HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 7826@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <83575@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>]presence there (or one justification for it) was to stop Soviet expansionism.
>]In fact, early policy makers wanted to stop Communism in general and felt that
>]the Chinese were the local relevant factor, not the Soviet Union.  "Soviet
>]expansionism" never became a factor later on in the war.  It was the Chinese
>]that were being contained in that area of the world.  US policymakers didn't 
>]really understand the nature of the Vietnamese/Chinese rivalry until late in
>]the war, nor did they really appreciate the Chinese/Soviet rivalry.  Communism
>]was mistakenly taken to be monolithic in nature.  That was the attitude we had
>]going into the war.
>
>I think you just answered your own question. At that time, communism
>WAS seen to be monolithic, and directed from Moscow. Thus, stopping
>communism anywhere was fighting Soviet communism...

That was a right-wing myth, not one held by more sophisticated policy makers.
Nixon (or, rather, Kissinger) was able to exploit the "China card" because he
was a Republican.  No Democrat dared trying to cozy up to a Communist regime,
since "soft on Communism" was a Republican campaign chant.  Nevertheless, it
was the Chinese from which most of the materiel flowed, not the Soviets.  US
policy had stupidly thrown the Vietnamese into the arms of their traditional
enemies.  The US feared that Vietnam would become more like Korea--a puppet of
the Chinese Communist regime.  When you said that we were there to "stop Soviet
expansionism," you were expressing something of a right-wing fantasy about the
Soviet world--one that dated back to the Dulles brothers of the 1950s.  Few of
us in the 1960s and 1970s harbored the illusion that we were in Vietnam to 
prevent a Soviet takeover.  That is what made your words so confusing.  The
Soviets didn't have such a high profile in Vietnam until the end of the war,
when the Vietnamese found common cause with them in containing Chinese
expansionism. 

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:27:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.050750.2740@netnews.alf.dec.com>, harry@netnews.alf.dec.com
(Harry Katz) writes:

|>In article <BvAuLn.G34@ddsw1.mcs.com>,
|>arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
|>
|>	I guarantee that if a successful boycott of Coors could be
|>	implemented...

Hey folks I agree with Schmidling!

Boycott Coors beer!

Its *AWFULL* mass produced crap, more akin to perier water than an alchoholic
beverage.

|>arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) continues:
|>
|>	That assumes of course, that solidarity with Palestinians
|>	was admitted to be the basis of the boycott and not hatred
|>	of Jews.

I doubt that the Palestinians would be too keen on Arfie. People who wear pillow
cases on their heads are often not to keen on "arabs" either.

|>The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  What Mr. Schmidling
|>fails to realize is that his boycott will be judged by its effects and
|>accomplishments, not his good intentions.
|>
|>What Mr. Schmidling has failed to explain is why Coors Beer, or any
|>other kosher product?  How has Coors contributed to the suffering of
|>the Palestinians?

Some of them drank it.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot to be on CNN 9/28 Larry King 9pm, live from Dallas
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:56:14 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

>The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!

Yeabut, what happens when things get hot and he quits! Better to vote
for Ross' vice president!

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Subject: Re: Center for Policy Alternatives Reacts to Bush Family Leave Veto
Organization: UUMEME Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 09:02:59 GMT

>> BACKGROUND:
>>   While President Bush struck American families with his second veto
>>of the family and medical leave bill, a nationwide poll on women and
>>the economy -- "Women's Voices" -- found that 69 percent of women and
>>63 percent of many men strongly support family leave laws.  1,400
>>women and 200 men were surveyed.  The poll is a project of the Ms.
>>Foundation for Women and the Center for Policy Alternatives.
>>
>While I support family leave, I have to wonder at the validity of
> a poll that surveys 200 men and extrapolates to the entire U.S.
>population.  Sheesh!  Don't you love statistics?
>
Always! Personally, I've always felt that you couldn't get a reasonable
sampling for a nationwide poll unless you had at least 100 from each state...
What'd these clowns do, interview 4 from each state, or just go to New York
and grab people and postulate that Nuke York speaks for the nation?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48530 alt.rush-limbaugh:6165 alt.politics.bush:7122 alt.politics.clinton:7726 alt.politics.elections:14611 talk.abortion:39325 alt.sex:31285
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:17:26 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep29.173521.27759@ncsu.edu> mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS) writes:
>
> Our friend here just discredited every member in the national guard.
> I guess since the national guard served in every war since its creation 
> it does not deserve to be considered military.
>  One wont find the guard any different than the army.

The National Guard is CONSIDERABLY different from the Army,
especially regarding liability for combat.

> When the guard came home from Saudi the veterans that fought in Nam 
> (who were with the guard) marched alongside.

Huh?  How many members of the National Guard saw combat
in Vietnam?  A few thousand actually were sent to Vietnam,
a virtually none saw actual combat.

> When a persons draft number came up they had the option to 
> join the service of their choice. Some went to the navy, some the guard,
> and others the army.

If you mean that you could choose a branch of service once 
you had received a draft notice, you are mostly wrong.  Draftees
during the Vietnam war era went into the army, period.  Once
you received your induction notice, you still could try to
get into another branch of the service until your induction date;
good luck.  In the late 1960's, the waiting time for entry
into the Coast Guard was over two years; for the National Guard,
it was almost as long (my brother learned these facts when
he dropped out of college and was trying to find a way to
avoid combat in Vietnam).  Meanwhile, the army induction
date drew closer ...

Of course, young men with Patriotically Korrect (tm) family
connections managed to get into non-combat National Guard
units, despite the long waiting lists for the rest of us.

>once you joined you had no idea if you were 
> going to war or not because some units did and some units did not.
> Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
>
> Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.
> 

Clinton was liable for the draft; he got a high lottery number,
lucky for him.  Quayle entered a privileged National Guard unit,
and has spent most of the time since then on the payroll
of the federal government.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-800-HITLER2?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:18:46 GMT

From article <farenebt.717861998@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, by farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy):
> 						
> [Perot's] campaign is being run on an, "I'm not a politician" campaign. His
> campaign (I don't have time to read his book; why doesn't he publicize
> some of its important points?) is a lot more vague than Bush's or CLinton's
> (and that's saying something). 

That's a laugh.  "I don't have time for the facts, just give me the 
sound bites."   Why on earth should anyone here even bother reading 
what you have to say, much less responding, if you won't even bother
to learn a little about what you're talking about.  The book is only 
113 pages.  It's a quick read and it's worth the effort.

> His contribution to the deficit debate
> was, "I could balance the budget without breaking a sweat." Sure, all
> he would do is fire Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, ....

Perot has discovered that a real budget reduction plan entails quite a bit 
of sweat and he's spelled it out in detail in his book. 

Anybody that has a concern for the future of this country beyond
the petty power struggles of party politics should read Perot's book no
matter what they think of Perot.  There are some good ideas in there.
While you're at it, dig up Tsongas's book and read it, too.  

One of Clinton's people that came to court Perot's followers commented 
that the difference in their budget plans was really just a question of 
how hard you want to hit the brakes on the deficit.  A good look at
the proposals tells me that it's really a difference between Perot's
plan to hit the brakes and Clinton's plan to punch the gas.  At the 
same time I'd say that Bush's plan is like trying to coast to a stop 
while going down a steep hill.

Only one major candidate has proposed a plan to balance the budget:
Perot. 


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Since the Dawn of Socialism (was Re: All deficits are not created )
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:20:35 GMT



  "I've sawed this board off twelve times and its still too short!"
    -- George Bush as a child



In article <1992Oct2.235319.4749@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>The deficit has been used as an all-purpose gobblin by
>all political parties for many years.

For many years?

Try since the dawn of socialism at the turn of the century!

The Income Tax was instituted on Americans for the precise purpose of closing
a federal deficit of a few million dollars. This was before 1913.

More recently, the deficit was the excuse George "Read My Lips" Bush gave
for breaking his pledge to voters. Did the new taxes reduce the deficit?



  The proponents of higher taxes accept as a matter of faith that deficits
  will fall if taxes are raised.  But recent historical experience at both
  the state and the federal levels demonstrates convincingly that there is no
  such iron law of politics.  Indeed, a sizable body of statistical and
  anecdotal evidence shows that trying to reduce deficits by increasing taxes
  is an exercise in futility:  Lawmakers invariably respond to higher taxes
  principally by raising spending by an amound about equal to the additional
  revenue, thereby leaving the deficit fundamentally unchanged.

  The description of this effect is often called the "tax-and-spend
  hypothesis."  Many years ago Milton Friedman stated the point this way:
  "You can't reduce the deficit with higher taxes.  Political rule number one
  is: government spends what government recieves plus as much as it can get
  away with."  Not surprisingly, the Washington establishment dismisses
  Friedman's "rule."

  Nonetheless, several studies have verified the tax-and-spend hypothesis.
  In 1986 economist Paul Blackley published a study in 'Public Finance
  Quarterly' that examined the relationship between federal taxes and
  deficits during the period 1929 to 1982.  Blackley found that revenue
  increases led to spending increases, not to smaller deficits.  A subsequent
  study by Neela Manage and Michael Marlow, formerly with the U.S. Treasury
  Department, supported this finding.  The authors found statistical evidence
  of "one-way causality from tax receipts to spending, suggesting that tax
  increases result in higher spending levels - and possibly larger deficits."

  Perhaps most controversial was a 1987 paper published by the Republican
  members of the Joint Economic Committee (later disavowed by Democrats),
  which examined federal revenues and deficits from 1947 to 1986.  The
  authors JEC staff members Richard Vedder, Lowell Galloway, and Chris Frenze
  - concluded that each dollar of new taxes had triggered $1.58 in new
  spending.  In other words, the deficit has tended to *rise*, not fall,
  after a tax hike.

  Liscense to Spend
  by Stephen Moore
  _Reason_ magazine, October 1990



Note that the prophesy preceeded the rising deficit that followed Bush's
tax increases.
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: More Democratic Campaign Songs
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:05:03 CDT


In article <1992Sep29.224338.20572@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> In article <25224@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
> >In talk.politics.misc, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> >>                       Every budget proposal
> >>presented by the President has been *increased* in the House under
> >>both Democrat and Republican administrations.
> >
> >    Bull.  For the last 12 years most budgets have left congress with 
> >smaller deficits than the president has proposed.  Not by much, I'll
> >agree, but when they go back to the White house for signature the deficits
> >ARE usualy smaller.  Reagan and Bush have no credibility in blaming 
> >the deficits on Congress, and by implication the Democrats.
> >    The last balanced Budget occured when a Democrat was in the White
> >house. Think about it.
> 
> Double Bull (sorry, that's as nasty as I get).
> 
> The mandatory spending, which is untouchable by the Executive,

Technically, all spending is untouchable (in terms of apropriations) by
the President.  The President can propose any spending (or cuts) he wants.

>                                                                 amounts to
> roughly 70 percent of the annual budget.  This includes the debt payment

Debt payment is the only truely mandatory spending (assuming no one
wants to to default).

> and all the economic rights the democrats have defined for (some of) us.

The President can propose to cut entitlements.  The reality is that the 
President and Congress know that there may be political support to cut
entitlements (as a vague entity) but there is NO political support to
cut any specificly identified entitlements.

> The remaining 28 to 30 percent is what the President has to work with 
> and I would suspect that if you check several years in succession you
> will find that the reason the Congress returns smaller budgets is due
> to items such as defense.

True.

> If you really want to establish a number representing responsibility for
> the budget then consider this one.  The President has 1/6th responsibility
> in that this number represents the difference between a simple majority
> and a veto override in the Congress.
> 
> Say, when was that last balanced budget?  I'm not sure I was even born yet.

Fical year 1969, proposed by Johnson and passed by the Democratic Congress.

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:39:20 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:17:29 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.034327.3571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>Why isn't a fetus considered a living entity??

Who ever said it wasn't?  Some people say it's not a "human life"
because they actually imply more by those two words than just simple
existence of life with human DNA, but I haven't heard anyone try to
call a fetus a "lifeless mass" yet.

>I could understand if there were extreme circumstances, but what about
>abortions carried out simply because the parents think a child might
>be an inconvenience.

Define 'inconvenience'.  Now try to come up with a law that would be
successful in prohibiting abortions wanted solely for 'convenience',
but would allow women with a real need to obtain one.  I'll bet you can't.

>I could understand if perhaps it was known that a
>child would be born with major medical problems and not live very long if
>born. But each case must be looked at individually.

If every woman in the United States had to have a case in court to
decide whether or not she's allowed an abortion, then our legal system
would quickly grind to a complete stop.  Besides, how could you ever
maintain consistency in the rulings?  One judge might become known for
turning down most abortion requests, while another judge would be
known for allowing most of them -- things would get out of hand fairly
quickly.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:15:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct5.163531.19868@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <BvnGD7.53p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>    >>Secondly, if all this "Randroid drooling" is so "weak", why,
>    >>then, it should be extremely easy for you to post your
>    >>refutations.
>    >>
>    >Look, take some courses in logic. The onus is on the person
>    >making the *positive assertion* (that's you) to prove it. If
>    >I said "bander- snatch are frumious" (a positive assertion)
>    >how would you go about DISproving it? You can't. But that
>    >doesn't mean my claim is correct. The responsibility is mine
>    >to define "bandersnatch" and "frumious" and describe how I
>    >reached my conclusion.
>    >
>    >Rand's assertions are simply undefined and unsubstantiated
>    >claims.
>
>Well, then, per your post, PROVE IT.

  Prove what?  I'm not making any positive assertions about rights
  (note that my statement, above has the negative modifier "un" in
  front of both adjectives.  In other words, that these things are
  not to be found in Rand's writings.


>                              I have a dictionary of Rand's
>terms, and it has 350+ pages in it. And she has at least a dozen
>books that substantiate her philosophy.

  Then you should have no trouble.  Look, YOU'RE the one getting
  on Usenet and throwing these claims around.   How about starting
  with an objective or operational definition of "rational".  Give
  us a tool or metric we can use to tell when a particular action,
  for instance, is "rational".


  [  claims that a lion has a "right" to kill prey in order to live,
     etc.  ]

>    >According to what? Why do you think this is true? This is a
>    >good example of the sort of unsubstatiated "thinking" that is
>    >at the base of your philosophy.
>
>As I said, and you edited out, that is a moral premise.
                                                                  
  Then it's totally arbitrary.  Why should we accept this premise?

  This is typical of Randian "logic", incidentally: proof by
  definition.  
  

---peter




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Short-Term Profit over Long-Term Good (II)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:56:34 GMT

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Decline of America: Short-Term Profit over Long-Term Good (II)

>Percentage of urban passenger trips made by automobile or
> public transportation, selected countries, 1978-87:(43)
>
>COUNTRY          AUTO    PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
>
>United States     82               3
>Germany           48              11
>France            47              11
>United Kingdom    45              19
>Netherlands       45               5
>Sweden            36              11

Of course, the fact that the US is MUCH larger than ANY of these other
countries has nothing to do with this, right???  The fact that things are
more widely spaced?

I use the train/bus to commute to work.  Unfortunately, I have to use a car
to get to the train station.  There is no way to use a bus where I live in
the suburbs...they are too widely separated and destinations vary far too
much.

Public transportation isn't very practical in the suburbs...it works in
certain, small ways, on certain high-traffic routes.

 -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,talk.abortion