HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.003751.6250@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>Instead, Clinton is proposing universal coverage by having employers
>cover their workers or pay into a national pool of funds to cover
>those that aren't covered otherwise.

Fine.  How many of those employers are going to lay off people to pay
those costs?  If that number is large, the program enters a death
spiral.

>He also wants to do something do
>stop the runaway prices on medicine and medical procedures.

"Do something"?  Yipes!

Unless the costs go down by more than the amount necessary to cover
the uncovered, there's no overall saving possible.  The National
Health Care advocates have been claiming that we'd save money, but
their argument has been that other countries spend less, ignoring
demographics and other differences.  (How much do lawyers suck out of
the Canadian system?  US National Health Care need not affect that,
but if it doesn't ....)

Of course, we're just arguing about shifting money around.  Money we
spend on health care is money we don't spend elsewhere.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40210 ca.politics:6873 ba.politics:4584
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:58:25 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <3z9mqsh.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Now, how many, say, straight groups do you know that "need" to
|> use a company's facilities to announce their sexual preference and
|> (I assume) seek approval?
|> 
Hey, captain clueless, when was the last time you saw a straight couple
getting beaten with baseball bats for walking down the street holding
hands?

-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40498 misc.legal:16128
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Speaking of the death penalty...
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:21:04 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

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

Evidence obtained by extortion is hardly reliable.
Of course, most DA's are concerned with getting
people convicted, not with justice....

jari
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: No nude Texans!  err  No new taxes?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:07:32 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.131518.10146@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> From the Minneasoplis Star Tribune, Wed, Aug 19, 1992, p9a:
...
> 	The Democrats were back up to their irreverent behavior
> 	this week, when former Texas agricultural commissioner
> 	Jim Hightower sponsored a "rolling thunder Texas Bushwacker"
> 	tour that rolled by the Houstonian and went on to the
> 	$79,000 Bush retirement lot at 9 West Oak Lane South.
> 
> 	"The overall message is that the rich are different than
> 	you or me - they don't pay taxes," said Hightower from
> 	under his white straw cowboy hat.  "Bush passes through
> 	Texas to bypass taxes."

	Well, you see, that's the whole problem.  Bush never said "no new
taxes", he said "no nude Texans".

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.002117.980@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> Rights in the United States are based on the COnstitution of the United
> States.  This was not a democratically arrived at document, but the
> product of rather an elite group of the landed gentry.  

That's funny, I always thought the preamble to the Constitution said
"We, the people...", not "We, the elite group of landed gentry....". 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41012 bit.listserv.politics:12262
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 00:37:23 CDT
From: Brady Woodward <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Bush Interviewed On Atheism

From Free Inquiry v. 8 #4 (1988) (page 16)

"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush.  The Republican
presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for
Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential primary:"

   Reporter for the American Atheist magazine, Rob Sherman:
        "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
        atheists?"

   George Bush: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.
        Faith in God is important to me."

   RS: "Surely your recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
        Americans who are atheists."

   GB: "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
        nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

  RS:  "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of
       state and church?"

  GB:  "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not very
       high on atheists." --GALA Interim
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39282 ca.politics:6713 ba.politics:4450
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 23:09:29 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> 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?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:40:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug16.232004.7374@news.columbia.edu>  egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.223221.32852@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <Bt3EtF.Ct2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) wri
> >>
> >> No, Larry, you can't be charged in the cases you give examples of but
> >> you certainly can be charged with negligence (even the negligent
> >> treatment of animals) depending on the circumstances.  For example, when
> >> parents refuse to provide food for their children they can be (and
> >> sometimes are) guilty of neglect.
> >
> >Are there any cases in which a person can be charged for refusing to
> >provide bodily resources (e.g., blood, bone marrow, organs) to another?
> >Even if it's a parent/child relationship?
>
> "The courts have long held that parents cannot be compelled to take
> actions to benefit their children's health.  In two key cases, the
> courts refused to force a father to donate a kidney to his dying child
> and declined even to make parents move to a new climate to aid their
> ailing child.  'To compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of
> his body would change every concept and principle upon which our
> society is founded,' the judge wrote in one such decision.  'To do so,
> would defeate the sanctity of the individual.'" (Susan Faludi,
> _Backlash_, p.432.  She cites Johnsen's "Creation of Fetal Rights,"
> pp.615-7.

Actually, it was a rhetorical question, but thanks for the documentation.

> Also, I believe IUDs cause the fertilized egg not to "stick",
> though there are some nasty side effects for such devices.

There *can* be, which is what's given them a bad reputation, but I know
a number of women who have been using them for many years with no problems.
Check with your doctor for details.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39080 ca.politics:6671
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Jeff Dauber's posting on NAMBLA
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:47:32 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11709@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>It's an important distinction.  For quite a while, I would be told,
>"Homosexuals oppose child molestation."  When I tried to pin them
>down to, "Should adults have sex with children?" the responses 
>quickly turned into, "That's not molestation!"

You are attacking my choice of terms, not the content.

I am against sex with pre-pubescent children in any situation (as is almost
every other homosexual I know).

I am not against consensual sex with adolescents.


I think there is a difference.


Is that clear enough for you clayton?





FWA
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 12 Aug 1992 18:52:04 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <10948@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
|> In article <l82ic8INNlrd@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> Please reject.  The rest of us would rather focus on how we can get better
|> |> results from our government for less money.  If I get an infection in my
|> |> finger, I try to fix it, not amputate it.  Government is the same way.
|> 
|> And when the finger has been infected so long that it is gangrenous??  Or would
|> you wait until the whole body was beyond saving before you would take action??
|> The government in this country is far beyond the simple infection state.
|> 
|> bill
|> 
This is complete opposition to the majority of the posts supporting school
choice.  They suggest that having school choice will give the public schools
a chance and a reason to improve.  That would suggest they are not
gangrenous, just very ill.

Amputation is used when traditional therapy doesn't work.  We haven't begun
to try traditional therapy on fixing the schools.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:00:40 GMT

In <16efimINNkgk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.183438.25997@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
>>and that all of them are pro-choice.  
>>
>>Doug Holtsinger

>After about 5 of these sillinesses, I gotta wonder:

>Doug, don't you think it's pretty damned narcissitic of you to figure 
>all women don't think?

Why all this either/or talk?  Either all women think alike, or none of
them think pro-choice thoughts?  No middle ground?

>Women don't need Mr. Bush's opinion, and they don't need Chris's, and they
>truly don't need yours.  Rather than bash Chris, why not figure out what 
>pill *you* are pushing and give it a rest, eh?

>Adrienne Regard

By the way, Ms. Regard, did you miss all my replies to your July posts,
and my own July posts?

Peter Nyikos



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39143 alt.individualism:5220
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Amputation (Re: Libertarianism vs. Government)
Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:28:52 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

The Chipmunk) writes:
|> Written in article <l82ic8INNlrd@spim.mips.com>
|>  by mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen):
|> 
|> : In article <BsJLpw.ICq@well.sf.ca.us>, dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton 
|> :    Sherwood) writes:
|> :|>
|> :|> How about this?  You can reject police "protection", and not pay.  But
|> :|> inability to pay doesn't count as rejection; rejection must be affirmative.
|> :|> Rejectors would get a special card to flash that relieves them of paying
|> :|> sales taxes....
|> :|>
|> :|> Rejectors (and those with whom they are doing business at the time) also
|> :|> can't be busted for vice, zoning violations, doing business without a
|> :|> license or the like.
|> 
|> : I love your idea.  It is exactly what we have today.  "Inability to pay" is
|> : handled by our graduated income tax schedules and the sharing of property
|> : taxes through rental rather than buying.
|> 
|> This is a stupid remark.  It is absolutely nothing like what we have
|> today, and you know it.  If you reject based on inability to pay, or
|> whatever reason, you still can be busted for vice, etc.

I did not relate inability to pay, you didn't read the next paragraph.
I said that inability to pay is not rejection, it is inability to pay.
We today protect those people through graduated taxing and social programs.
Only the financially solvent are in a position to reject.
|> 
|> : Rejection is today met by people
|> : that decide to go somewhere else that has a political system they like
|> : better.
|> 
|> "Love it or leave it" arguments return to the fray.  As much as I
|> realize this is probably asking too much, let's do please leave the
|> discussion at some intelligent level.
|> 
Based upon the original post from (I think) Anton, rejectors would have
to forgo the protections others are paying for.  My example is to forgo
the protection against murderers.

We do not allow people to voluntary decide they don't need police protection
and therefor stop paying for it.  I don't want to, and don't think many
people want this.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:48:25 GMT

In article <11781@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]In article <l8lkevINNrno@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
]] In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]# #In any case, both Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear
]# #prohibitions on homosexuality.
]# 
]# They have pretty clear prohibitions on LOTS of things.  I had a ham
]# and pineapple and cheese calzone for lunch today, and I've got a
]# cotton-and-linen sweater that I wear around work when it is too cold.
]# By a literal reading of Leviticus, I'm in a seriously sinful state,
]
]Yup.  The New Testament is not similarly limited.  It contains its
]own prohibitions on homosexuality, separate from the Levitical
]code.
]

Ah, but then you've got to revise your claim that the
_Judeo-Christian_ tradition completely condemns homosexuality -
because it's only the Christians that have the non-Levitical code that
you're invoking.

	<MC>


-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "There is no such thing as a problem 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  seek problems because you need their 
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:44:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> IMO, Bush has become fatally infected with the go along in order to get
> along attitude that has become pervasive in Washington.  I would love to
> see Bush take a moral stand on some issue, and actually fight for that
> issue, knwoing in advance that he will probably lose.

My point exactly.

I have yet to see any evidence that Bush is at all repentant.  If he
is willing to stand up for real budget cuts, now is the time to say
so--and specify which cuts he favors.  If he isn't willing to go to
the mat for his supposed principles, what good are they?

I'll go so far as to say that if he proposes real cuts before election
day, I'll become a Bush supporter.

As for the complicity of Congress in passing these fiscal nightmares,
my personal motto for the 1992 election is "when in doubt, throw them
out."  My question is: "what have you done to promote real fiscal
reform?"  If the answer amounts to symbolic support of the BBA or some
other such tripe, they're out.

--Scott
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:26:00 GMT
	<1992Aug20.160827.13408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug20.181232.23398@kadsma.kodak.com>
	<1992Aug21.144742.23278@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com's message of 21 Aug 92 14:47:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.144742.23278@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

> Criticizing Jess Helms for doing what the NEA has *always* done -
> decide to fund some art, while declining to fund other art -
> is hypocritical.

	The DIFFERENCE is that the NEA decisions are not based on
the content of the art.  If there is to be freedom of speech AND
publicly funded art then it is incumbent on the government, as a
proxy for the public, to NOT make funding decisions on content.

> Liberals don't disfavor Government selection of art. Rather,
> they are opposed to Helms' attempt to base that selection on whether
> the art is pornographic or not.

	The thought is correct, the wording is biased.  Jesse
Helms may think the art is pornographic, but the Supreme Court
has ruled otherwise.  Liberals are opposed to government
controlling the political content of the art - in effect turning
the art into propaganda.  Mr. Helms has no such qualms.

> Personally, I think we would be better off *without* the NEA.

	That is another discussion altogether.

				--Jeff Turner

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39178 talk.abortion:31394 alt.politics.bush:1284
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:03:15 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
                                                                    ^^^^^^^
>dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>platforms.

	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
abortion?

	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
what is???

/Loren
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Election Reform Idea
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:27:16 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug21.151731.4075@noao.edu> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>
>   Many of us are dissatisfied with our choices for President this 
>election.  Consider for a moment how we might revamp the system to
>truly give us a "Choice".

			[Details omitted.]

There are many major problems with this.  One of them is that it totally
violates the right of free speech.

But more than getting a choice, we need to eliminate the politicians.
One way to attempt to do this would be to pay legislators little as
legislators, but provide their expenses, and ensure that they could
be productive individuals while being in the legislatures.  This should
include Congress.  The require that a candidate for President other
than a sitting President not have been a full-time politician for 
the previous five years; this would exclude governors.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Clark University
Date: 19 AUG 92 21:58:49 GMT

In a previous article, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) wrote:
>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
> 
>> I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>> wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.
> 
>Only if the newborn _died_, Wes.  Up to that point, the usual
>charge is child neglect.

So can we charge George Bush with neglect?  He is willfully withholding 
medical treatment from human beings with Parkinson's disease, diabetes and 
other painful and deadly conditions.  

He knows that fetal tissue transplants can help these human beings, but 
appartently he hates human life so much that he'd rather throw away this 
material than use it to save lives.



                                     .... Heather.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39797 alt.politics.clinton:1974 alt.politics.bush:1635