HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:32:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.195125.7053@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>,
fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>
>>The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
>>role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
>>consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
>>answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
>>individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own
>>determination for the rest of her life.
>
>How then, would a libertarian have acted during the days when slavery
>existed in the United States? Isn't justice a legitimate interest of the
>government?

Well, this libertarian would have been working for the underground
railroad.

/June
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:06:27 GMT
Organization: NASA

Roger Collins writes
> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
> |> The cure for a needed program with problems is not the elimination of that
> |> program, despite that being what Reagan's evil minions have tried to make
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> us believe for twelve years now. The cure is to make it *work*.
> 
> Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
> wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
> disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
> never heard the term religious left?

  Perhaps this is because "religious left" doesn't roll off of the tongue as  
well; the alliteration just isn't there.  :-)  Alternatively, maybe we'd start  
hearing about the "religious left" if they asserted themselves as a political  
force.  As it stands, most liberal Christians prefer to accomplish their  
mission through direct action rather than government control.

  You seem to be implying that organizations (or individuals) that carry a  
religious label are necessarily more "moral" than those who don't.  There are  
many liberals who find the modern juxtaposition of Christian values and  
conservative politics to be quite ironic.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Blinks
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:32:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


	Stever comments:

==>  Maybe Clinton will show up and debate an empty chair.  Bring back any
==>memories?  :-)

	What's the difference?

	The chair would be just as empty if Bush was sitting in it.

	BTW, Clinton has stated that he WILL be there, Bush or not. For
those interested, the "debate" (which Clinton agreed to in JUNE, btw) will
be on the MSU campus in E. Lansing, MI.

	Anybody notice how cocky Buch was about the debates when Dan Rather
interviewed him last night? Looks like his desire to irritate his opponent
is a LOT stronger than his desire to respond to the American people - most
of whom feel that the debates (as structured by the bi-partisan committee)
are both reasonable and desirable.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:46:10 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) writes:

: Let me do the math:
: 
:             $177,000 per patient per year
:          x 3,000,000 patients
:         ==================================
:            531 billion dollars per year
: 
: Isn't this roughly one-third of the entire federal budget (in the ballpark
: anyway)?
: 
: Who is going to be willing to and able to pay for this?

The American taxpayer, if the national health insurance plan some
folks want ever comes to pass....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                    

Cthulhu in '92.  Why vote for the lesser evil?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: The Electoral Applause Meter
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:02:29 GMT

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>After watching Larry King's town meeting in Wichita last Sunday, I wonder
>>about Kansas. There were thousands of people assembled in a domed arena,
>>and I doubt that the crowd was totally "stacked" with partisans one way
>>or the other. Anyway, the crowd was definitely pro-Clinton. [...]
>
>	"Stacked" or not, I can't see why you would assume that the
>audience was an representative sample of Kansan voters.  

Well, I did say I *wondered* about KS. Maybe more Democrats show up at
an event like this, I don't know. Even that would say something about the
enthusiasm of Bush support though. Heck, even those who vote on Nov. 3
are not a representative sample. Who will be motivated to vote that day?

>>King's panel had one die-hard supply-sider Congresswoman from Kansas who got
>>booed off the stage every time she tried to utter "family val..." BOOOOO!,
>>"homosex..." BOOOOO!, or "morali..." BOOOO! Kansans are not willing to be
>>diverted from the real issues on their minds with this Bush campaign pap. 
>
>...if the Member of Congress was such a "die-hard supply-sider," then why was
>she not speaking about economics (i.e. assuming that she is a Republican,
>why did she not attempt to explain why Bush has strayed away from supply-
>side models into a modified Keynesianism?  

I mentioned the reaction to her "family values" type comments because that
got the most rise out of the audience. On economic issues, the response
was typically dead silence. One person after another enumerated their
economic woes, and all she could say was all we need is less government
and everything will turn out OK.

>>When Larry King asked the crowd to applaud if they are going to vote for 
>>President Bush, there was some moderate applause. When asked who would 
>>support Governor Clinton, the applause was enthusiastic and clearly in 
>>the majority. The Congresswoman got flustered and exclaimed something 
>>like, "Well, you... you can vote for him, but he's going to take this 
>>country down the tubes!"
>
>Maybe from now on, we should choose our Presidents with Applause Meters.

Votes by acclamation can save a lot of time in lopsided elections.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12792 alt.flame:12715
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:15:35 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <92254.152550MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter)
>Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
>Date: 10 Sep 92 19:25:50 GMT

>In article <1685EB8C1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
>(Michael Edelman) says:

>>In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>>bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:

>>>     [...]
>>>Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>>>might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush!
>>>Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>>>Well...nothing.  :)

>>Speaking of clueless! That's the centerpiece of the revisionist 80s
>>history, isn't it? Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic
>>boom in the nation's history-> ergo we will assert it didn't really exist.

>"Well, if you'd let me write $300 billion in hot checks every year,
> I could give you the illusion of prosperity too!"
>   -- Lloyd Bentsen, '88 vice-presidential debate.

>We'll be paying for Reagan's alleged boom for the rest of our lives, thank you.

Congress.  Congress.  The president doesn't make bills or write checks
thank-you-very-much.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN AND LIBERTARIAN PLATFORMS COMPARED
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:38:58 GMT

In article <ds1y4mc@rpi.edu>,
buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>
>>The only candidates running in all 50 states (plus DC)
>>are (alphabetically):
>
>>       Pres. George H. W. Bush         (with V.P. J. Danforth Quayle)
>>       Gov. William Clinton            (with Senator Albert Gore)
>>       Rep. Andre V. Marrou            (with Dr. Nancy Lord)
>huh? i thought the Fulani/NAP crowd were on the ballot in all 50 states. They
>were in 1988, anyway.

Nope, NAP has concceded that they will not make the ballot in all
50 states this year.  They've already missed the deadline in a
number of states.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:44:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:

>	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>votes.  You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>statistically insignificant (much smaller than the margin of error).  With
>a sample of 800-1500 Marrou might get 5 or 40 supporters, and statistically
>the numbers would be the same.
>
>	-JG
>
     That's OK.  Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
quick.  But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
few have *heard* of him.  (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
We *are* living in a country where a significant portion of the population
think that the major parties are the *only* parties.
     Hell, Ross Perot was said to be starting "a third party."

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:02:43 GMT

I guess my biggest beef with Bush recent turnarounds in policy is
where they are announced.  They aren't brought up for discussion as
to whether they are good ideas before they are implemented, and the
fact that the administration _opposed_ the gifts previously is omitted.

In the case of farmers, how honest is it to have an export subsidy if
your intent is to "trim the budget", which could easily include cutting
current farm subsidies.

Bush makes major changes in policy without explaining them ahead of time
or listening to advice from the other party.

Bush is a sinister version of Santa Claus.  "He knows when you are sleeping,
he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good etc..."

Bush's current definition of good and evil, (now that the Evil Empire is
no more)
Evil:  Democrats, people who disagree with traditional lifestyle, people
who don't vote for him.
Good:  Good Ol' American Values (tm)  A program he can take credit for.

Essentially he is wielding the Federal Budget as a sword over the head of
the States.  Each State is being told, subtly, "If you vote for me, you
get money.  If the polls are close you get money.  But if you dare to
criticize me and embarass me, and poll two to one against me I'll pull
every bit of aid you have already into 'Spending Cuts Needed to Balance
the Budget'."

This reminds me of a Roman Emperor with his legions, letting the provinces
go to hell to ward off a challenger.



-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13214 talk.politics.misc:45633
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:13:25 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


> When he dropped out, he hurt Bush by citing the "revitalized Democratic Party"
> as his reason. His supporters went disproportionately to Clinton. If he
> re-enters, and continues to go easy on Clinton while lambasting Bush, then
> it seems to me, he will disproportionately attract would-be Bush voters,
> especially in Texas. Who knows how he'll really play it though? Maybe he's
> looking for deals.

I don't buy that, in reality I don't think Perot will matter either way. 
How can you trust a man who backs down and quits after a couple of hits 
from the press.  The big question in Arizona is will he get on the ballot?
 
> Yeah, and Clinton will hit hard back if he drops in the polls. Possible
> themes: TV images of a vacant lot in Texas, savings and loans. Should be 
> interesting to see how it comes out. 

Look for TV images of chicken farms and rivers, rebroadcasts of the Clinton-
Flowers tape, images of Bush being rescued by the submarine, Al Gore and 
the environment.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12933 talk.politics.misc:45052 ca.politics:7685 alt.politics.correct:5283
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:48:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org>
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>
>The posts regarding the libertarian attitude toward Dueling and Gladiator
>contests was very interesting. My assessment is that libertarians seem
>not to find anyting in the tenants of libertarianism that would make
>such events illegal. However, it seems that many of them seem a bit
>uncompfortable with the thought of them being legal.
>
>To take the case one step futher.
>
>Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely
>stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund
>for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
>is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
>
>Would this be legal in a libertarian world.

     These scenarios are getting progressively more grim...

     A pure libertarian would say, yes.  The Mother's life is hers to
do with as she pleases.  I am not a contracts expert, but it occurs to
me that the mother may have at least an implied contractual obligation
previously with her children.
     If I had any money to help, and was aware of the situation, I would
certainly do my best to assure she never had to go to this ... extreme.
Unfortunately, I think that there is a nebulous point beyond which
ture libertariasm can't really function because people, or perhaps I
should say no everybody, is built right.  We're too short-sighted.
      Anyway, from a legal standpoint the answer is yes.  From a social
standpoint I would certainly hope the answer would be no.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:39:30 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>Wasn't it just the other day the Bush administration was condemned for
>taking *two* *entire* *days* to ship a few planeloads of supplies to
>florida? And there, he had to deal with Democrats. Iranians should be
>trivial.

I think that most people don't have much of a problem understanding
why we need to help disaster victims quickly.  
Trying to equate the two is silly.

>>    So why was Reagan in such a big hurry to ship arms for supposedly
>>    longer term goals of improving relations with "moderates"?
> 
>If you take the giant leap of faith and accept that the new administration
>was in "a big hurry". What would you have recommended? Waiting another two
>months? How long a delay would it take for you to not see some evil cabal
>at work? What's the critical delay that denotes suspicious behavior?
> 
>So the entire "surprise" case now rests, for the critic quoted above, on
>one damning fact: The arms shipments were made "too quickly".

All you talked about was "how" they could ship arms quickly.  You still haven't
given a plausible explanation of "why".  And no, the entire case
does not rest on one damning fact, it is still one of many.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:08:24 GMT

In article <92254.152550MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
 
>
>"Well, if you'd let me write $300 billion in hot checks every year,
> I could give you the illusion of prosperity too!"
>   -- Lloyd Bentsen, '88 vice-presidential debate.
>
>We'll be paying for Reagan's alleged boom for the rest of our lives, thank you.
Apparently we have here yet another person who doesn't understand that you    c
can't use absolute amounts to compare debts values between a $2Billion
economy and a $7 Trillion economy. At the end of WWII we had a debt that
was nearly THREE TIMES the size of the 1990 debt. Got that? *3* times as big.
It was in the neighborhood of 120% of GNP. Now, following the above attempt
at a logical conclusion, it should take about three lifetimes to pay that
debt off- and yet in a very few years it had shrunk by approximately 70%.
 
Total government spending in the 70s was 19.4% of GNP. In the 80s it was
2.4% of GNP. That's not enough to bankrupt the nation.
 
If Bentsen's arithmatic was correct, then Dukakis' regime in Massachusetts
should have resulted in a boom economy rather than the nightmare it was.
 
The revisionists are postulating a sort of simpleminded Keynsian model
in which the government pump-primes the economy by massive spending, which
was the favored economic tactic of the Democrats throughout the 60s and the
Carter era, which in turn makes you wonder why they suddenly don't care for
it anymore.
 
Regardless, it doesn't hold water. The great increase in government spending
during the 80s was in non-defense spending, which went up from 21.1% of
GNP to 23.7% of GNP, the bulk of it in entitlement payments. Defense spending
increased only 0.6% of GNP during the "greatest peacetime military buildup
in history". These entitlement payments didn't stimulate the economy. What
aided growth was something that's not in the Democratic platform: A consistent
policy, low inflation, and the market's confidence in that policy as shown by
the low long-term rates of the time. Just compare the Treasury bond yeild
curves of the 80s with those of today. You'll see a marked difference in the
long term trends, notably the upward acceleration in the long term rates.
 
It really shouldn't be necessary to keep reprinting these data, but as long
as there are those who haven't seen them or don't understand them I
suppose it is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Silly Season '92
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:25:11 GMT

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>This quote seems applicable to the current debate(s):

>For a long while before the appointed time has come, the [presidential]
>election becomes the important, and so to speak, the all engrossing topic
>of discussion. Factional ardor is redoubled, and all the artificial
>passions which the imagination can create in a happy and peaceful land
>are agitated and brought to light. The President, moreover, is absorbed
>by the cares of self-defense. He no longer governs for the interest of 
>the state, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority,
>and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands, he frequently
>courts its worst caprices.

>As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of
>the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each
>of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glows
>with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of the press,
>the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every
>action, the sole interest of the present. It is true that as soon as the
>choice is determined, this ardor is dispelled, calm returns, and the
>river, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usual level, but
>who can refrain from astonishment that such a storm should have arisen?

>                                            Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835 

Is this from his book, "Democracy In America?"

De Tocqueville really had a knack for timeless truths such as these.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12765 alt.flame:12702