HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:47:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.121734.13578@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>> 
>> You are quite right.  However, I really was speaking from the viewpoint
>> that most of us in this society hold.  I think most of us are willing to
>> make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>> happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
>> happiness are contingent on the right to life.  The right to life,
>> though, is not dependent on liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  They
>> modify the right to life.  All three have been described as inalienable.

Well said Tim!
>
>That one is contingent on the other does not at all prove that
>the one must be subservient to the other.

Really now, without your life, your property and freedom would be useless.
>
>Rights in the United States are not at all based on what most of
>us in society hold.
>
>Please tell me where you get a copy of the Constitution with a
>right to life mentioned, or the right to pursue life or liberty
>or happiness.  My copies don't mention these and since other
>people's copies do, I am worried that my copies are all the
>wrong versions.  Maybe I have an early draft?

It is undeniably true that the Founders were students of the enlightenment
and in particular the works of Locke and Montesquieu.  These works 
describe the origin of the Natural Rights concept and it is plainly
obvious in the writings and explanations (Fed. Papers) as well as
the record of the Constitutional Convention that these men truly based
their philosophy on that of individual rights as originating from 
natural rights.  This is why the Democrats on the Judiciary committee
pound appointees on the subject of natural rights.  Ask yourself why
they fear the proper and original understanding of a living constitution
interpreted along this premise.  

The reason liberals fear natural rights is that natural rights are a 
challenge to their precepts of group rights.  By all rights, modern
liberals should be called conservatives.  They do not agree with the
Founders nor are they for liberty in this regard, individual rights
are not what the liberals are interested in in the least!

Mike Best

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39659 ca.politics:6775
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:43:02 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11737@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>David Duke has been as vigorously shunned as anyone can be.

Except that lots of republicans voted for him.  In fact, many more people
voted for him than support NAMBLA.


>The comparison of the KKK to Pat Buchanan makes no sense.  There
>are things that Buchanan said I liked, and things he said I didn't
>like, and things that made me shudder, but he's hardly in the same
>class as David Duke.

He is still a fringe character.  It was an analogy, I am not here to argue
Buchanan's politics.


># No, I would not.  I recognize fringe groups for what they are.  Also,
># the republican party is much more homogenous that the gay "community".
>
>HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You know nothing about what you are saying clayton.  There is no "gay
community".  We are a group of people who have only one thing in common,
we all are homosexuals.  There is nothing else that we have in common. 
You seem to lump drag queens and leathermen into the same category.  In
fact, these two groups tend to scorn each other.  This leaves out the
sweater queens, who scorn the leathermen, the activists, who are scorned
by the "old school" homosexuals, and so on and so on.  There is very little
unity in the gay community.



>I heard a lot of whining, but I've seen no refutation of the fact
>that NAMBLA funded an orphanage in Thailand in order to gain access
>to prepubescent boys.  I've seen no refutation that many of the
>current members of NAMBLA have ben convicted of charges involving
>boys as young as 5.

Those were all lies.  There is a refutation in the magazine "Frighten the
Horses"  Someone is typing it in as we speak.  Of course, you are going
to say that a refutation of these "facts" is support for NAMBLA.  Is there
any way we can say these things were wrong that would please you?


>I don't know how much support NAMBLA has in the gay community.  I know
>that it has enough that it is apparently a major issue when the 
>decision is made whether to exclude NAMBLA or not.  This hardly sounds
>like a minor faction.


You are hypothesizing without facts.  The only reason the NAMBLA topic
keeps coming up is that you keep bringing it up.  Other than that, the only
time most homosexuals think about them is when they are throwing things
at them and booing them in gay pride parades.



You are the one obsessed with NAMBLA, not us.


FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:54:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>spending.  
>


ok, look who's done so much damage to the budget that our GRANDchildren will
still be paying  it off--couldn't be reagan-bush, could it?

Jennifer
The democrats probably couldn't do much worse!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40481 talk.abortion:32348 alt.politics.bush:2051
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
Keywords: internal affairs vs. external affairs
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.153110.3400@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

|>Subject: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all

|>    "Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of Kuwait
|>    added little to it, ..." --The Noamster


Brett's ignorance of the middle east is obviously so vast that he has
not heard of the Iran/Iraq war. This was a far greater crime committed
by Saddam than the invasion of Kewait, the number of lives lost was far
greater and the destruction far worse.

In any case I hardly think that there is much point in distinguishing
internal and external attrocities.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:16:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.202758.18277@csrd.uiuc.edu> 
saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>>>>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

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

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

>> I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
>> and that all of them are pro-choice.  

> Sorry, Doug, but Chris was not insinuating anything like you claim here. 

Yes, he did insinuate that "_all_ women" are pro-choice, which is a
sexist viewpoint.  He presumes that all women think alike on the issue
of abortion. 

> Chris was mainly pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bush & Quayle ticket in
> connection with the abortion issue. 

The only hypocrisy shown here is by Mr. Lyman.  He claims to respect
women, but then he reveals his blatantly sexist attitude by failing 
to recognize women as individuals who have a variety of opinions on 
abortion. 

>Sirpa Saarinen


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40919 talk.politics.guns:19740
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:25:37 GMT
	<1992Aug7.183722.27992@anasazi.com>
	<1992Aug10.014137.1076@access.digex.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: steve-b@access.digex.com's message of 10 Aug 92 01:41:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.014137.1076@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:

>   Er, the development of new technologies *is* part of "the market".

	Sure.  It's amazing how much comes out of government funded
research and how little out of private R&D.  What's more amazing is
how quickly libertarians forget or ignore this.

					--Jeff Turner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:15:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.050110.39709@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>>> But those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from
>>> God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.

>> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
>> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
>> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
>> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
>> abortion.

> His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
> He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
> reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
> side.

Your statement is an appeal to anti-religious bigotry.  Focusing solely  
on the religious segment of the pro-life movement is designed to appeal 
to anti-religious bigotry, in the same way that focusing on the color
of a person's skin in a debate about Affirmative Action is an appeal 
to racism.  


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Tokes Up
Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:01:26 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Colleen Davis) writes:
|> If Bill Clinton didn't inhale, 
|> how did he know he didn't like it?
|> 
|> colleen

1.	The paper was bitter?

2.	The room smelled like shit (pun intended)?

3.	His guilty conscience bothered him?

4.	He felt he was being coerced?

Those are my 5 possible reasons.  I just can't figure out why
the question.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:57:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug12.210005.13671@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:

> It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos like Mary
> Matalin protest the New York Post article on George's alleged affair
> with a staff aide.  I wonder why the same indignation was not present
> when the Clinton allegations surfaced.

Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,
while those concerning Clinton were corroborated by a casette tape
with Clinton's own voice on it.

> It's rather fun to watch the Bush operatives wallow in their own
> sleaze.

Ahem.  I was unaware that any Bush operatives had anything to do with
Gennifer Flowers going public with her story.
-- 
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: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:40:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <80161@bcsaic.boeing.com> lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
>In article <BsvJy5.sz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>: 
>:   You're right that regardless of the numbers the rich guy will
>:   always find it easier to come up with the money.  So what?  The
>:   goals of the flat tax proposals I've seen, are to reduce the 
>:   tax-induced distortions in the economy (compare the shape of 
>:   the curve in the above flat tax scheme to the current one), and
>:   to simplify the whole problem of taxation, tax law, compliance,
>:   etc.    
>
>A lot of these "distortions" might be beneficial.  The home
>mortgage deduction encourages home ownership, which means jobs
>in the construction industry.

  It also artificially raises the price of houses, putting
  them out of the reach of lower-income people and creates
  a tax break for the well-off.     

> The credit for daycare makes it more practical for single
>  mothers to stay off welfare.

  A tax *credit* is not a tax *deduction*.  If the government 
  wants to subsidize daycare for the poor they should do it 
  through direct grants.

>Unless national health insurance is enacted, a flat tax with
>no deductions would be absurdly cruel for those suffering a
>catastophic illness. 

  In practice this doesn't work out.  Those who are in a
  high enough tax bracket to benefit are *typically* the same 
  people who also have health insurance.  And they don't 
  usually get a tax break because of the percentages required:
  my wife had $25,000 of medical costs in 1989 and naturally
  there were parts the insurance company didn't pay because
  of percentages, allowables, deductibles, etc.  It added 
  up to a few thousand dollars but this still wasn't enough
  to be tax-deductible for our income under current law.  
  Meanwhile the poor and uninsured don't pay enough in taxes
  for the deduction to mean anything (hence the cruelty of
  the GOP's proposed tax-credit health insurcnce schemes).
  Again, if we think the government should have a role in 
  health care it should be done by grants, vouchers, etc,
  not the tax system.
                     

>If I earn $30,000 and someone steals $10,000 from me, should I
>still have to pay tax on the $10000 that exceeds the $20k
>exemption?

  Be more specific.  If you were nutty enough to carry $10k
  in cash then you deserve what you get.  If they robbed your
  house or apartment then insurance should cover it.

>If I cannot deduct expenses, I am very unlikely to risk
>starting my own business;

  I already said that businesses shouldn't be taxed at all
  so this is moot.


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,comp.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Some facts about the NSA, whee.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:50:10 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug11.211744.23349@bcars64a.bnr.ca> schow@bqneh3.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
]>
]>Quick, raise the flame shields!
]
]A lot of good that will be. You should worry about the IRS, the S.S.,
]the DEA, the FBI, the CIA, and of course the NSA and NRO.
]
](I am Canandian, so I should be safe from them, until they decide
]to snatch me for trial in the US)

As a Canadian, you are in more danger from the CIA and NSA that
an American is (although that danger is IMHO negligible). 
To US citizens (innocent ones), the dangerous agencies are the 
war on drugs folks, the BATF (guns, alcohol) and the IRS.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State (was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:24:48 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 7984@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>...
>A law whose primary purpose, but which incidently also aids a religious
>group, is permissible.
>
>This is why churches can receive tax deductible donations.  The law was
>written specifically to aid charitable organizations, it just so happened
>that most religious groups managed to qualify as charitable orginizations
>as designated by that law.

I already said (or, at least, implied) that I don't agree with the way the
courts have stretched to classify religious activities as secular.  I also
do not agree with giving religious organizations tax exemptions.  However,
the courts have the final say in the matter, and they have felt that such
activities are not violations of the 1st Amendment.  

>There was a case out west recently about a couple of state employees who
>were using peyote (a mildly hallucinogenic plant).  I don't remember
>many of the details, they tried to get a religious exemption to the laws
>and or regulations and were denied.

So what?  To take a more extreme example, some religions have practiced human
sacrifice.  The 1st Amendment does not mean that people can do anything they
want in the name of religious freedom.  While the 1st Amendment does not clearly
limit outrageous religious practices, the courts have the power to judge what
is, and is not, socially tolerable.  They have the same latitude with free 
speech, which is not protected in literally all circumstances.  You and I may
disagree with the courts about the religious use of peyote, but theirs is the 
task of figuring out where to actually draw the line.  I don't envy them.

>The government can and does support religious activities of all kinds.

Only by arguing that such activities are not religious in nature.  Read what you
said about "primary purpose" above.  It is pretty difficult to rule that public
funds can be paid in support of required religious indoctrination.  Take heart,
though.  If the religious right has its way, the courts may yet be afflicted
with myopia on this issue.  

-----
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:36:07 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <4503@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> (Michael Polen) writes:
|> :cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
|> :|> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
|> :|> 
|> :|> > 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
|> :|> > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
|> :|> > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. 
|> :|> 
|> :|> Does Bush make an exception where the life or health of the mother is
|> :|> in jeopardy?  I know that parliamentary tricks were used to prevent a
|> :|> vote on a plank allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.
|> :1	No parlimentary *tricks* were used to prevent the vote by the
|> :	platform committee.
|> :
|> :2	Bush makes an exception, but the platform does not.
|> :
|> :3	Bush says he supports the platform as is, although it is stronger
|> :	than his own beliefs
|> :
|> :4	Bush has a different standard for his family than for your family.
|> 
|> Oh, so you're against government dictating the moral standards for
|> individuals, but cry hypocrisy if government dictates uniform standards
|> for families? And you can't concede that perhaps George Bash [sic] loves
|> his family? If you say he should also love yours, why do you want some
|> stranger who works in the government -- much less the government itself
|> -- to love and take care of your family?
|> -- 
You are reading something I didn't right or smoking something on the
controlled substance list.  My comments were on the marked statements.

Frankly, I believe the government should avoid religious and moral
issues where possible.  The reasons behind choice is one of those areas.
The individual makes a decision for/against an abortion based upon 
religious, personal, financial, marital issues.  Your decision is
not my problem and vice-versa.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41216 alt.politics.bush:2470
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:49:59 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
 <92234.073026DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Aug21.212642.2341@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

In article <1992Aug21.212642.2341@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
>
>In article <92234.073026DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.141935.6159@oakhill.sps.mot.com>,                      m
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.co
>>(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
>>
>>>As for health care, he has proposed malpractice tort reform, and has
>>>proposed a system of tax credits to fund the medical insurance of
>>>those without such insurance.  This last proposal came out just this
>>>year.
>>
>>Even the AMA admits that malpractice tort reform could, at most, reduce
>>NHE by 20 to 30 billion, an admirable goal.  Yet it hardly makes a dent in
>>our cost problems.
>I agree on both. It is worthwhile, and it is not a panacea.
>
>> The insurance reforms Bush proposed have not even been
>>detailed yet.  He has not even submitted a bill to Congress.
>
>Not true. His bill was submitted in February, and is currently somewhere
>in the bowels of Congress.  Ask Louis Sullivan.

No, in his State of the Union Address he said he was going to submit a plan.
In February, he sketched a plan.  The details, according to my copies of
the Congrssional Record, have never been formally submitted as a plan.
And, in any case, it doesn't matter.  His proposals have already been tried
and failed.

Dennis Shea
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 15 Aug 92 11:50:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <Aug.14.12.07.10.1992.21572@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

> I suspect that both Bush and Clinton did have affairs.

Do have any _SUBSTANTIVE_ information to lead you to suspect that Bush
has ever had an extramarital affair?
-- 
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???       ||