HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:11:59 GMT
	<193135@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> <11727@optilink.UUCP>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: cramer@optilink.UUCP's message of 12 Aug 92 21:07:52 GMT

In article <11727@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
> Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
> themselves as influence your perception of them?"

Actually, from what I know of psychiatry and psychiatrists,
the good doctor is more likely to say something like, "So
this whole matter of homosexual politics seems to disturb
you a great deal.  I can see that you have given the matter
a great deal of thought.  And I can see that you have discovered
some very compelling contradictions.  But what is it about 
homosexuals that makes this matter so distressing to you?  
How does all this make you feel?"
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.023553.20420@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>How come the only solution the Dems can come up with is blame
>>Reagan/Bush and raise taxes yet again?
>
>Well, unfortunately, Kemp is not running for president (not yet,
>anyway). So how does _Bush_ propose to alleviate the tax burden on
>the poor? Does he think they'll benefit from a capital gains tax cut?
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
opportunity for ALL to advance!  


-- 
        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40139 talk.abortion:32051 alt.politics.bush:1841
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 1992 07:45:09 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bt08HD.DrB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <16h4a9INNoqa@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>> I think most of us are willing to
>>>make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>>>happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
>>>happiness are contingent on the right to life. 
>>How can you tell?  Frankly, I think you are making this up.  I don't think
>>liberty and happiness are contingent on a right to life.   I don't think that
>>'most' people believe in this heirarchical notion of rights, or we'd wouldn't
>>have blood shortages regularly at blood banks.  Nor would we be having people
>>dying of failed kidneys, lungs, hearts, etc., since 'spare' parts come up
>>all the time, but aren't donated.
>
>Well I thought I had made this clear.  Let's try again.  Can you have
>happiness without life?   Can you have liberty without life?  Can you

Well, you aren't doing a very good job of making things clear, Tim.  You
can't even stick to your argument.

Can I have happiness without life?  I've no idea, but I'll say no to please 
you.

Can I have happiness without a RIGHT TO LIFE?  Quite possibly, so I'll say
yes to displease you.

LIFE and a RIGHT to life are two completely different things.  One's rights
under the constitution of our country are predicated on the notion that one
already possesses life.  Not a "right to", but life itself.

>>>But from a logical standpoint the right to life must take precedence and
>>>always has in this society.
>>I think this is bogus.  It does not now, and hasn't in recent years.  What
>>term are you applying to your notion of 'society'?  We cannot and do not
>>force physical 'donation' to preserve life on this planet.
>Because that endangers the life of the donor. 

That isn't true Tim.  Not at all.  There are all kinds of physical 
requirements we *could* make of people to SAVE LIVES that wouldn't
endanger the life of the donor, but we *don't*.  And we *don't* 
because we believe that the donor gets to make these kinds of decisions
for themselves.

This is merely an argument to support a prejudice.  It's a rationalization,
not a logical stream.  People don't like the notion of abortion, so they
pick whatever weapons are at hand.  If you want to 'understand' the viewpoint
of the pro-life side, then _understand_ it, Tim.  The 'right to life' is
a smokescreen in this particular debate.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:37:15 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug21.041452.27030@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug17.170312.9396@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick writes...
|> > 
|> >This claim about an increase in debt during the 80's is common,
|> >but it is not valid. Private and corporate debt was, in proportion to
|> >the economy, no larger in 1988 than in 1981. 
|> 
|> I would like to see your sources for this (really). Because I saw an
|> article from May that said Private and Corporate Debt from 81' to 91'
|> increased by 71%.(I'll give you the source if you want it)
|> 

I don't have the sources (which I would also like to see) but I would
like to point out that it is entirely feasible for both sources to
be correct.  Private/Corporate debt could have increased by 71% *and*
the amount of debt *in proportion to the size of the economy* remain
the same.


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 talk.politics.misc:39590 talk.abortion:31640 alt.politics.bush:1512
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:46:55 GMT
Organization: Houston, TX
Followups-To: talk.abortion

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

   I think it's quite germane.  If, as has been pointed out in a previous post,
   a parent can not be forced to donate bodily resources to a child even if
   necessary to save the child's life, then how can you possibly justify
   forcing the woman to do this for a fetus?  *Even if you believe that the
   fetus is a person*, you're suggesting removing rights from the woman in
   order to give the fetus *more* rights than a (born) person has.

[others' quotes snipped]

   I was just trying to determine whether your objection is really to the
   active destruction of the fetus, or whether you want to *force* the
   woman to contribute bodily resources in order to keep the fetus alive.

   Note that I'm not claiming that abortion is *not* objectionable.  Just that
   I find enslaving women a hell of a lot *more* objectionable.  *Even if the
   fetus were a person*, I would not want to force the woman (who is
   *unquestionably* a person) to continue a pregnancy against her will.

The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
take kidney back?
--
Roy Johnson, Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
and "So I guess even a sex change couldn't solve all his problems."
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Taxation/Extortion
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:16:16 GMT

In article <PA142548.241.714230467@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T.  
Archer) writes:

[ stuff deleted ]

>> In article <80656@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard  
Wojcik,snake) writes:
> >Welfare is an old idea that goes back centuries.  Most civilized
> >societies nowadays have a system of welfare in place, even when
> >they are poorer than us.  You may like to think of it as little more
> >than a cynical measure to get votes by stealing money from the rich,
> >but you give me no reason to believe that. 
> 
> Believe as you choose, but the income tax was originally passed as a 
> temporary measure to balance the budget during wartime, and was only levied 
> against those making over $100,000 a year.  Soak the rich.  Now who's paying 
> the lion's share?
> [snip]

I fail to understand how holding a gun to someone's head, taking their money,  
and spending in some way that they would disagree with is anything other than  
theft (pronounced \re -,dis-tre-'byu -shen\ by modern day liberals).  Serfdom  
is an idea that goes back many centuries also -- I prefer freedom.

___
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Let's get real about AIDS shall we?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:54:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.042922.8403@ads.com> jtn@ADS.COM (John T. Nelson) writes:

   How much money, by comparison, has gone towards treatment? Consider his
   response to the AIDS epidemic. President Bush treats AIDS as a morality
   problem rather than a desease. I guess in his view if you have AIDS you're
   either a drug user (hey this is illegal, great we cover two bases), or
   you're a homosexual in which case you should be exterminated because you
   undermine conservative, "normal", family-oriented values. So Bush basically
   ignores AIDS and AIDS research and let's the desease take care of the
   problem.  Like the homeless, just ignore them and hope the problem goes
   away.

The simple fact is that AIDS receives the second highest health research
funding level, second only to cancer, and ahead of coronary/artery
diseases.

Like it or not, the fact is that 80% of the AIDS victims are homosexuals
or IV drug users.

Why don't you get your facts straight before you run off at the keyboard?
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Phil Graham Draft Status
Date: 19 Aug 1992 18:58:17 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

I heard on the news last night that when asked why he didn't serve
in the military, Phil said he had "more important things to do to
help the American people."

In the 60's it was considered rational to try to get a deferrment.
Those that did were neither heros or traitors.  Today, however,
a Republican draft avoider is a partriot and a Democrateic
draft avoider is un-American.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination (was: Libertarians and big tits)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:04:58 GMT

In <thong.714251052@husc10> thong@husc10.harvard.edu (Theodore Hong) writes:

>You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store 
>owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name 
>begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's 
>name begins with "E").  What do you do?

Since I can't start my own store, and

>your only added customer is yourself 

The other stores are discriminating against ME, personally, even if it's
under cover of not serving E-people.  The easiest solution would then be
to have a friend buy food for me.  If I have no friends, I guess it's time
to move :-)

ben
fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40822 alt.politics.bush:2255
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:07:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
=You're so right, Jennifer! And don't forget who gave us the wonderful
=savings and loan mess!  George Bush, who said we just can't afford any
=more to help less fortunate or less able Americans, sure didn't waste
=any time finding the money to bail out those crook friends of his either!
	Oh, never mind those who put their accounts into those S&Ls.
They don't deserve any protection at all, right? That's why we have the
bailout: not to save incompetent bank executives, but to save families
who entrusted their money to them.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:49:01 GMT
Organization: The Fighting Thundercats

>If you want greater change and reform in schools, Bush is your man.

Sure. Vouchers for private schools. Great idea. Get the government out
of education....

This voucher idea is the product of all those "white flight" types
who want public support for their church schools. If adopted, it will
effectively kill the American educational system for the underpriveleged.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Disbelieving reports of atrocities
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:30:21 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	It's deeply ironic that Brian's (and other's) stance on the Balkan
holocaust is the same one taken by the western allies in WWII.  (That is, one
of disbelief that something like that is actually happening, and let's wait for
more confirmation.)
	Yet that is one of his deepest criticisms of the US: that somehow it
was criminal for the US and Britain to disbelieve such initial reports.

	Makes you wonder...

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:00:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug19.162339.23370@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <Bt8DFn.7uF@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> it lowers the stock price.  The *theory* (whether you believe it
>> or not depends on which economics deity you worship) is that
>> management comes under undue pressure by US stockholders for
>> short-term results and so tends to eschew long-term R&D investments.  
>
>Try again.  Investors who have been holding for a while ALSO respond
>to short-term factors.

  Well, like I said, whether you buy the theory depends on your 
  religion.  But a poll in Business Week last years suggests that
  American management may *perceive* itself to be under short-term
  pressure by impatient stockholders.

>People who argue that the short-term evidence is wrong and that people
>who react to it are wrong are free to risk their money on that theory.
>If they're right, they'll make a killing, and wipe out the
>short-termers.  If they're wrong....

  It's not that simple because it's a complex system (there's that
  word again!) so there are feedback loops.   The long-term enthusiast
  would argue that the short-term speculator creates self-fulfilling 
  prophecies by effectively forcing management to cut back on long
  term R&D in response to short-term problems.   

  The test has to be empirical.   How does % of R&D spending, or ratio
  of long-term R to short-term D compare between nations which provide
  favored treatement for long-term investments to ones that don't?  
         

---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39472 misc.legal:15995 sci.crypt:2896 comp.org.eff.talk:5365 alt.privacy:1709 alt.society.civil-liberty:5540 comp.security.misc:999
From: yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Using cryptography
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:27:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.security.misc
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>This is why it's slimy for your landlord or superintendent to let cops with
>search warrants into your apartment.

This is a strong argument in favor of changing the locks on your
apartment whether or not it is in violation of the lease.  In order
for the landlord/superintendent to complain, he has to admit that he
was trying to enter your apartment without permission.




-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bu
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:15:03 CDT

 Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> () writes:


|
|So you mean they say things like, "Read my lips - no new taxes" and then
|after being elected turn around and raise taxes?  Well, hopefully people
|who vote won't stand for it a second time.
|
| margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

So should I vote for the guy who did this, and then said, "I'm sorry
it was a bad mistake", or the guy who says he promises to raise
my taxes to fund spending like nobody before him?--And he calls
that a change?!?!  It's a change I can live without!


---
--David C. Adams
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:12:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) writes:

>   Although I'm not voting for Bush, I'm defending these unfair
> and unfounded attacks from the media and special interests. 
...
> I'd advise you to vote for Bush. 

Why do I think that Ray may have been less than totally honest about
his political agenda?

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40815 ca.politics:6966 ba.politics:4689
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:36:44 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug20.154755.9413@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
    >In article <ac#n28l.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>1. Clayton is a not a pig. Why do you call hum one?
    >>
    >Claytoon is a pig. Anyone who's spent any time around
    >livestock can tell you that.
    >
    >>2. You called him a lying pig. Now, in my expereince, when a
    >>real lie gets told, the person calling it generally posts the
    >>rebuttal. Those with no rebuttal just call names. Well,
    >>Marianne?
    >>
    >I realize that you're at a significant disadvantage both
    >because of your limited intellectual abilities and because of
    >your lack of education, and because of that I'll point out
    >that I did rebut his 'arguments.' Even so, how many times do
    >we have to counter his lies before he stops propogating them?
    >
    >BTW, I wasn't making fun of the right to freedom of
    >association, I was making fun of you.

You "realize" many things that aren't true. I've lived around livestock
Melinda, and I've met Clayton in the flesh, and he is no pig.

To be mock serious for a moment -- your inability to distinguish between
a human and a pig illustrates your basic ignorance of so many matters.

More importantly, your last 5 posts (all that I could retrieve all were
empty of thought and consisted primarily of name calling and deliberate
distortion of Clayton's position. I know that Clayton seriously dislikes
NAMBLA -- but I don't doubt for a moment that he denies them FOA on any
basis whatsoever. He has made it clear over and over again that he may
dislike homosexuals, but that he does not deny them equal rights in any
form.

Your continual and growing use of very childish name mangling ("Phool" ?)
and deliberate (or very very stupid) distortions of other people's
positions doesn't do one thing for your credibility.

Do you believe that it is an intellectual way to discuss issues (what you've
been doing)?

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc