HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:58:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.013928.6485@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.140823.2844@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>At any rate you should learn the difference between "All people with
>>AIDS have engaged in 'irresponsible activities'" and "All people who
>>engage in 'irresponsible activities' get AIDS."
>>
>>The first is (trivially) true, the second (and relevant issue) completely
>>false.
>
>I disagree with your assessment that the first statement is trivial.  That
>is exactly the point that should be stressed.  If all (or most) of the
>people who have AIDS engaged in some sort of irresponsible behavior then
>it stands to reason that if you stop the irresponsible behavior you can
>have a big impact on the spread of the disease.  

But "big impact on the spread of the disease" is fallacious.  
"No baby has survived an airplane crash who didn't have
his or her own seat" does not translate into "Parents should not be allowed
to bring babies onto the plane unless they buy a separate ticket for the
child."  The first is true.  The second isn't (though there's now a
federal regulation that requires just that).  Such a regulation saves
about one life every ten years, but results in an additional ten or
so babies dying because their parents couldn't afford plane travel and
ended up taking the much riskier route of auto travel.

It's the second issue that's the important one.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:32:46 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct13.015643.19986@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.003725.29744@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>
>>By the way, I'm undecided as of now.
>>
>>SEH
>  
>   Well, that is fine with me. BUT, that is not fine with the Bushniks. They 
> will ask: 
>  
>   Why can't SEH make up his mind ?  One minute he favors Bush, the next minute
> he favors Clinton, tomorrow he may favor Perot.  Mr. SEH, it's time for
> you to level with the American people, level with the three candidates. Either
> you do or you don't !  This just shows the character of SEH, the typical SEH,
> pathological SEH, pandering SEH.
>  
     As a conservative, let me encourage SEH to continue to follow
the issues, to take a look at *all* of the candidates (including
Marrou, Phillips, Perot, etc.), and to make an informed decision
on election day -- nothing more than that.  Mr. Min tries to parody 
his so-called "Bushniks" but misses the point they are trying to 
make: that one may not get what one expects from Clinton.  (As a 
conservative, Bush was not the President that I expected.) 

>   Well, folks, don't blame me. I just learned a thing or two from 
> the President.

     Well, I guess to you, Mr. Min, Bush really was an education
President.

     C. Perttunen
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:23:35 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <FOX.92Oct14204622@graphics.nyu.edu>, fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>    rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>    > (remember when libraries were open all day, six days a week?),
> 
> 	   Our still are.  Oops.  Seven days a week.  Sorry.
> 
> Well, as long as yours are, I guess everything is fine.

	Here, sure.  Now all we need to do is get the same kind of people in
the white house.

	(That would be fiscal conservatices, e.g. supply-siders :)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9681 talk.politics.misc:50872
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:09:40 EST
 <1992Oct8.140354.4632@desire.wright.edu> <qN5-3==@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <qN5-3==@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.140354.4632@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
> |> > consumer.   That's progress...NOT.   I wonder who lined the pockets of 
> |> > Congress.
> |> 
> |> 	ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX.
> |> 
> |> 	The broadcast networks are the only ones who are failing to make huge
> |> loads of money off of cable.  But now, Congress has handed them the golden
> |> goose.  They can simply charge each cable company for "rebroadcast" rights. 
> |> It's like if congress had simply passed a tax on every TV set sold, to be paid
> |> to the broadcast networks, for the "privilige" of being able to receive their
> |> signal.  And a tax on every video tape.  For the "privilage" of being able to
> |> record those signals.  And taxes on VCRs, wires, cables, antennas, etc.
> |> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.  The broadcast from a local station
> has value, it is property belonging to the local station.  It is improper
> for anyone with the ability to receive the transmission to rebroadcast
> it for a fee without consent from the property owner.  If the local
> affiliates broadcast has no value to the cable customer, then the cable
> operator should simply not carry it.  If it chooses to carry it, then
> an agreement should be arranged with the property owner for use of
> the property.  

	I agree with your premise, however...

	XYZ cable comes into Anytown USA and asks for cable rights.  Anytown
city council says ok, but you *must* carry local stations as a minimum
configuration (plus the government mandated channels).

	The problem is requiring cable systems to carry local stations, then
letting local stations set the fees.

> In reality, local broadcasters should realize than
> rebroadcast on cable increases their coverage area and should enhance
> ad revenues.  Losing this benefit may be more than the amount they could
> receive from the cable company paying for rebroadcast.  As long as
> the cable company isn't required to carry the station, I don't have a
> problem with retransmission rights.  I do object, however, to other
> aspects of the bill.

	I'd rather see cable completely unregulated.  Let N companies decide
the market price.

> |> 	Blech.  Hopefully the law will be ruled unconstitutional.      
> 
> Me to, but not because of retransmission rights.

	I'll take it any way I can get it :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest poll: one person polled, landslide for candidate X!
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:20:47 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.233040.1227@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.120827.4572@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	About these "polls" with less than 2000 people....
>>
>>	500 people = +- 10% error
>>	1000 people = +- 5-6% error
>>	2000 people = +- 3% error
>>
>>	Statistics in action.
> 
> But what if that one person were Nostradamus?
> 
> "Two candidates will campaign for election.  One will win....."

	And his name will be Smith...
:D

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group, 
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.153100.10958@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> Cliton was against U. S. invasion when he was in England in 70's.
> Those Chinese students are against the "CCP dictatorship" in U. S today.
> What is the difference?

> Dose Mr. Bush think it is morally wrong for Chinese students to 
demonstrate
> against their own country (represented by the CCP goverment) ? 

Well, for one thing, those students don't have the right to demonstrate in 
their own country.   What do you think would happen to THEM if they 
returned to China vs. what happened to Clinton.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10932 alt.politics.bush:9460 alt.politics.perot:2264
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: 16 Oct 1992 13:42:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Oct15.235249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     H-O-L-Y C-O-W!  Shrub wins!  Shrub wins!  (O.K., I'll stop
>the Harry Caray imitation.)
>     It was pretty close in the C-SPAN post-debate viewer call-in;
>by my tally it was 18 pro-Bush, 14 pro-Clinton, and 6 pro-Perot
>(with a bunch of nebulous calls -- your tally may differ).  It
>didn't seem like too many viewers changed their vote based on
>the debate.

I guess we weren't watching the same debate (possibly a different
country?) A poll of a group of undecided voters by a major network
(the one with Peter Jennings) just after the debate indicated about
30% decided to vote for Clinton, 17% decided to vote for Bush, and
about 6% decided to vote for Perot. As far as who "won" the debate,
I did the usually channel flipping after the debate and ALL channels
covering the debate ran informal polls which indicated that Clinton
won by a large margin, the only differences between the channels were
in who came in second, and they were about evenly divided between Bush
and Perot. Even the political analysts from ALL the network claimed a
victory for Clinton. Even the normally Pro-Bush pundits claimed Clinton
won. The *only* people that claimed a Bush victory were hard core Bush
supporters (but then again they were also the ones shown boo-ing
at the large screen whenever Clinton was speaking...guess they just
didn't want to hear what was being said...can you say closed-minded?

>     Now, let me give my views.  First, it was hard for me to
>maintain a high level of interest toward the end of the debate.

yeah, you're right, there just wasn't enough entertainment...
all that boring talk about the issues, it was *really* tough
listening to how they were going to improve the state of the
United States. I mean, who could possibly be interested in the
issue and the future...how about having all the candidates dress
up like clowns and bounce around the stage, now *that* would be
entertaining...

>(Maybe they should have an American Gladiators type debate to
>balance this one.)  I kinda got tired of listening to long-winded
>responses.  Second, I don't think this debate will really sway

It WAS tough listening to Bush NOT answer the questions, and
provide no specifics/details even when asked...

John


>too many people away from their original candidate.  Third, I
>get the impression from the C-SPAN callers that Perot may be
>losing some of his appeal.
>     Some comments on the participants:
>     Bush:    Kept looking at his watch.
>     Clinton: Kept making funny faces into the camera while Bush spoke.
>              All of his plans had three points.  (Very amusing!)
>     Perot:   You're out of time, Mr. Perot.  Mr. Perot!  MR. PEROT!!
>              The chair was elevated too high for him to actually sit.
>
>     C. Perttunen


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: China and Health Care interviews
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:06:10 GMT

Both of my roommates are graduate students from mainland China;
one is in anthropology, the other in economics; they agree that
Clinton's ideas as expressed in the debate would be very bad and
that Bush's granting of MFN was wise in that it opened the way
for peaceful 'westernization' of China(free-market tendencies)
rather than cause China to close up and crack down(defensiveness).
	Some orthopaedic surgeons I spoke to agreed that Clinton's
health care was a crock, saying that "it will never work."
	Taken from the mouthes of people who know and live it, not
the people who live off the government's presence thereof.

			John
From: barry@glory.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TELL THE TRUTH, MR. PRESIDENT
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:27:06 GMT
Followup-To: barry@glory.UUCP()
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Maryland

In article <29380@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com> writes:
> #2. Iran-Contra: The Truth About Arms for Hostages
>
>      For six years, George Bush has said he did not know the U.S. was
> trading arms for hostages with Iran.  He claims he was "out of the
> loop" and unaware of the ill-fated deal -- and gave testimony to the
> Tower Commission and Iran-contra investigators to that effect.  "I

       - I understand this from my friend whose father is close to
the inner circle of BUSH-BAKER. In the testimony to the Iran-contra
investigators Bush has confessed that he was aware of the arms for
hostage deal. Being a basically honest man, He did not feel he could 
consciously lie and commit a perjury.
        -
--
> sensed that we were sending arms.  And I sensed that we were trying
> to get hostages out.  But not arms for hostages." [UPI, 1/8/88]
>
>      And yet when asked on October 13th by Katie Couric whether he
> knew about the arms for hostages, George Bush replied, "Yes, and I've
> said so all along, given speeches on it." [NBC "Today," 10/13/92]
> When asked about his boss' role in the scandal this morning, the
> Administration's attack puppy, Dan Quayle replied: "Well, he said it
> all along.  That's no news." [NBC "Today," 10/14/92]
>

        -Last week in one of the sessions with Baker, this point was
discussed. Baker felt that Bush should come out with it since it is
bound to come out anyway, and it is better to pick a time et it out
in an inoccous fashion.
        - It was decided that the most opportune moment would be when
Katie comes to white house to interview Bush. Katie was planted that
question in an innocent manner with the promise that she would have
a scoop. So, the matter is now out in the least damaging fashion,
and the strategy has worked (Cross fingers). 
> The questions:
>
> *    Did he or did he not know about the arms for hostages deal with
>      Iran?
>
> *    If he knew, did George Bush mislead the investigators or has he
>      misled the American people? Or both?

   - He did not mislead the investigators, nor did he perjure
himself. It was merely a matter of national security.

>
> *    How could he have sat through three dozen briefings on the
>      issue, been in the room when President Reagan signed the order
>      for the arms-for-hostage deal, sat in the meeting where Shultz
>      and Weinberger voiced their strong opposition, sat through
>      briefings on the issue with National Security Advisor McFarland,
>      his aide Howard Teicher and Israeli intelligence officer Amiram
>      Nir -- and yet still not catch on to the deal?
>
> *    George Bush has testified twice on his role in the scandal.
>      Once to the Tower Commission and once to the Iran-contra
>      investigators.  Will he now  make public his testimony to those
>      two bodies?

He has just about done it, and it is no longer an issue.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: joel@locus.com (Joel Lilienkamp)
Subject: Re: incumbent
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 17:47:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.224425.22697@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>                     Since I have never had experience w/ a Pres. being
>elected out of the House I was wondering if anyone could give exact details
>of how that works. Has it ever happened before?{I don't think so}Is it true
>that a House Repre. could vote differently then the populas of his/her state?
>Does it take a simply majority or is there some creative math involved?
>It is the House that is currently in office and not the Nov. 3rd elected House
>that will decide, true?

The specific mechanisms are defined in an early amendment to the
Constitution (11th or 12th I think).  My copy of the constitution
is at home, so this is from memory.  The House must vote for the
President from among the three top getters of electoral votes (in
this election there would likely be no more than three anyway).
Each state delegation gets one vote (thus California and Wyoming
have the same clout), and the candidate with a majority of votes
gets the nod.  If no candidate gets a majority then another vote
is taken, and so on until a candidate gets a majority.  There does
not appear to be a mechanism for dark horse candidates to get in
on the balloting, so President Foley, President Gephardt, President
Michels, or even President Baker are not possible.  The amendment
is also not clear on how a state delegation vote is cast.  I
suppose that is up to each state delegation.  A likely scenario
is that each delgation polls each member and the majority or
plurality wins.

The House has only elected one president so far.  That was
John Quincy Adams, in 1824.  I think it was under the original
rules of the Constitution, and the fiasco resulted in the
amendment we have now.  The fiasco was that after several
ballots with no success, a secret deal was struck between
the then Speaker of the House and John Quincy Adams that
if Adams were elected the speaker would become the Secretary
of State.  After the agreement, the house voted for Adams.
Adams served one term, and then went back to serve in the
House of Representatives.

While on the subject, the Vice President is elected by the
senate from the top two getters of electoral votes for VP.
Each senator gets one vote, and a majority votes is required
to get the nod.  With two candidates only, a majority would
seem likely on the first ballot.  Thus, it would appear to
get a split ticket between the President and Vice President.

The House and Senate that casts these votes are the newly
elected ones, not the old ones.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10163 alt.politics.bush:8967 alt.politics.elections:16529
From: matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:48:28
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu's message of 13 Oct 92 18:46:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

> By itself, a trip to Moscow is no problem.  Set against the context of
> Clinton's various mis-statements and bouts of selective memory, I'd 
> say that his failure to "remember" what he did there is somewhat telling.
> In general, I'd like to know what specific principles guided Clinton in
> his opposition to the Vietnam war

Why the mention of Clinton's tourism in the same context as his
anti-War activities?  Is there any reason to think that his tourist
visits are related, in any way, to his opposition to the Vietnam War?

And frankly, I think there's nothing mysterious about forgetting some
of the details about a three-day tourist trip that you took
twenty-three years ago.  I travelled around Japan in the summer of
1984; I remember the broad outlines of what I saw, of course, but if
you ask me questions like "Who did you speak to when you were in
Osaka?", or "Which temples did you visit when you were in Kyoto?", I'd
have trouble answering.  And to the extent that I could answer those
questions, it's more than likely that I'd make a mistake or two.

If I ever run for office, I sure hope that nobody ever makes an issue
out of how a memory I have of my tourism in Japan.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 21 Military Leaders Endorse Bill Clinton for President
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.215155.3973@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>Say what you like about Quayle but he has done an excellent job fixing
>>serious problems at NASA. 

>He also embarassed the hell out of us in the NASA community with that
>"water on Mars" comment.

Yes or no Norm, did Quayle and the Space Council do a good job identifying
and fixing problems at NASA?

    Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Coup de grace:CLINTON Cowardice
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:28:08 GMT

In article <Bvv4Bx.75L@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> A couple of questions: Why?  Can't you think of anything new to say?

That was 'a couple'? Oh well, I digress. No, actually that is precisely what I
am accusing the liberal Dems. of doing. I posted this a long time ago and they
shied away from it. If they are going to continue to ignore anything that the
Conservatives post on this Net, I shall take the time to force our points down
their throats.
Disclaimers. Disclaimers


"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
 a Fools heart to the Left."
                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
--A far better lesson

		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections