HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:06:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <Bu9IDJ.JBE@apollo.hp.com> heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com writes:
>Jude Federspiel writes:
>
>> In article <CKD.92Sep6184416@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher
>Davis) writes:
>> Jude G. Federspiel in a previous article writes:
>> >
>> >Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for drugs, and that no
>> >one would defend their legally bought drug supply from somebody
>> >out to steal it, possibly resulting in death.
>
>Apparently, heroin was a fairly common and legal drug in the 1800's and early
>1900's.  There was no widespread murder or crime just to obtain a drug that
>was easily obtainable, and tended to mellow a person out in the first place.
>
>The real problems for society begin when the drug is illegal and expensive.
>
>
Apparently you are not a current drug user nor have you ever used drugs
addictivly. Correct? Of course drug use is associated with crime, when
you look at the prisons in America and see that over 90% of the guests
are there for crimes involving drugs and alcohol (not just mere possession).
They were using drugs and alcohol when the crimes were committed. 

The real problems for society do not involve the cost of the drug but the
effect on society. Drugs and alcohol are the primary causes of dysfunction
in families. Divorce, mate abuse, child abuse, loss of job and income are
the real crimes to society. In a real sense, we are losing people to
addiction. Healthy, productive people that support families and households
are being lost every day. The cost of this is much greater that of stolen
goods.

-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4182 tx.politics:4849 alt.politics.bush:4197
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:11:10 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tamu.edu>, by fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298):
> Well the Democrats must be having a party.  The Census Bureau said that 30 million folk
> are in "poverty".  The War on Poverty has been lost inspite of the fact that welfare spending
> reached $226 billion (five times the amount spent in 1964 after inflation adjustment).

The poverty level, as a percentage of population, declined steadily from
the year 1964 to the year 1979. Then it started a sharp increase. The
increase was especially large in the early 80's.

See, for example, the graph in the September 3 edition of the Houston
Chronicle, which is taken from U.S. government statistics. Or go by your
local library and look at the Statistical Abstract of the United States.
All you have to lose is your ignorance.

As for spending on welfare now -- I'm not going to touch that issue with a
ten-foot pole. All I'll note is that there were low-wage manual labor jobs
in the major cities back in the year 1964, and there are no such jobs
nowdays. Like you, I think that welfare spending needs to be majorly
revamped -- in particular, I'd like to train these people to work, rather
than pay them to sit, and I'd like to put them to work putting our decaying
infrastructure back together (e.g., painting bridges, spreading gravel)
rather than have them sit at home getting fat. However, I don't think that
welfare spending, as a whole, particularly needs cutting -- if you add up
AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid all together, you get about the price of
two Stealth Bombers. By far the majority of government spending is on more
direct subsidies to the middle-class and wealthy, such as farm price
supports and the S&L bailout (which by itself was more money than we spend
on welfare in ten year's time).

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton speeches
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:15:32 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) said..
>solms@mtholyoke.edu (Sharon Solms) writes:
>
>>Someone told me that Clinton's speechs are available on the net.
>>Does anyone know if there is a specific place to access them or
>>should I just read through this newsgroup regularly?  Thanks.
>
>there are multiple sites:
>
>site			directory			  
>----			---------			  
>world.std.com		obi/USElection/President/Clinton  
>nptn.org 		pub/campaign.92	
>ftp.cco.caltech.edu	pub/bjmccall/Clinton

Friend of a friend told me..

You can also send mail to this account and ask for a list:
  75300.3115@compuserve.com

Allan
-- 

Allan Schaffer                            The official .signature of the
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com                 1992 Summer Olympics
aschaffe@netcom.com
From: friedenb@quartz.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton a Fraternity Man??
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:37:24 GMT
Reply-To: friedenb@quartz.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University

In article <1992Sep13.230626.3781@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep13.215220.9139@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@sapphire.egr.msu
|> .edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
|> >
|> >It is common knowledge that all but two of the United States' Presidents
|> >have been fraternity men.<
|> 
|>      Common knowledge among whom? Do you have a list? I've read widely about
|> John Adams, and I have never seen any fraternities mentioned. In fact,
|> fraternities weren't common until the mid-1800's.

Read "From Here To Fraternity" (I can't remember the name of the author).
It lists every president (through Reagan, and their Fraternity associations.  
It also lists every existing national fraternity and thier famous brothers.

There is also a list kept of the current Senat and House members and 
what Fraternity/Sorority they are from.

The numbers (I can get the exact numbers if you wish) are like this:

Current House and Senate:  		~70%
Supreme Court Justices since 1900:	~85%
US Presidents:				 All but 2
CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies:		~75%

When reading these statistics, remember that only 2% of all men in America
were in a Fraternity, yet they control a disproportionate amount of 
political and financial power in the US.

 
|>     Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)


Gedaliah Friedenberg
-=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
-=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
-=-Michigan State University

                   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<CHRISF.92Sep11211202@thor.albany.edu>
	<1992Sep12.014253.17144@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:06:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.014253.17144@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <CHRISF.92Sep11211202@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>>	2) Wouldn't we STILL have the same argument from the Republicans 
>>	   that we're forcing this plan on businesses and are going to really
>>	   hurt them?
>
>  Actually, I have a few problems with forcing health care costs on
>Businesses.  I'll briefly outline them and maybe spark some debate:
>
>1)  It is just another attempt to hide the cost of a government action
>by forcing its cost on "businesses".  Of course, businesses are really
>people, not faceless taxpayers.  The costs comes out of our pockets one
>way or another. (In the form of reduced wages or lost jobs if nothing
>else.)

This is certainly an interesting point, but the question is whether costs
wouldn't actually *decrease* under a coherent health care policy (The US spends
considerably more money on health than all other western countries and I have
not seen any convincing statistics that they get better health coverage out of
it.)

>
>  In fact, an economist I read has speculated that the slow growth
>of hiring is in part related to the fear that Clinton might win
>and force higher health care costs.

Oh my God! You must prevent these Democrats from ever running for president
again :-)

>3)  It tends to tie people to their job.  Rich Williamson points out
>that 85% of our "uninsured" Americans are "uninsured" for about 3-6 months
>while they are temporarily unemployed.  I think that having health
>insurance tied to your job is a bad.  It encourages job stagnation
>and leaves people in the cold when they are out of work.  Just because 
>businesses are the major supplier of health care insurance under our current 
>system, is no reason to perpetuate the problem.

Another good point.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "You think people really worship the devil?"
   "Sure. It's the perfect religion--you fuck up, you go to heaven"
                                     -- Andrew Vachss, _Sacrifice_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing)
Subject: Re: Campaign final few days' conservative slide
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:13:40 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Family Values
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:05:25 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

:      Once again, I appreciate your perspective.  But when I look
: up the word "natural" or "nature" in a concordance, practically all of the
: passages talk about the "sinful nature" of man (e.g. one does not
: have to teach a young child to lie or to be greedy).  This is
: what leads me away from your interpretation.

I would suggest that there is more than one possible definition
or interpretation for "nature" (God = nature?), but at this point
this line of thinking is getting stretched a bit thin.  :)
I still hold that there is no "natural lust," if goodness
and/or God is taken as the norm, rather than humankind.

:      I think you can see where I was leading you -- with 
: "natural lust" meaning lusting for one of the opposite sex, and
: "unnatural lust" meaning lusting for one of the same sex.  Note
: that Biblically, both natural and unnatural lust are sinful.

I saw it coming, but you can't blame me for trying to get around
that point.  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: How To; Becoming a Member of the Media Elite
Keywords: elite (you too!:)
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:42:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


[deleted: a rant truly worthy of "Bob" Dobbs himself]
	Good stuff.  This is the best thing I've seen on alt.news.media in a
long time.
	We now return you to the Argument Clinic sketch.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4501 alt.rush-limbaugh:4399
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:33:12 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <ART.92Sep10113550@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> [...]
>    Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
>    grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
> 
> Oh, Dr. you are ever so smart.  Much smarter than those stupid smelly
> rednecks.
> 
>    Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>    irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>    some of the people most of the time.
> 
> But you are just too clever to fall for that stuff, right Dr?
> 
>    Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> 

That's right Al but it has nothing to do with being clever, it has to do with
refusing to have my attention deflected from the real issues by this
irrelevant crap. It has to do with
spending the time at the library  studying the facts of these issues
and the records of the candidates. It is called working to become an
INFORMED voter instead of a blind sheep or a random number generator.
You can bank on the fact that most of the boo-birds at that race track have
not and will not do make any attempt to get the facts.

I hope you don't think that insulting me because of the use of my title
in my .sig is a substitute for intelligent debate. I have explained why that
title is in my postings so many times now I could spit. However, since I
spent 8 years of my life toiling to get the degree while living in poverty,
I will
not apologies for having the title. I have more than earned the right to use
it.

By the way, the smiley you ignored is there for the humor-impaired like
yourself.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:16:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.210949.5137@eng.ufl.edu> jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:

>It is my understanding that Clinton proposes a socialized medical plan.
>That implies the government pays for it; rather income is redistributed
>from those who pay taxes to those who go to the hospital/clinic.

	Your understanding is pretty off base. Clintons health care plan
has been widely publisized and is even available as a white paper via ftp.
(Sorry, I don't have the adress, if I find it I'll post it)
If your going to talk about it, you should at least read it. If your going
to write it off as "socialized medicine that will never work" then you
may as well say "Clintons a jerk and don't vote for him".

>If my above assumtions are incorrect please post or e-mail me a copy
>of Clinton's health care proposal.  Where it explains in detail how
>he is going to do this in his first humdred days!

	I thought that you already knew this? you can get a copy of two
speeches where Clinton talks about health care from world.std.com in the
directory obi/USElection/President/Clinton. They arn't detailed, but it's
probably more then you know now. As for the first 100 days stuff, it 
sounds like you've been listening to Rush instead of the truth.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4625 alt.news-media:1189 talk.politics.misc:44426
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:33:16 GMT

ma> Matt Austern

ma> Just to throw out two examples of the bias that I see:
ma> (1) The news organizations devote a great deal of their coverage to simply
ma>     reprinting what government figures say.  

  Yeah, because they're too damned lazy to create a whole series of agencies
  just to track stuff like GNP, unemployment, the trade balance, and so on.
  Imagine that!

ma> (2) Every major newspaper I have seen has a "business" section, complete
ma>     with many pages of information that is of interest only to well-off
ma>     investors. 

  My SO finds this humorous. She occassionaly checks to see how her mutual
  funds are doing, but she's hardly "well-off". Indeed, she's unemployed at
  the moment. You seem to think that "wealthy == conservative == bias", but
  given how wealthy all those wonderful Hollywood liberals are, I'd suggest
  you re-consider your position. BTW, the local papers have extensive sections
  on sports, but I don't think handicapped (excuse me, "differently abled")
  people see that as "bias".

ma>     When is the last time you saw a newspaper with a "labor" section?

  Whenever the Rocky Mountain News publishes their labor guy's column, which
  is weekly.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5613 talk.politics.misc:45688 alt.rush-limbaugh:4948 alt.politics.bush:5286 alt.politics.elections:13252
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:05:35 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1686395CD.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.155916.9636@technology.com>
>richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <16862726D.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>[stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>Continued nonsense. There was no "massive military buildup". Spending was
>>>only 0.6% more in the 80s than in the 70s, and it was 2.2% less than in
>>>the 60s. Insignificant. All the significant growth in spending was in
>>>social spending, government administration, entitlement payments and the
>>>like which certainly do *not* fuel growth.
>>
>>What planet are you from? From the OMB, "Budget of the United States, Historical
>>Tables, FY 1988" comes these numbers:
>>
>>Composition of Federal Expenditures
>>
>>                      FY 1982          FY 1986
>>Defense                 23.2%            27.6%
>>Human Resources         27.0             21.5
>>SS & Medicare           26.4             27.2
>>Physical Resources      10.5             5.9
>>Interest                10.1             13.7
>>Other                   2.8              4.1
>>
> 
>Wow- a massive increase amounting to 4% of the federal budget. Certainly
>impressive. It's also in keeping with the figures I published with my
>posting.

When you look at the increasing size of the budget, this is a big amount
of dollars. You also overlooked the fact that SS increased less and
the spending on physical resources dropped drastically.
> 
>>As for the Reagan landslide, no "fooling the people was required." How many of
>>you would be willing to bet that Reagan would have beat Carter if the
>>hostage rescue had worked....
> 
>Dream on. The "misery index" was the deciding factor. Nothing else was
>needed. How old were you in 1976?
I had my first post-college job and bought my first house. What does 1976
have to do with Carter? Are you saying the misery index was high because of
Ford? 1976 to 1982 were pretty good in Texas...lots of jobs. Sure, people
didn't like the later stagflation, but they really didn't find that Carter
had the leadership abilities they wanted. Sort of like Bush now....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5096 talk.politics.misc:45082 alt.politics.bush:4866
From: tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:12:05
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<ART.92Sep11032801@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep11.145525.1488@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<ART.92Sep11122717@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: art@world.std.com's message of 11 Sep 92 17:27:17 GMT

In article <ART.92Sep11122717@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

[much, much, much bickerring and tramping about deleted]

   Gee, Dr. when you sneer at others in public as ignorant louts you open
   yourself up to public rejoinders.  I wouldn't have jumped on you if you
   hadn't called them "beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth grade
   educations".  I know everybody makes spelling mistakes, but when you hold
   yourself out as somehow more intelligent or better educated you assume an
   obligation to demonstrate this status.

I'm sorry, but this is about the only thing significant I have seen come out
of this entire diatribe.  Such a truth, Dr!  Let me change it a bit:

	Gee, Dr. when you decide you want to rise above the crowd a bit,
	whether as a movie star or a presidential candidate, you open yourself
	up to public rejoinders.

If you feel the need to continue this tiresome debate, which has turned quite
violently from a debate over issues to a debate of personalities, please
do it through e-mail only.  Why clog the net-waves with this utter stupidity?

I know, I know.  'He started it!'

Just stop it, 'kay?

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu

--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4655 alt.rush-limbaugh:4470
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:24:02 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.194524.21473@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>|> What has this statement to do with *anything* I said above?  If you are
>|> implying that I have the same double standard, I'm going to have to 
>|> ask you to show me one of my posts that support it.

>	Why? You didn't do that for me, Chip.

I most certainly did, Alex.  It was in direct reply to the topic we were
discussing and most directly aimed at that very post you had written. 

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush