HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:38:14 GMT

sbiles@nmsu.edu (Susannah E Biles) writes:

...interesting comments about teen-pregnancies and lack of education
...in high school students on what to do BEFORE pregnancy

>The biggest problem I see is not whether abortion is the killing of a
>life or choice the right of women, but what to do about the multitudes
>of young women who get pregnant because of ignorance. It is not the
>choices after pregnancy that are the problem, but the choices BEFORE.
>Those choices include:
>	abstinance
>	birth control (condoms, pill, sponges, IUD, etc..)
>	no birth control
>
>One will only benefit if she/he makes an EDUCATED choice.
>
>I hate to sound like Miss Negative, but I have first hand experinence
>that leads me to say...these kids don't know ANYTHING!!!
>
>I realize that abortion is one of the biggest issues next to the
>economy in this election, and I am voting for the candidate that is
>pro-choice, but I am more concerned about keeping these pregnancies
>from occuring. 

I would suspect that a good number of persons who think that the
government should make it illegal for a couple to decide what to do
also support the withholding of education on the BEFORE choices.

>It is personal opinion that the more strictures put on abortion, the
>more ignorance will breed.
>What will we do with the thousands upon millions of little babies that
>the 'babies' have each year???
>Adoption?
>I will just recall the post I read in this group a few weeks ago about
>adoption...The one that mentioned the fact that if the baby up for
>adoption is white and healthy, there is no prob. Again the questions..
>who will take the crack babies? The babies already infected with AIDS?
>The mentally and physically disabeld babies? 

I also tend to believe (but could be wrong) that quite a few persons
who are anti-choice and don't want people to be educated about the
choices before pregnancy, also want to deny certain families, who
would be able to make a good home and life for children and
desparately want to give children a home, the option to adopt. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7773 alt.politics.bush:7158
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: How do three way debates go?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:52:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) said..
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) said..
>
>[re: 3-way debates]
>>Has there been a precedent?
>>Is there a standard way of doing this?
>
>There were several this year, between Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, and
>Jerry Brown.  The BEST one I saw had the three candidates sitting around
>a table -- the moderator would throw out a topic, and say who could
>go first.  Then they went around the table and let everyone make their
>statement.  After going around the table, it became "free form" where
>the candidates could bring up specific points or question the others
>about that topic.

I also forgot to mention a critical element -- the one I saw had no
in-house audience.  Just three candidates sitting together discussing
issues, instead of playing to the crowd.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer                        It's Tuesday September 22, 1992 -- 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com         time for the Presidential Debate.
aschaffe@netcom.com                   Do you know where your President is?
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call 1-800-272-9763.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Why Gore is more charitable than Quayle - Top 10 Reasons
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.122924.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>
>10.  Because 
> 9.  Because .
>
 
   Because THIS IS NON-ISSUE !!!  Don't you republicans ever get it ?  Why the
Bushniks have nothing of substance to talk about in this campaign other than
smears and rumors ? 
 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rkn3u@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (R. Keith Norwood)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:18:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.235033.27150@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

[ Complaints about tribalism deleted]
>
>I'm so sick of being treated like a criminal in the country I was born
>(Canada) simply because I'm white.  Boil me a melting-pot.  This
>"mosaic" garbage is a noble idea but is only a fine example of simple-
>minded idealism.  That is, itself, a crime greater than anything Hitler
>could have ever done.

Sounds like a bunch of white guilt to me.  It must be tough living up to 
the demands of every other tribe.    Why don't you take David Duke's
advice and form your own whitey tribe for WASP only.

Keith 


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8537 alt.politics.bush:7768 alt.politics.marrou:1434 alt.politics.correct:5605
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:43:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

In article <1992Sep29.212152.1916@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep23.161633.15637@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> 
|> >God says that homosexuality is wrong and evolution says that 
|> >homosexuality is a dead end.
|> 
|> What makes you think you know anything about God?  From the offensive tone of
|> your post (most of which I deleted, but anyone who didn't read it already
|> can do a ctrl-P to search backwards, when you're done reading mine), I don't
|> think you know much about God or man.  Well, I happen to be a Jewish agnostic
|> with leanings toward Buddhism, and I don't happen to think your version of
|> God makes much sense.  The true arrogance of fundamentalism is that its
|> followers think they know the word of God, better than anyone else.  In my
|> opinion, if God thought that homosexuality were wrong, then God shouldn't have
|> created homosexuals.

Golly, did God create homos? Er, did God create anything? Can you tell me
just what He did create and prove it?

|> That's just my opinion, but it's every bit as good as
|> yours.  And evolution brought about different types of sexual orientation;
|> the fact that they have been around for millenia contradicts your latter
|> statement.

Seems that some of our esteemed scientists say that life is a dead end.
Afraid so, folks. Evolution is not some kindly spirit that looks to the
future and says, now Bobby got to be a flaming homo 'cause it will all
work out just right. One of these fine days, there won't be any more
fine days and the sun will burn out. Like fossil fuels. Evolution never
accounted for the sun's death. Someday it'll go to sun heaven and we
got to look out for that and help good 'ol evolution along if we're gonna
survive like Mother Evolution wants us to.
 
Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:37:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

You said "You can't fight rascism with rascism"--how true!!

Most of the problem today is that there is so much name calling and finger
pointing going on, no one can talk about real issues.

Recently I got intoi a big arguement ith someone because apparently he
considered my comments against rap music to be rascist--this guy isn't even
black and he's suddenly an authority on race relations.  I mean, I'm white
and I don't profess to understand everyone's problems, but I think there's
room to discuss ways to solve them that are beneficial to everyone.
The really funny thing is that alot of the "rascist" accusations being thrown
at whites are from other whites!! I am not making this up!!

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:23:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.143656@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
 writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.151513.253@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust) writes:
>>
>>
>> Herman Goebells??  Never heard of him
>
>   You're kidding, right?  He worked for Adolf Schicklegruber after that
>gentleman got out of the army and into govenment work.  He was in charge
>of public relations.
>
Ahh.  I thought that it was Herman's younger brother Josef.  My mistake.  8)Op

>Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
>"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | "Read my lips ... I'll do anything to
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  get reelected ... I knew nothing about
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|  Iran-Contra."  What credibility problem?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7481 talk.politics.misc:48203 alt.rush-limbaugh:6011 alt.politics.bush:6915 alt.politics.elections:14425
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:39:56 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.205548.28997@afit.af.mil>
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
>>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Hmmmm....that sounds a lot like Clinton's welfare reform proposals,
>>>doesn't it?  Does that mean Clinton is not a liberal boogie-man after
>>>all?
>>>
>>>And the Conservatives have been in power for twelve straight years now.
>>>Why have they not proposed any such reforms of their own?  You might
>>>argue that the nasty liberals in Congress prevented any such plan from
>>>*passing*, but neither Bush nor Reagan has even suggested it might be a
>>>good idea.
>>>
>>>Jim McMaster
>>
>>Are you trying to say that welfare reform is not really a Republican
>>conerstone, and with a straight face, no less?  Why would Bush try to
>>push a bill that has no hope of being passed by Congress (remember all
>>of Reagan's "DOA" budgets?)? Instead, he has been doing all he can to
>>support the States' efforts to reform welfare, since they are the
>>primary providers anyway.
>>
>>It's one thing to adopt the opposing party's ideas (because they're good),
>>and another altogether to claim them as your own and accuse the other
>>party of not thinking of them.
>>--
>>
>>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing."
>>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
> 
>I know very well the Republicans want to reform welfare.  I was merely
>commenting on the congruence between the original poster's comments
>about conservatives and Clinton's position.  I threw in the fact that
>Reagan's "welfare reform" position was limited to criticizing "welfare
>queens in Cadillacs" and Bush's almost total silence on the issue.
> 
>When the Republicans have good ideas, I think they should be adopted.
>Likewise, when Democrats have good ideas (and they do on a lot of
>issues), they should likewise be embraced.  This is how our gevernment
>is supposed to work, with the best ideas of all parties melded into
>sound public policy.  Too often, though, both sides feel that thay have
>the only possible good ideas, and the other side is stupid or malign
>for opposing them.  This has led to the current gridlock.
>

I likewise believe good ideas from both parties should be used, and your
right, the lack of this in comgress is the cause of gridlock.  However,
that doesn't excuse you for saying that welfare reform is a Democratic
idea and that Bush and Reagan did nothing to support it.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:47:17 GMT


Sorry I'm not quoting your previous text--there's something here I haven't
figured out yet--anyway-
I know this guy who swears that everyone BUT gays are getting AIDS!!  Now,
he claims to be straight, but I wonder--I quoted figures from an issue of
Scientific American several months ago that still showed more AIDS cases
among gays and IV drug users, and he imediately disputed i!! I don't
know what logic some people are going by.  What's really angers me is when
a person is irresponsible, gets AIDS and dies from it, we are supposed to
talk about how brave that person was, while more people die of cancer and they
get no mention--look what happens among famous people.
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: One of Clinton's 128 "Tax" Increases
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:37:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.183205.25866@dbsun.uucp>, harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.101249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
|> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> > Thanks for pointing out the NY Times list.  You're right -- I
|> > do not see the change-of-sex fee on this list.  The media (specifically,
|> > the New Republic) displays its "quest for accuracy" once again!
|> 
|> If you are going to blame TNR for the mistake in your original article,
|> please cite the issue and page where the claim was made.  I subscribe
|> to TNR and read every issue cover to cover (except the art and book
|> reviews).  I read Kinsley's article on the Bush campaign's tax list,
|> and he made no reference to a change-of-sex fee.  He did (accurately)
|> point out a license fee of $500 for abortion clinics.
|> 
|> I've seen no reference to a change-of-sex fee in any other TNR article.
|> Perhaps you got your facts confused.  It happens to the best of us, but
|> it is unfair to blame the error on TNR.

He probably meant The National Review -- same initials, so he got a little
confused.

|> 
|> -- 
|> *realName: Phil Harbison
|> *mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
|> *phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7457 alt.politics.bush:6896
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Industrial Policy
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:12:55 GMT
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering




	   
*** INDUSTRIAL POLICY -- Bush is quietly taking steps to enhance 
the competitiveness of American industry.  The last 12 months have 
witnessed budget requests for sharply increased spending on 
several technology development initiatives, a new emphasis on 
commercializing the inventions of federal researchers, and greater 
collaboration between government and industry.  Apple Computer 
Chairman John Sculley notes that [Gov. Bill] Clinton appears to be 
more receptive to greater government investment in technological 
development and "infrastructure."  Sculley nonetheless said the 
Bush administration has been "very supportive" of the computer 
industry.  An opposing view came from Robert Allen, chairman of 
AT&T.  Allen said he has not seen any significant change in 
administration views on these matters in 12 years.  Both Allen and 
Sculley have been active in high-tech policy lobbying efforts in 
recent years. [Investor's Bus. Daily]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7288 tx.politics:5687
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: 26 Sep 92 20:30:15 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep25.193547.18104@watson.ibm.com> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.135750.15134@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> Well, I'm not the original poster, but a little detail called 'money'
>|> comes to mind.  When I went to school, I used to drive 20 miles and
>|> live in another town, just because that was STILL cheaper than trying
>|> to get an paratment in Boulder, Colorado.  I'f I'd had to rely on
>|> public transportation because I didn't have a car, I couldn't have
>|> afforded to go to school.

>You couldn't have afforded to go to school *in Boulder, Colorado*. 
>You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.

Yeah, great system you advocate here, John.  Don't support public
transportation, support an argument AGAINST people not 'needing' cars
more here than most other places, and then tell me that I should just
go to a poorer school?

One wonders how much of their own education the average person on the
net paid for.  In my experience (at least with the engineering types I
meet at work and the folks I saw at the University), the bulk of them
are upper-middle class parents and above.  Easy to be critical
libertarians for people who have never had to deal with the
difficulties.  Real simple to just say, "Screw the poor."  Yeah, the
attitude often exists even more strongly in people who HAVE made it on
their own ("if I can do it, anyone can") and I have to admit to a
certain amount of that sort of feeling myself.  However, let's try and
retain a LITTLE perspective here.

[The discussion was about cars being more necessary here, remember?
Now, if someone can't afford to live close to where they need to be,
doesn't that seem to say that they need a car (given that the typical
public transportation net is a joke)?  Seems like I often wind up
addressing things taken out of context with you, John, and I'm not
sure why that is.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7658 tx.politics:5731
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:02:15 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <Buvx3s.J2A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> 
> Mind you, I don't like the taxation policies of governments in the 
> U.S.  However, if there are going to be income taxes, etc., as they
> currently exist in this country, they need to be set up so that
> they have the same equivalent "bite" for every person.  $9 in taxes
> per week for a person making $50 a week could be just as
> "painful" as say, $200 in taxes weekly is to a person making $500
> per week, under the concept of diminishing marginal utility.
> Charging both the $50/week and $500/week persons with the same amount
> of tax (say, $25) is ludicrous!

Nothing ludicrous about it:  the $500/week guy and the $50/week guy are,
after all, getting the same government, why shouldn't they pay the same
price for it?  When each of these guys goes into a store to buy a loaf
of bread, they pay the same for it regardless of income:  it's not five
cents for the poor guy and 89 cents for the rich guy.  Which only makes
sense:  the loaves of bread cost the same to manufacture and distribute
and they provide the same marginal utility to both people.  Basing the
price of the loaf of bread on "ability to pay" is ludicrous -- as is
basing the individual price of government on the same criteria.

>                                   From one perspective, the $500/week
> person is getting off with almost no "bite," while the $50/week person is
> facing an extremely painful "bite," one that could very well put him
> out on the streets.
>

[...]

> 
> Sir, I suggest that you are too greedy.  Your showing a little
> compassion would make the world a better place.

Nothing "greedy" about it.  "Greed", in the context of economics, is just
a pejorative term for the motivation, the incentive, to do things, to
offer goods and services, that people value.  Without that motivation, I
suspect little would happen to "make the world a better place"; the human
race is simply not that altruistic.

> 
> --
> Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
> Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
> Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
> Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
> UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    
> 
> Marrou/Lord in '92
> 
> 
> 

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "America is the only nation in
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   history which miraculously has
possibly represent its position.	|   gone directly from barbarism to 
					|   degeneration without the usual 
					|   interval of civilisation."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Georges Clemenceau
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:00:20 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Tom Haden was a member of the Chicago 7, former husband of Jane
>Fonda, a very, very, left wing activist.  Later he moderated
>his views and was elected as a Democarate in Southern Calif.

He musta been REALLY radical if he had to moderate his views
for Southern California!!

BRI
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8709 alt.politics.bush:7903
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: WEE WEENIE WILLIE
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:02:04 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <BvpLEK.57G@ora.com>, ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler) writes:
!  Thank Goddess Clinton is more on his toes
> than ol' Dukakis was.
"Goddess Clinton"? Indeed. I don't think I could have said it better.

--
Here endith the Lesson
--
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7444 talk.politics.misc:48165 alt.rush-limbaugh:5992 alt.politics.bush:6888
From: jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies  (Correction)
Organization: University of Florida
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:04:33 GMT

> What is their tax rate, up to (adjusted to US dollars)
> 70%? Of course if I am wrong, please correct me, it's most likely higher...
> but hey- with Slick Willie we could hit that tax rate in what, 2 years?

Actually it's higher!  75% (25% Value added tax and 50% for highest tax
bracket)