HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: waggoner@pdxgp1 (Mark Waggoner)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:05:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.174212.6515@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>I am not a Christian fundamentalist. But I voted for Measure 9.
>I had a lot of trouble with the third paragraph directing the state to
>set up a program discouraging homosexual behavior, but in the end, I
>voted for 9.
>
>My reasons for voting were:
>1. The activists of the gay/lesbain community have been exerting much
>pressure to have their lifestyle be considered as a normal alternative
>to a heterosexual one.  Recently there have been a number of executive
>decisions made in government (state and local) mandating equality of
                                                          ^^^^^^^^
>treatment for homosexuals.  These actions are precedent setting for
>acknowledging homosexuals as a class deserving of special treatment.
                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>These kinds of changes in policy should not have been taken without
>the consent of the governed through the referendum process.

  I have difficulty understanding this argument.  Where does equal treatment
transform into special treatment?  Perhaps you mean it is special treatment
for homosexuality to be specifically mentioned in a law requiring equal
treatment, when heterosexuality or church affiliation or so many other
categories are not.  Do you think that it is OK for someone to be denied 
employment, or housing, or a promotion, etc, because they are gay?

  I think it is unfortunate that there need to be any classes of people
specially recognized within the law as requiring equal treatment.  Everyone
is deserving of equal treatment, or as equal as the real world can make it.
Referring to your comment regarding taking changes of policy to the
governed throught the referendum process - Do you think it is OK to deny 
equal treatment to a class of people because a majority of the voters think
it is OK to do so?

-- 
--- // -------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Waggoner           waggoner@ichips.intel.com         (503) 696-4182
 \X/                 Faster chips for a better tomorrow
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:18:45 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Nov9.202253.4846@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>
>    [ ... much stuff deleted ...]
>
>Perhaps with a line-item veto (which Clinton wants), some form of

Just curious - why is a line-item veto (which Bush also wanted) now
such a Good Thing, when last year it was such a Bad Thing?  Do the acceptable
rules change depending on party affiliations?

Seems that much of what I see posted that "Clinton wants" was much of
what Bush wanted, but was thwarted at almost every turn by partisan
power plays.  Much of what was yesterday considered Very Bad, is now
suddenly to be regarded as Very Good.

Something doesn't seem to add up here....  Are we going to see gaffes
which if were done by Bush, would have resulted in a massive outcry,
suddenly become OK if done by Clinton?

The more I see, the more uneasy I become...  Are we going to see a big
rise in gov't spending (to "jump-start" the economy), because inflation
is "under control", and the deficit "can wait", and because the revenue
can be raised by increased "investment" in government (AKA tax increases)?

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: The Election
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:53:23 GMT
Organization: FYL
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Robert Reed (robert@slipknot.rain.com) wrote:

: Well, at least NPR reported that exit poll data indicated Perot hurt Clinton
: more than Bush.  If Perot had not been an available choice, their data
: indicated Clinton would have gotten %48 (up %5) and Bush %41 (up %3).

I don't think this is true.  It may be true in vote count on election
day but the fact that Perot raised the real questions such as the
economy stinks hurt Bush a lot.  I feel that Perot did what the
journalists should have been doing.  Without him we would have had a
campaign of "did Clinton inhale" and "Did Bush fornicate with
whoever".
-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl 
Newsgroups: sqnt-public.msgs,pnw.general
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: White Wine Tariffs
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: sqnt
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 06:14:14 GMT

Is the threatened tariff on French white wine a last swipe at the
those evil LIIIIIIBEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRAAAALLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSS that voted
Bush out of office?
Well what do you think?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                            Two Wheels                              +
+                          Two Cylinders                             +
+                             Two Fast                               +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:22:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: Ikkoku-K.MS-C.720991364.377401575.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

Larry Desoto writes:
>Jimmy Carter was ineffectual, but basically a benign and decent man.

This is quite true.  Carter's book is a `must read' for anyone who
wants to understand how the Reagan Revolution came about.  Carter's
heart was in the right place, and he really did try his best.  But he
had neither the capability to keep things from collapsing, nor the
sneakiness to backstab his opponents.

A comparison with Bush is instructive.  Bush also lacked the
capability, but tried to be sneaky.  But Bush couldn't succeed at
being sneaky either; he lacked the talent to do it and only ended up
looking foolish.

Clinton's capability is still unknown.  But he *is* sneaky.  There
hasn't been anyone like him since Richard Nixon.  All of our
presidents since Nixon have been more or less good-natured amiable
characters.  I remember Nixon, and the two sneaks (JFK and LBJ) before
him.  I guess after 16 years the country is ready for sneaks again.
From: johnl@pcx.ncd.com (John Light)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:07:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: pcx.1992Nov10.200714.8129
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Nov9.204554.19304@mdd.comm.mot.com> bradley@mdd.comm.mot.com (Michael Bradley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.174738.26395@u.washington.edu> dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barts) writes:
>>rick@eaglet.rain.com (Rick Lindsley) writes:
>>
>
>General gay propaganda deleted
>
>>If anyone doubts this, consider for a moment that religion IS a
>>matter of personal choice.  What would you think of a proposed law
>>declaring that Christianity is unnatural, immoral, peverse and
>>wrong, and requiring the schools to teach it as such?
>
>That is what the public schools teach, if not explicitly then
>implictly

"If you're not fer us, you're agin' us."

The only other explanation I can see for your belief is that by teaching
science in schools, the schools are implicitly declaring that religions
which disdain science are "wrong".  I don't see how we can get around
that impass and advance economically.

John Light
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:38:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov5.163842.14833
Distribution: pnw
Organization: UW Computing

In article <1789@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>Well, ya better hang onto yer wallet.  Those making purchases on time
>payments, do NOT try to pay it off early - better to pay it off in cheap
>dollars, and to hang onto any cash you have, when the inflation starts
>spiraling.  

Do you have any reasoned arguments for this shrill prediction?
This is 1992, not 1976, and Bill Clinotn is not Jimmy Carter, and,
presumably, energy prices will not triple (as in the 1970's).
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: paul@maunakea.Data-IO.COM (Paul Brownlow)
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices) 
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:18:39 GMT

In article <MS-C.720992265.662824084.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>, Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
|> >I thought the general charge was that [Carter] was vary [sic]
|> >effectual in causing inflation.
|> 
|> No; the inflation was already there.  Carter wanted to stop it, as did Ford
|> (remember WIN buttons?), but Carter lacked the strength of will to do what was
|> necessary to bring inflation under control.

Inflation was even a problem during the Nixon presidency; he instituted
wage and price freezes on at least a couple of occasions in an effort
to combat the situation.

-- 
Paul Brownlow				|         Visualize 
Data I/O Corp.  Redmond, WA		|	   Whirled
paul@data-io.com			|	    Peas
					|
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Andrew Tobias (Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices))
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:27:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: shaman.2100
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon

[]

	"Andrew Tobias (not known for his leftist leanings) ..."

In the spectrum of business writers, he falls on the left, as do the
rest of the business staff at Time and the most of the staff at Money.
Tobias favors "pragmatic" government spending where more conservative
writers prefer the government not be involved.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:01:20 GMT
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon

[]

	"Yet there's always plenty of money to be spent bailing out
	failed S & L's ... The establishment always has piles of money
	ready to spend on things that benefit IT, but when it comes to
	things that benefit ordinary people, well, sorry "We can't
	afford that!"."

So you exclude people with passbook savings accounts from the class of
ordinary people, and suggest that they should have lost their savings?

The robber barons who *ran* those S&Ls didn't get a dime from the
bailout.  Even the ordinary folk who had stock in those S&Ls lost it
all.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:05:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov5.180526.19978
Distribution: pnw
Organization: UW Computing

In article <1992Nov5.172237.16957@u.washington.edu> larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>
>Jimmy Carter was ineffectual, but basically a benign and decent man.  Slick
Wait a minute.  I thought the general charge was that he was vary
effectual in causing inflation.

>Willie has demonstrated that he will say or do anything to get (and 
>presumably hold) power.  Maybe those of you that hated Bush so much weren't
That was Bush's pledge.

>paying attention to what he said he wants to do.  Well, I for one am hoping
>for the best but I also suspect those who voted for change are going to
>get more than they bargained for.  Good luck to us all.  I think we are
>really going to need it.

And again I ask, why such dire warnings?  

According to Andrew Tobias (not known for his leftist leanings),
with production capacity is at 76% and unemployment at 7%, there will be
very little inflationary pressure.  Improvements in the infrastructure 
(highways, high-speed rail, fiber-optics) will increase productivity,
reducing inflationary pressures (Time, 11/2/92).
From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:19:40 GMT
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <12874@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:
>It's not just anti-abortion that these religious types are foisting on
>us:  Just because their Bible say "Thou shalt not kill" we have to make
>it a law?  If I don't like my neighbor, why can't I blow his head off
>if I want to?  And what about stealing, lying, cheating, etc.  If
>I want to do these things, what right does the religious right have to
>stop me?

Someone has already pointed out that Christianity did not invent 
"thou shalt not kill".  Our sense of morality, as a species, developed
it.  

The law exists because it is an extension of the "thou shalt not harm
another" rule.

Morality != religion.  Religion is not he only answer to a moral life.




         Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. donn@brat.wa.com
	
	       "You talk the talk.  Do you walk the walk?"

		    There are no ordinary moments.
From: dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:51:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov9.045108.11660
Distribution: pnw
Organization: University of Washington

andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> Tracy M. sez:
>	"Deficit is not the main problem.  Fixing a sluggish economy
>	... is (IMHO) the main concern."

>How would you do the latter without addressing the former?  If we
>accept the philosophy of spending our way to recovery, we find our
>hands tied by the deficit.  If we increase government borrowing,
>interest rates go up and the economy tanks.  If we print more money,
>inflation fires up and the fixed-income folks are out on the streets.
>That leaves increased taxation ... but haven't yet figured out how to
>tax our way out of a recession.

Yet there's always plenty of money to be spent bailing out failed
S & L's and nice little wars in various places to keep the patriotic
fervor up.  They're even willing to put such things "off the budget".

Funny, isn't it?  The establishment always has piles of money ready
to spend on things that benefit IT, but when it comes to things
that benefit ordinary people, well, sorry "We can't afford that!".

Bah.

-- 
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
            Driving is a privilege, not a right.
      Having breathable air is a right, not a privilege.
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: The Election
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:50:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.055323.325@fylz.wa.com> Phil Hughes writes:
|Robert Reed (robert@slipknot.rain.com) wrote:
|: Well, at least NPR reported that exit poll data indicated Perot hurt Clinton
|: more than Bush.  If Perot had not been an available choice, their data
|: indicated Clinton would have gotten %48 (up %5) and Bush %41 (up %3).
|
|I don't think this is true.  It may be true in vote count on election
|day but the fact that Perot raised the real questions such as the
|economy stinks hurt Bush a lot.  I feel that Perot did what the
|journalists should have been doing.  Without him we would have had a
|campaign of "did Clinton inhale" and "Did Bush fornicate with
|whoever".

The one thing I will credit Perot for is his influence on the issues
orientation of this campaign, even though he assiduously avoided half of the
issues debate (though he was big on revealing problems, his solutions were pure
voodoo).

However, the press took a beating due to their heavy coverage of "flag waving"
issues during the last election, and it is unclear whether they would have
followed that mold, even in the absence of Perot.  Of course, anything I might
say about that is pure speculation, and we'll never know.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

Everywhere is in walking distance if you have the time
--Steve Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: The Election
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:25:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.720933958.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

The best things that can be said about this election is the stunning
defeat of the Religious Right in elections throughout the country and
the adoption of term limitations in Washington and several other
states.  The danger of a Robertson vs. Clinton race in 1996 has been
significantly diminished, although it isn't eliminated.

The most significant local example is the firing of State Senator
Ellen Craswell from Kitsap County, an ultra-fundamentalist whose
newsletters were filled with her bizarre religious philsophy and how
she used her state office to `establish Christian values.'  Craswell
was one of the architects of the lunatic party platform rammed down
the throats of Washington State Republicans.  Sherry Appleton's
attempt to get Craswell fired in the Republican primary failed, with
the result that a great many moderate Republicans (and conservative
independents such as me) jumped ship to elect Democrat Betti Sheldon.

Sheldon, in turn, had to pledge to follow a moderate path and `not be
captive to ultra-liberal special interests.'  We'll be watching her
closely to make sure she keeps her pledge; she had better if she
expects to be a multi-term state senator.

This is a good learning experience for the conservative movement.  All
of Bush's posturing towards the Religious Right failed to save the
election for him.  What it did do is alienate a huge number of voters;
a great many voters voted to fire Bush, not to hire Clinton.

Perot's 15% should send a message to President-elect Clinton and to
soon-to-be-ex-President Bush.  Perot siphoned many more voters from
Bush than from Clinton.  One of Clinton's aides was saying how pissed
off they are at Perot for `taking away our >50% majority' and how they
intend to pay no attention to Perot or the movement he represents.

If Clinton hopes to be a two-term president he will need to re-think
that foolish position.  That 15% of voters is ignored at peril.  If
Clinton gets the idea that he has a `mandate' he will learn very soon
how weak his position.

There was dancing in the streets of Baghdad and mouring in Kuwait when
the news of Bush's defeat came in.  A number of our allies are afraid
that President Clinton will lead the US down the slippery slope of
trade protectionism.

I fear it is too late to prevent a Washington State income tax.  Look
for an emergency budget crisis to appear, complete with scare tactics
about shutting down schools, police and fire departments, and
hospitals.  That, on top of an emotional appeal by Governor Lowry,
will probably suffice.
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney)
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:08:48 GMT

robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe) writes:

> In article <1992Nov5.163842.14833@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.e
> >In article <1789@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> >>
> >>Well, ya better hang onto yer wallet.  Those making purchases on time
> >>payments, do NOT try to pay it off early - better to pay it off in cheap
> >>dollars, and to hang onto any cash you have, when the inflation starts
> >>spiraling.  
> >
> >Do you have any reasoned arguments for this shrill prediction?
> >This is 1992, not 1976, and Bill Clinotn is not Jimmy Carter, and,
> >presumably, energy prices will not triple (as in the 1970's).
> 
> Inflation was well underway before the oil crisis emerged.  The oil embargo

I find it interesting that people really believe that inflation is
what the government says it is, the Reagan administration having
redefined the equation.  The last time I saw a report on "real
inflation" vs "government inflation" was about three years ago,
the government said it was about 4 percent and the three other
sources that used the old equation had numbers like 15%, 13% and
15%.  The simple truth is that we are in, and have been in, an
inflationary economy.  If Clinton increases spending $600B and
congress refuses to increase theft (whoops, taxes) $200B (a strong
possibility), the deficit will grow to almost $1T a year and inflation
will go through the roof.  If you liked Jimmy Carter, you'll love
Bill Clinton.

--
[] SEANEWS [] Seattle Public Access Usenet News + Mail [] +1 206 747 NEWS []
finneyk@seanews.akita.com
From: edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:45:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: nwnexus.1992Nov13.174545.13614
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505

donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.155810.10220@mdd.comm.mot.com> bradley@mdd.comm.mot.com (Michael Bradley) writes:

>: did not want anybody teching their children about "alternate"
>:  lifestyles

>What is 'normal' and what is 'alternate'?  Who decides?
>Who passes judgement?  What is the metric?  Who enforces
>and under what moral right?

This is a good point.  I think the best we can hope for in our government
is a mechanism that will provide a way of making material that is questionable
to some and embraced by others to be available as part of free speach in our
public schools (_if_ a significant number of folks wish it to be taught in a
given school district), but also in a way that does not promote or encourage
something one way or another.

What I mean by this, is that _I_ would probably not like homosexuality being
taught in a public school, but I understand that in a public school that
if a significant percentage (not necessarily a majority in my opinion) wish
it to be presented, they have that right.  However, I think that _all_ sides
of the arguments for _and_ against it should be presented in an unbiased way
with some mechanism that ensures a teacher won't offer bias.  If I find that
I, as a parent, still don't like what is being presented, then I can either
try to persuade the school board and other families that it should not be
part of the curiculum, put my kids in a private school with enough families
that agree with me or home school them.

Which founding father was it that said, "I may not agree with you, but I'll
fight to the death for your right to say it."?  It's a hard pill for some to
swallow, but we must if we are to preserve our constitution.  (I'm not saying
that I am able to do this, but I know I should - and will continue trying.)

-- 
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
"Serving the Usenet community since 1987."
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM