HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:41:41 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

>In a previous article, weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) wrote:
>>In article <14OCT92.21213487@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
>>>
>>>[stuff deleted]
>>>>	If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
>>>>support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
>>>>because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.
>>>
>>>Excuse me, but isn't "voluntary and avoidable behavior" by the man also 
>>>involved in this process?  Do you think it is fair to force women to pay for 
>>>consenting to sex with their health and possibly their lives without insisting 
>>>on the same consequences for men who consent to sex?
>> 
>>	Men are required to pay child support of they get put in jail. I'd
>>call that paying.
>

William Everett's comment that a man who doesn't pay support gets sent to
jail is hopelessly naive.  *If* there is a support order, and *if* the
father is employed, and *if* the judge is inclined to enforce the order,
and *if* when the father moved to another state the judge of the state he
moved to made the URISA order equal to what had been awarded in the first 
state, and *if* the father does not successfully argue that he has a new
family which he is supporting and cannot afford the original support
payment, and *if*  the public agency charged with collecting support takes
the father to court in a timely fashion, or *if* the woman can afford about
$2,000 for a private attorney, and *if* the jails are not overcrowded with
what the courts consider "real criminals,"

*THEN* maybe, the father will be sent to jail for nonsupport.  In fact, he
will probably be placed on probation for civil contempt (or criminal
nonsupport) and avoid jail for at least a year, maybe a couple of years,
until his probation gets revoked and he gets some time.

If the jail is under federal order to reduce overcrowding, the first people
they will release are the people who are in for nonsupport.  This is the
usual situation of state penitentiaries and local jails.

so...  Wake up to reality.  The fact is that the system as it exists gives
mothers immediate responsibility and contains numerous loopholes and escape
clauses that allow fathers to escape their responsibilities for unplanned
pregnancy.

The absence of male responsibility for financial support is nothing in
comparison to the lack of male responsibility for emotional support of
their children.  Until the RTL movement deals with this they will fight
enormous forces that lead women to choose abortion as a solution to male
irresponsibility for their sexual conduct.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: The "Education" President
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:00:13 GMT

The Decline of America: The "Education" President

Of the 19 major industrial nations,the U.S. ranks:

17th in public spending on education.
 1st in private spending on education.

Percent of students at all levels attending public schools: 14

Amount spent annually per student on education:
Affluent Princeton New Jersey: $7,700
Poverty-stricken Camden, <1/2:  $3,500

[Quoting Jonathan Kozol, _Savage Inequalities_]

******************************************************************

Page 65

  Percentage of thirteen-year-old students who agree with the
  statement "I am good at mathematics," and math proficiency
on a scale ranging from 0 to 1,000, with 500 as the mean, 1988:

COUNTRY         SAY THEY'RE GOOD AT MATH  MATH SCORE

United States           68                  473.9
Canada(34)              61                  522.8
Spain                   60                  511.7
Ireland                 49                  504 3
United Kingdom          47                  509.9
South Korea             23                  567.8

Source: Educational Testing Service, A World of Differences: An
International Assessment of Mathematics and Science (Princeton, N.J.: ETS,
1989), pp. 14, 24.

******************************************************************

From: 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: PREDICTION: ECONOMY NOSE DIVES IN 1993
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:07:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <14OCT199211193984@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>I will make a prediction that the US economy will take a
>massive nose dive in late 1st and 2nd quarter 1993.
>
>Why?  Well, this all goes back to George's pathetic attempt
>to get the economy going in early 1992.  By executive order,
>employers were told to change the IRS witholdings of wage
>earners all across the country.  The idea was that everyone 
>would have more money NOW (well, THEN) in favor of money LATER
>and we would pull out of the recession.
>
>Well, it didn't work.  And there will be SERIOUS consequences.
>
>I just did my year-end tax witholdings forecasting, and it
>turns out that I will have to fork over $900 cash to Uncle
>Sam.  I got a refund last year!!  I have not really changed
>my witholdings, didn't get a big raise, etc.  
>
>Now multiply my effect by several million.  Millions of taxpayers
>who normally get refunds will owe money for the first time, and
>those who break even or pay a little will be seriously in the
>hole.
>
>In short, personal spending will come to grinding halt in 
>early to mid 1993.  I will guestimate a decrease of at
>least $20 BILLION, and that is very conservative ($200 for
>100,000,000 families).

    Many people use their tax refunds to contribute to IRA.
    Guess what will happen to the stock/bond markets.

    I anticipate a barrage of bad news right after the elections
    (banking crisis, nuclear proliferation, etc.).



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:33:57 GMT

In article <1bc97oINN91u@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>Ross Perot belongs to us. We will answer to us and he will admit a mistake
>when he makes it.

I'm not at all sure about the first part. The second part I'll believe.

Ross may be sincere, but his ideas may hardly be the result of a
compromise of the diverse views that his true volunteers put forth.
Note how short of solid ideas he really was. He gives you hope, and
even tells you straight out, that he will listen to your ideas, you
volunteers; i.e. You People.

Have you tried putting forth ideas to the man? How receptive is he,
really?  Or do you get blocked by his inner circle of paid staff?

One thing most political volunteers find out first is that even among
their own camp they have strongly held, but opposite ideas. Ross Perot
is a man used to making decisions. He may think most of those dearly
held ideas are bunk, and goes ahead and does things his own way
regardless of what you say.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How can you vote for Perot?
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:48:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

<KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

Note well, I am NOT a Perot supporter, but...

>The guy is in, he's out, and he's back in again!  
It was planned that way from the beginning.  Come on...think about it.  He
did what he had to do to get on the ballot, and then declared he wasn't
running.  That gave him freedom to do lots of things and spend money in
ways he wouldn't have been able to.  The evidence is that he planned all
along to get back in.  People on the net, including myself, even predicted
the day exactly.

>And Tuesday he showed just how poor his judgement is.  
I don't think so..

>Stockdale is a cute man who has led a remarkable life, but let's be serious.  
>This guy as Vice President is MORE scary than having Danny Boy as VP the last 
>4 years!!!  Could you see this guy making a snap decision?  
It's not clear that I want a President making a snap decision.  I would
hope that they thought about it for at least 5 seconds before doing
anything.  And just because he didn't do so hot on TV doesn't mean he can't
do the job!

I fear for the Republic when only a blow-dried, slick-talking person can
get elected President.

>Could you see Stockdale giving a State of the Union Address.
Yeah.  I can see him doing that.  What's wrong if he's not a polished
profession speaker?  What the heck does that have to do with his ability?!

Get off the crap about how they look and how they sound and look at what
they've done and what they intend to do.

Stockdale is exteremely intelligent...he just doesn't play well on TV.  So
what?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: MODEL UN NEWSGROUP
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 21:42:48 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    I am trying to start a Model UN newsgroup to be called
    talk.politics.model-un.  The Model UN is a simulation of
    the UN which takes place over a weekend on the grammar,
    high school and college levels.  This newsgroup would
    facilitate the exchange of information and ideas between
    Model UNers around the world.  I have proposed a discussion
    on the news.groups newsgroup.  If in favor of such a proposal,
    please post it to news.groups so that this can become a reality.
    Thanks for your help.
                           Peace,
                                 Matt in NYC
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:34:23 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
|> From _United We Stand_:
|> 
|> |                     STOP SUBSIDIZING THE RICH
|> | 
|> | Under current law the federal government allows homeowners to deduct 
|> | from their income taxes interest on mortgages up to one million dollars.
|> | Why should we subsidize interest on huge, expensive homes? I know people 
|> | who own two houses: one as their principal residence and another on the 
|> | beach. Because the mortgages on both total under one million dollars they 
|> | deduct every penny from their taxes. Why should we subsidize interest on 
|> | vacation homes?
|> | 
|> | The average mortgage in the United States is $104,000. I propose that we 
|> | limit deductions on interest to mortgages of $250,000 and that we eliminate 
|> | the special deduction for vacation homes.
|> 
Typical simplistic bull shit.  In Dallas or Houston or San Antonio, you can
buy a nice house in the suburbs for less than $100,000.  That same house
in Silicon Valley is over $500,000.  Do you become rich because you work
in Silicon Valley?   Actually, it works the other way around.  More of 
your income goes to housing and you have less to spend/invest in the
economy.

Ross shows little understanding for the realities and the complexities
of problems.  I think the next president ought to hire him as a researcher
and chart maker.  He seems to have a real flair for that.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:54:16 GMT

In article <6003@news.duke.edu> infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.212452.21501@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>>In article <BD.92Oct9110836@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>Lots of stuff about family leave deleted.>
>>>Lots of stuff about some dumbass Rush Limbaugh...
>>Perhaps i'm missing something here.  I've read that 75% of workers aren't
>>covered in the proposed family leave bill.
>Geez, would you people get a clue!?
>The 75%, supposedly is not the _employees_, but 75% of the companies in
>the US would not be subject to the law because: 
>They have _less_ than 50 employees.
>Now, this is the interesting part.
>I _seriously doubt_ that if 75% of the companies in the US have less than
>50 employees then 75% of the employees in the US are not covered by the 
>bill, right?

	Well, gee, this would directly contradict Clinton who plans on
making sure that all workers have comprehensive health care. Who pays
for this? Clinton's fairyfolk nouveauriche?
>
>So, I would say that the 75% of the companies that _don't_ have to 
>abide by this rule _won't_ and thus the guy who has less than 50 employees
>will STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT SHIT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT!	

	Well, gee, Big Brother(Puke), Those employees are going to be payed
for by someone- who will that someone be, eh? If you can answer that question,
you will be closer to nirvana.
>now, get back to work. ;)

	Why?  What's the point when the government can give you a 'free'
ride? 

>
>andy

			John


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50651 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6584 talk.abortion:41731 alt.politics.clinton:9481 alt.politics.bush:8481
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:45:03 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct8.123217.6916@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:

>Nothing, and that's why I had to kill them all.

Uh Oh.   More censorship.  If you are not carefull Ed Nilges will get you.
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Balanced budget in Alabama
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:20:04 GMT


What does Alabama have to do with anything?

If you mean Arkansas (BIG DIFFERENCE), yes Clinton has balanced the
budget and yes they have a balanced budget amendment.
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:02:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.183558.8297@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
>In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
>ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
>and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square. 
>I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
>unpatriotic? 
>
NO!  You should be strung up by your balls and lowered slowly into the mouths
of crocodiles head first until there is nothing left to lower!

Seriously, though, I hope this question was rhetorical.  I'd in fact call you
patriotic, for the following reason:

My uncle travelled to quite a few exotic places in the early 80's.  Two of
these happened to be the USSR and China.  In both places (he lived in China
for 6 months, BTW) he met several of the local people who were fascinated with
his style of dress, he seemingly great wealth (he had what we considered
modest living wages) and wanted to know more about America.  He would tell
them about home, show pictures, and basically gave a very good impression of
capitalism to the locals.  These people offered to buy his jeans for
extravagant amounts of money just because they wanted something American, and
they wanted to be more like the relatively prosperous Americans.  In fact,
while in Kiev, my uncle kept a young man in his hotel room for a few nights. 
The Russian guided him over the city and helped him sell his US currency in
exchange for letting him keep a few pair of jeans.

Visitors to other countries bring their lifestyles with them.  When citizens
of these countries get a taste for things that are American, they always want
to be more like America.  Therefore, by having several American tourists in
Communist countries, the citizens of the countries felt they wanted something
else; hence a quicker overthrow of the current regime.  

So there you go.  Your visit was part of a collective propaganda effort to
make the Russians and Chinese want to be like America.

You should be proud.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  you probably won't get another one. 
I don't claim them, they don't	|  
claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50427 sci.environment:11809 talk.environment:4137
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:54:09 GMT

In article <7chV02Qa25dE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jej20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.174817.26622@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1cJ5025B25AM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> joplin@mcode.amdahl.com (Jerry Joplin) writes:
>>>Unfortunately Clinton makes no effort to balance the "present accounts"
>>>either.  He has no proposal to limit the growth of Entitlements.
>>
>>Not true.  He wishes to replace welfare with workfare, no?
>>-- 
>How does Clinton plan to balance the "present accounts" by turning
>welfare into workfare?  The Federal Govt only spent $15 Billion on
>welfware in 1992.  This was only 2.1% of all Entitlement outlays.
>
>Will the combined workfare/welfare outlays be less than $15 Billion?

You make a very good point.

Clinton has tried very hard to sound "populist" and even "conservative"
on some issues, but behind his slime-speak, you find something startling:
on those issues where he is "conservative", i.e., talking about workfare,
he has little power to do anything about it as President.
In other words, he is blowing smoke to win votes.

A good example came up in the debates: Clinton said he favors a
"boot camp" approach to first time minor drug offenders.  But these
types of offenders are invariably caught under state laws. If he
already implemented it in Arkansas, he should have said that instead;
saying it the way he did implied a presidential proposal.  And
if he hasn't done this after 12 years as Governor, then his support
is fairly hypocritical.

This welfare business is the same.  He somehow has convinced
some people that he would put time limits on welfare or turn it into workfare.
But he can't do that. The best he can do, which Bush has already been pushing
through, is to give the states more leeway to create innovative programs and
changes in the rules.  Good examples where reforms have been pushed are
Wisconsin and New Jersey.

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The status-quo candidate
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:17:32 GMT

jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes ...
>First of all WHY have child support at all?  Why is it necessary?
>Because of the child.  The child has certain needs and some of these
>needs require finances.  Sometimes the woman is not able to meet these
>financial needs by herself.  The logical choice to which to turn is the
>natural father, if he is able.  Child support exists because the child
>needs it. 

There is actually a second option, one that is often overlooked, and
that is to give custody of the children to the father.

>SEcondly, why punish the _child_ because the mother didn't want an
>abortion?  Why should _her_ decision about this put undue stress on
>her child's life, especially when there is a father who is financially
>able to support his child?

Indeed.  If the father is better able to care for the child, then he
should be given custody of the child and the mother should be required
to pay child support.  Currently, however, the courts have a strong
bias against fathers in custody cases.  It is hardly surprising that
some men opt to forgo paying child support when the chances of winning
custody are so slim.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:35:58 GMT
 <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk> <1992Oct9.234424.23312@anasazi.com>
 <1992Oct10.180029.13219@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

>In articles <1992Oct9.233136.23011@anasazi.com>,
><1992Oct9.234004.23180@anasazi.com> and
><1992Oct9.234424.23312@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com said:
>
>> It's red, but it ain't a herring. Do you really think that we should
>> not care about how a prospective president behaved towards his
>> country while his country was at war? Do you know anything about
>> going to Moscow at that time? Did you know that the Soviets
>> investigated you before giving you a Visa? Did you know that you
>> were accompanied at all times by an Intourist "guide" who was a KGB
>> informer? Did you know that if the Russians felt that you weren't
>> favorable to their cause, they didn't let you in even as a tourist?
>> In fact, do you know ANYTHING about what was going on at that time?

Didn't Bob Dornan visit Moscow several months after Clinton did?
Does that mean he is favorable to their cause?  Do you think we should
him investigated?

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.