HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:41:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.061844.2304@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <Bt07FC.ABD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.121734.13578@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>>In article <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>>> 
>>>
>[..]
>>>Rights in the United States are not at all based on what most of
>>>us in society hold.
>>
>>I disagree with this statement.  Majority rule is the basis of any
>>democratic republic.  The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the
>>rights that the majority agree to are fairly distributed.  But the
>>rights exist because of majority opinion.
>	Wrong.  They are guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights
>and are specifically NOT subject to majority rule.  The majority may not,
>for example, decide to establish a State religion and ban all other forms
>of religious expression.  It may NOT vote to censor all news media on the
>basis of political content.  And so on.  
>

Actually, I think that the wording here is supposed to be a ruling by the 
majority with a respect for the minority.  It was set up this way for the 
reasons stated above. Thus the reason that we are called a Constitutional
Republic.   Thus endeth today's Civics 101 lesson. :)


>>>
>>Tim
>
>Chuck
>No .sig, no frills, no fooliln'
>
>
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80



Tom
-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40412 talk.abortion:32303 alt.politics.bush:1993
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:26:06
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: world
	<oiprc0c@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Aug14.200916.8543@ncsu.edu>
	<l8vev9INNeu4@spim.mips.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mpolen@gelato.mips.com's message of 17 Aug 1992 14:47:05 GMT

In article <l8vev9INNeu4@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

> Over the weekend, Bush says he does not want the Republican platform
> changed.  Therefore, his platform supports bans on *all* abortions.

Except, of course, where Bush's or Quayle's relatives are concerned...

You know, it's funny.  I realize that there is no evidence whatsoever
that Bush actually believes anything at all, but I still have this
irrational feeling that somewhere, deep inside, Bush actually might
have a conviction or two.  And I have the impression that he is really
pro-choice. 
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band 
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 09:42:17 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug12.181935.26805@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
|> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> 
|> [on why some deductions are needed in a 'flat' tax scheme...]
|> 
|> >Imagine a consultant who spends a great deal of time on the road.
|> >He may earn a high income, but much of that income has to go to
|> >covering his expenses (gas, car repair, hotel charges, etc.).  Compare
|> >this to a worker who simply commutes to work everyday and punches
|> >a time clock.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me to tax the gross
|> >income of the two.
|> 
|> why should other tax payers subsidize this person's stay at 
|> the hilton and big steak dinners?  if that person has high 
|> expenses, they should work them into their fees (or prices) or
|> learn to spend money wisely!

The simple fact is that some occupations require more expenditures
to realize an income than others.  Not all expenses can simply be
passed on in higher fees.  An *income* tax should be on real 
income, not illusory income.

I'm inclined to go along with Peter Nelson's idea that people with
high expenses should operate as a business and pay themselves a
a salary.  As long as there is no coporate tax I think that might
be a workable idea.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:50:45 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.003751.6250@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>>Instead, Clinton is proposing universal coverage by having employers
>>cover their workers or pay into a national pool of funds to cover
>>those that aren't covered otherwise.

>Fine.  How many of those employers are going to lay off people to pay
>those costs?  If that number is large, the program enters a death
>spiral.

Seems like a potential problem, though I doubt it's a disaster.  The
proposed charge--only for those companies that don't provide insurance
to their employees--is a 7% payroll tax.  I suppose that might force a
few companies to fire a few employees.  It's nebulous enough that it's
pretty difficult to predict.

An interesting point occurs to me, though.  Given that good health
insurance can easily cost $2000, it actually seems like any company
paying people less than about $30K might choose to pay into the
national fund rather than provide health care.  They'd actually WIN in
those cases.  (That is not intended as some sort of clinching argument
in favor of Clinton's proposal; it's just a thought out of the blue.)

>>He also wants to do something do
>>stop the runaway prices on medicine and medical procedures.

>"Do something"?  Yipes!

Well, as much in favor of some types of national health care as I am,
I don't claim to know exactly what Clinton proposes.  Particularly not
when I'm just summarizing.  (And, quite frankly, I would say that
Bush's platform calls for "doing something" to stop the price
increases, too.  Clinton doesn't have a monopoly on vagueness.)

>Unless the costs go down by more than the amount necessary to cover
>the uncovered, there's no overall saving possible.  The National
>Health Care advocates have been claiming that we'd save money, but
>their argument has been that other countries spend less, ignoring
>demographics and other differences.  (How much do lawyers suck out of
>the Canadian system?  US National Health Care need not affect that,
>but if it doesn't ....)

That argument merely suggests caution in implementing a program.  We
can learn something from other countries' experiences, but we probably
cannot just copy their plans directly.

>Of course, we're just arguing about shifting money around.  Money we
>spend on health care is money we don't spend elsewhere.

There I disagree with you.  At least some of the money spent on health
care is money that we don't spent on...health care.  By improving the
general health of the population (which is, after all, the goal of
these programs), we should reduce the number of serious illnesses in
those people who cannot currently afford to deal with them in their
early stages.  (Like EVERY argument for OR against health care, that's
a WHATIF argument, I admit.  But it has some appeal to me.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40147 alt.individualism:5255
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Please fill the jar....  Drug testing is a two way street
Date: 17 Aug 1992 15:14:49 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Stupendous Man) writes:
|> Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> ...
|> > Didn't think Mr. Archer and I would be agreeing on too many things,
|> > but here we do. Any company has a right to have a no drug user
|> > policy, but where they go beyond the boundary is in having a drug
|> > 'testing' policy. If I seek employment at company X and they ask
|> > me if I use drugs, I will tell them the truth, namely no I do not.
|> > Now if they then say, well you won't mind taking this test, that's
|> > when I head out the door. After all, I am taking 'their' word that
|> > they will provide all the good things they say they do, so they
|> > will simply have to take my word. To insist on a drug test means
|> > that they don't believe me (and I suspect the reason would be that
|> > they are a bunch of liars themselves). This, IMHO, is a damned
|> > good indication that you really would not want to work for such
|> > people.
|> 
|> 	Carry your own specimen jars with you, and if asked to fill something
|> during the interviewing process, bring out your jars and say
|> 
|> 	"Have the president/CEO/my potential boss/etc fill these, then we can
|> exchange samples."
|> 
|> 	It might be interesting to videotape the proceedings for "America's
|> funniest home videos."
|> 
|>         Those doing the insisting usually don't want to submit to one
|> themself....
|> 
|> Brett                                                      

You might want to get a little data before using words like "usually."
In the many companies, management takes drug tests with the same 
frequency, or even more often, than the rest of the employees.  For
example, at Texas Instruments all employees are tested (statistically)
every 2 years.  All managers at Department level and above are 
tested every 1 year.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:46:27 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <l8j6ntINN1kv@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
...[ballot access]
> This is an assumption it is easy for the Republicans or Democrats to get
> on the ballot.  Wrong.  The rules are the same.

	The difference is that every election the Dems and Reps pretty much
have a couple of parties wheree everyone signs a petition and BAM they have 20k
signatures.

	Indpendents, by nature, have no such built-in petition power.  The
Libertarians are still much too small to have this power also.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Ron Echeverri concocts a lie about Bush's abortion stance
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.161857.39397@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

> [.. article from Clarinet ..]
> 
> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee Monday
> overwhelmingly passed a plank calling for the adoption of a
> constitutional amendment banning all abortions.
>     The subcommittee on individual rights, good homes and safe streets
> voted 17-3 to approve the plank, which is essentially the same as the
> anti-abortion planks contained in the 1988 and 1984 platforms.
> ..
>     Although the subcommittee included a few members supportive of the
> Republicans for Choice, the majority endorsed President Bush's stance
> against abortions.

Thank you for providing evidence that Ron Echeverri did concoct a  
key sentence in his original post.  His original post contained
the suggestion that the Republican platform subcommittee endorsed
the policy of President Bush when they passed a plank calling for
a ban on all abortions.  President Bush does not support a ban
on all abortions; he supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the
life of the mother.  

Here is Echeverri's original post:

------------
From: rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Subject: Another good reason not to vote for Bush


	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.
------------


Note that the sentence fragment "endorsing the policy of President Bush" 
which appears in Echeverri's version of the article is absent from your 
version.  

> I think you should apologize for accusing Ron of trying to pull a Doug.

I think Mr. Echeverri should apologize for deceiving the net about
President Bush's stance on abortion.  


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:45:41 GMT

In article <11774@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.082120@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>> In article <11715@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># |# There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
># |# yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.
># 
># Not true, at least not for Judaism.  The Union of American Hebrew 
># Congregations,a branch of reform Judaism, has several gay/lesbian 
># congregations.  And not just in San Francisco.  There currently are at 
># least 25, which are in Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, 
># Chicago, Florida and other places around the country.  There are 848 
># congregations total in the UAHC.  (Source: Mrs. Edith R. Lerner who 
># makes up the directory of all US/Canada congregations, and who has
># been doing so since the 1960s.)
>
>Conservative and Orthodox Judaism do not accept homosexuality.
>

Not strictly true.

The Conservative movement does not allow homosexual Rabbis or same-sex
marriages, but it also does not allow a congregation to refuse
membership or participation to Homosexuals. Many Conservative
congregations actively welcome homosexual members and couples to
become members.

In addition, the Reconstructionist movement, which is an offshoot of
the Conservatives ordain homosexual Rabbi's and not only permit but
encourage same-sex marriages for homosexuals.

># |# In any case, both
># |# Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
># |# homosexuality. 
># 
># So, this has now been exposed, as the lie that it is.
>
>Look, if you find the Bible to be offensive to your sexual preferences,
>fine, but don't pretend that it doesn't directly prohibit homosexuality
>in the Old Testament.  If you want to argue that those rules are out
>of date, say that.  But the Bible is very unambiguous about homosexuality.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If you want to make that claim, then I'd
recommend you read _and respond to_ the various responsa regarding the
old-testament statements on homosexuality that have been issued by the
Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Reform movements. (The
Conservative and Reform statements are available via FTP from
nysernet.org.)

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "There is no such thing as a problem 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  seek problems because you need their 
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:17:29 GMT

In article <92234.194111DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> 
> Ah the old "theft" argument.  I've heard that line so often I don't even
> dignify it with a reply anymore.  Your facts are wrong.  Canada has wonderful
> doctors and health care.  So does France.  So does Germany.
> 

It's amazing how the Canadian health care system is so wonderful, yet almost  
all the Canadian relatives (who live near the U.S. border) of one friend of  
mine venture down to the U.S. for most of their health care (while  
simultaneously mouthing off about how wonderful the Canadian system is).

Since you don't think health care is reasonably priced, you must believe that  
you are going to get more benefit than you are going to pay for in a socialized  
system.  So who is going to pay the difference?  And if someone else is being  
forced to pay for your care, why do you not see this as theft?

> 
> >You can push for National Health Care now, but don't be surprised when some
> 
> Oh, thank you ever so much for graciously giving me permission to exercise
> my freedom to voice my political opinion.  I'm forever in your debt.
> 

You're welcome :)  Of course, most thieves probably have the opinion that it is  
their right to steal since they obviously need the booty more than the victim.   
I guess they *are* entitled to their  opinions.

> >day
> >a bureaucrat turns you away with your mere "sprained ankle", because the  
lines
> >are long and the other people are more "needy", and the black market is the
> >only way for people without political  clout to be treated.
> 
> Get a clue about the real world.  NHI works.

I probably know alot more about the real world than you do.  I know exactly how  
demoralizing it is to work your butt off only to have the looters take half  
your money and squander it.  When you've left the "ivory towers" and have  
*faced* the real world, then I'll be more likely to at least recognize your  
right to make such a comment :) 

The latter half of the 20th century has seen the first truly good health care  
that mankind has ever had.  Otherwise, you would have nothing to try to steal.   
The fact is that in the United States, most people DO have good health care for  
the first time in all of history.  And a lot more people would have the health  
care they need if it weren't for incredible regulation, an essentially  
monopolistic arrangement between the AMA and the federal government, medicare  
that drives up the demand for scarce resources for very questionable needs (I  
know a number of doctors and nurses that have told me that large number of  
elderly people go to the doctor when they don't really need to because they  
don't have to pay the true cost), and a tort system that has no sense of  
justice.

> 
> Dennis G. Shea, Penn State

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
From: mary@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Mary E. Allison)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 20 Aug 1992 17:40:30 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>As for my attitude on abortion, I have said that my stance
>is pro-responsibility, that the choice comes even before conception: it
>starts when a man and a woman decide to have sex. I can email you a
>previous post I wrote upon request.

     OH -- TERRIFIC -- tell THAT to all the women that have *DECIDED*
to have sex with rapists!!!!!

--
I owe the government $3400 in taxes.  So I sent them two hammers
and a toilet seat.
  -- Michael McShane

    Mary Allison (mary@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu) Urbana, Illinois
Catx2 Owned, Square Dancer, Leaper, Ballroom Dancer in training 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 09:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.230335.4208@PA.dec.com> wall@pa.dec.com (David Wall) writes:
>Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
>    Criticizing Jess Helms for doing what the NEA has *always* done -
>    decide to fund some art, while declining to fund other art -
>    is hypocritical....Personally, I think we would be better off
>    *without* the NEA.
>

You know, I may be wrong, but I suspect Pat wants to do a whole lot
more than just close down the NEA.





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:35:58 GMT

silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>	While neither Earth First! nor the animal-rightists are liberals
>in the classic sense, the general worldview they share springs from the New
>Left philosophies of the 1960's. These New Left philosophies were 
>originally expounded by classic liberals, and hence the inheritors or heir-
>apparents of such philosophies are still commonly regarded as 'good
>liberal' by John Q. Public.

Excuse me?  New Left philosophies were originally expounded by
"classic liberals"?  You must be using "classic liberal" in a very
different sense from that which I understand.  A "classic liberal"
refers to a person who values individual liberty and property rights
and distrusts government power -- the way the word "liberal" was used
in the nineteenth century before the socialists hijacked it -- what
today in the US would be called a conservative or libertarian.  Adam
Smith and Friedrich von Hayek were classic liberals.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:48:48 GMT

In article <adams.713802433@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>
>>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?

Did anyone ever say that life begins at conception was a religious issue?
I know lots of pro-life people religious and athiests who are pro-life and
who believe life begins at conception.  Athiest pro-lifers don't believe
in a God.  In fact they deny its existence.  Yet you say that the
pro-life view that life begins at conception is religious in nature?!?

The life begins at conception idea is mainly scientific and biological,
not religious.  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39206 ca.politics:6688 ba.politics:4431