HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Democratic Congressional Record (was The Bush Record)
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:35:20 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

All of the finger-pointing between a Republican president and a Democratic 
congress cannot hide one fact:  this administration has reached legislative 
gridlock with this congress.  Bush has not been able to get his legislation 
passed.  He can only complain about non-cooperation.  Other Republican 
presidents have been able to work with the congress by submitting legislation
that had bipartisan support and building up support well in advance. 

Bush pointed out the problem in his convention speech, although he seemed to
find nothing wrong with his technique.  On the day he launched desert storm,
he also submitted what he regarded as important legislation to the congress.
They never acted on it.  Imagine.  If you want to get a bill passed, pick a day
when the nation's attention is riveted elsewhere to sumit it to Congress.

Well, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will lose control of either house
in this election.  So reelect Bush if you want to watch the legislative and 
presidential branches continue their squabbling.  That's what our country needs.
Four more years.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39491 alt.politics.clinton:1866 alt.politics.bush:1465
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:42:40 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

>|> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>|> A recent issue of Consumer Reports debunked the myth that malpractice
>|> costs are driving up health care costs.  Sure, there are malpractice
>|> cases that go way beyond what is reasonable (or what seems reasonable,
>|> at least).  But they're a rather minor portion of total costs.

Sorry to blow holes in this idea, but evidentally Consumer Reports didn't
do much checking.  I don't remember the exact numbers involved, but in
the case of DPT vaccinations, the cost of a vial is something like 1.50
for the actual drug and $18 with the cost of future lawsuits added.  (This was
about four years ago, so I'm not sure of the current cost.)  Drug manufacturers
are just like doctors, they get hit with megabuck lawsuits, so they've started
adding the potential costs of future judgements into the costs of drugs.  It's
gotten to the point that if a drug cures twenty million people and one has an
adverse reaction to it, the company winds up paying out millions in a lawsuit.
Obstetricians are closing up right and left since people have come to the
conclusion that it's a god given right to have a healthy baby and if it's
not perfect, it's evidentally the fault of the doctor and hospital.  And
juries are more than happy to pile on millions to compensate these parents
for the dastardly deed done by the medical people.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 20 Aug 1992 20:52:59 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

UPI reports that a Hotline-Houston Post nationwide poll released on Thursday
shows Bill Clinton's lead over Bush to be about 5 points. This is in
contrast to the ABC News - Washington Post poll which shows Clinton to have
a 25%-age point lead over Bush. However, the latter was conducted over
Aug. 14 - 18 before the convention went into high-gear, showcasing
Reagan, Mrs. Bush, etc.

The Hotline-Houston Post poll was conducted during the convention,
from Saturday through Wednesday by GOP pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance 
Group and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Greenburg-Lake, showed 
Clinton leading Bush by only 5 points -- 48 percent to 43 percent.

        Doug Bailey, publisher of the non-partisan Hotline Poll, said the key
to the poll results is not so much the size of the gap, but the trend in
the direction toward Bush.

        ``The trend says we're heading for a dead-even race,'' he said.
        Goeas, agreed, saying ``We're now acknowledging from both sides,
we're looking at an extremely close race.''

        He said the numbers show that the convention through Wednesday has
been a success for Bush, with the president consolidating his Republican
base.

        The Chronicle/Hotline poll of 2,000 registered voters shows Bush's
favorable rating increased as the convention progressed, from 41 percent
to 45 percent, while his unfavorable rating dropped from 51 percent to
46 percent.

        Clinton's favorable rating dropped from 56 percent to 42 percent,
while his unfavorable rating increased from 30 percent to 34 percent.

        Texas billionaire Ross Perot, who dropped out of the race last month
but hinted at ways Wednesday that he may get back in, was favored by
only 1 percent of the respondents.




-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion Is ! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:26:41 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <l8thp4INNa84@alcor.usc.edu>, rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) 
writes:

|> Third, if the mother doesn't actually do the abortion herself (and they
|> almost never do) that would also raise legal questions concerning her

Forgive my ignorance but I thought that about a third of the 
abortions actually are performd by the mother herself nowdays. 
A third is hardly 'almost never'. Swollowing a pill must be
considered an act of will. Besides I cogitate anti-abortionists 
do not fuel their conviction by a conscientios fundamentalist 
occultism but are bewildered by a pathological covet to power
over the sex-life of other individuals.

Why is this psychological abnormality socially tolerated in the US. In 
civilized:-) countries it is trepidated or annihilated or ridiculed 
depending on how strong a threat it forms.

From one thing to another:

Does anyone here read the Texas Monthly. I am told there were an 
issue on the election campain reacently. The cover was a caricature
of Ross Perot as a character called Arnold in a satiric regular,
popular with younger teen-agers, called Mad. I think the headline 
was:
Read my lips -- No New Texas
intended as a description of an impotent administrations. I was
told Jebediah was mentioned.

Arthur
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39251 ca.politics:6707 ba.politics:4446
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: A Retraction
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:45:48 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I referred to a posting a while back as "typical lying homosexual."
One of my colleagues here pointed out that the lying homosexuals
involved are a relatively small number -- unlike the number of
homosexuals defending child molestation.

It is definitely incorrect to imply that all homosexuals, or even
most homosexuals on USENET are liars.

Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
shun child molesters?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is the ABA liberal-biased:Abortion/Hill
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:19:06 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <63892@cup.portal.com>, Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
> The ABA gives Anita Hill an award for telling a story that most Americans
> don't believe, and for taking a stand that most Americans think she is lying
> about. Hillary Clinton gives a big speech. They take a position on abortion
> than can be nothing but political, and is so extremem that they believe that
> NO restrictions on abortion should be allowed.
> 
> How can the ABA call themselves non-partisan? How are the rest of us supposed
> to feel when we know any lawyer we hire is sworn to uphold the principles of
> political correctness?

	I think it's more anti-Quayle than anything else.  The lawyers didn't
like it when Quayle told them to quit raping America with their ludicrous
personal injury scams.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:50:14 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug18.181305.3176@news.columbia.edu> 
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>> I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>> wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

> A newborn is independent of its mother the way a fetus is not.

So in situations where a newborn is dependent on a single person
for survival, should that person be allowed to kill the newborn? 


Doug Holtsinger

  "I am opposed to abortion." -- Bill Clinton
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:42:34 CDT


In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:
> 1) Foreign Aid?
>      a) Economic	
>      b) Military
>      c) Aiding insurgents/rebels
> 
> 2) Immigration
>      -- laws restricting, etc.
>      -- citizenship, etc.
> 3) Minimum Wage
> 4) Solution to "racism"
> 5) the "Buy American" idea
> 6) Workers going to other countries to reduce labor costs and reduce
>    cost per item.

7) Abortion
	Is the conservative position that the government should stay out 
	of the individuals decision or that one must support "pro-life" 
	legislation to be a conservative?

	(Barry Goldwater recently said that the Republican party should 
	drop its anti-abortion stand because it will rip the Republican
	party apart.) 
> 
> Feel free to respond but I kindly ask to keep it more objective than cynical.
> 
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:15:52 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 23329@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM, ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>>I've always had trouble with this. What else are investors going to do with
>>their money?
>
>  Uhhh, I don't know.  Guess they could put it in the bank OR take a 
>  risk and buy that fixer-upper down the street.  Yes, they could buy the
>  house, hire some plumbers and carpenters.... maybe even do some work
>  themself and then sell for a nice little profit.
>  But the capital gains tax (read: rich man's tax) will take
>  so much of the profit, they could spend better and more 
>  profitable time bagging groceries then sanding floors.
>  And yes, their decision will cost the carpenter and the 
>  plumber.  Sorry, guys.  Class envy got you again.

This explains why nobody has invested in the stock market since the capital
gains tax has been in effect, right?  Why do people keep investing if the
capital gains tax is so bad?  Why don't they bag groceries or sand floors,
as you suggest?  Some people seem to feel that investment is worth the risk
even if you do have to pay that horrible tax.  Surprise.

>  In 1972, assume I bought $10,000 worth of stock.  This year it's worth
>  $37,000 and I decide to sell.  Adjusted for inflation, I made
>  nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.  The IRS, on the other hand, thinks I
>  made a profit of $27,000 and wants $10,000 in capital gains tax!
>  That's not a tax on capital gains, that's a tax on capital!
>  You can't have capitalism WITHOUT capital.

You mean to tell me that you only made $17,000 on $10,000?  I have no doubt
that you could have invested more wisely--in Microsoft, perhaps.  But didn't
you also receive dividends over that period of time?  You could have put 
the money in the bank, payed taxes on the accumulating interest, and 
withdrawn $10,000 + X this year.  What would X be?  If it's over $17,000,
then I'd say that your gamble didn't pay off very well.  If it's under 
$17,000, then I'd say you should count your blessings.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39056 ca.politics:6669
From: malcolm@grenada.ign.island.COM (Malcolm Blanchard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 11 Aug 92 17:03:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Island Graphics, Santa Rosa, California

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>In article <11657@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>The issue of company towns is a legitimate concern.  Are there any
>>left?

>Not per se...

(Not that it has anything to do with this thread) Scotia in Humboldt County
is owned lock, stock and barrel by Pacific Lumber Company.  The houses are
rented out to employees and their families.  The company-owned grocery
store was destroyed in one of the earthquakes they had a few months ago,
but I think they are rebuilding it.  PL had been locally owned and had a
good, if paternalistic, reputation until it was taken over by Maxxam
during the eighties.

-Malcolm Blanchard
refugee from behind the redwood curtain
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross)
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 14:56:18 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1683E1372F.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <Bsq28A.Aow@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
>jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <SLAGLE.92Aug6153924@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockhed.com writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug06.064832.29868@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bcca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>>
>>>> I suspect, this being an election year, that the Yanks would rather see
>>>> Bosnia bathed in blood rather than American sons coming home in body bags.
>>>> What other reason can there be for permitting Serbian attacks on busloads of
>>>> children?
>>>
>>>When did this problem become exclusively the responsibility
>>>of us "Yanks"?  What about your responsibilities and your
>>>blood and your body bags, too, Canuck?
>>
>>	Actually, Canada has already *had* troops involved, as part of the
>>UN efforts. Did that not make the papers down south? Like WW II, we beat
>>you folks to it again.
>>
>     Hell, if the U.S. gets involved we'll be warmongers acting without
>a U.N. mandate and Bush will "just be trying to boost his popularity."
>If the U.S. *doesn't* get involved we're allowing atrocities to go un-
>opposed and Bush is a "wimp" looking out for his popularity in an election
>year.
>
>     Do the words Catch-22 ring a bell?

What about Germany, France, Britain, and other European states!!?
They have all opted out of doing anything, but nobody is calling them
names for doing so.  So we should do something!!??  I don't hardly
think so.

If European states aren't interested in having their youth shot to
pieces, what imperative is there to make it viable for American youth
to get shot to pieces?  Somehow, I have never understood the logic of
things like this.  Hanged if we do and hanged if we don't.  Well,
having served in another war, I'm not inclined to see us get involved
in one where the most immediate nations in the area refuse to get
involved.  The most the Germany, France, and Britain have done is cry
out about how bad things are in Bosnia.  I have yet to see them stand
up and put their money where their mouth is on Bosnia.

And if you Europeans want us involved, get involved yourselves.  You
want our military to come fight and die, then put yours in the
trenches along with ours!!  Otherwise, bug off!

Gene

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Democratic Congressional Record (was The Bush Record)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:07:09 GMT

voracek@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov (David Voracek) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.151421.26912@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>|> 
>|> The Bush Record 
>|> ---------------
...
> The Democratic Congressional Record 
> -----------------------------------
...

>Switch the word around a little and what does it matter....
>The country is run by Congress and the President....
>congress appropriates the bills

throw all the bums out and start over.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LINE ITEM VETO (was Reducing Spending)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:18:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:

> Is there a single country that provides the president/head-of-state
> with a line item veto? Does it have a presidential or parliamentary
> government? Hopefully a political science expert will answer the
> questions for us.

Several states have line item vetoes for their governors.  

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:46:28 GMT

fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

>I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
>another human being.  

>-david



So what is "negligent homicide"?


Charlie
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@chiechan.mro4.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39087 alt.politics.clinton:1733 alt.politics.bush:1234
From: johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU (Johnny Piscitello)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:58:01 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Originator: johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU


In article <1992Aug12.144139.10259@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
|> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug9.062917.24910@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> A recent issue of Consumer Reports debunked the myth that malpractice
|> costs are driving up health care costs.  Sure, there are malpractice
|> cases that go way beyond what is reasonable (or what seems reasonable,
|> at least).  But they're a rather minor portion of total costs.
|> 
|> I'm willing to look up the article if anyone's interested.  It's at
|> home, else I would do it right now....  :-)


	I don't know, man. My roomate's Dad is a doctor in a private practice,
and his malpractice insurance runs over $100,000 a year! You can bet that that
cost is getting passed on to the patients, or there would be no other way
to stay in business.

Johnny P.  . . .. .....  . . . .. .   . ...  . . .           .. ..........
MIT_LCS  .    . . . .         ..      .......  .....   . .........  .  ...
Newsgroups: alt.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross)
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:00:38 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug8.150838.12908@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>In other words, students would no longer be able to attend public
>school?  Let's go through this one more time.  Assume, for the sake of
>argument, that for each student in a public school approximately $3400
>is spent (that figure applies to Texas, but I don't know how close it
>is to the nation-wide average).  We also have 25% of all students in
>public schools, who are currently not receiving anything from the
>system.  With me so far?

Fred, what is so sacred about public schools?  I've never understood
this great desire to keep public schools from having to compete for
both students and funding.

I'm aware of public schools in Texas being from Austin.  So let me
take a good example.  My kids attended Westwood High in Williamson
County.  This school, a public one, was the best in the entire area
(highest scores on SATs, etc.).  However, there is a private school,
non-parochial, i.e., non-religious, that turned out far better
students academically than Westwood.  If I had been able to send my
kids there I would have.  Now, by way of information, I am Native
American (Seneca to be more precise).  Had there been school vouchers
equivalent to the money spent by the State for each student, I could
have used that to help send my kids to the private school.  The
remainder of the tuition would have come from scholarships (academic
and sports since my kids excelled in both) and, if necessary, I would
have taken out a loan for any left over.  I suspect that the
scholarships would have covered the remainder.

In several major cities, Afro-Americans have started private schools
to educate their children.  These schools receive no Federal or State
funds.  Yet, my research, which I admit is not unlimited, shows thatt
the kids that attend these schools learn better, learn more, and value
education and learning at a ratio that make the public schools sick.
These private schools could use the school voucher system.

As for the religious schools, I have no problems with them receiving
school vouchers, provided that all schools have access to the
vouchers.  If the public schools want the vouchers, let them compete
for them with the private and parochial schools.  The biggest reason
that I can see for the NEA not to want the school voucher system has
more to do with the agenda of its leadership and the great salaries
that the school executives have.  I read recently where in LA, the
Director of the school board (I think that was the title) earned in
the six figures with salary, benefits, and perqs.  That would become a
thing of the past when the public system has to compete.

I can only see a win-win situation for both parents and the kids.
Eventually, the nation wins because we have better educated kids
entering advanced formal education and/or the job market.

Those are just my thoughts.

Later,

Gene