HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csjgp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jim Pierson)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:19:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.153709.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
>
>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>     you toil on it forever!'"
>
>Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
>Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
>statement?  I would be interested in hearing.

	Let me guess; you are a fundementalist who takes everything the
Bible says literally, aren't you?  Get a brain!!  Do you recognize
'symbolism' when you see it?  Or were looking out the window when they
taught that in Eng 1001?


>     On the lighter side, there is some benefit gained by this definition
>of pollution.  Do you remember how the only way to convict Al Capone
>was via the Internal Revenue Service?  If Gore is Vice-President, maybe
>the Environmental Protection Agency will be able (or should I spell it
>Abel) to convict murderers who slip through the courts on charges of
>toxic-waste dumping.
>
	On the side justice, maybe we could prosecuting some of the
toxic-waste dumpers for manslaughter/murder?  Think about it!!
 

(No, I didn't deplete the author's name. It was anonymous.)

Jim Pierson                       csjgp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2893 alt.politics.perot:1344 talk.politics.guns:20081
From: scott@nv10.uswnvg.com (Scott Eckelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:14:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: US West NewVector, Inc., Bellevue, WA

In article <1992Aug21.145443.8017@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>
>There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
>of.

I live in a suburban housing development which has 'covenants', among
which is one which prohibits guns (even bb guns and slingshots!).  In
order to live here, you have to sign the covenants.   This seems to be
getting pretty common, at least in areas with housing associations.

However, it's really unlikely that this could be constitutionally 
enforced, since I doubt it's possible to waive RTKBA with such an
agreement.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:37:48 GMT

In article <17k42eINN20m@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.021928.21270@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>>A balanced budget occurs over time, not in a single leap from $250 billion
>>deficit to instant balance. Congress has consistently returned higher
>>spending bills than executive-branch-originated to Bush for endorsement.
>
>It has been observed on the net several times that in 8 years Congress
>passed a smaller budget deficit than Reagan/Bush had proposed. Sure,
>some of the spending bills have been higher. But their is no reason to
>blame tthe OVERALL problem solely on Congress.
>

  Blame.  Blame.  Blame.  How about we look in the mirror and
start blaming ourselves?  It is, after all, we the voters that vote
anyone out of office who proposes tax increases on us (the middle
class, where it is must ultimately come from if one looks at income figures.)
George Mitchell was down to taxing everyone over $40k by the time he 
calculated how to pay for his dollar a day "middle class" tax cut.

  We also vote anyone out of office that proposes entitlement cuts.  Since 
entitlements were 313b/year when Reagan took office and are 728b/year now,  
they are the real reason the budget deficit is so huge.  Both _Time_
and _The Economist_ have done very good stories on this.  Entitlements
continue to grow well beyond the growth rate of the economy while
the "discretionary" part of the budget (defense and domestic spending)
grows at a rate below that of the growth of the economy (in real terms
over the past 20 years.)  This is even more true now as defense continues
on its decline since 1985 and entitlements continue their incredible
growth.

  In fact, now Clinton and the Democrats are attacking Bush for mentioning
getting control of mandatory spending (just like Clinton did to Tsongas
in Florida.)  This, above all, is why Clinton lost my support.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3233 alt.politics.bush:3171
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:54:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Thumbnail sketch of why some of us do not clap our wee handies and
caper about at the possibility of a Quayle presidency: 

Assume he had never entered politics. What kind of career do you see
him in? Personally, I see him as a junior partner of a decent law
firm, kept around because of the business from his family's fortune.
I see Dan (rubs crystal ball) happy and getting a good 18 in whenever
he can. And good for him, too. What a life.

The joke about his spelling gaffe wasn't because of the spelling...it
was about him correcting the kid. Most of his other gaffes (like the
"if I had a mind" quote) speak for themselves.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix)
Subject: Re: Take Note: Victory for Bush on another front......
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:58:40 GMT

In article <01GO1DD99UCYBG1K7T@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>	Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA.  President Bush,
>as promised, eradicated  gangs from LA area.  Members  of various gangs take
>part in picnics and baseball games together. They no longer kill people, but 
>are in community service.  This is a great victory for President Bush in the
>decades long war against gangs.  Street War has been won by Republican White
>House.  People can walk in the streets without any fear of a cross fire.  Mr
>George Bush, the great President of USA after Ronald Reagan  made LA a safer
>place to live.  Of course, there are few (gang looking) groups around.  They
>have "favorite group" status anyway.....
>

Is this a serious post?  Do you honestly think that this is what happened?  The
present truce between LA street gangs is in response to police brutality, and
poverty.... So yes I suppose George Bush and Ronald Reagan are responsible.

Members of the 3 major LA projects got together to ask the question of why they
are fighting each other, when it is the police & state who are their major
problem.  They came to the obvious conclusion that fighting & destroying
each others neighborhoods was counter-productive.

They still make their money through "crime", and are still unfriendly towards
authority.

Reagan & Bush policies simply crystalized for them who their real enemy is.

>
>Vicky:
>Aug 26, UMass


--Brian Gix
-- 
--Brian Gix                       Motorola
  gix@mdd.comm.mot.com            Mobile Data Division
  (206) 487-5894                  #include <disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:16:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.210715.24108@ncsu.edu>,
   dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.175008.21615@sequent.com> 
>bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>
>> The government says "sure do your
>> research on rats, guinea pigs, and monkeys, and we'll give you money
>> for it.  But don't do any research using humans or we'll cut you off."
>
>I've seen no evidence for this accusation.  Substantiate it or retract it.
>
>The Bush administration fully supports fetal tissue research.
>
>> I'm willing to bet that were Barbara Bush (or anyone of Bush's relatives)
>> to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or Breast Cancer, good
>> ol' George would lift the tissue ban in a second.  
>
>Fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage.  There is no
>widespread program of tissue transplants.
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger

I don't think this is a real person.  I think it's a program that takes
people's replies and randomly puts in the statement "The Bush administration
fully supports fetal tissue research," and reposts it.

Would somebody PLEEEEZZE tell me how to put this guy in my kill file
with rn.  Better yet, post it so we can all know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:09:26 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep3.211952.20893@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, csjgp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jim Pierson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.153709.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
>>
>>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>>     you toil on it forever!'"
>>
>>Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
>>Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
>>statement?  I would be interested in hearing.
> 
> 	Let me guess; you are a fundementalist who takes everything the
> Bible says literally, aren't you?  Get a brain!!  Do you recognize
> 'symbolism' when you see it?  Or were looking out the window when they
> taught that in Eng 1001?
>
     Although I have never taken any 1000-level courses (I did take
700-level courses when I got my Ph.D.), and although you claim I have no
brain, I will try to explain to you what I found odd with Gore's paragraph.
     Obviously, there is symbolism being used in the Bible with regard
to the Cain and Abel story.  The 'effect and consequences of sin'
is symbolized by 'an eternal pollution to the soil.'  But, here I 
believe Gore is guilty of employing symbolic reciprocity, i.e.
he symbolizes 'pollution to the soil' by 'sin.'  Recall that the
full title of the book is "Earth in the Balance-- Ecology and the
Human Spirit."  I got the impression after reading his book that any
      ^^^^^^
environmental policy that fell short of the goals he outlined is
'immoral.'
     Let me give you another example of symbolic reciprocity and its
problems.  Let's say I were to write a book on Snakes, and in the 
chapter on Dangerous Snakes, I say the following:

     "Indeed, the first instance of a 'snake bite' (figuratively)
     in the Bible occurs when the serpent deceives Eve.  God then
     tells Eve that 'I will greatly increase your pains in
     childbearing...'"

This is obviously ridiculous, although very similar to what Gore has
written.  The serpent is just symbolizing Satan in the Bible.
     In conclusion, my problem with Gore is that he takes a symbolic
passage in the Bible, and tries to give significance to the SYMBOL.

     C. Perttunen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:55:33 GMT

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

>Bush, Quayle, et al, seem to be more interested in silencing and demeaning
>their gay and lesbian children (assuming, of course, that they had any).
>So much for their family values.

Yeah, kind of like how they'd both disown their kids if they chose to
have an abortion?

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:32:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep3.235658.21773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>
>>a.) How will it be any worse than the huge, uncoordinated bureacracy we have
>>already?  A bureaucracy being run by greed and corruption.
>
>Wowsers!  Things can't get worse!  Wrong - they can get worse.

Absolutely correct!  Things WILL continue to get worse if we continue to
throw money at the present failed system - as Bush is advocating.  Canada
would also be in the mess we are in now had they not made the wise decision to
adopt National Health Insurance.  Now consumer satisfaction with health care
is >90% in Canada and ~10% in the US.

>>Despite statements to the contrary, there is little market competition in
>>health care.
>
>Fine.  If one thinks competition would help, then advocating LESS competition
>is a strange move.

As an employee of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have one choice - BC/BS.
Some people have more choice.  Most probably do not.  Even when there is
competition, the insurance companies can work in with one another to keep the
rates up.  After all, they have a captive market.

What is being advocated is the replacment of an inefficient, for-profit
insurance system with no real competetion with an efficient, not-for-profit
system which may also lack competetion.  The latter choice would appear to
me to be the clear choice.

>
>>while ambulance-chasing lawyers bring ridiculous charges of
>>malpractice to our already over-burdened legal system. How much is this
>>costing us?
>
>Everyone who's willing to give up/limit their right to sue an MD,
>raise your hand.  What?  No one wants to?  Oops.

Many such suits initially arise from patients wishing to recover the cost of
medical treatment.  They are subsequently advised by their lawyers to go for
punitive damages as well.  If they did not have medical expenses to claim for,
the would probably not have initiated a suit in the first place.

>
>>Why not choose a state and try NHC out, fine tune it over a few years, expand
>>it to a whole region, fine tune it again, get the Canadians to consult.
>>Let's start it up and see why it don't run.

The federal government brings in more tax revenue.  Also, people could move
from other states to take advantage of the medical treatment w/o paying taxes
to support the system.

Peter Lauren.
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Consistent Pro-life( wasRe: Joke, j-o-k-e:  more!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:18:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>I never knew that about Bernardin.  Finally a pro-life advocate I can
>respect.  
>Incedentally, the other side of the quip that started this thread is
>(clumsily put):
>   Show me a pro-choicer and I'll show you someone who opposes the death
>penalty!

Clinton is pro-choice and pro-death-penalty.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3051 alt.politics.bush:2966
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: tort reform (was Re: National Health Care)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:18:03 GMT

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>I also favor a regulated commercial health care system which forces more
>market competitiveness on the system by lowering premiums and increasing
>alternative sources in the medical and insurance industry. I also favor a
>tort reform system in which losers in a litigation pay all court costs and
>return any damages due to the litigation suffered by the winner. The amount of
>awards for various types of litigation should also be regulated.

This will be difficult to achieve, though it seems reasonable.  I have
recently been on the periphery of a court case wherein the the loser
was charged with paying the court costs of the winner.  The total
court costs were roughly $150,000 as I recall.  (Actually, that is
only the "post discovery trial" court costs; the claim was that it was
clear it was a frivolous suit at that point.)

However, the judge felt that the lower could not afford to pay all the
court costs, so reduced the requirement to 10% of the court costs.
The winner is now out $135,000.

But it gets better.  The loser has chosen not to pay up voluntarily,
so the winner has to go to a collection agency which takes a third off
the top.  In the end, if the collection agency is successful, the
winner will end up getting back $10,000 after expending $150,000.

The tort reform suggested might work if all the parties involved were
rich companies.  When it's an individual vs. a company, though, it
doesn't seem like it would play.

Perhaps the legal firms involved need to be held liable also?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:09:29 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
>>> experimental stage.   
>
>> What!  WHAT!!!  "Complete nonsense!!!"  [sputter... sputter]
>> [...]
>> 
>> So yes, fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage, but
>
>Where are we disagreeing?  Fetal tissue research is still in the
>experimental stage.  

The disagreemtne is on what you call "complete nonsense".  Let's continue.
 
>> the experiments have had wonderful successes and it is most certainly
>> *not* nonsense.  
>
>I didn't deny that.

Aha! let's go back to the original post where Mr. Holtsinger made his
"complete nonsense" statement.

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes
>> One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
>> research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
>> of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
>> same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
>> to correct the flaw in utero.
>
>This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the
>experimental stage.

I deleted stuff which I am sure Mr. Holtsinger will flame me for, but the
point is that where he put his "complete nonsense" response was after a
statement about a "60 Minutes" story.  It appears as if he dismisses the
story as "complete nonsense".  So his "I didn't deny that." statement is
blatantly untrue.  Either that or he posted incorrectly.  Which one,
Mr. Holtsinger?

>                     The original poster suggested that the  
>Bush administration is not doing enough to help patients who could
>benefit from fetal tissue research.  That's complete nonsense,
>because the research is still in the experimental stage.  

OK, now that enough people have pointed out his mistake, he backtracks
to the statement that it is "complete nonsense" that the Bush
administration is not doing enough to support fetal tissue research.

>> Doug, why don't you go read the Rush Limbaugh groups.  You'll find
>> lots of your kind there.
>
>What makes you think I'm a conservative?  I'm just reporting the facts. 

Selectively reporting facts and dismissing other facts as "complete nonsense"
when they contradict your ideology, especially when there reported by the
Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy (tm).  Yup, you'd fit in just fine.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:19:21 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <2SEP199211335673@gergo.tamu.edu>
dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
>As for "who died", I could care less. It wasn't my war, it wasn't
>America's war, and those who were ignorant enough to march silently into
>death because they were told to are not my problem.

Well, Dave, your empathy truly impresses me.  I wonder what you thought
about Iraq and Kuwait, then?  They too were not America's war nor your
war.  Clinton now claims that he was totally behind the Desert Shield/Storm
maneuvers (at the time he was not, but that is another topic).  Is he
your idea of someone who is not ignorant?  Remember Jimmy Carter, who was
totally against the Gulf War - yes the same Democratic Governor-turned-
President who also said after the Russians invaded and butchered
Afghanistan, "They (the Russians) really let me down.  I am very surprised
that they did this. I now wonder just who you can trust."

The truth is that in avoiding armed conflict at any cost, you sometimes
yield a much more costly (in human loss) conflagration.  Vietnam is now
recalled with dishonor by the likes of you.  If you choose to belittle
those who went and fought, and yes occasionally died, for that cause,
that is your prerogative.  I will simply warn you that, with Bill Clinton
as Commander-in-Chief, you will see many more dangerous conflicts than
with a strong President who did not hide under his Uncle's skirt while
others bravely obeyed their commander.  Before Bush and Reagan, the soviets
were strong and had taken over Afghanistan, and had strong influences in
South and Central America.  These are not true now, and you owe it to
Bush and Reagan, not any Democratic president nor to the left leaning
Democratic Congress and Senate.  Now that international affairs are in
order, relative to the Carter years for example, people tend to focus
on domestic problems.  I for one do not want a return to Democratic
international bumbling.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush