HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Bush giving up? (Colin Powell)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:50:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep4.191157.4844@news.Hawaii.Edu> gerard@caliban.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>In article <183sd4INNdr3@agate.berkeley.edu>, tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>|> Bush looks so sad, tired, and defeated-looking that I feel sorry
>|> for him. After all, he really meant well and tried hard, but he
>|> was misled by his advisors (particularly Colin Powell, the Rasputin
>|> of American politics, who screwed up Desert Storm by ending it
>|> before the pursuit phase was properly exploited).
>|> 
>[stuff deleted]
>
>There are a zillion reasons not to vote for Bush, and his choice of
>advisors is certainly a major one.  But you can't fault them on the
>conduct of the Iraq conflict (unless you object to the fact that the
>war started at all, but that's a different issue).  The risks of
>following the war to its logical conclusion far outweighed the
>potential benefits.  Before pouring scorn on the apparently too-rapid
>halt to the advance, read something about the recent history of Iraq,
>Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and try to get a feel for the prevailing
>sentiments in those countries.  Had the U.S. destroyed Hussein Iraq
>would probably have fractured into pieces (unless the U.S. were to
>maintain a puppet government to hold it all together).  ...
...

    Had the Allies stopped at the Germany borders in 1945, in hope that 
    Hitler would be overthrown by "moderates" within the Nazi leadership 
    (Himmler? Goebbels? Borman?), Germany would have probably stayed
    in one piece too though, chances are, it would still be a Nazi Germany
    today.  Any regrets?

>...............................................................  While
>fragmentation of the country might not have been bad in itself, you
>have to think about the neighbors.  The Turks have already said that an
>independent Kurdistan, even if it is entirely within Iraq's present
>borders, is completely unacceptable.  The Saudis, meanwhile, are scared
>that turbulence near their borders might expand into their country,
>changing "Saudi Arabia" simply to "Arabia." The situation called for
>prudence.

    As a result of the war, the US had a unique opportunity to redraw
    the region's political map to its own liking.  While it is true that
    an independent Kurdistan would be a threat to Turkey, Iraq, Iran and 
    Syria, those are precisely the countries that the US might want to keep
    in check.  IMO, an old-fashioned "divide and conquer" strategy would
    have been our best bet.  The situation called for visionary leadership,
    not maintaining the status quo at all costs.






-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44858 talk.politics.theory:4138
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:02:04 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

gary@khonsu.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  BTW, why is the health care market different from the car market
>  or the food market? 

That statement points out (and there's nothing wrong with him having
that opinion) a basic difference in values between Europeans/Canadians
and Americans ...  Having health care is not viewed by us as the same
as having or not having a VCR; Canada and Germany have gone to the
least "socialist" form of universal coverage, preserving private
medical practice and patient choice.  Given the unpredictability of
medical care requirements versus regular White Sales at Bloomie's,
medicine and life transcends the market.  Capitalism has benefitted 
in Europe and Canada from it ...

It goes beyond just subsidizing corporations, although Canadian and
European corporations welcome that (and Lee Iaccoca has gone on the
record as supporting a price-oriented system like Canada's).  It is
also a question of the society's values, where your health is not a
commodity but an asset to the society in which you work and create
wealth (besides to yourself).  A German banker said something of that
sort in a speech that I attended last year here in New York; in
discussing Europe's "social market" system he pointed out public
health insurance and other "socialist" ideas at first glance turn out
to be very powerful capitalist tools when used in a market democracy.
(Others he touched on were family leave, child care, etc. -- this guy
is a Commerzbank big shot in a suit.)

> I'd be more afraid of a national health care system if the private
> insurers  were in *favor* of it. Can you imagine, a guaranteed return
> on their disbursements, courtesy Dennis Shea, American taxpayer. Why,
> I'm surprised they haven't realized that there's plenty of room for
> them at the public trough.

Of course, American private insurers are trying to protect their turf,
especially since no real proposal for American universal coverage has
gone beyond the stage of vapourware! (-;  I'm certain that most of them
are aware of the market/non-market divide up north in Canada, as they
have Canadian subsidiaries involved in private non-medical insurance
(private rooms, television, (cellular) phones, etc.) and full-medical
travel insurance (for the U.S., mostly) in competition with the public
provincial Blue Cross/Blue Shield/Croix Bleu ... one outfit might be
The Travellers, for example.  Private insurance bailed out early from
any involvement with universal coverage (such as brokering the plan)
and hasn't seemed to regret it yet ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Subject: Re: Stealing the Presidential Election
Summary: Two scenarios for such theft are proposed
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: stuff ballot box Elector Perot bribe
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:21:00 GMT

In article <hmiller.716244460@lucpul.it.luc.edu>, hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu (Hugh Miller) writes...
>    So?  Suppose it's a real close one, down to the wire.  Considering
>our dear ex-DCI President's penchant for doing whatever is necessary to
>add another line to his resume, and his pal Bake's well-deserved
>reputation for acknowledging no depth of sleaze too low to wallow in
>(while maintaining arms-length plausible-deniability for the campaign),
>do you think the Bush campaign might try to steal the election?  Stuff
>ballot boxes, jigger the absentee ballots (esp. military overseas), hack
>computerized voting systems, whatever it takes?  Is there a team in
>place right now working on it even as I type this? 
>    Does anybody seriously think this sort of idea does not cross the
>minds of people like that?  I invite you to visit Sweet Home Chicago,
>where the elections are never over until the River precincts are in
>(i.e., the cemeteries)!  The Dems here have been stealing elections
>forever and a day.  And since there is no difference that I can make out
>between a Daley Democrat and a Republican anywhere else, all the more
>reason to wonder.
>    What do folks think?  Technically possible?  Scenarios, please!
> 
>    -=- Hugh
> 
>-- 
>Hugh Miller         | Dept. of Philosophy | Loyola University of Chicago
>Voice: 312-508-2727 |  FAX: 312-508-2292  |    hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu
>PGP public key available by mail or finger| Clinton/Gore '92, pis aller.
>In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful      

	Well, Bush has already admitted that he "will do anything" to be 
reelected.  It's possible, but I don't think that Bush could do all the
ballot-stuffing that would be necessary without getting caught.
	How about the following scenario: About 1/3 of the voters become
so disgusted with the two-party candidates that Perot (joining the race
at the last minute) is able to prevent any clear win.  Then Perot spends $100 
million to --uh-- persuade the official Electors to vote for him.  Or if you 
think Perot is too honest for that, let Bush and/or Clinton raise a large 
amount of money for --uh-- persuading Electors.
	A small note in anticipation of objections:  In most states,
Electors are not required to vote for the persons whom they have pledged
to vote for.  The laws in those states to do require Electors to
honor their pledges may be unconstitutional.  Also, I'm not sure what the
punishment is for bribing an Elector -- but our candidates can find
people to take the rap.
	Another (simpler) scenario is assassination by a true "dirty tricks"
squad.
	But of course that sort of thing never happens in this great
country of ours . . . .
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:23:54 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <82341@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard  
Wojcik,snake) writes:
> Sure there were openings.  How do you think he got in?  Unfortunately, 
>the openings weren't filled on a "first come, first serve" basis.  That's
> why Quayle needed the influence of his family.  As for evidence, it came
> out of admissions from the Quayle family.  You can't get better evidence
> than that.

Actually, the openings WERE on a first-come, first serve basis.  His  
family was exercising influence, but it was unneeded.  They THOUGHT they  
got him a slot, but in reality anybody could have gotten it.

This is according to the Indiana NG commander.

And of course once he signed up, he was under military discipline and  
could have been ordered anywhere the army pleased.

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:24:41 GMT

In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
>but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
>yes, it does confer de facto special rights.

Sounds like you're only concerned about de facto special rights when
they are owned by people other than yourself.  The existing system
says, "Well, let's take Joe instead of John; we don't want any faggots
in this company," which constitutes a de facto special right for
heterosexuals.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44361 talk.politics.mideast:19756 misc.headlines:6272
From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:48:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep9.174855.15021
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Sep9.060950.3371@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.185144.5501@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>Nonsense.  The Palestinians *rejected* 193 and their right to a state
>>inside the "Green Line", the 1949 ceasefire lines.  They did this by
>>declaring war on Israel, and losing.  War is not a zero sum game.  The
>>side that starts, and loses a war generally loses territory as well.
>>Germany is a good example of this.  Germany lost WWII, and can not go
>>back to the "meaningless pieces of paper" which defined its pre-war
>>boundaries, since it rejected those same papers in declaring war.

>The difference here is that the Arabs have not lost the war, only some
>early battles. A state of war still exists between Israel and the
>Arab states. Thus calls to return to pre-war conditions are still
>valid.

(Early?  Not an optimist, are you?)

Yes, a state of war still exists between Israel and its neighbors
(excluding Egypt.)  However, cease-fires have been signed, and upheld,
on 4 seperate occaisions.  So, while the state of war exists, there
have been 4 hot wars over the length of a cold one.  To claim that any
of these hot wars can be retroactivly canceled by the, ummm, grace of
one side or the other is nonsense.  Calls to return to pre-war
conditions are only valid if the casualties can be returned to thier
pre-war conditions.  Once you start a war, you accept the possibility
of losing.  You can't say, "Oh, drat, we're not doing well, lets start
over" and cancel the war.  By ignoring those "meaningless peices of
paper," the arabs lost their moral and legal right to claim they
should be the basis of settlement.

> In practical terms, of course, the chance of ultimate military
>success by the Arabs seems small, but is not moot as witness the Israeli
>military buildups and continued military rule of the occupied territories.
>If the war were over, military rule would not be required, unless you
>want to redefine Israel as a military dictatorship.

The war is over, for the time being.  Unfortunately, the Arab
governments, again with the exception of Egypt, refused to negotiate
the terms of peace for 45 years.  Until a negotiated settlement is
achived, it is reasonable for Israel to continue to maintain control
of such territory until a permanent settlement can be achived.

Adam


Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Re: Decline Of Rights in the U.S: Will Clinton Reverse This? (Was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:47:19 GMT

><Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
><believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S.
>
>        Name them, please.

Those who voted with the majority of five in _Bowers vs. Hardwick_.

(For U.S. citizens with short memories:  the case which determined 
 that it's perfectly all right for police to arrest adults for having
 consensual sex in our own homes, provided the authorities don't
 approve of us.)

--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
  "The seven dwarves were in bed feeling happy. So happy got out and then
   they started feeling grumpy..."  --Ciaran McHale, quoting some source
   which should stay anonymous
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:12:48 GMT

In article <55979@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> scaruffi@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Piero Scaruffi) writes:
>     Thousands of police officers spend  their  time  fighting  honest
>     people, rather than criminals, and employ very expensive means to
>     do so; this at a time when the U.S. is faced with  rampant  crime
>     and  the  biggest budget deficit of its (and anybody else's) his-
>     tory. No doubts it is a lot easier for a police officer to  point
>     a radar to a harmless motorist than to point a gun to a dangerous
>     criminal, but police should be  reminded  why  they  are  paid  a
>     salary by their community: not to threaten the peace of that com-
>     munity, but to protect it.
>
>     The effects are devastating: the U.S. is the only Western country
>     whose citizens (the honest ones, not the criminals) are afraid of
>     their own police.

Are you joking? I'm *definitely* afraid of Swiss police, I am reasonably
honest, and I'm not the only one.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "He carried an automatic pistol in one pocket and a rabbit's
    foot in the other" -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: ala@fico.uucp
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Reply-To: ala@fico.UUCP (Adryenn Ashley)
Organization: The Fair, Isaac Companies, San Rafael, California
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:28:43 GMT

>In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Sorry, but I have NEVER taped my classes back together
                   ^^^^^
I know an eye witness that used to work with you that says you do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  A A   apple!fico!ala           |  A mind once stretched by a new idea never
  D S   uunet!jandel!fico!ala    |  regains its original dimension.
  R H                            |  -Oliver Wendell Holmes
  Y L   Fair, Isaac Companies    +---------------------------------------------
  E E   120 N. Redwood Blvd      |  My opinions are my own (including the
  N Y   San Rafael, CA  94903    |  typos), and do not reflect those of FICO.
  N                              |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:40:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.190347.17207@tamsun.tamu.edu> me@aeroj.tamu.edu (My Account) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.104248.3910@desire.wright.edu>  
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep3.154025.27348@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu  
>(James L. Heilman) writes:
@ > Yesterday, George "Santa Claus" Bush announced wheat
@ > export subsidies in South Dakota, relief for cotton
@ > farmers in west Texas, and the sale of F16 fighters
@ > to Taiwan in Fort Worth.  Things must be getting
@ > desperate for the man who promised to do anything
@ > to get re-elected if he's handing out goodies in 
@ > South Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a 
@ > democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and
@ > selling planes to the enemies of his bosom buddies,
@ > the butchers of Tianeman Square.

	One big geographical boo-boo here: Taiwan is not Mainland
(Communist) China, no matter how accurate your characterization of the
reliationship between Bush and Mainland China's rulers are.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:20:14 CDT


In article <1992Sep13.191358.12326@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> In article <BuIxL2.27x@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
> >pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> >
> >: A history lesson:
> >: 
> >: In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
> >: administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
> >: (substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
> >: conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
> >: Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
> >: the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
> >: raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
> >: The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
> >: signed by President Bush.
> >
> >Bush could have not signed it.  He could have let it pass without
> >signing it ("I'm not going to sign my name to that piece of cow
> >droppings!"), or (*gasp*) he could have vetoed it.
> 
> Well I wish he had vetoed it.
> 
> The only poblem was that the Gov't was running on "continuing resolutions",

Huh?  I thought the budget agreement was made in July, not after the old
budget ran out (Oct 1st).  What "continuing resolutions" are you refering to?

> and a veto would have ended the Federal Government in a situation akin
> to California's 'no budget' situation of the last few months.
> Bush apparently saved his resolve for the Gulf situation.

Did Bush know there would be a "Gulf situation" in July?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:43:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <82339@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Rick Wojcik) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> No.

>> Next question?

> Funny.  You usually have more to say than that.  [...]

Yes -- to honorable people who argue honestly.  Shall we ask the folks
over in talk.politics.guns how honorable Rick Wojcik is?

> Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

Please note also that Boeing is a very successful company.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:57:09 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Peter Nelson writes:
>
>   4. We have a flawed definition of "liberal" and "conservative".  What-
>      ever the viewers are, and whatever the networks are, the networks
>      are giving people something which resonates with their world-view
>      and values.  
>
>   Personally I say "4".  I can think of no other likely explanation
>   for why, in a world of media choices, we get the results we do.  
>
There are other sides to 4. Like try to imagine what a "conservative"
newscast would sound like: Hortatory. Example driven. Lessons to be
learned. Stern. Statistical. 

Television needs a warmer image than, say, Rush Limbaugh with his
pointless snide remarks. Or consider Buckley's "Firing Line" as an
example of what a better conservative newscast might look like:
argumentation, debate, etc. Fine, but you need to be a debater yourself
to spend more than 10 minutes with it. If you've ever watched Pat Robertson,
with his painful didacticism, you've seen how easily a Law Driven
approach to TV turns dull. A mass market needs images and images tend to be 
more emotional. I don't think the label "liberal" covers all the problems 
conservatives have with the media: they want a classroom and TV news is part 
theater. A flood of images hurtling past with no theory to tame them
must seem like blood swilling Jacobins to conservatives.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>      
Season: 0-1  Lifetime: 0-3
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44261 alt.politics.clinton:4450