HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:04:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <Bu29t0.7pu@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.171132.21604@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>
>>The offending (and offensive to some Americans) words were added during the
>>Eisenhower administration, in the late 1950s.  The interpolation makes no
>>sense gramatically or politically and it distorts the meaning and purpose
>>of the pledge of allegience.  The whole thing was quite is silly, as well
>>as divisive.  (At the time, I had thought the silly insertion would be 
>>soon dropped but, alas, a whole generation has learned it the wrong way.)
>>
>>The correct text is:
>>	I pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America,
>>	and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible,
>>	with liberty and justice for all.
>>
[some of both articles deleted in the name of space]
>
>My personal solution as a child was simply to omit the two words when
>I stated the pledge in school.  In fifth grade, a teacher tried
>to "correct" me; I simply told her that the Bill of Rights allows me
>to say or not say the pledge as I see fit.  Fortunately, this teacher had
>integrity; a potential "bad mark" was translated into a commendation 
>of the attention I paid to my Civics lessons. 
>
[paragraph deleted on "under god" relation to prayer in schools]
>
>Dave

This is a dangerous attitude, as someone who went to public elementary
schools in the early 70s, I speak from experience that I never said
the pledge with "under god".  (I was a pretty militant atheist, when
I was young, especially in elementary school.)  I also simply omitted
the words.  I don't remember any teacher making a big deal about it
at the time.  What is important is that even now, when I read
the pledge, (as in the above article) hear it anywhere, or even
say it myself, I always hear "under god" between "one Nation," and 
"indivisible."  It is all well and good to say "I won't say it wrong,"
but we must realize that what children hear when they are young
settles in their minds for all their lives.

avoiding the pledge of allegiance like the plague,
david redish
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12634 alt.activism:16056 talk.politics.misc:44214
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:54:51 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug31.220606.21957@midway.uchicago.edu> harelb@arthur.uchicago.edu (Harel Barzilai) writes:

>The book _We're Number One_'s comparisons deal primarily with *The 19
>Western Industrial Nations_ (precisely the 19 countries in most of the
>charts).

So then why did you lie in your post and omit the bit about Western
Industrial Nations?

>Of course in some cases, the U.S. record is so abysmal (e.g.
>cumulative AIDS cases) that the U.S. is ranked lower than one or many
>countries otyher than the 18 other unsudtiralized nations (% infants
>born wiht low birthweight is another example of this) in which case
>other countries are listed as well.

In other circles this is known as cooking the books.

>This issue could have been clarified quickly enough by dropping me a
>quick email (as I said my misc.activism.progressive co-moderation and
>other projects prevent me from reading the Net with any regulariy 

If you don't read then why do you post?  TFL.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12656 talk.politics.misc:44289 alt.politics.marrou:1082 alt.politics.bush:4437 alt.politics.clinton:4478 alt.politics.perot:1411
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: possible S&L news around election day (was Whatever happened to ...)
Summary: CalFed and GlenFed could go under by November; they're the 2 largest
Keywords: s&l, savings, loans, bank, failure, election, RTC
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:20:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

(I'm deleting everything except the S&L comment below to maintain focus.)

elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>   And whatever happened to the S&L crisis? We don't hear about it.
>Does this mean Bush fixed it?  then why doesn't he take credit for
>solving it?  Is he just modest?  Does he think it's unimportant?

The S&L crisis has simply become woven into the fabric of the US
economy for the next generation.  The reason nobody is talking about
it much is that it wasn't a partisan scandal.  Bush probably doesn't
want to emphasize it because the whole affair is nothing to be proud
of and could blow back in his face.  Clinton does talk about it
sometimes, but Democrats really don't have too much leverage on this
issue either, for reasons you could probably ask the Keating 5 about.

What *might* get some public attention in the next couple of months is
the fate of two very large thrifts in California--GlenFed and CalFed.
GlenFed is actually still involved in a court fight with its
regulators, but both are still open only due to the combined
grace/poverty of the RTC.  (GlenFed doesn't deny it has problems, but
wants some credit for having taken on [now worthless] "goodwill" in an
early 80s government-assisted thrift merger.)  Both are larger than
the current record-holder for S&L failure, the recently seized HomeFed
Bank (of San Diego).  Whatever happens to them, it will end up costing
the government really big bucks, and there may be a temptation to
"stall" on cleaning up the situation until after the election.

On a possibly cheerier note, though, it does appear that both Citibank
and Wells Fargo will pull through, although there are still some
questions about what exactly is going on at Citibank, which was recently
forced to restate earnings from the last quarter and has agreed to work
more closely with regulators.

Well, maybe that wasn't such a cheery note after all.

jking
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: pat robertson
Date: 30 Aug 92  12:20:00 EST

-> >Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
-> >amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
-> >
-> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
->
-> I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
-> shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be
-> running around loose.
What's more frightening is the fact that Robertson, known affectionately around these parts as The Virginia Beach Ayatollah, is a serious whacko with serious political clout.  "Rev." Robertson has stated that Hinduism is Satanism, his prayers stopped a hurricane (where was he during Andrew?), and, in his recent speech to the Republican National Convention, that "It's time for America to get rid of its left wingers!"

Pat Robertson is a purveyor of neo-McCarthyism (see the above quote), religious bigotry (see his quote on Hinduism), and miscellaneous nonsense.  May he go the way of Jim, Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, and the other Elmer Gantrys who worship at the altar of Mammon and political power."

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Free speech is life itself."
           --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:20:48 CDT

In article <16862D41C.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.101741.12698@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
>sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
> 
>>In article <1685FE58A.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>
>>>3)  Suppose the vouchers drain a large portion of the students (and
>>>money) from the public schools.  There is a critical mass of students
>>>(and money) below which the school cannot survive.  If the only
>>>students left are those who are too poor to afford a private school
>>>even with the voucher, what do we do?
>>>
>>That is the whole point.  If the local school is soo bad that everyone sends
>>their kids to different schools, that school should be closed down.  If I have a
>>restaurant that serves bad food, and no one buys, I shut down.  Why
>>should a school be any different.  This presumes that other schools
>>are around (in all but very small towns).
>>
>>People vote with their feet now.  They move to neighborhoods with
>>good schools.  This leaves inner-city schools in a lurch.  Why should
>>people in inner cities not hav a chance to get their kids a better
>Thank you for the response, but you did not quite answer the question I
>asked.  I asked what if a *majority* of the students abandoned the
>public schools, what do you do with those that are too poor to afford
>an alternative even with the voucher.  I repeat:  What do we do with
>them?
> 

I believe that this occurs in some towns in the northeast (Vermont, New
Hampshire, ...).  The school system pays the tuition for the students
to go to private schools.  It is much cheaper than keeping a public
school going, and the students get (arguably) a better education.


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:37:36 GMT
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Project Athena

In article <1992Sep8.202746.12203@cbfsb.cb.att.com> r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco) writes:
>In article <1685CD866.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>> 
>>An important difference is that the parents of private school students
>>actually care about their children's education. Unfortunately the poor
>>parents who care about their children's education can't do anything about
>>about it as they have middle-class liberals to protect them from school
>>choice programs.
>
>
>This may come as a shock but there are parents who send their kids to public
>schools and actually care about their education.

Very true...but many can't afford to send their children to private schools,
which, considering the record, is the best bet for a good education.

>
>Kindly explain to the tax payers on the net why we should give a tax break
>to the wealthy so that they can send their kids to private schools.
>

Silly, the wealthy don't _need_ a tax break to send their kids to a 
private school; they are already sending their kids to them now.  School 
Choice means letting _anybody_ be able to choose to go to a private school, 
no matter how much money they've got.  That way schools will only be able 
to screen based on merit, not on earnings or economic situation.

Now, one might say, it won't matter, because kids in poor neighborhoods 
wouldn't be able to compete without proper preschools, or elementary schools,
or Head Start, or whatever.  To this I say two things:
	--If a family sees to it that their child values an education, it
		is more likely to happen no matter what the situation is in
		elementary school.
	--If there is all of a sudden a lot of voucher dollars floating around,
		schools will pop up which _will_ properly foster such an
		attitude--they will need to be good schools to compete for
		students.

>
>Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
>Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
>Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: Live Online Conference re: US Elections
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 01:41:27 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

This is a commercial service that requires you to spend money to use
any of its worthwhile features.

If you telnet to their posted address, you won't be given an opportunity
to abort, or quit, until you've answered a lengthy questionaire about
yourself. Of course, you can reboot your computer, or close an 
X window, but you'll be inconvenienced for being forced to do so.

Don't waste your time with this service. It exists for the purpose
of benefiting them, not you.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:56:29 GMT

Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep14.011229.7462@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>  
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.235839.8370@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu  
(Mikko H. Lipasti) writes:
> >Let me do the math:
> >
> >            $177,000 per patient per year
> >         x 3,000,000 patients
> >        ==================================
> >           531 billion dollars per year
> >
> >Isn't this roughly one-third of the entire federal budget (in the ballpark
> >anyway)?
> >
> >Who is going to be willing to and able to pay for this?
> >
> 
> Those three million people are infected and don't have full blown AIDS.
> 
> The main "cost" of AIDS is in the lost productive capacity of all 
> these people who die young...everyone dies...and most of the cost
> of the health care people use is in the last few years of life...
> AIDS really isn't that more costly than other ways of dying...or
> at least that is what the early indications are in Canada.
> 
> The "cost" is the lost wealth the victims would produce...not
> the health care costs.
> 
According to this line of reasoning wouldn't abortion be even more costly.   
Just curious--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Honor one another above yourselves."
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       | -Paul of Tarsus to the Romans
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Blinks
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 21:18:06 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:

> Bradley K. Sherman writes
> > Bush has backed out of a proposed series of debates with Clinton.
> > The debate time, place and format were suggested by a bipartisan
> > committee.  Clinton has accepted.
>
>   Maybe Clinton will show up and debate an empty chair.  Bring back any
> memories?  :-)
>
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
> | NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
> | Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
> | (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+

I believe I heard David Broder saying the other day that Bush really needs to
get into the debates early to show the people something of himself other than
sound bites.  If he chooses not to debate early, it sounds like yet another bad
move.  The economic news expected before November isn't supposed to improve, so
he needs to get in front of the nation and put a forward spin on his record and
administration.  If he doesn't, that's just going to mean a bigger mandate for
Clinton.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:55:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.222245.17716@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>If Voyager found a one month old fetus in the sand of Mars, everyone,
>including the pro-choice people, would be claiming "life on Mars".
>However, if Voyager found a one month old fetus in the womb of a
>woman, it would not be viable and could be burned with a lot of 
>other medical waste.

If Voyager found a head of lettuce growing on Mars, I would be claiming life
on Mars.  It would not, however, be murder to eat lettuce.

"life" in the sense of biologically functioning is different from "life" in
the sense of being a person.  All too often, pro-lifers prove the former and
deliberately fudge to imply the latter, which doesn't follow.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right
Summary: Tonie, not Theodore
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:26:48 GMT

In article <1571@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>Well, I *could* quibble and say I had said electoral votes, plural, but
>that doesn't seem fair.  For whatever it's worth, my almanac only noted
>the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party.  I take it
>that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
>ticket that year?  For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.

The LP ticket was headed by John Hospers and TONIE Nathan.

Theodore is a man's name, and I expect Tonie would be chagrined to hear
you call her that.

The elector, Roger MacBride, was chosen on behalf of Nixon and Agnew.
In 1976, MacBride was the LP nominee.  He has since rejoined the GOP,
where he has worked with the Republican Liberty Caucus, a libertarian
organization.

>I'd probably mark it down as pinch runner scoring from third on a
>sacrifice fly.

Hard to say.  Faithless electors are nothing unusual, though they have more
often voted for the chief opponent of the man on whose behalf they were
nominated.  I'd pick a somewhat more commonplace analogy.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:42:19 GMT

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>For those who'll appreciate this bit of trivia, the state with the
>best record of going with the winner is Delaware, voting for the
>winning candidate in every election since 1952. Other bellwether states
>are Missouri and Kentucky, with the majority since 1960. There may be 
>others.

according to information posted by Joe Knapp (jmk@cbvox.att.com), New
Mexico has gone with the winner every election since its statehood (1912),
with the single exception of the 1976 election.

more fun trivia.

					-- dave, former New Mexican


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Presidential juggling acts
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:23:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In yesterday's WSJ, Arthur Schlesinger takes President Bush to task for
shortchanging the domestic front by concentrating on foreign affairs.
That reminded me of a joke told by Woody Hayes about one of his football
players who lost his academic eligibility due to grades of four F's and
one D. When asked what happened, he explained, "Well, coach, I was
concentrating so much on that one course!"

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:33:26 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <1992Sep14.195947.29095@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>Christopher J. Born writes
>> Richard Mulac writes:
>> > What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>> > You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>
>> Hey Richard, who pays for your funding?
>> 
>> I just can't stand people who are on the dol(sp?) who complain about taxes.
>> Being on the dol(sp?)  includes the president, people who work for NASA,
>> a member of the military, a county garbage collector, a teacher, etc...
>
>  Excellent point.
>
>  On a somewhat related note... Call me crazy, but I think the deficit should  
>be reduced, in part, by raising taxes on people like me.  I've been a NASA  
>engineer for two years, I'm young (25 is young, right? :-), and I'm single.   
>Although my salary isn't terribly high, [...] my coworkers are supporting  
>their families on the same income.  (Mr. Mulac can pull his pay schedule to  
>figure out how much I'm making. :-)  I dare say I could afford to be taxed  
>more.
> [deleted]
>

While your willingness to pay more taxes in order to help the
country is laudable, you already DO pay more taxes than you
co-workers supporting families (they have more exemptions).

It could be argued that you are exactly the type of person
who could be "encouraged" through tax measures to _invest_ 
that excess income :^) in corporations rather than allow it 
to be siphoned into the morass of the federal government.

Personally, I think you should keep your money and invest it.
The less money the government has, the better.  Someone (you
perhaps?) pointed out to me that for every new dollar the gov't 
gets, they spend more than a dollar.  Given this track record, 
it seems that your sacrifice would simply increase the deficit :^(

No offense intended, Steve.  I honestly commend your attitude, 
by my cynicism prohibits me from believing that having the
Feds steal any more of your money would help...

Regards,
	Dave

Opinions expressed are mine alone and should in no way be taken
to necessarily represent those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:16:05 GMT

In article <pschleck.715674856@cwis> pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok) writes:
>>In article <akyy3!p@rpi.edu>, buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes
>>>Subject line says it all. I'm looking for a copy of the Republican Platform.
>>>Could someone please email it to me or tell me the address of a site where I can
>>>ftp it from? Thanks.
>
>>Yes, me too, if anyone has it.  Thanks in advance!!!

>I too would like to see the platform on-line, but as Ms. O'Neil pointed
>out (Hi Sharon!) someone hasn't done the work.  If it ever does appear,
>Archie or comp.archives would probably be the place to look for it. 

I'd like someone to Snail mail me the Republican platform.  I'm out of
toilet paper.

>Call me a flame-baiter, even call me a "control-freak," but that's my
>opinion.

Nah, I'll just call you an "anal Republican".  Hold it, that's
redundant and repetitive.