealin' out for the Great Pig with Wings to descend
to give you suck -- while trodding down a heap of less fortunate runts.

Or are you an Independent American?

Please, leave the party of greed, lies, theft, liscense, gluttony
and lust.

And come back to stand united with the rest of US.

 /              \     |     /                                        \
(  Stephen Tice  ) -- S -- (  So sayeth the Chimp... with the Wrench  )
 \              /     |     \                                        /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:13:04 GMT

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>In article <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>
>>I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>>who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>>need one.
>>

>But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>positions where abortion does not become an alternative?

Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?

                    -rocker
                     responsible choices, those
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40426 alt.politics.elections:10828 alt.politics.clinton:2171 alt.politics.bush:2003
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
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: 18 Aug 92 19:30:51 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
[Example showing how bad capital gains tax is omitted.]

>Trading in the short term can easily result in tax rates exceeding 100%.
>What does this do to investment? Investors are intelligent, rational
>beings; they're not going to invest their money for a loss. WHat happens
>is that the tax structure pushes capital into government securities,
>underground, or overseas.
[other stuff omitted.]

This example makes me curious.  I don't really consider myself
competent to argue for or against capital gains taxes, but I've often
wondered about the long-term vs. short-term bit.  Would a capital
gains tax that differentiated between the two be useful--or
politically acceptable?

I don't mean a distinction like the one that used to exist in the tax
code.  (I find it difficult to call 6 months "long term".)  Suppose
that the tax rate were scaled so that the longer the investment, the
lower the taxes on it.  Perhaps 30% for the first year, 25% for 2
years, 20% for 3, and so on (random numbers chosen for illustration;
not a proposal).  I doubt you could ever get it down to 0%, though
that'd be a possibility.

If we are interested in investment, it seems that long-term investment
is the most likely to be useful and something like the above would
encourage lengthy investment over short-term investment.  Though the
ideal rates could be debated forever, is something like the above
feasible?  Politically feasible?  Would it work?  Would it do more
harm than good?  Just wondering...

p.s. Not sure this really goes in the *.politics.* newsgroups, but it
is tangential to an existing thread at least.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 05:25:00 GMT

In article <4722@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> As unmarried teenagers
>may not be able to handle rearing children, sex should be reserved for
>marriage.

Or stick to sex with members of the same sex.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40640 alt.activism:15093 misc.headlines:5745
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:47:29 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.091918.8901@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
...
> |>> Also Brett is rather off in the dates for the Iran/Iraq war. Most of it
> |>happened
> |>> during the movie actor's term, the one who makes Dan Quayle look like
> |>Einstein.
> |>
> |>	It started in 1980, during Carter's term.  It ended in 1987, during
> |>Reagan's term.  Perhaps you have redefined the word "off".
> 
> Perhaps you are unaware of the job George was doing at the time? Someone was
> pulling the strings, rice puddin' brain certainly wasn't. Bush was in the
> government and had an IQ roughly the square of the President's. He had plenty of
> influence then.

	George had just as much power then as Dan Quayle does today.  He got to 
go to funerals and test new slogans.
	And as George has proven these last four years, he couldn't lead his
way out of a paper bag, much less manipulate the presidency.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40882 talk.politics.drugs:5902
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: United States Condones kidnapping
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:44:01 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug16.042801.8299@ads.com> jtn@ADS.COM (John T. Nelson) writes:

>Well now the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not unconstitutional
>for the government of the United States to kidnap individuals in
>foreign countries to stand trial even though the United States may
>already have an extradition treaty with that country.

>This is ridiculous. 

Why?  For something to be unconstitutional it must violate the
constitution.  What part of the constitution is violated by kidnaping
a foreigner and bringing him to the US for trial?

>In other words, the United States can now feel free to kidnap anyone it
>judges to be a "bad boy", drag them back to the United States and try
>them in a United States court of law according to Unnited States
>laws.

Correct.

>How would we feel if a state sponsored Islamic "court of law" decided
>to abduct several highly placed citizens of the United States, ferry
>them to the middle east and then proceed to try, sentence and execute
>them? 

We would probably go to war.

>And consider for a moment... hasn't it
>already?

No.

>Under the Supreme Court's interpretation, if the United States, for
>example, thought it more expedient to torture or simply execute a
>person rather than to attempt extradition, these options would be
>equally available because they too were not explicitly prohibited by
>the treaty we have with Mexico.

Only if it happened inside of Mexico.  For example, having the CIA
assassinate someone in a foreign country is almost certainly
constitutional.  Once you get them to the states then it's different -
they are protected by the restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40611 alt.politics.elections:10948 alt.politics.clinton:2242 alt.politics.bush:2138