HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:53:03 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4121103@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

>>   Iraq has no historical presense in Kuwait.  Jews, and Israelis have
>>   historical presense in Jerusalem.  Was thier presense illegal in 1947?
>>   If no, why is it illegal now?
>
>This is a simple nonsequitur.  There was no Israeli presence in
>Jerusalem in 1947, as there was no Israel.  International law does not
>mandate against Jews in Jerusalem, but rather against the Israeli
>occupation of East Jerusalem.
>
>You shouldn't confuse the occupation of houses by residents with the
>occupation of foreigh territory by nations. 

Then neither should the Jordanians, who drove out or murdered just
about every individual Jew in Jerusalem when it captured the place.

>=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

	-Nora
-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45095 alt.rush-limbaugh:4670 alt.politics.elections:12956 alt.politics.clinton:5106 alt.politics.bush:4874
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Health Care Costs was Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 13 Sep 1992 03:49:32 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <farenebt.716353454@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
...
>
>NOw that I've finally figured out this editor let me say fully what I want
>to say. Right now our system is not working. 40 million Americans lack
>adequate health insurance; 70% of those are full-time workers (or their
>families). What is wrong with this picture? Health care should not
>be a privilege solely of the rich. If you don't like Clinton's program,
>that's okay, but please suggest something that you believe will be better.
>
....
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."


There is one factor in the health care picture that in my view is of
greter concern than all others. Health care costs are rising something
like 10% over inflation. Health care is already a significant portion
of the total national economy.

If something is not done to reduce the cost of health care it won't be
long until it would be the total of economic activity. Something
must change. Something will change.

In my view it is time for both parties to work together to find a
solution to this problem.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Free trade (was Re: Bush is a mother fucker)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:57:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.160245.17447@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>I believe, like the President, that free trade is best. By making 
>nations critically dependent on each other, the risk of war is
>reduced. Are you going to start a war with the country that feeds
>you, or supplies you with spare parts for your F16s?

It works both ways.

If it's harder for country A to threaten country B because country B supplies
food to country A, then it's equally _easier_ for country B to threaten
country A because of exactly the same reason.

If you make two countries depend on each other for their supplies, all you've
really done is given both sides an extra weapon to both sides.  The reduced
risk of war due to "their" ability to withhold essential supplies from "us" is
compensated for by our ability to do the reverse.

Maybe it even encourages war.  If A depends on B for a resource, they may feel
safer totally conquering B so that B is forced to hand it over.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:27:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.185425.11217@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> Our society accepts heterosexuality as the normal sexual orientation,
> something such as the norm. Then, when the term protection from discrimination
> based on "sexual orientation" is used, the first idea that comes to mind is
> "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other non-heterosexual orientations".
> It is like if in this cas "sexual orientation" were a definition 
> of non-heterosexual, besides it's actual meaning.

Well, the reality is that people are losing their jobs for
being gay, lesbian, or bisexual.  While it's possible that
straight people are losing their jobs for being straight, I've
never heard of it happening.

Be that as it may, during the past year the county where I 
lived passed a non-discrimination law (or rather extended the
covereage of an existing non-discrimination law).  The language
they used was "actual or perceived sexual orientation," since
there are straight people who are perceived as gay and who
take abuse for it.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45066 ca.politics:7692 ba.politics:5237 soc.motss:38923 ba.motss:1598
From: Minotaur@cup.portal.com (Frank - Swilling)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 13:20:13 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep10.212950.5478@fico.uucp> <12251@optilink.UUCP>
  <1992Sep12.170552.13807@spdcc.com>

Scott Moir beats his head against the wall of Clayton Cramer's NAMBLA
psychosis:

>Please don't fall back on the 'gays support it' argument. We don't. there
>may be -some- who do, but they don't speak for me.

>Scott

Scott, Clayton has been told this over and over and over and over and over
and over and over again.  He *intentionally* disregards the information.
There is absolutely no point in trying to engage him in a conversation,
because no matter what the subject, it always gets back to his obsession
with NAMBLA.

Frank
Minotaur@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep10.200001.1977@spdc.ti.com> <swood.716185334@vela>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:54:31 GMT

In article <swood.716185334@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

   `In article <swood.716148783@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
   `>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   `>` He  went to the backyard for
    (stuff deleted about baby)

   `>I suppose we will consider this a "real" example?  I have two dogs that

   `I took this story to mean that he at first thought it was a doll, but in 
   `reality it was a real human baby. Did I misunderstand? 

   My apologies - I misread the confusing wording to mean the doll was a
   baby doll as compared to a Barbie/child doll.  I have cancelled my
   response, however, I would be interested to know more details.  I
   wouldn't imagine the circumstances are as clear cut as the post
   details.  

I'm not sure what is unclear.  Jim went around to the backyard and saw a
gang of four dogs playing with what he at first took to be a doll.  Upon
closer inspection the doll turned out to be a real dead human baby.

I would also say that both the owner of the dog and the parents
   of the child should be held suspect for negligence of responsibility in
   this case (depending on the circumstances which were conveniently left
   out of the previous "shock value" post)

You can say what you want, but the fact is there was one dead baby at the
paws of a bunch of nice neiggborhood pooches.

BTW, it wasn't a "shock value" post.  It was a post intended to refute
the idea that all nice neighborhood pooches are just sweet little things
that wouldn't hurt a fly unless they were pit bulls or rotweilers.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:07:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.110912.3960@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>> Canada is not a poor country.  The standard of living is fairly similar
>> to the U.S.  It is a democracy.  Do you seriously believe that Canadians
>> would put up with a system that wasn't serving their needs?  Why do you
>> rarely hear *Canadians* complaining about their system?
>
>	When I was in North Conway, NH on vacation, I heard plenty of
>complaints about Canadian health care.
>
>	Too-high taxes, mediocre care.  Assembly-line like conditions.  Waiting
>lists.
>	Yes this was from Canadians.
>

They were complaining about what they know...not about what they
don't...they have no idea that if they were in the States that they
might not be able to get any care at all because they couldn't afford
the huge deductibles, or because their HMO would limit their choice
of a doctor.  The trouble in Canada is that middle-class Canadians
expect care equivalent to upper middle class Americans...and that
if they found themselves in the state that even many middle class
Americans found themselves in, they wouldn't be complaining.

Gerald
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:10:23 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 9026@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Clinton never joined the ROTC.  He told the draft board that he was going
>to join in order to delay getting drafted.  But when it came to time to
>actually participate, Clinton decided that he would rather go back to
>England to continue his education.  A country that was conveniently beyond
>the reach of the draft board.

If England had been beyond the reach of the draft board, it would have 
experienced very strong population growth during the war years.  ;-)  You
could not legally avoid the draft by leaving the country.  In fact, I
don't think that the draft board had the legal power to delay Clinton's
draft notice just because he wanted to join ROTC.  If they took any such
action, they may have been exceeding their authority.  (This happened back
then a lot.  Draft boards seldom understood the process they were supposed
to carry out.)  When Clinton dropped his ROTC bid, he was automatically
back in the draft pool.  It was his high lottery number that kept him
from being drafted.  

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: GHWB and atheism
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:51:47 GMT

I've been getting a lot of email from people asking, "did George Bush
_really_ say what you quote in your .sig?"  The answer is yes.  Here's
the relevant section from the alt.atheism FAQ:

------ begin excerpt --------------------------------------------------------

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1988. 
The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal
disaster relief for Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential
primary:

	RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

	GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
	    God is important to me."
 
	RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
	    Americans who are atheists?"

	GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
	    nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
	    God."

	RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation
	    of state and church?"

	GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not
	    very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27,
1989.  It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

------ end excerpt ----------------------------------------------------------

DearOldDoug and other pro-Bush atheists still haven't commented on Bush's
comments.  Hmmmm.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:00:09 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <56wnb-r.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Then the first step must be to REMOVE (or cease and desist) any laws
>that "recognize" sexual preference. I.e., the law must ignore and must
>not force anyone to hire, or not hire, on the basis of sexual orientation.
>It must not say you can't. In short, this is NOT a matter for the State
>to be involved in.

As long as you include marriage and all other laws that give preferential
treatment to heterosexuals you have my vote....

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:10:29 GMT

In article <BuMB24.50s@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.010027.18091@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
>(Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>Putting a rating on an artistic work defaces the work and constitutes
>>censorship...or certainly a form of censorship.
>
>  Gerald Olchowy seems to think that if he keeps repeating the 
>  "labels = censorship" mantra it will become true.  
>

And you seem to think that if you keep repeating the the mantra
that "rating labels aren't a form of censorsip" that it will become
true.

Because you are accepting of this mild form of censorship, and this
mild form of censorship may have wide public acceptance, doesn't
make it any less censorship.

A "ratings label" has someone, some official, who examines the artistic
material before r, d based on its contents makes a change to
that work by attaching a label to it.  The censorship may be mild,
but it is censorship nonetheless.

Gerald

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45089 ca.politics:7705 ba.politics:5252 soc.motss:38938 ba.motss:1607
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:39:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Sep12.061527.3113@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, by ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark):
> In article <12272@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>>(talking about affirmitive action)
>>I find it sad that some gays are now trying to get their fingers
>>into this pie.  I don't believe that gays are mentally disadvantaged,
>>and as such do not need bailout programs.  I can see it now:
> 
> Huh?  Are you actually paying attention?  I don't know any gay or lesbian
> folks who are looking for affirmative action or "special rights", and I'm
> willing to bet big bucks that I know a LOT more of them than you do.  All
> we'd like is the government to pass some laws saying we can't be fired just
> because we're not straight.  Is that "special rights"?  I sure don't think so.

Yes, those are "special rights" because they apply to a specific
group of people.  Why should there be more government intrusion
into what people can and cannot do in their lives?  A company
that is stupid enough to fire competent people just because of
their sexual orientation is just that much closer to suffering
economic Darwinism.  You yourself might not hire me because of
my wild hair (you should see it now :-) ) and that is okay.
My employer has the right to let me go for any reason if need
be.  Or do we need laws protecting the employment of people
with wild hair, straights, bi's, social retards, etc., etc.?

The good news is that the number of gays pushing for this brand
of governmental discrimination is relatively small.  The bad
news is that they are good at being vocal (though I will support
their freedom of speech without reservation) about it, kind of
like those white supremacist neaderthals.

I guess my problem is that I don't see gays as disadvantaged.
My best man is gay, and he is every bit as competent in the
workplace as I am, so why does he need to be protected?  This
kind of legislation results in resentment between the have's
(the protected) and the have not's, and removes the rights of
what one can and cannot do with their business.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44680 ca.politics:7597 ba.politics:5170
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Candidates for Phil (Re: What Here!?!)
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:36:47 GMT

Okay...I won't pretend that I know them all but I'm sure that we
can list a few so...for Mr. Phil...let's give him a list of
alternate candidates he can vote for as he does seem to be stuck
in a "clinton vs bush" rut..I'll start:

			NOTE
	Not all listed candidates may be on the ballot in this
	state.

	Bo Gritz ... populist party
	Lyndon LaRouche ... God Only Knows Party ;^) 
	Ross Perot ... independent party
	

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:41:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <25008@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>In talk.politics.misc, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>                            ...My approach requires flexible
>>  access to doctors (especially since part of the task is finding a doctor
>>  who will tolerate a patient like me!) and labs.  This is easier to
>>  achieve in the US system than the Canadian one.

>    FALSE!

I agree that it is false, but not for the reasons states.

>    In the Canadian system, as I understand it, anyone can go to any 
>doctor and the government pays the bill.  "Frivolous" and unnessesary
>procedures are tracked statistically and denied.  Nessesary care is
>tracked statistically and ensured.  The economy of scale reduces costs
>and improves the allocation of equipment.

Which nincompoop who has taken refuge in the "civil service" decides 
what is frivolous and/or unnecessary and what is not?  The idea that 
one can have a career civil servant who can do something intelligent
is not totally false, but 99+% of them are not to be trusted to do
anything nonroutine.  

Nor are things likely to be much better if elected and politically
appointed officials make the decisions.  Or even if a committee of
physicians does it; people will die long before any of these groups
approves a treatment which goes against popular or reactionary opinion.

>    In the U.S. system there are several possibilities:

In the US, there is no insurance system.  Prepaid medical care is essentially
the opposite of insurance, and it leads likewise to the tragedy of the commons.

In both of these systems, finding a doctor who can think and not react is
very difficult.  The US "system" has the disadvantage that a doctor gets
no compensation for study, reference, etc., relevant to the actual cases.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Anyone done a recent Usenet Poll?
Date: 8 Sep 1992 16:20:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA/JSC

Has anyone performed a recent usenet poll on Bush/Quayl and Clinton/Gore?

 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Time Magazine's grasp of higher mathematics
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.185104.24502@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>Found this winning piece of journalism on p.28 of the 9-14-92 edition
>of Time:
>
>  In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 74% of the respondents said their votes
>  would not be affected by their views of Hillary [Clinton]; but among
>  the remainder, almost twice as many said they would vote against
>  Clinton (14%) as for him (9%) based on their opinion of his wife.
>
>You heard it here first, folks -- 14% is "almost twice as many" as 9%...

Actually, this is kinda explainable: 14/9 = 1.5555555555555555555...

Because we're not taught to cope with numbers when we're young'ens,
we round up.  Viola, we have a 2.  Kinda silly....


--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43878 talk.politics.mideast:19642 misc.headlines:6217