HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NAFTA (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:12:13 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 23559@oakhill.sps.mot.com, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
 >
>NAFTA will be good for all parties concerned.
>Interestingly, the U.S. and Mexico and *already* benefiting from
>it, as companies anticipate its passage.

An electronics executive I talked to a while ago mentioned that
they were looking very, very closely at moving some electronic
assembly and production jobs from Asia to Mexico if NAFTA
went through.  Seems to make a lot of sense to me; why ship
across the pacific when you can go by rail or intermodal from
Mexico?  

Think about what Mexican consumers with money in their
pockets will buy from the US.  The US is a big capital goods
exporter, and a newly industrializing nation next door should
be a big customer.  And maybe the illegal immigration problem
will get less severe when Mexicans don't have as much of an
economic incentive to leave their homes.

NAFTA could well be the most important long-term economic
issue in the current election.  I'm disapointed that Clinton
is waffling and straddling the issue, after strong support for it
during the primaries.

 ---
Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns. 
drm@esl.com  | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:02:03 GMT

In article <37112@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
>In article <01GNTJR4BO80002VD9@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>
>> (religious claptrap)
>>
>
>I see the Perotista's are starting to return their worship to god. Maybe they
>should run Jesus for President?
>

I also see that Perot has weighed in with some comments about the GOP's
relentless bashing of Hillary Clinton, something like, "What's next? Are
they going to attack Clinton's pets, too?" I wish I had the exact quote,
it was pretty good sarcasm on Perot's part.

Maybe Perot should take a temporary job with CNN as a regular commentator
on the campaign as it develops. I have no doubt that his comments would draw
a great deal of attention.

>-- 
>Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Democratic Congressional Record (was The Bush Record)
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:20:28 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <1992Aug19.151441@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov> voracek@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov (David Voracek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.151421.26912@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>|> 
>|> The Bush Record 
>|> [deleted]
>|> 4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during Bush's term.[1]
>|> 	Bush promised 30 million new jobs.
>|> [deleted]
> The Democratic Congressional Record 
> -----------------------------------
> [deleted] 
> 4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during 
>    with a democratic congress
> 	Congress could not agree on the legislation to create 
>        the 30 million new jobs that Bush promised.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  [deleted]

I see, it is the responsibility of Congress to keep
Bush's promises for him...

Bush promised jobs, but wanted to set up the Democrats to take 
the fall for spending the money.  And they call Clinton slick...

>
>Switch the word around a little and what does it matter....
                                     ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
On the other hand, you obviously understand the reality of the
situation.

>The country is run by Congress and the President....

And a damn fine job they've done, eh?

>congress appropriates the bills
>
>dave

-- entering soapbox mode --

Vote OUT your incumbants, _all_ of them!  If you insist on voting
for the "lesser of two evils" rather than for those (regardless of
party) who best represent your beliefs, at least consider the
"evil" of the current crowd.  Can a completely new set be any
worse?

-- end of soapbox --

yet another Dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40163 talk.abortion:32074 alt.politics.bush:1857
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:24:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
#tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
#>
#>I think that you are correct.  It can be a serious crime but I doubt
#>that it would be considered murder (at least not first degree).
#>However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
#>the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
#>she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
#>something?
#>
#How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
RU486 is a progesterone antagonist. I am not sure of the side-effects,
but the fact that this drug acts against a body hormone that is key to
maintenancof a pregnancy is the major mechanism of action.
	The only problem with this is that since the thalidimide fiasco,
the FDA is very, VERY sensitive to testing drugs in pregnant women. In
fact I don't think there are any clinical trials that will include
pregnant women (much less women in general, though that is changing) for
fear of teratogenic effects (causes birth defects). The FDA is going to
be very reluctant to approving testing of this drug.

-- 
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: fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:37:47 GMT

In <1992Aug13.124627.3429@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>...[ballot access]
>> This is an assumption it is easy for the Republicans or Democrats to get
>> on the ballot.  Wrong.  The rules are the same.
>	The difference is that every election the Dems and Reps pretty much
>have a couple of parties wheree everyone signs a petition and BAM they have
>20k signatures.
>	Indpendents, by nature, have no such built-in petition power.  The
>Libertarians are still much too small to have this power also.

I believe the New Alliance party challenged a New York Democrat on the basis
that he didn't have enough signatures to enter his race.  No one had bothered
to check...the rules may be the same, but they may be samer for the big 
parties.

ben
fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Morality discussion Re: Bush on Abortion
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:08:18 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
+EMIL CHUCK writes:
+|> Michael Polen writes:
+|> :Frankly, I believe the government should avoid religious and moral
+|> :issues where possible.  The reasons behind choice is one of those areas.
+|> :The individual makes a decision for/against an abortion based upon 
+|> :religious, personal, financial, marital issues.  Your decision is
+|> :not my problem and vice-versa.
+|> 	I understand that. But morality doesn't just switch on and off
+|> from one occasion to the next. If this unplanned pregnancy happened to a
+|> married couple, why weren't precautions taken, and did you understand
+|> the risks of becoming pregnant? Are you ready to handle taking care of
+|> children should the unplanned occur? If this pregnancy happened to an
+|> unmarried couple, same questions. Abortion is an issue about sexuality
+|> and responsibility first and foremost because without sex and pregnancy,
+|> an abortion cannot be performed. And this responsibility involves
+|> morals and choices (which is why I am pro-choice in this manner). And
+|> one cannot live 98% of his/her life along his/her morals and lapse the
+|> remaining 2% without getting into trouble and risking his/her own life.
+|> 	If someone chooses to live immorally,
+|> fine; it's his/her life. But having me pay for the mistakes he/she made
+|> becomes my problem. In other words, if someone is going to get
+|> completely wasted (either drunk or coked-out), fine; but if he doesn't
+|> have any insurance to take care of emergency room bills, or if he
+|> goes out driving and kills someone while high, it's a societal problem.
+|> Not only in a personal trauma, but society must pay for the bills to
+|> bring him to justice and incarcerate him or put him on drug rehab.
+|> What you probably think is a personal decision does have major
+|> ramifications across all of society, even if the effects aren't
+|> obvious.
+
+What the hell does one person's definition of morality have to do with
+this?  You act like there is only one definition of morality, one 
+definition of when life begins, one definition of how to be a "good"
+person.
	My morality is based on people being responsible for their own
actions. (I haven't described how I've defined when life begins at all in
my posts, to the best of my knowledge. Nor have I pontificated about how
to be a good person to any post that I've saved.)
	
-- 
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?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39875 ca.politics:6798 ba.politics:4528
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon and the SF Gay Rights Parade (was Re: A Retraction)
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:34:47 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug13.151905.9013@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <63949@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
> @ Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
> @ shun child molesters?
> 
> @ Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# 
# #Did you watch the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco?  The NAMBLA marchers
# #were booed and subjected to thrown trash all along the parade route.
# 
# #Would you consider that to be shunning child molesters?
# 
# 	I saw that too when the NAMBLA delegation went by. I guess the
# Claytoon should have shown up and watched the whole thing.
# 
# 	And what excuse did he have to _not_ show up? Lack of parking?
# He could have parked at the Richmond BART station and taken BART right
# into SF for the day.
# 
# 	I think that he would have found some of the men to be very
# virile -- I wonder what would have happened had he seen some on the
# men on parade -- like some men representing a C&W bar who dressed in
# tight blue jeans and who wiggled their buns.

What does virility have to do with anything?  If they had been straight
men this intent on expressing their "virility," it would still be
pretty disgusting.

# 	And why did he complain about the "Dykes on Bykes"? Is he
# afraid that his wife might become like one of them?

I complain about people who engage in offensive public behavior,
then complain that they aren't treated very well by those who are
offended.

# 	And for someone who demagogues a lot about "Judeo-Christian
# values", he seems unwilling to follow some of the teachings of the man
# he presumably believes to have been God -- that one should love one's
# enemies, turn the other cheek, give extra clothing to a robber, walk
# even farther with a burden that a soldier has ordered one to carry,
# etc. etc. -- he has been very unloving to homosexual people.

If I have to choose between protecting a child, and making an
adult feel comfortable (and that's what groups like NAMBLA force
me to do), I have to choose protecting the child.  What did Jesus
say about children and leading them astray?

    And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
    but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me
    to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung
    around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the
    sea.[Matt. 18:5-6, NASV]

Now, I'm sure that Mr. Petrich doesn't see molesting children
as leading them astray.  But most people can see that it does.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:22:25 GMT

In article <37112@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
>
>I see the Perotista's are starting to return their worship to god. Maybe they
>should run Jesus for President?

The mind boggles at the possiblities.  Think of the rallies, the
campaign ads, the speeches!  Jesus on Larry King!  Bush accusing
Jesus of negative campaigning!  Wow!



--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Speaking of the death penalty...
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:06:13 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <64203@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com sez:
>One thing I've never seen discussed is its value as persuasion.  For example,
>if you have a group of people commit a crime, the threat of the death penalty
>can be powerful persuasion to convince one of them to testify against the
>others.

>Does anyone have information on how useful the death penalty is as a
>bargaining tool for prosecutors?

No information, just some reasoned speculation.  Execution is even
more remote than conviction, given that there's a separate sentencing
phase, mandatory appeals, and a wait of several years on death row.
It's hard to imagine that the distant prospect of execution is any
more incentive to flip than is the prospect of life without parole, or
even a 50-year sentence.

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40142 talk.abortion:32052 alt.politics.bush:1842
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 14:47:05 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <oiprc0c@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
|> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|> 
|> > Holtsinger clearly is unfamiliar with the Clarinet news.  Often
|> > three or four versions of a story go out on the wire, each with
|> > slightly different wordings, before the reporter settles on a
|> > final version.  
|> 
|> Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that the original
|> UPI story posted by Mr. Echeverri was false and misleading.  President 
|> Bush does not support a ban on all abortions, as the original story 
|> had suggested.  Bush supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the 
|> life of the mother. 
|> 
Over the weekend, Bush says he does not want the Republican platform
changed.  Therefore, his platform supports bans on *all* abortions.
If anyone wants to claim that this is not his stand, would they
please outline other parts of the party platform that the party's
candidate does not support.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Wildly regressive taxes
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:44:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.154408.29720@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>I don't think it is unfair for one to pay a premium proportional to a
>guranteed benefit - that is what insurance is all about.

How can you guarantee me that I will get ANYTHING out of Social Security.
For all you or anyone knows, it could be abolished by the time that I'm
55 (or whatever).  The whole point of the system is that we pay now and
hope that someone is in our shoes in the future to keep on paying so that
we can get out of the system what we put into it.  Personally, I'd rather
keep all of my money now and make my own plans for retirement.  I'm not
even 30 yet, and have several thousand dollars socked away for something
that won't happen for another 30 years.  If I had the other multiple
thousands of dollars that have been going into the SS system, I'd be
happier, my employer would be happier (he pays part of it too, no?),
and the government wouldn't be wasting money administering a bureaucracy
that is wildly unprofitable.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:47:55 GMT

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.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:13:36 GMT
	<FOX.92Aug15120641@graphics.nyu.edu> <Bt1C1o.1yH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <Bt1C1o.1yH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

   In article <FOX.92Aug15120641@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
   >
   >   Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
   >   the assumption that the fetus is a human being.  Although as you noted
   >   above you do not have contribute to the well being of others (actually
   >   there are many cases where you do such as laws against neglect of
   >   children but I'll let that go for now because it isn't particularly
   >   relevant) abortion is the destruction of the life (again all this is
   >   predicated on a specific assumption -  this is not a pro/con abortion
   >   debate) therefore the argument remains quite valid.
   >
   >Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
   >the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
   >the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
   >third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
   >is a human being.

   But, David, your argument is based on a different assumption from that
   discussed above by me and others.  The assumptions originally considered
   were not based on viability but rather the assumption that the fetus is
   considered a human being from conception.  Viability is also a
   reasonable assumption but it is a different assumption which means that
   different conclusions will follow.  All very valid and worthy of
   discussion but considerably off the point.

I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
another human being.  This is still true if the human being is
a fetus.  If that human being is a fetus in the first two
trimesters it will not survive without the assistance of the
mother.  If that assistance is witheld the fetal human being
will die, but no murder will have been committed.  If that is
not an argument based on the appropriate assumptions I guess
we should just drop it.

-david
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40847 talk.abortion:32664 alt.politics.bush:2268
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:36:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug20.042625.3907@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In a way, true.  But the process of getting the sperm and the egg together
>is a willful act directed by the human will.  They may come together, or
>they may not.  

But doesn't using birth control (or, more accurately, "contraception")
demonstrate that "getting the sperm and the egg together" is NOT an
act "directed by the human will?"  In fact, this act demonstrates a will
that they NOT get together.  Do you support legal abortion in the case
of contraceptive failure?

-Kristy
-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush