HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:16:17 GMT

In article <66245@hydra.gatech.EDU>
gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:

>
>In <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
>>Richard,
>
>>Without giving away my stance on "gun control" (we do know how you
>>like to generalize, Richard), think about the following scenario.
>>Martial Bill declares himself president for life.  He orders army
>>into Cupertino and says shoot to kill.
>>What army will listen to those orders?
>
>It's quite common for oppressive governments to take a unit from a
>distant part of the country and order them in. Even in the same
>city though, I know a few National Guardsmen who were just itching
>to be called up and bash some heads in when the Rodney King riots
>broke out. Pretty scary huh?
>
     Most civilians believe that it is within the President's authority
to up and declare martial law.  You can bet that the vast majority of
enlisted personnel do, as well.   If they're pointed in a direction and
told that certain people are the "enemy" (I've met more than a few people
in the army who desperately want to "declare war" on drug dealers and
just start executing them in the street.  Military training does not
breed respect for rights or due process of law.)
     How difficult would it be to paint people as "subversive," "dangerous
to democracy," and "the enemy?"

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:19:53 GMT

muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>If we want a health care system like Canada's, we would need to:

This looks more like yet another comment on a mythical system accused
of being Canada's ... please pick up one of the two copies of my FAQ
posted over the past week and weekend.

>	Install a national 10% health care sales tax
>
>	Cut doctor's salaries in half.
>
>	Reform tort laws to protect doctors from malpractice.
>
>	Establish a rationing system to limit costs.
>
>The last violates the new disabilities laws, the third would never get
>past Congress, the second would require the AMA's cooperation (ie, let
>more doctors graduate from med schools, etc ), the first would be 
>political suicide.

The CMA through the each provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons
has not seen this to happen ... in fact, medical school admissions are
being slashed again (sources: UPI, or ask any Canadian doctor or
medical student).  Lower Canadian physicians' salaries come from the
fact that we have less litigation, thus lower malpractice costs; after
paying for malpractice insurance, typical Canadian doctors see almost
as much take-home pay as their American cousins albeit subject to
higher taxes and consumer prices (both of which are being alleviated
by free trade efficiencies forced by GATT, the existing US-Canada FTA,
and (maybe) NAFTA; especially the pyramidal retail distribution system
that makes Columbia's admin look like a small startup company ...).

It has come to my attention that some disingenious American critics
are trying to blame our federal VAT, the GST, upon our public health
insurance; this relies on the ignorance of the audience, since the GST
is explicitly earmarked to write down our federal debt and replaced a
hidden wholesale tax.  Since Canada spends under 9% of its Gross for
health as opposed to America's 13%, that debt was incurred elsewheres
and if you drop in on Soc.culture.canada we'll be glad to tell you all
about where THAT came from (not health insurance) 'til yer blue in the
face ... (-;

>Therefore, a Canadian health care system is impossible to implement
>in this country. 

Unfortunately, this is a null proof.  None of the above applies to
the real Canadian system of public insurance paying private doctors
and private and public hospitals.  The French have a near-identical
hybrid public/private system outlined in the Summer 1992 edition
of "France" magazine, available from most university French depts.
or your local Alliance Francaise ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.141449.12217@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
> Keywords: 
> 
> In article <1992Aug16.003020.1179@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> ]
> ]
> ]You were talking about rights on the societal level.  I assumed you
> ]meant rights that apply to all Americans.  If they're not in the
> ]COnstitution, they don't exist except as found in the penumbra of
> ]the Ninth Amendment.
> ]
> ]Do please learn something about the law of the United States before
> ]you make these assertions about what rights we all have.  I see that
> 
> AHEM:
> 
>   "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> United States Constitution, Amendment 9.

Did you have a point?  I specifically mentioned the Ninth
Amendment and you quote the amendment to me as though I had
ignored it.  Was there something you actually wanted to say?
Are you disagreeing with me or trying to clarify something or
what?  Did I confuse you?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Call for transcripts Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:22:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
:jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
:>eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:>>                                   If anyone has any recent response by
:>>Jennifer Fitzgerald, please let us all know before the media get to her.
:>>:) Ms. Fitzgerald, however, unlike Gennifer Flowers, did not bring these
:>>charges up herself to the press. 
:>
:>_Spy_ pointed out that Gennifer had a $20,000 job as an entertainer or
:>something before she sold out to the tabloid, while Jennifer is a
:>highly-paid and powerful Washington bureaucrat, unlikely to sell out even
:>if the story is true. There's a lesson for would-be presidents.
:>
:>Remember the scene from _All the President's Men_ where Donald Segretti
:>(Nixon's Mary Matalin) is talking to Bernstein? When Bernstein charged
:>that Segretti cooked up a rumor about Hubert Humphrey using call girls,
:>Segretti said that if anything, the story helped HHH's image. Different
:>times, I guess.
:>
:>It's only a movie. Where are the barf bags though? There are 80-some days
:>of this mudstorm left.
:
:Bush has fallen on his own sword (so to speak) he and the republican
:party have gone on the family values crusade and now its coming
:home to roost. Even if Clinton did have an affair it would be much
:less serious than is Bush did simply because Bush is running on the
:family values platform, which makes him a hypocrit as well as an
:adulterer.

And Clinton and Gore don't care about family values during this
campaign? The Dems are making damn sure they're perceived as having
family values too. Remember the DNC speeches by Gore and Clinton.
If the Gennifer Flowers thing is a substantive issue, wouldn't that make
Clinton a hypocrite and an adulterer too?
	Adultery is adultery. No "sin" is less serious (albeit I guess
it can be in politics) because of the person who sinned.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Reason to vote or not vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:24:01 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Had to clean up that subject line.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
=>:Is this the same George Herbert Walker Bush who said that he would stand by
=>:his granddaughter if she were to have an abortion?  Wouldn't you want him to
=>:be ragging on her parents to throw her out of the house?
=>	Would YOU throw out your daughter if she told you she were
=>pregnant assuming she's not married? What would you say about George
=>BASH [sic] if he said he would excommunicate his granddaughter or
=>daughter? This is the same George Bash, and he shows compassion for his
=>children and grandchildren.
=
=True, but Bush's policies aim at taking away choice from other people.
=He seems to advocate a double standard by allowing his progeny to have
=a choice that he would support, while simultaneously denying other
=people's choices.

	That's right; that's what it SEEMS. At the moment, he can't do
anything legally to prevent him from doing that. If abortions become
illegal, and she has an abortion, even when her family offered their
support to take care of the baby should she decide to keep it, she
should be disciplined by the family. If she decides to leave the child
up for adoption, her family will still be there to support her decision
on that too. We're making a personal question into an interpretation on
public policy, which probably isn't fair, but it's politics.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:42:53 CDT


In cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.173307.25429@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> > Barbara Bush asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
> > She weasled out of that question by talking about changes in XUSSR.
> 
> Labor Secratary Lynn Martin asked that question, not Barbara Bush.
> 
> > I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
> > larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
> 
> But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
> adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..

Jimmy Carter started airline deregulation.

-- 
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,can.politics
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:40:53 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.210005.13671@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
> It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos
> like Mary Matalin protest the New York Post article
> on George's alleged affair with a staff aide.  I wonder
> why the same indignation was not present when the Clinton
> allegations surfaced.  It's rather fun to watch the
> Bush operatives wallow in their own sleaze.

	Clinton and Flowers both said "we did it", neither Bush nor Jennifer
(what's her last name?) have said any such thing.

	Just a wee bit o' difference, eh?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40185 ca.politics:6865 ba.politics:4570
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:32:42 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <3RwLPB6w165w@batpad.lgb.ca.us> mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor) writes:
    >What if it does? How many queers at Sun or SGI show up to
    >work in drag? How many news teams cover the Arrival of the
    >Queers every morning in Silicon Valley?

Hmm - well, at SGI, once a year the lavender 8.5x11 sheets come out,
placed on every seat in the cafeteria, annouching some sort of
"homosexual event/recognition day".

Now, how many, say, straight groups do you know that "need" to
use a company's facilities to announce their sexual preference and
(I assume) seek approval?

And I know of one person at SGI, by their own mouth, admitted that SGI
(the company) told this person to tone down the "dress", as some considered
it offensive.

Now, consider YOUR reaction if anti-abortion people at SGI did the same
and placed the typical anti-abortion posters on every seat on
the lunchroom -- what would your reaction be?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:02:41 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
]I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
]another human being.  This is still true if the human being is
]a fetus.  If that human being is a fetus in the first two
]trimesters it will not survive without the assistance of the
]mother.  If that assistance is witheld the fetal human being
]will die, but no murder will have been committed.  If that is
]not an argument based on the appropriate assumptions I guess
]we should just drop it.

If a mother has a baby, sets it aside, and leaves it on its own,
she is merely witholding assistance. She would also be convicted
of murder when the child died of that neglect. It is indeed murder
in some cases to withold assistance.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: taipale@kiloapo.tele.nokia.fi (Pekka J Taipale)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: none
	<TAIPALE.92Aug12130134@node_23d9f.kiloapo.tele.nokia.fi>
	<9y4ma2k.phil@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:27:32 GMT

In article <9y4ma2k.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Interesting, as men and women do not "wear out" from sex (cars do
>wear out the more they are owned) -- indeed, many of us believe that
>people, unlike cars, become better when doing something a lot.

>Atheletes believe this.

>Don't you?

I'm sure that Usenet has been through this kind of conversation about
a zillion times (perhaps in some more appropriate newsgroups). I'll
let this pass now for once.

Athletes certainly believe that excercising makes them better athletes
(unless they overdo it).  It is however not at all as obvious whether
excercising makes them more healthy, or more happy.  For example, some
olympic athletes are suffering from serious health problems due to
excercising. And I haven't even mentioned what drugs (dope, steroids,
whatever is the PC word for this) can do.

These are very complex things, and the human mind with its wildly
varying relations to sex-related things is yet immensely more complex.

Thus, I'm not willing to force other people to do things like I do
(like avoiding numerous 'test drives' before marriage).  However, I
think that I have the right to tell other people what I think is best
for me and I have the right to suggest that it might be good for many
others besides me as well. Someone's burning desire to prove me wrong,
if it exists in the way I interpret from the previous comment, it
really makes me wonder why it is so strong.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who can have sex with numerous
partners and still have a happy marriage afterwards. But I'm equally
sure that there are many people who can't, and I also think that many
of those who force themselves to think that they belong to the former
category, really don't belong there, and have problems afterwards.  I
think that this is what ministers try to say, and I think that
comparison to cars or athletes isn't very appropriate.

This is of course culture-dependant, and where you live things may be
different than here.

Live and let live, they say. Better move this to alt.sex or something,
however.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:47:50 GMT

In article <21AUG92.15395413@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:

>>In article <19AUG92.21584972@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>> So can we charge George Bush with neglect?  He is willfully withholding 
>>> medical treatment from human beings with Parkinson's disease, diabetes and 
>>> other painful and deadly conditions.  
 
>> That is a lie, President Bush supports fetal tissue research, but he 
>> opposes using fetal remains from elective abortions.  

> Tissue from elective abortions is much more useful.  Miscarried fetuses 
> often have genetic or other defects that make their tissue unusable.

I haven't seen any evidence that it's necessary to use fetal remains 
from elective abortions to meet the demand for research purposes.  
 
> Even if you believe abortion is murder, hospitals often take tissues and 
> organs from murder victims and use it to save or improve other's lives.  
> So why should this be any different?  

The next-of-kin of an organ donor acts in the best interests
of the deceased when they give permission to transplant organs.

The next-of-kin of a child killed in an elective abortion can never
be acting in the best interests of the deceased. 

>                                .... Heather.


Doug Holtsinger
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:09:36 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug14220531@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
|> I agree that the question may be offensive, and your
|> analogy has some parallels.  But at the risk of stepping
|> in something unpleasant, I must point out that we don't
|> see people marching with "Up with Mafia" and "Support your
|> Local Chapter of the Cosa Nostra" marching in parades at
|> Italian-American festivals.  And many I-A groups do, in
|> fact, go to some lengths to distance themselves from the
|> misperception that their constituents are in some way
|> related to or engaged in the practice of organized crime.  
|> 

Take a look at the situation in Sicily if you want to see
people who are "for" the Mafia.  How about the riot
in NY after the Gotti trial?

Later,
George


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:      Canada Has Pneumonia!
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:10:54 GMT



In article <1992Aug20.025347.6566@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>	"Canada has lost an estimated 460,000 jobs since signing
>	a free-trade agreement with the United States in 1989."
>			William Greider

  Yeah, but I bet the jobs they have left are *really good* ones!   8-)

---peter
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39327 talk.abortion:31486 alt.politics.bush:1362
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:03:30 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>>
>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>>dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>>plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>platforms.

>Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to George Herbert
>Walker Bush. 

The same George Herbert Hoover Bush who renegged on his "Read My Lips"
pledge?  The same one who was Pro-Choice until he suffered a convention
conversion to be RR's running mate?  The same one who denied that we were
in a recession?  The same one who wants to outlaw abortion (except of
course for his own family)?

How can you trust him?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39250 ca.politics:6706