HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:00:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
+eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>|Oh, I don't think so.  Talk about the perfect sop to Mario's ego.  Clinton
+>|didn't say he would appoint Mario, just that he'd make a good justice.  It's
+>|hard for that asshole in Albany to keep mouthing off about Clinton after suc
+>|nice things have been said about him. That's one less problem behind Clinton
+>|back.  Now, if someone could just shut up Charlie Wrangel...
+>
+> Agreed about the bit about Mario's ego. But you're right: Clinton said he'd
+> make a good justice. That should indicate to you what Clinton is looking for
+> with regards to people he would consider to be on the Supreme Court. (Humor:
+> if Marchbishop Cuomo decides cases as quickly as he decides to run for the
+> Presidency, we'll have quite a swift judicial system.)
+
+hehehe...this is quite true about Mario.  However, I don't think it's all that
+clear an indicator of what Clinton will do with the Court.  For example, His
+Highness is vehemently anti-death penalty, while Clinton is pro-death penalty,
+to the extent of signing death warrants.  Mario would be the guy they'll go
+running to for temporary stays left and right.  I can't imagine that Clinton
+wants that to happen.


H:WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!! Abortion is the most important issue that faces
U:the Supreme Court!!! Who cares about crime! As long as abortion is legal,
M:the country will be better off! We MUST have justices that will uphold
O:this right, and damn you nazis that think otherwise! Mario is the most
R:compassionate man on this issue, and that's why he should be Chief Justice!

Seriously, though, I don't really know to whom Clinton will seek advice with
regards to recommending a justice to the Supreme Court (as well as appellate
courts). But this pandering is really worrisome to me. Another poster asked
what Clinton would do with Charlie Rangel (NY); well, I'm not so sure, but
a Cabinet seat may be in the making.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig.
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: "Family Values"
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:05:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


If I hear this expression one more time, I'm going to puke.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4667 alt.politics.clinton:4847 alt.politics.elections:12810
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:15:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
%anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
%> One prime time speaker during the Republican convention mentions Hillary,
%> and the press calls the whole convention a week of Hillary bashing.  
%> 
%> Well, now, it seems you don't have to say a thing about Hillary, and you're
%> still bashing her.  Has Bush even uttered Hillary's name?
%
%One primetime speaker?  How about Bond, Buchanan, and indirectly, Barbara 
%Bush and Marilyn Quayle.  You've got Bush surrogates going around the 
%country completely distorting her published works.  

I haven't found anything in Barbara Bush's speech where it even hints
about an attack on Hillary Clinton. Marilyn Quayle's speech is more of
a contrast with the decisions she took vs. those taken by Hillary
regarding how they made choices in their lives.

>As to whether Bush has uttered her name, you're using the classic 
>deniability game.  Bush must accept the responsibility for his 
>surrogates.  If he doesn't fire them, he agrees with them.  Their words 
>are geared to keeping him in the White House, so the buck stops with him.

And I guess Clinton is responsible for Cuomo's statement that Clinton
will raise taxes on everyone before the Democratic National Convention.
Right?

I have enclosed a previous article where the quotations from Hillary's
papers are given. Pardon the commentary if you don't like it, but that's
the way the file was. If you can tell me how her works should be
interpreted, I (and the network) would be grateful.


Article 3488 of alt.politics.bush:
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Political Wives...
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:47:29 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:

>I'm not familier with the reference to comparing marriage to slavery, except
>that I've heard that the paper was from the same time frame (19 years ago).

The quote in question is the following:

" The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency
relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving
of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social 
institutions specifically designed to safegaurd their positions. Along
with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include
marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."

A family is an institution that DEPRIVES children of RIGHTS?

While she may not have "compared" marriage and slavery per se, she most
certainly expressed a commonality, in as much as two branches of a tree
depend on the same roots and trunk for their existence.

Her other pearl of wisdom is the following:

"I prefer that [court] intervention into an ongoing family be limited to
decisions that could have long-term and possible irreparable effects if they 
are not resolved. Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling,
cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others
where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child's
future should not be made unilaterally by parents. Children should have
a right to be permitted to decide their own future if they are 
competent."

It is outrageous that Hilary believes ( she has not yet publicly disavowed
these opinions ) that parents are so inept at making responsible judgments
that the courts need to step in to review every kind of decision they make
regarding their children. Nobody should tell anyone how to deal with their
children. Nobody.

-ACF


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:33:57 GMT

In article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com>, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
|> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
|> |> The cure for a needed program with problems is not the elimination of that
|> |> program, despite that being what Reagan's evil minions have tried to make
|>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> us believe for twelve years now. The cure is to make it *work*.
|> 
|> Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
|> wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
|> disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
|> never heard the term religious left?

A few bits of advice and comment:

1) This is a.f.d-q. Either charicature terms like "evil minions" have 
an implied smiley, or both of us have been working too hard.

2) Define "disatrous". How congruent is it with the documented fact
that 65% to 75% of all people on welfare are able to get *off* the
dole in six months or less? That's no disaster, chum, that's a
program that works better than almost anything else Washington's
ever done. It's certainly imperfect, but it *works*, and far better 
than Patriot missiles do :^). The abusers form a tiny minority, one 
that Reagan and Bush blew all out of proportion (and in Reagan's case
at least, outright lied about) because it makes for good press and 
catchy campaign rhetoric.

3) Define "soak". Then tell me how it compares with the money your
President has insisted we spend on garbage like Star Wars, unneeded
DOD black projects, or bailing out his buddies and family in the
Savings and Loan scandal. Yep, pretty small potato(e)s...

4) The religious left is out there. They constantly get bad press for
such heinous acts as giving sanctuary to people fleeing death in
El Salvador, or protesting unconstitutional wars (e.g. Philip Berrigan),
or having the temerity to vote against a sitting President (e.g. former 
Representative Father Drinan, S.J.). What they *don't* do (and here we
have the main point of difference between them and Jerry Falwell or
J. Danforth Quayle) is impose their religious views on others by force
of law. Seems kind of short-sighted on their part, eh? - 'cause the
next time we have a Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush, or (God forbid) Quayle
in the White House, they'll just have to do it all over again...:^)

5) That was actually a fairly impressive collection of smoothly-
integrated buzzwords. My compliments! "Roger Collins" isn't, by
any chance, a nom-de-plume for James Addison Baker III, is it?
:^) 

Don Coolidge
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:23:20 GMT

In article <5162@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	Ok, I assume we're talking about Bill. He may not be personally
>in favor of abortion on demand, but why is he publicly advocating that
>he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices regarding choice?
>Saying that Mario Cuomo is qualified to be on the Supreme Court to me is
>one of the most stupid things I've heard Clinton say!

   I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accussed of being connected to
the Mob in his conversation with Flowers a few months ago is now his
leading candidate for the Supreme Court.  And people talk about Quayle!
This to me is the best example of Clinton's pandering.  He is willing to
kiss Mario's *** just to gain the support of his followers.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4632 alt.politics.clinton:4779 alt.rush-limbaugh:4524 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5235
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:05:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <prpf3f@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>1) This is a.f.d-q. Either charicature terms like "evil minions" have 
>an implied smiley, or both of us have been working too hard.

Yeah, but note the global crossposting.  (It was worse; I removed
talk.politics.guns.)  Maybe he read it elsewhere?

>4) The religious left is out there. ...  Philip Berrigan

That's right... How could I have forgotten the Fabulous Funny Berrigan
Brothers?  There's also the various Marxist "Liberation theology" types.

>What they *don't* do (and here we have the main point of difference
>between them and Jerry Falwell or J. Danforth Quayle) is impose their
>religious views on others by force of law.

I can't see as the Berrigans, Jesse Jackson., etc., were doing anything
*but* trying to imposed their views on others by force of law.  They
disagree with the law, and demand the law be changed to conform to
their point of view.  How is that in any way different from what you
accuse Falwell of?  Other than that you maybe agree with Berrigan,
Jackson, Coffin, etc?
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4288 alt.politics.clinton:4282 alt.politics.elections:12567
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:46:52 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:

> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
> >1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand.  While
> >a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
>
>     Once again, I have to ask, who the hell else are they going to vote for?

Hey, I agree with you.  The pro-choice voters have figured that out.  So have
the pro-lifers.  Clinton's position is an example of a Democrat not pandering
to the left of the party.

>
> >2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
>
>     Obviously not, looking at the polls.  Popular perception is that he's onl
> for raising taxes among the upper 2% who aren't paying enough now.
>

This one depends on who took the poll and how the questions were asked.  I
believe that when you combine the numbers on folks who oppose *any* taxes,
along with those who oppose almost all increases, you still get a high number.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5228 alt.politics.clinton:5558 talk.abortion:36630
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, et
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:51:25 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep15.161756.26529@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.002526.19597@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>My feminist friends and I are tired of you portraying pregnancy as a
>weekness and liabilities that should be disposed of.  You and others like
>you have made us ashamed of our pregnancies in the past.  You have made us
>have to choose between children and career or education.  We are tired of it!
>
>And by the way, the reason you don't see more of us in talk.abortion, is
>because we are tired of you men bickering back and forth about an issue
>which none of you really has any understanding.
>
>-Carol

		Thank you!!! I've said this before on the net,
		but not nearly as well as you have.  Expect a
		lot of complaints!  Thanks, again.


			Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:55:19 GMT

In article <92256.083946DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>While I'd prefer a system financed by income taxes, I'd accept one
>with community rated premiums.

Now we're getting somewhere.  I have very healthy practices.  Why
should I subsidize people who don't?  After all, they get the benefits
from smoking, drinking, driving fast, not exercising, and so on; why
shouldn't they pay the costs?

If you make me pay for them, I'm going to insist on control; money
always has strings.  If you insist on making me pay for the
consequences of your private decisions, you can be damn sure that I'm
going to make those private decisions for you.

>>ANY payer has to keep track of what's done, if it pays on that basis.
>>The Canadian system seems to fit that model; it doesn't pay a fixed
>>salary, but reimburses MDs on the basis of what they've done.  (I
>>"remember" that the Canadian system allows private payment too, so it
>>has to keep private payers from shifting costs to the govt.)
>
>No, A Canadian doctor knows that 99% of his business comes from one
>payer who uses the same forms.  Other private payers represent such
>a small portion of a physician's business that he/she can determine
>the payment methods.

So?  The training overhead of dealing with an additional form doesn't depend
on the frequency of use.

>But, the Canadian form is different from every other insurer's form.  It
>requires the physician to train personnel, to staff his office with
>extra clerical hours, to fill otu this form for all ANOHC patients.

Yet, the Canadian system does tolerate multiple forms and payers.  It works
in Canada, but can't work in the US because we have multiple forms
and payers.

>>What?  They have controls that work?  Then why won't they work
>>in the US?  If they won't, then we've found why the Canadian
>>system won't work in the US.  If they will, then ....
>
>Because we have a multiple payer system.  Go to a single payer
>system and you'll find that it will work in the U.S.

Hold it.  Canada is a multiple payer system, so why does the
US have to go to a single payer system to get the same benefits?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: glass@adcalc.fnal.gov (Michael Glass)
Subject: Hormones
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4  
Reply-To: glass@adcalc.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Distribution:  world
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:01:15 GMT

     Am I the only one who believes that Geo. Bush is acting manic
again?

     The last time I had this sensation was just before the Gulf war.
I had this vision of the man scooting around the oval office in his
executive roller chair, shooting imaginary machine guns and making
bomb noises.  I commented on his hyperactivity, but nobody believed
me.

     Later that spring, of course, we all learned that he suffered
from an overactive thyroid.

     Well...watching him, I get the same feeling again.  The guy
positively twitches!

-- Michael Glass
   glass@adcalc.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: af610@yfn.ysu.edu (Ben Hanson)
Subject: Get ready
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:55:13 GMT


 It's all over. George Bush narrows the gap. Face it folks, the
big lie works. He's already bragged that he can't get anything
done with a Democrat(ic)-controlled Congress, so I'm sure he's
rehearsing his excuses. The folks who declared cultural war on 
other Americans will be back in 1996, emboldened by the gullibility
of the Americans, and their susceptibility to fear mongering in
hard times. George Bush slashes Clinton as foreigner-hating and
envvironmentally destructive and manages to keep a straight face.
Several hundred demonstrators for freedom in Tiannenmen Square
murdered are not sufficient grounds to risk straining ties with
China. No it's got to be something really important, like Bush's
re-election chances. 
 Bill Clinton is not the perfect candidate but George Bush  is a 
proven failure.  Bill Clinton will probaably not do anything 
effective about the deficit, but George Bush will definitely not.

Vote Bush/Quayle in 92. Together maybe we can bring this great
country down.
-- 
Ben Hansen
af610@yfn.ysu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Summary: Malpractice
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 07:46:24 GMT

In article <92257.095439DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.171833.24461@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford
>@ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) says:
>
>>A real-world case: my wife's OB/GYN made about $80,000 / year
>>(5 years ago).  His malpractice insurance was $120,000 per year.
>>Over half of his $1,500 delivery fee was for malpractice insurance.
>
>????? Data from the AMA shows that the average OB/GYN paid liability
>insurance premiums of about $10,000 in 1980 (Sorry, that's the
>most recent data I have at home).  In recent years, since 1985 or
>so, malpractice premiums have dropped.  There are problems in
>particularly specialties, OB/GYN and anesthesia, for example, but
>to blame America's health care problems on malpractice insurance is
>to ignore the facts.  The data indicate that it's a minor portion
>of the problem.
>

It's hard for me to believe the figure for malpractice insurance is
accurate.  The cost of insurance of anesthesiologists and OB/GYN is very
high, and can exceed $100,000 a year in some parts of the country.

The costs of litigation certainly affect the health care system and both
doctors and drug companies.  However, it is unreasonable to think that just
removing lawsuits will bring meaningful improvement to the system.

The problem is that the medical profession doesn't police itself, and, when
it does, the states let the offending doctor move on with no problem.  Drug
companies routinely disregard or misreport dangers (Dalkon Shield, breast
implants are two recent examples).

When you have people receiving permanent injuries that will require
lifetime care, in a fee-for-service system, and there is no effective
policing system to prevent existing abuses, it would be a disaster to give
either the medical profession or drug companies protection from tort.

The tort system operates to spread the cost of injury thru the system to
remove the effect on the individual.  If there is no replacement system,
there will be intolerable results in the form of malpractice and drug
company abuses.

In my opinion, we need to get both the trial lawyers and the providers out
of the way and talk about a responsible public policy that protects all the
legitimate interests of consumers and the public.  None of the providers or
the lawyers are talking about anything that even comes close to that
standard.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4685 alt.politics.clinton:4876 alt.politics.elections:12825