HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:25:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <MATT.92Oct6151934@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>> In article <01GPMW8JF60W001UUK@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>> 
>>> NPR reported he went. Another Clinton supporter has said he 
>>> went. I am *asking* why he went, where (Moscow? Eastern Europe?),
>>> and what happened?
>> 
>> You're asking why he went travelling during his Christmas vacation and
>> what happened?  I still don't understand the mystery; he went
>> travelling so that he could sightsee, and what happened was that he
>> saw sights.  Haven't you ever been a tourist?
>> 
>>> This whole thing sounds just like the typical cases we're told to 
>>> watch for in counter-spy training in the military.
>> 
>> Good grief, this is even better than the smears that Bush is putting
>> out!  Bush contents himself with insinuating that his opponents are
>> unpatriotic, but here we have a real, live assertion that Clinton is a
>> KGB agent!  
>
>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>denied.
>
Hmmm...a bit paranoid are we ??? I thought we had vanquished the
"evil red empire" (according to Bush)...hmmm I suppose that Perot is
also considered a possible "spy"...didn't he go to North Vietnam ? Oh
boy, lets see how far we can take this...anybody who knows anybody
that happened to travel to a "communist" country can be considered a
commie spy...shades of J. Edgar...



>> Or maybe this is a joke, and I'm just not getting it; maybe this is
>> just supposed to be a parody of the sorts of things that the Bush
>> campaign is saying.
>
>	Nope, just more Clinton-ality.
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: health care
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:32:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chevron

In article <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>#This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>#care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
>#to pay for th[text deleted]
>
>Can anyone document the statement that "87% of Americans have
>comprehensive health care plans"?  
>
>Susan

It doesn't matter.  13% of the people without health insurance is a lot
more than the entire population of Canada.  And people complain that
it's a tradgedy up there when someone can't schedule a vasectomy for a
couple months.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Suggestions for the Bill campaign
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:53:44 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

After listening to the Clinton campaign for some time now,
I think I have formulated a few ideas that I hope that they 
can use.  Most are based on his idea of MANAGED COMPETITION.

how about

Supervised privacy

Limited Freedom

Variant Equality

and

Regulated Free Trade




-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:13:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
>book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
>on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
>page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
>
    Gore did call for an enviromental Marshall plan in his book.
    The Republicans say the M. plan cost $100B in today's money,
    therefore...

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Statistical Aberration -- Parties Represent Less Than 20% ...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:56:20 GMT

B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>For the presidential election less than 50% of eligible voters
>participate. Split these in half and assume some people voted
>because there were no good choices, and the Democrat and GOP
>party represent less than 20% of the people at best.
>
>It's even less if we look at local and congressional elections.
>More like 5% or less.  And now that other choices are coming 
>into play even less.
>
>It's a joke to chastise libertarians for only representing a 
>small percent of the populace. 

Except can't you use the same argument to diminish the fraction of the
population represented by the libertarians, too, thus reducing them to
something insignificant?

Also, if everyone eligible *did* participate, isn't the safest assumption
that they would split among the parties in the same proportion as those
who now participate split among the parties?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52036 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6940 alt.politics.elections:17019 alt.politics.clinton:10648 alt.politics.bush:9311 talk.bizarre:34276
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:23:29 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct14.175415.16771@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

In article <9601@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

MW:I consider it morally wrong to use the power of government to extort
MW:from somebody, something that that somebody is not willing to give up
MW:voluntarily.

TP:What about extortion of service?   Does your principle extend to draft
TP:service, and to people who do not want to give up their time voluntarily?

The draft was wrong.

TP:So you would say that even if Clinton used chicanery to avoid the 
TP:draft (I don't beleive this) then he acted morally in doing so?

I don't blame Clinton for trying to avoid the draft, but I do believe that
he was wrong to do so.  If you don't like a law, work to change it, don't
ignore it.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:10:02 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>    Gore did call for an enviromental Marshall plan in his book.
>    The Republicans say the M. plan cost $100B in today's money,
>    therefore...

Dear asshole:  Even your own pathetic argument is self-contradictory.
Even your pitiful brain should be able to tell the difference between
"an environmental Marshall plan", and "the Marshall plan".

Get a grip.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (III)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:00:10 GMT

The Decline of America: A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (III)


      Percentage of population who think the primary aim of
 imprisonment should be to protect citizens from prisoners, and
 percentage who think the aim should be to reeducate prisoners,
                           1981-83:

COUNTRY           PROTECT CITIZENS  REEDUCATE PRISONERS

United States           32.4               27.4
Canada                  28.8               39.8
Australia               28.3               35.1
United Kingdom(53)      28.2               27.7
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Note UK only other nation of 19 to count rehabilitation as less
 important than protection (often code word for: punishing) --HB]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ireland                 24.7               41.5
Belgium                 22.0               42.5
Finland                 19.6               48.0
Netherlands             19.1               52.1
Germany                 18.2               49.7
France                  17.2               42.9
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Notice virtual 2-to-1 preference --HB]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Denmark                 16.0               35.7
Spain                   12.4               57.5
Sweden                  11.3               62.7
Norway                   8.7               67.1
Japan                    8.2               32.8
Italy                    7.3               42.7
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[3-to-1 ; 4-to-1; 5-to-1 --HB]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Source: World Values Survey.

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

From page 139 of

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_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   

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51269 alt.politics.elections:16378 alt.politics.clinton:9987 alt.politics.bush:8823
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:21:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.215753.7283@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
} In article <1992Oct8.195203.15406@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena)          writes...
} ...
} >When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
} >will only result in greater unemployment.
} 
} Second News Flash: the bill won't affect small businesses. It only 
}                    affects businesses with more than 50 employees.

But a business that has 50 employees isn't likely to hire a 51st
employee, knowing that by doing so, they will come under that mandate.

} >her/his family?  If this bill would have passed, it would have required
} >"Aid to temporarily unemployed workers who have sick children and who
} >don't have to work".  Get real, family values is working for your children/
} >spouse.
}
} Family Values is TAKING CARE of your family. That means whatever your
} family needs at the time. Not what is good for the economy, or your 
} employer. FAMILY!

But if the bill was about "family values", whatever that is, and not
the economy or an employer, why didn't it apply to every business?
After all, businesses that have less than 50 employees have employees
with families too.  Why were they excluded?  And if there had to be a
cutoff point, why was it at 50, as opposed to 37 or 12 or 115 or some
other number?

The "Family Leave Bill" was not about families -- it was an obnoxious
piece of legislation designed to make George Bush look bad, no matter
what he did with it.  If it passed, the Democrats would claim credit
for coming up with it first.  If it failed, they would, and did, place
the blame on Bush for vetoing it.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTER REGISTRATION INFO
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:49:58 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9210040303.AA00688@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>To cast your ballot for President of the United States, you must be 
>registered to vote.  By vetoing a bill that would have made it easier to 
>register to vote, George Bush seems determined to effect a lower percentage 
>of Americans registered for that basic right.  What is George afraid of?  
>Why doesn't he want people registered to vote?   
>
>For now, we still have to live with the same exacting system.  You can make 
>your feelings be known by registering to vote, and then exercising that 
>basic right.  Each state has its own requirements and deadlines.  What 
>follows is voter registration deadlines for all the United States, as well 
>as a phone number you can call for further information. 
>
>The process can be as simple as (1) find a form (try a courthouse, library, 
>school, or the local Clinton/Gore campaign), (2) fill it out and (3) return 
>it to the proper place by the deadline listed below. For more information 
>call your state's number or Rock the Vote: 800-962-VOTE. 

Golly Harel, that sure sounds like an "exacting" system all right. NOT!

Voting is the *primary* responsibility of a citizen to their country.
Going down to the courthouse and filling out a piece of paper saying
who you are and where you live so they'll know what canditates you're
eligble to vote for and can assign you to the correct precinct, doesn't 
seem too large a price to pay to carry out a person's primary duty of 
citizenship. People who balk at such a simple requirement are saying 
they don't give a damn about their country and won't take even the 
smallest step to be heard.

Gary
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is dead meat.
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:59:10 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck) writes:

>Russ Nelson writes
>> "Four more beers", they were chanting at the Republican National  
>Convention.
>> That's about all Bush is going to get.

>Actually they are going to get nothing more than FOUR MORE MONTHS!!!

Bush looked and smelled like dead meat during the debate.  He took a
MAJOR dive.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
      You know, the worst thing about censorship is ############
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fetrow@pike.u.washington.edu (David Fetrow)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Univ. of Wash.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:28:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.204732.12246@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>
>What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
>doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay
>for somebody to be trained, only to be laid off before being fully
>qualified?  Hire more people than necessary and endure the
>overhead all the time?
>

 Hiring temps isn't a perfect solution but it's common and better than
the three listed options above...and yes, there are temp System Programmers
in the world, not just clerical staff.

>Do you think a business with 50 employees can afford to
>keep a few extra employees around not doing anything while
>nobody is on family leave to satisfy the government mandate?

 See above.

>Those employers which are large enough to handle the burden do
>provide family leave, in some cases paid.  One of my friends
>and coworkers at IBM got ~3 months PAID leave -- another used some
>vacation time.

 IBM is an exceptionally nice place to work.

>Who will hire somebody knowing that they might have to be given
>leave time? 

 If you are human and stay with the company a long time and have
any close relatives: you'll need leave time at some point and will
probably take it. Kind of like toilets being a nice thing to have
in the workplace.

> Why is this bill the only answer??

 I'm sure it's possible to do better but not with the current bunch. 
Besides; the powers-that-be are unlikely to really enforce it.


--
   -dave   fetrow-		INTERNET:	fetrow@biostat.washington.edu
				UUCP:		{backbone}!uw-entropy!fetrow
   CI$: 74175,1724		BITNET:		fetrow@uwalocke
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Jim Baker Phenomenon
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:21:36 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Research & Technology

Jim Baker has certainly turned out to be a tremendous help in this campaign.  
For the Democrats, that is.  Here are some highlights of his political wizardry:

    1)   Strengthened major Bush campaign theme:  "The other guy could be even
         worse than our guy."

    2)   Delayed debates until it was too late for them to have much impact on
         the election.

    3)   Agreed to allow Perot on stage, thus guaranteeing that 2/3 of the debate
         time would be devoted to criticism of Bush.

    4)   Pushed for "panel of reporters" debate format, thus making it almost 
         impossible for Bush to pursue initiatives in the debate.  Clinton went
         in only having to coast, whereas Bush had to shake things up.

    5)   Allowed Bush to become personally involved in mudslinging, thus driving
         him down in the opinion polls just before the debate.  The very time when
         Bush needed some momentum, however small, in a positive direction.

Now we see that Bush proposes to put Jim Baker in charge of getting the economy
back into shape.  This is better than a real plan for economic recovery.  We can
trust Baker to do for the economy what he did for the Bush reelection campaign.  

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:25:26 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct15.134256.22401@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

AS:He was wrong about the figures (kind of like the way Clinton is wrong
AS:when he accuses Bush of Medicade and Medicare cuts) but is correct
AS:about the basic issue.

AS:Perhaps you can tell us all just how much Clinton wants to spend to clean
AS:up other peoples environmental problems?


Does it really matter, since according to Clinton somebody else will be
paying the taxes for it anyway.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:47:39 GMT

In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>
>No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
>to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
>such contracts.

Sometimes, the courts have justified such legislation
using the "general welfare" idea which IS in the constitution. 

>
>|> Legally, the government DOES have the right
>|> to intervene in all sorts of relationships and contracts
>|> between parties.
>
>Only because the courts made some giant leaps of logic in the
>30's that haven't been corrected.  Most of the convolution centers
>on what constitutes 'interstate commerce'.  Since the Constitution
>allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce, if
>the government decides (and the courts concur) that some activity 
>involves interstate commerce it can legally regulate it.  The idea
>was to regulate the 'commerce', not the employment activities of
>companies that may engage in such commerce.

OK, you disagree with the courts.  I do too, on some issues.
So what?

>|> This works fine if you have an employer who is willing
>|> to negotiate.  If not, there are no options.

>Then I guess you find another employer.  After all, it your employers
>job, its *not* yours.  It would be unreasonable for the government to
>force a person to accept employment which was unacceptable to the person
>and it is equally unreasonable for the government to force an employer
>to make an offer to an individual that is unacceptable to the employer.

Your view of the employee/employer relationship is substantially
different than mine, as well as being substantially different
from that in the laws of the legal system of the US.
Then, I guess you can find another country. 

>|> Then why is it that the main trading competitors of the US
>|> manage to provide PAID leave for pregnancy and family crises?
>
(hyperbole about "dictatorships", deleted)
>|> 
>|> Maybe in some abstract realm, but in the real world
>|> a right requires some enforcement mechanism.
>
>There is a difference between provision and protection.  I have a
>right to the fruits of my labor.  In the real world, this requires
>protection against those who would violate that right.  It 
>may require some enforcement to ensure that my right is maintained.
>Family leave is not a right.  It requires that a business pay
>for your 'right'.  This isn't enforcement, it is theft.

Your concept of "rights" is not only too abstract,
it is too mystical for me.

>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics