HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: I'll do anything to be re-elected
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.185055.19753@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
>True to his word, George Bush begged James Baker to leave
>the State Department to become Chief of Staff. 
>
>James L. Heilman
>____________________
>enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu

One doesn't have to work too hard to come to the conclusion that James Baker
has been the de-facto President for much of the Reagan/Bush era, and is about
to re-assume control after years of drift during which was 'left alone'
to run things.

Why not just be honest about the whole thing and put Baker at the top of the
GOP ticket once and for all?

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:01:10 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  <1992Aug13.233007.5823@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <l8lqguINNrs2@spim.mips.com>
> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
> > But those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from
> > God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.
>
> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
> abortion.

His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
side.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion story
Date: 20 Aug 1992 16:10:33 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

EMIL CHUCK) writes:

|> 
|> 	Adrienne's article wound up following Chris' post on my
|> newsserver. I have it now saved on my machine here. I agree it is very
|> compelling and very disheartening.
|> 
|> :Second, I think one of the whole points of this story is:  SO WHAT if it
|> :was the result of consensual sex?  Regardless of how it came about, this
|> :pregnancy was simply *not* something she was prepared to deal with at that
|> :point in time, PERIOD.  
|> 	I can't disagree with you there that she wasn't prepared to deal
|> with the pregnancy, but my point about consentual sex is that was she
|> willing and knowledgable about the possible consequences of her having
|> sex? It's not right to treat someone like a little kid one day then an
|> adult the next. If anyone consents to engaging in sexual intercourse, then
|> I assume he or she is a responsible adult who understands the risks and
|> the consequences. It's not right to wash our hands of the problem of
|> teenage sexual activity and promiscuity (since kids are going to do it
|> anyway) and then all of a sudden be shocked when "they're not ready! Get
|> thee to a clinic!"
|> 
This all assumes that people are educated about sex and its consequences,
that they know how to take precautions, etc.  The pro-live religios right
not only opposes abortion, they oppose such eductation.  You cannot 
have it both ways.  Children *do not* get sex education at home, and they
are not allowed to get it at school.  So they get it from each other and
from television.

How many times has someone in a movie or TV worried about protection?  How
realistic are TV/Movie love scenes (~ zero)?  How accurate is the info
from the "sophisticated kid" down the street?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40795 misc.headlines:5771 rec.humor:26578 soc.culture.usa:6695
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:53:29 GMT


|>In article <1992Aug17.142234.22584@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> In article <1992Aug12.153110.3400@desire.wright.edu>,
|>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|>> 
|>> |>Subject: It's only the difference between internal and external, after
|>all
|>> 
|>> |>    "Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of Kuwait
|>> |>    added little to it, ..." --The Noamster
|>> 
|>> 
|>> Brett's ignorance of the middle east is obviously so vast that he has
|>
|>	(I guess this means the truce is over :)
|>
|>> not heard of the Iran/Iraq war. This was a far greater crime committed
|>> by Saddam than the invasion of Kewait, the number of lives lost was far
|>> greater and the destruction far worse.
|>
|>	But started during Carter's term, not Bush's.  In fact it ended before
|>Bush became president.  So just a weee bit irrelevant when you are trying to
|>slam Mr. Bush.
|>	(After all there are so many other things you can do that on, why
|>weaken your position with irrelevancies?)

Brett, perhaps you could shouw just where I mentioned Bush in my post?

Also Brett is rather off in the dates for the Iran/Iraq war. Most of it happened
during the movie actor's term, the one who makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein.

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Announcing Quayletool V1.0!
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:12:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berzerkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-3g.berkeley.edu

Yes folks! It has finally arrived! The complete tool to go along with our
VP.  Features :

	o Dozens of quotations from Dan-o
	o You can have a different quote come up every 2 minutes (or every
	  second, or every day, whatever you want)
	o A picture of Dan Quayle
	o When you press "talk" his mouth moves and reads of the quotes!
	o Sorry, no sound :-(
	o You can edit Danny's picture (draw Moustaches, change hair-do), etc.
	
NOTE : THIS WILL ONLY WORK ON SYSTEMS RUNNING OLIT & OPENLOOK

Quayletool V1.0 is available from soda.berkeley.edu by anonymous ftp.
Look for the directory : ~ftp/pub/quayletool.
This is a public domain program

Mail complaints, bugs, suggestions, etc., to :

	eric@soda.berkeley.edu

Enjoy !

-- 
"And do you know what's inside ? A priiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize !" - Stimpy
"You gave away ... FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ?" - Ren Hoek
Ren & Stimpy: On Nickolodeon,Sunday mornings @ 11 AM.  Watch it, you eediot !
Eric van Bezooijen - eric@soda.berkeley.edu, evb@logrus.eng.sun.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41105 alt.activism:15224 misc.headlines:5814 sci.econ:7016
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:01:32 GMT
	<1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de>
	<1992Aug21.121223.19764@eua.ericsson.se> <BtC5FF.GE8@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:28:27 GMT

In article <BtC5FF.GE8@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   Dammit, Anders, why'd you have to spill the beans?   Don't you know
>   there are people on Usenet who actually believe that economics is
>   more than just rain dances and witch doctors?

In fact, I am one of them.  However, I also belive that economics is
not free of ideology: economists have a position (whether implicit or
explicit) about what an economy should be like, and about what
questions are important.  It isn't possible to say whether a change
benefits or hurts the economy without some set of values.

You will find, for example, that there are very few Marxist economists
in the United States, but there are a fair number of them in
Europe---and their version of economics is very different than that
which comes out of the rather conservative intellectual climate in
American economics depatments.

What economists say can be interesting, and sometimes worth paying
attention to.  We really ought to bear in mind, though, that what they
say is always filtered through their own political positions, and we
should insist that those political positions be stated openly, instead
of hidden.
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Wildly regressive taxes
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:38:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug16.154408.29720@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug14.165608.10244@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>]In article <1992Aug12.234414.12306@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>]>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
>]>most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
>]>his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
>]>it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
>]>tax?
>]You are right about FICA, except that some people *have* been talking about
>]it. I recall distinctly a Michael Kinsley TRB column from years ago in
>]which he pointed this out, not to mention Sen. Moynihan's proposal to
>]reduce FICA taxes, which dates from the later years of the Reagan administration,
>]and which is far from dead.

>Social Security was (and still is) sold as an insurance system (although
>I consider it more of a pyramid scheme). In an insurance system, your
>benefits are proportional to your premium payments. This is also true
>in social security. The PROBLEM with it is that it is an involuntary
>system, and thus is also akin to a tax.

That Social Security WAS sold as an insurance system is certainly true.
But it was only partially true at any time that the benefits were proportional
to the premium payments, and the effective current cap on benefits is such
that I, for example, will have no hope of getting back even what has been
paid in to my account, without interest, unless I have major medical expenses,
or there is runaway inflation.  You are right about insurance systems, but
Social Security was never completely run that way.

>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.

This is how every insurance system works.  But not Social Security.

>The proposals to make FICA more "progressive" can be characterized
>as converting it from a government forced insurance program (soak
>the young) to yet another soak the rich welfare program.

And the institution of means testing has made it already a scheme 
which has huge income tax rates at the transition levels.  This applies
to all means testing, not just for Social Security.  The effective income
tax rate on people on welfare runs from 50% to well over 100%.  Lowering
the income tax rate on welfare recipients to that on the rich, and keeping
it constant, would make the point at which a family of 4 pays income tax
about $50,000.
-- 
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)
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:06:31 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
:jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  writes:
:>    But do I, would I support my child? I'd put my arm around her and say, 
:>    if she were trying to make that decision, encourage her not to do that, 
:>    but of course I'd stand by my child. ...
:
:There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy floating in the air.  Let me pose
:     the abortion question to you in another way: if your child, let's
:     say, were about to commit murder (premeditated, no less), would
:     you stand by him/her?
No just simple confusion of terms.

If the person were convicted,
I would stand by my child and love him or her, but I will not obstruct
justice. I will stand by my child even beside the chair.

If the person were considering murder,
I would try my best to prevent him/her from murdering someone. We would
try to talk out our options and what the consequences were for each
option, including murder. And if I had a gun as well as my child, I
would even shoot to protect the other person -- family or not.

This is what love means.
-- 
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,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:27:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.220315.1424@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>abortion?
>
>	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
>what is???

Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Tim
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:19:00 GMT

Every government built on lies must fall.

No man, nor group, can take credit for winning a war -- the chaos of war
is beyond human control.

Neither Ronald Reagan, nor George Bush, nor the Republicans, nor the 
People of America, nor the Peoples of the West, nor even the long 
suffering Peoples of the XSSR (who worked from the inside to undermine 
the power of Soviet Communism), nor the courageous People of Russia,
Poland, the Baltics, and East Germany (who actually finished the job) 
-- nor all of us taken all-together -- can take credit for defeating 
what at base was a flawed, corrupt and evil government. Nor could the
combined efforts of all of humanity through all of history defeat 
Satan -- without God. 

I hope God rewards your pride with grace, rather than leaving
you alone -- to congratulate yourselves. When at heart there is a 
lie, there is == NO CHANCE == no matter how good your intentions. 

     |
  -- J --                      
     |     Stephen D. Tice    "Whatever comes, God's will be done."
     |     Arlington Texas
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Nazis: Radicals or Conservatives? (was Re: On having a mixed ...)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:51:36 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug16.210916.8699@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.230512.23021@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug9.171013.42228@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug9.200531.22387@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Aug8.132113.42211@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>>>I [am] culturally conservative and liberal on
>>>>>economics.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does this ring a bell with anyone?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know what this means but I believe the Nazis had this
>>>> philosophy.  Sorry, just had to point that out.
>>
>>I disagree. Culturally, the nazis were radicals, overthrowing 
>>established religious, cultural, educational and political institutions.
>>You cannot be a totalitarian and *not* be a radical, since 
>>totalitarianism implies complete control of all societal organizations.
>>
>I'm not aware of any systematic overthrow of religion in Nazi Germany.
>Perhaps a few church leaders who spoke out were jailed or killed.

Quite a few. Religion was tolerated only so long as it didn't
threaten the Nazi ideology. In this respect, it was no different
than say Communist Poland. Many ministers spent years in concentration
camps.

>As
>for the overthrow of cultural and political institutions, well if course
>they got rid of these.  Any culturally conservative group would have.
>After all, these were the culture and politics of the ultra-liberal
>Wiemar Republic.

They overthrew these institutions because they were radical totalitarians.
It means nothing that conservatives might have made some changes to Weimar
- and I disagree with you that conservatives would have anyway, since
Weimar was hardly ultra-liberal (what with Junkers like Hindenberg in power).
You can't simply make Nazi's equal to cultural conservatives simply
because they were not liberals.  The *Communists* would
have done the same thing the Nazis did. In fact, one might argue
that the Russian Communists provided a model in so many ways
for the Nazis: politicizing the armed forces, concentration camps,
youth corps indoctrinated with the dominant ideology, etc.

>As for education, there was no tradition of broad
>based education in Germany.  Rather it was education for a select few.

And the Nazi's destroyed and perverted the German Universities, by
burning and outlawing the then politically incorrect books, by firing
dissident and Jewish Professors, by forcing the propogation of their own
ideology, etc.
No conservative would have destroyed the fine University tradition like that.

>So to sum up, the Nazis were culturally conservative.

I disagree. The Nazis were culturally and operationally radicals.

---
Pat
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SigGraph, Chicago, and Unions
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:51:19 GMT



In article <16u56cINNmbo@network.ucsd.edu> spl@szechuan.uucp (Steve Lamont) writes:
>In article <Bt8Gnv.BIA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> broehl@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (Bernie Roehl) writes:
>>People wonder why the U.S. and Canada are losing the productivity battle
>>to the rest of the world, and I think a large part of the answer lies with
>>the big labor unions.

>The productivity battle is being "lost" because of short-sighted,
>bean-counting management that only looks as far as the quarterly
>bottom line and how the stock market will react.


   Hold it, hold it!   Before we go too far with this thread would
   either of you care to describe your metrics for the US "losing
   the productivity battle"?   The Economist says that the in terms
   of overall industrial productivity the US is the highest in the
   world. 


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:06:59 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>	Tell me how to stop Congress from spending $1.5 for every
>	$1.0 in revenue.
>

The President submitting a balanced budget?


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Houston, TX
	<1992Aug17.212614.13366@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<1992Aug18.224610.9047@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:38:56

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
 >I can say, in principle, that the fetus should be protected in the middle
 >and later stages of pregnancy (or after the development of the CNS).  But, if
 >my wife found, in the second trimester of pregnancy, that the fetus was
 >seriously abnormal,  we would be faced with a very painful and difficult
 >decision.  And, quite frankly, I don't know how we would act.  It is one
 >thing to talk about such things and another to actually live through such
 >circumstances.

What if, for example, the child seemed normal in the womb, but when born,
got tangled in the umbilical cord and suffered some brain damage?  Would
you then be faced with a difficult decision of whether to put it out of
your misery?

 >It seems ironic that the republicans are the party which
 >opposes abortion but is also the party which is least inclined to help the
 >mother (parents) or the child.  To them, the only issue seems to be cutting
 >taxes, particularly for the wealthy.

Abortion is chosen less frequently by those who are on welfare anyway,
according to what I've read.  If someone has actual figures to back
this up or to refute it, It would be helpful: if we could find out the
demographics of abortion recipients, we could find out whose right to
choose we're primarily discussing.

Being a Republican myself, I think that the issue is trying to spend
money responsibly.  The welfare system needs some work.  Taxes need to
be reduced, but there are certainly other areas that could give back
greater returns, and I think they are being sought out.
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39227 alt.politics.clinton:1782 alt.politics.bush:1313