HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:45:47 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

 
 Article 36189 (12 more) in misc.headlines:
 Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
 From: harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
 Subject: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
 
 >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.
 
 >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?
 
 What you need to do is go back to the original Subject and 
 note that I was defending my honor.  The fact that the 
 boycott may be ineffective or ilconceived  is not the issue.
 
 I was called a Jew hater and antsemite for suggesting it. 
 THAT is the issue.
 
 Until just now, we never got to the point of discussing its 
 effectiveness.
 
 As usual, anything that is even remotely perceived as 
 critical of Israel, brings out the howling savages to 
 destroy the discussion and turn it into disproving charges 
 of Nazism and Jew hating.
 
 If you really want to discuss the problem, I will give you 
 this one chance....  if you blow it, you can join the ranks 
 of the Chutzpanazi howling savages and be ignored in all 
 future responses.  
 
 god, I like that.  Thanks Martillo.
 
 .............
 
 >But that's not the heart of the problem.  How can Coors 
 rectify the situation and salvage their business?  Even if 
 they wanted to aid the Palestinian cause, that in and of 
 itself would have no effect on the boycott.  On the other 
 hand, they could cut their losses by refusing to certify 
 their products, and cut off practicing Jews cold.
 
 First of all, the rhetorical, closing phrase is a real tear 
 jerker.  What the hell did they drink before last year when 
 Coors went Kosher?  Probably, good beer.
 
 The isue is not to bring Coors to their knees, but to bring 
 attention to the plight of the Palestinians.  If thousands 
 of pickets appear in front of the Coors plants and every 
 liquor store across the country, the media just might ask 
 them what their beef is.
 
 If it became blindingly successful and could not be ignored, 
 it just might get a sound bite on the evening news.  If the 
 company folded up and went out of business, it might get two 
 sound bites, no doubt pointing out the antisemitic nature of 
 the boycott and asking when the next holocaust will occur 
 and predicting that it will be in Golden Colorado.   After 
 all, Coors first name is Adolph.
 
 Your turn..
 
 
 js
 
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Perot's publicity
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:29:32 GMT

I will read his book. I ask you, though, why wn't he publicize
any of it.

He's saying, "I don't want to publicize my positions, just read the
book. I expect that you should do me the favor of reading the book
so I won't have to talk about it. I don't want to be forced to
explain or defend my positions to the public so just read the
book so I don't have to talk about it."

Most candidates try and make their positions MORE accesible and
easily known by the public. Perot, proving that he's not a politician,
is doing the opposite.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"If you don't vote, you don't count!"
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."   --Salvor Hardin
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 7975@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Vietnam did not drain our country of youth.... we had plenty of youth.

John, we both had good friends who died in that war.  How many generations
were lost to that war?  How many talented minds snuffed out?  In the end,
we were experiencing manpower shortages.  We were barely able to field the
half million that we worked up to, and by that time it was too few to
suppress the Vietnamese.  Every American family had felt the war.  It was
not that we lacked more fodder for the cannons, but that the fodder had
a disturbing tendency to aspire to greater things in life.

>It cost us wealth, and it confused our views... a confusion that we have
>yet to shake. It was a battle that we fought against the international
>communists. It resulted in internal struggles in the US, which were
>used (and encouraged) by our enemy - probably not because the war
>was such a bad idea but because our leaders lied about it so badly.
>Yes, it was lunacy to go into it with the attitudes that Johnson
>had and the behavior he exhibitted.

Let's not leave any love in there for Nixon, who stimulated a new era of
violent anti-war protests with his senseless escalations.  Johnson was
crazy, meeting with his advisors to handpick bombing targets.  But Nixon
had to go through a new round of mutual slaughter before he understood the
futility.  And he took the war into new areas:  Cambodia and Laos, the 
dominos that we were going to keep from falling... 

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: Clinton-HQ@mail.clinton-gore.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: [75300.3115@compuserve.com: Thanks from Little Rock]
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:58:33 GMT

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:33 EDT
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
To: Clinton Team <clinton-org@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Thanks from Little Rock

Volunteers,

Jeff Eller asked me to pass this along.

"FYI to the team:  David Kuznet...chief speech writer and mastermind
of the  Notre Dame Speech says the info he gets from e-mail is great!
Keep it up!"

Please do keep it up.  And please do let people know that what we send in
gets used and is valued!

Regards,
Jock


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:46:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.192023.1578@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>Simple questions to shut up a right to lifer
>>
>>"How many hungry kids have you fed today?"
>>"How many homeless kids have you taken into your home?"
>
>You ask those kids if they'd rather be where they are now or dead, and guess
>what they will answer.

Their answers just might surprise you.  Don't ask a question if you don't]
want to get an answer.

Jennifer
>-- 
>*****  The Rink  *****   Programming is an art form that fights back.
>***                ***
>* ss1@kepler.unh.edu *   "But that no man is justified by the law in the
>***                ***    sight of God, it is evident:  for, The just shall
>*****  Cheers!!  *****    live by faith."  --  Galatians 3:11


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: The Grand Facade: Are (legal) abotions safe?
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:22:03 GMT

In <warren.717863335@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:

>Dr. Horton Dean is a gynecologist with a private practice near LA.
>Since 1973 he has seen a marked increase in the number of patients
>with significant complications- both mental and physical- as a
>result of legal abortions.  "I am convinced," he said, "that Planned
>Parenthood programs pose the greatest health hazard in America today."

Warren, Warren, Warren.  Here I was all excited to see your stats and
you go ahead and blow it for me in the first 1/3rd of your article.

First of all, you choose a male gynecologist from LA, of all places, as
your source of information.  Second, all of his information is either
anecdotal or "estimated."  But the real killer was this garbage about
how the "Planned Parenthood programs pose the greatest health hazard in
America today."

Warren, no one with even half a brain could believe that PP is a worse
health scourge than, say, poverty and its associated malnourishment, or AIDS
for God's sake, or Bush's veto of the Family Leave bill, or toxic waste,
or even plain old overpopulation.

Warren, doesn't the good doctor's statement strike you as just a little
bit overblown?

>[from interview in July 1987]  He estimates that as many as fifteen
>percent of all first trimester, forty percent of all mid-trimester,
>any ninety percent of all late-trimester abortions result in problems
>demanding serious medical attention.

Disregarding the fact that these are only the good doctor's own
estimates (based upon what real data?) without further information,
this is like saying that 90 percent of bowling accidents in which a
person is injured with a shotgun are fatal.  We don't know how many
bowling accidents are due to shotguns just as you have not provided us
with information detailing how many abortions are performed in the
third trimester vs. the first.  Secondly, you not specify
if these statistics include all abortions, or just legal abortions.

What is the definition of "serious medical attention?"
	- You are so messed up that the doctor gets to buy a new suit
	- You are so messed up that the doctor gets to buy a new car
	- You are so messed up that the doctor gets to buy a new house
	- You are so messed up that your medical bill pays for a new
	  wing on the hospital and the lawyers start buying new
	  houses.
	

How about a short summary of all the information you found in the
list of publications you posted?  Not that I would believe your reading
of the information but it's better than nothing.  What ARE the
abortion statistics in Hungary?

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49806 talk.politics.drugs:6636 talk.politics.guns:21775 alt.politics.elections:15333 alt.politics.libertarian:598 alt.politics.marrou:1450
From: brady@castor (Andre Marrou)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:52:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia

In article <1992Oct6.182423.9704@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
>
>you have no basis for your claim that support for the LP candidates is 
>less than the margin of error. do you really think that Perot would be
>polling about 7% if his name was not listed as a "legitimate" choice?


You have made an excellent point.  While Perot was out of the race, 
pollsters were taking two separate polls - one with Perot's name
included and one without his name.  In the poll where his name
was excluded, the "other" percentage in the poll was smaller than
the "Perot" percentage in the other poll.  Obviously, in the poll where
Perot was excluded, many who would have chosen Perot if he were there 
chose Clinton and Bush instead.  So, having his name included in the
choices helps.  The same would apply to Marrou.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu   Had enough? Vote Libertarian!
--------------------------------Marrou/Lord '92------------------------------
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu   Had enough? Vote Libertarian!
--------------------------------Marrou/Lord '92------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49730 alt.politics.perot:1884 alt.politics.elections:15291
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot lobbies the FAA
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:17:20 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:
|> 
|> On a slight tangent, there was an interesting article on Perot in the
|> Oregonian (yes, that bastion of journalism) that went in to some details
|> of Perots' highly successful business dealings. One of them smacks of
|> hypocrisy. This was one about how he successfully lobbied for the FAA to
|> approve the building of an airport in Texas. It just happened to be close to
|> some 17,000 acres of Perot owned land. Strange that once approval was 
|> granted, the saleable value of the land doubled? 
|> 
|> If this article is correct, then isn't this surely an prime example of
|> the special interests that HRP complains about, the same ones that control
|> the Government? In this, some $200 million of Federal money was invested
|> in the project, adding further to national debt.
|> 
|> Can anyone explain this somewhat extraordinary set of contradictions?

What contradiction?  A major part of Perot's business was in government
contracts.  He and his employees spent a lot of time lobbying the
various government agencies.  In addition, politicians and landowners
lobbying for construction of airports, freeways, and supercolliders
which will increase their property values is a time honored business.

You just have to understand that the wealthy don't consider themselves
to be a special interest group.  They don't think of themselves as a
group at all.  It's every person for themselves.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NAFTA
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:58:06 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BvoLx4.728@agora.rain.com>, robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.223005.20550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <BvMrtI.DGG@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>>  Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
>>>although he still has "reservations".
>>
>>Let's be a bit more accurate.  He supports NAFTA, but he wouldn't sign
>>the agreement in its present form.  He hasn't been specific about the
>>exact changes needed.
> 
> 
>   The way I heard it, he does support it in its present form, but
> also supports an additional treaty or "understanding" which would
> allow the USA to dictate Mexico's and Canada's environmental policies.

	Hoo oby!  That should go over well in Canada and Mexico.  Not!

>   Presidents don't sign treaties, anyway, they simply have to be ratified
> by the Senate.

	The prez does sign the agreement.  That doesn't make it official,
though.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:49:49 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <7rnzg9m@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Oct1.133221.20020@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> >>   Democrats believe that Clinton has always been pro-choice, but
|> >>   this is not true.
|> 
|> >And Reps. beleive that George has always been pro-life. 
|> 
|> Not to mention Ronald Reagan - who signed a law greatly liberalizing
|> abortion laws in California - BEFORE Roe v. Wade was decided.

George Bush became concerned about abortion when he observed that its
legalization had caused the ridiculously high (and growing) numbers of
abortions that we are seeing today.  It was also politically expedient for
him to do so.  I wonder why.

I have much less of a problem with elected officials, such as Gov. Reagan,
enacting the will of the people they represent than I do with a few guys in
robes handing down decrees that override the will of people who never voted
for them and have no recourse against them.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Center for Policy Alternatives Reacts to Bush Family Leave Veto
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:36:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep30.090259.10319@uumeme.chi.il.us> drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>>> 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...

  Well, what we "personally" feel is a reasonable sample size is
  not that interesting -- what constitutes a reasonable sample size
  is a matter of mathematical certainty given the specified desired
  margin of error.  But two other aspects of this ARE quite debatable:

  One you alluded to:  the distribution of the sample -- how were were
  the subjects chosen and what regions/demographics, etc did they
  represent.   The other is: HOW WAS THE QUESTION PHRASED?
                            
  This gets back to the jobs issue I posted about a few minutes ago.
  In a sort utopian view, it would be nice if all companies offered
  their employees leave for raising young children.  But any additional
  restrictions and regulations we place on companies cost money and 
  add to the burden of the company hiring someone.  We can't divorce
  issues like "family leave" from larger economic issues.   Decisions
  have to be made in as considered and rational a way as possible.
  This applies both to the decision of what regulations to apply to
  business and what their likely impacts will be, and ALSO the decisions
  we make as individuals about whether to have children.  


---peter


  



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: smcguire@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott McGuire)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 20:02:27 GMT

As to Perot doing so much better than the LP as a reason to cover him
and not the LP: Perot is doing this well because he has been covered.
How well would he be doing without media attention?  How well would the
LP be doing with it?  Comparing Perot with and the LP without coverage
is ridiculous.  Doing comparisons this way is a catch-2 - you must be
covered to do well enough to be covered.

As to the media being private:  Yes they are private and can do what they
want.  Presumably they want to provide what the customers want.  YOU are 
the customers so call and tell them what you want.  Calling and telling them
does not imply it is not imply that it is not their decision.

Scott McGuire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: Intervention, Militarization, and Wars (II)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:00:12 GMT

The Decline of America: Intervention, Militarization, and Wars (II)

=============================================================
Arms transfer agreements with the Third World, expressed as a
              percentage of total, 1989 and 1990:
=============================================================
COUNTRY                   1989 (%)    1990 (%)

United States               23.6       44.8
Soviet Union                38.5       29.2
China                        4.3        6.3
France                      11.0        5.5
Other European nations       6.0        5.4
All others                   5.3        4.0
United Kingdom               8.0        3.8
Italy                        0.8        0.6
Germany                      2.6        0.5

Source: Richard F. Grimmett. "Conventional Arms Transfers to the Third
World, 1983-1990," August 2, 1991, a Congressional Research Service report
to Congress, p. 47.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From page 84 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