HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:46:45 GMT

In article <57056@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <4245@wet.UUCP> editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:
>>Trains go to train stations; automobiles go to parking lots.
>>The train I take to my job in downtown San Francisco takes
>>me a lot closer to my office than I could afford to park a
>>car.  The station near my home is maybe a block or two
>>farther from home than I would probably park a car.

	Urban-transit rail vehicles typically run much more often,
usually once every 10 or 20 minutes off-peak, and shorter intervals on
peak times.

>Automobiles go to parking spaces, not parking lots.  Maybe the

	But where are the parking spaces? Usually in parking lots, bud.

>time for downtowns of any kind is over.  It is only government
>support which keeps them going.

	Like what?

	And it is pure myth that our roads are completely supported
with user fees. They are actually 38% subsidized (source: Joseph
Vranich, _Supertrains_). And that does not even count such things
medical care for accident victims and smog sufferers and law
enforcement.

>>Never say never.  Trains take me where I want to go between
>>two and ten times a day.

>Even with the non-existence of any decent parking system at the
>University of Chicago at this time, one can get as close by car
>as by any public transportation.  Also, the car goes when you want
>to go, and the cost of waiting for a vehicle to arrive does not
>exist.  BTW, the University of Chicago has been at the same location,
>although it has expanded in size, for a century.

	But one _does_ have to wait for lights to change, and one
cannot do very much else when driving. When I'm riding BART, I can
read without any trouble, and I can even do that when I'm riding a
bus.

>Now I have no objection to a transportation system which can pay
>for itself, as various train and bus systems did quite well in the
>first half of this century.  

	I'm not complaining in principle, but if train and bus sytems
are supposed to pay for themselves, then let roads pay for themselves,
also, even if that means upping gas taxes by some factor of 2 or 3.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Familiar noises....
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:45:46 GMT
 <1992Aug11.121525.3820@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug11.231427.28876@news.columbia.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug11.231427.28876@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	"Uhh, the other guy did it.  I tried to stop him, really."
>>
> 
> Sounds like Bush.
> 
Tastes like chicken.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.192139.1954@brtph560.bnr.ca> usscoop1@bnr.ca (Chuck McCusker P015) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.215414.877@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>|> 
>|> Why the hell SHOULD the rich pay so much more in taxes than the poor?
>|> Where is the justice in that? Why should I, who works hard, pay a lot
>|> more in taxes than someone who doesn't work hard or isn't as skilled?
>|> Why should I not only pay more in taxes, but pay a higher percentage of
>|> taxes? This is a load of humbug that the liberals have been putting
>|> on us for a long time... every since they got the 16th amendment passed
>|> on a promise that income taxes would NEVER exceed 10 percent!
>
>|>
>
>Because America is a nice country with good values. We protect those who 
>cannot protect themselves. We feed those who cannot afford food. We are
>a charitable (sp?) nation who puts the welfare of others above their own.
>We are not greedy, I got mine you get yours type of people. Come on, get
>real.
>

Funny how we've always been considered a compassionate, charitable nation....
yet we've only had social programs to do it since the 30s.  Once upon a
time, we helped each other directly.  When a friend or neighbor lost his job
or was down on his luck, we helped.  Now we want the government to do it for
us.  We have removed ourselves from the "dirty job" of helping each other.
Oh, how compassionate we are!



-- 
        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NAFTA (and a bit on Northern Telecom)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.020517.12150@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>
>>How can an agreement which gives preference to one side be called
>>free trade?
>

In some sectors, the FTA and the NAFTA are managed trade and not
free trade per se...Canada, the US, and Mexico all have parochial
interests where the trade will be managed and not be free...the
US was able to do a bit of a double-whammy on Canada by negotiating
twice...since Canada really could not afford to let the US make
a bilateral deal with Mexico which excluded us...thus in some areas 
the US was able to drive a harder bargain the second time around.

>
>A survey of Canadian business relayed in UPI Clarinet pointed out that
>Europe was considered ahead of Mexico in importance, but there is no
>action going on between the EC and Canada (we failed to become an EC
>associate in the mid-70's and nothing has been followed up upon since
>... my preference would be to see NAFTA fail ratification and Canada
>link up with the EC in one way or another, serving as a transatlantic
>bridge).
>

Gary, you're forgetting how important Asia is to British Columbia...
Canada's best interests are ultimately or would be best served by freer trade
through the GATT process...with the FTA and NAFTA as an insurance
policy against European or Asian protectionism if GATT fails.

If GATT were not on such shaky ground because Europe, the US,
and Japan are all posturing, Canada really wouldn't need the
FTA or NAFTA.

Gerald
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40972 talk.politics.theory:3768 soc.culture.usa:6729 alt.conspiracy:10186
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:09:36 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
>Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
>back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
>and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
>American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
>actions and relationships.  This proposal is clearly akin to 
>the fascist, Communist, and Nazi programs of subordinating
>culture to political -- governmental -- control, and of
>eliminating free expression.  The Nazis called the program
>_Kulturkampf_.  Is there any way in which the Buchanan
>proposal differs from the _Kulturkampf_?  

The word "kulturkampf" is somewhat misleading, because it directs
attention to the wrong country.  Buchanan's model is Franco's Spain,
not Hitler's Germany.  I doubt that he's thought very much about how
to bring about the transition, but he probably implicitly assumes that
most Americans would prefer that kind of society, if they were given a
choice, and that the minority who didn't could be suppressed.  Not
necessarily killed or imprisoned, unless they made trouble, but
prevented from speaking or acting publicly.

Why we don't have that kind of society now, if most Americans would 
prefer it, is another question Buchanan probably hasn't thought about
very much.

>Or are there
>defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his
>statement otherwise?

Oh, you wanted *defenders* of Buchanan to respond.  Well, too late! :-)


Keith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39975 talk.abortion:31925 alt.politics.bush:1724
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:17:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug15.234638.2437@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.224848.29286@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>In article <adams.713802433@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
>>
>>The life begins at conception idea is mainly scientific and biological,
>>not religious.  
>>
>Surely life is a continuum. 

Please explain in detail.

> Are the egg and sperm cell not both alive prior
>to conception?  

Yes they are alive.  Put an unfertilized egg in the mother's womb, let it
wait about nine months and hopefully, if science is correct, a baby
doesn't suddenly appear.  Put a sperm in a mother's womb without any
contact whatsoever with the egg.  Wait nine months again.  Hopefully, 
trusting science, after nine months, a baby will not be there.

However, after conception, the father's traits and the mother's traits
are meshed into a new set of genetic code.  A totally new set of DNA is
created completely UNIQUE from the mother.  Once the abortion takes place,
the DNA combination is EXTREMELY unlikely to come up again.  

Now allow this to be put in the mother's womb.  Wait nine months, and 
usually speaking, we can all physically see a crying screaming baby.

No, the above statement is not suggesting that life begins at birth.

Even if you disagree with people like me that life begins at conception,
when can we consider the unborn to be humans?  

[stuff deleted]

>Do they share a common soul?

Once again, you mention soul.  I don't think pro-lifers even use a soul
as a means of persuasion.  Somewhere in people, if they are not clouded
by too much emotion, personal gain, etc., there is a general sensibility
about life.  Perhaps we have to teach people about the birth process rather
than teaching them about how to have sex without "getting caught."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39925 ca.politics:6821 ba.politics:4540
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Religion In America: Hard Numbers
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:44:45 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <11764@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >... It will become apparent that there is a large population
    >out there with whom the average USENETer has little or no
    >contact.

And I think this is a very large point that is all too often ignored
in these newsgroups.

Posters on the net are NOT in any shape or form representative of
the population at large.

Soc.motss posters are not in shape or form representative of the population
OR other net groups either.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40161 talk.abortion:32068 alt.politics.bush:1856 alt.flame:12127
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:16:06 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug13.020524.22862@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>i urge you, dennisstephen, to repeat this statement in
>as many newsgroups as possible. i think your net.rep
>will influence people. really.

Okay, Ziggy. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:11:49 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <BsxMC2.3I7@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <Aug.13.08.57.46.1992.3740@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>
>>Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
>>from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,
>
>    I believe the man died in 1988.  How did he die?

Heh, heh.  I was an ACCIDENT!!! :-)



--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: United States Condones kidnapping
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 14:31:38 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Last week a grand jury in the US (NY or NJ, I think) indicted a
non-US citizen for a U.S. "crime" committed in a foreign country.
(Pablo Escobar was indicted for taking part in the bombing of a
Columbian airliner over Columbia).

We have an epidemic of governmental hubris in this country.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

It's also hard to tell which group is up to more no-good: cops or
crooks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Congress "above" the law?
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:20:50 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <2323@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
<In article 14431@sequent.com, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
<>In article <BD.92Aug14084801@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
<>>
<>>You know, I keep hearing this (mostly from the pig, Rush Limbaugh), and I 
<>>wonder if it's accurate (it might be, but I wonder).  I had thought the 
<>>reason for this is that Congress is Constitutionally exempt from them, since 
<   >>the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and separation of powers limits the 
<   >>influence of the Executive Branch over Congress.  
<   >>
<   >>Anyone have a clue what the real story is?
 
	Nonsense. Congress specifically includes in virtually
	all legislation language that exempts Congress.

	Congress does not have to pay the Federal Minimum Wage.
	Congress does not have to obey OSHA rules.
	Congress is exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	Congress may require classified employees to work unpaid 
	overtime.
	Congress is exempt from Federal sex discrimination laws.

	In other words, the laws which the rest of us must live
	by do not apply to the lawmakers.
From: king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:45:00 GMT
Organization: Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine

Look who's back for more abuse:

In article <Aug.12.07.31.03.1992.24980@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore Abnormal Kaldis) writes:
>> If you come back to reality, and look at the normal homosexuals [...]
>
>I would submit, rather, that it is Mark C. Carroll who needs to return
>to reality: the term "normal homosexual" is in fact an oxymoron.

But no more than the term "normal fascist bigot pinhead kneejerk reactionary" 
is an oxymoron, eh Teddy dearest?

Suppose that I manufactured widgets and every once in a while an abnormal
widget popped off the line. Suppose further that 95% of the time this
abnormality was characterized by having Ted's face embossed on it. Would 
this not make Ted's face a "normal abnormality"?

-- 
                       Se non e` vero, e` ben trovato 
     ...{utzoo|mnetor}!dciem!dretor!king        king@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:19:18 GMT


|>In article <1992Aug18.085329.29740@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>(Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> 
|>> |>In article <1992Aug17.142234.22584@dscomsf.desy.de>,
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>> |>(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> |>> In article <1992Aug12.153110.3400@desire.wright.edu>,
|>> |>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|>> |>> 
|>> |>> |>Subject: It's only the difference between internal and external,
|>after
|>> |>all
|>> |>> 
|>> |>> |>    "Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of
|>Kuwait
|>> |>> |>    added little to it, ..." --The Noamster
|>> |>> 
|>> |>> 
|>> |>> Brett's ignorance of the middle east is obviously so vast that he has
|>> |>
|>> |>	(I guess this means the truce is over :)
|>> |>
|>> |>> not heard of the Iran/Iraq war. This was a far greater crime committed
|>> |>> by Saddam than the invasion of Kewait, the number of lives lost was far
|>> |>> greater and the destruction far worse.
|>> |>
|>> |>	But started during Carter's term, not Bush's.  In fact it ended before
|>> |>Bush became president.  So just a weee bit irrelevant when you are trying
|>to
|>> |>slam Mr. Bush.
|>> |>	(After all there are so many other things you can do that on, why
|>> |>weaken your position with irrelevancies?)
|>> 
|>> Brett, perhaps you could shouw just where I mentioned Bush in my post?
|>
|>	Red Herring/strawman.  I never said you did.
|>
|>	However, the Noamster was trying to show how Bush let Saddam get away
|>with things.  Bush wasn't in a position to do anything about the Iran-Iraq
|>war.
|>
|>> Also Brett is rather off in the dates for the Iran/Iraq war. Most of it
|>happened
|>> during the movie actor's term, the one who makes Dan Quayle look like
|>Einstein.
|>
|>	It started in 1980, during Carter's term.  It ended in 1987, during
|>Reagan's term.  Perhaps you have redefined the word "off".

Perhaps you are unaware of the job George was doing at the time? Someone was
pulling the strings, rice puddin' brain certainly wasn't. Bush was in the
government and had an IQ roughly the square of the President's. He had plenty of
influence then.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:05:30 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Is this the same George Herbert Walker Bush who said that he would stand
>> by his granddaughter if she were to have an abortion?  Wouldn't you want
>> him to be ragging on her parents to throw her out of the house?

> Hell, if he thinks abortion is murder and wants to have a
> Constitutional amendment to say that, he should be willing to call the
> police to prevent a crime from being committed.  "Lock up my
> granddaughter, she's planning a murder!" 

Mr/Ms Farthing, I was responding to Steve Chaney, a not-so-gentleman who
thinks it's a neat idea to threaten a daughter with expulsion from the
house if she were to have an abortion.   

> Of course, contrary to Reagan's and Bush's best efforts, abortion is
> still legal in the US, so granddaddy Bush can be tolerant for the time
> being.

I think GHWB was being a good grandad when he said that.  A lousy president
but a good grandad.  He looks good in a flannel shirt with a rod and reel in
his hands.  We should help him find his true calling. :-)

>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that
>> they would remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or
>> granddaughter; all equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents
>> support of their right to choose.

> You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?

Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: None
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:20:17 GMT

>In article <1992Aug6.013932.29133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
>
>	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!
>

I agree 100%

US Public schools have FAR more administrators than private/independent
schools. But US public schools do a much worse job of educating America's
kids.

We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student, yet their
students are far more educated than ours.

On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in math/science.

Its time do do something - I support school choice.

Joe 
joec@morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc