HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Big differences between Dems and GOP's
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:43:08 GMT

There are a few HUGE differences between the Democrats and Republicans
that you ought to know. 

THIS REFERS TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES (not necesarily to the average party member)
---Democrats are tax-and-spend
   Republicans are borrow-and-spend

---Democrats are big government in economics
   Republicans are big government in your private life

---Democrats are self-serving
   Republicans are self-serving

---Democrats are controlled by the voters *
   Republicans are controlled by the voters *

*- those 30% or less of all adults that vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:46:21 GMT

>What exactly are Bush's "family values"?  He has promised to veto a bill to
>mandate UNPAID family parental or emergency leave.  He has also vetoed a bill
>to prevent convicted child-molesters continuing to work at day-care centers in
>another state.   

I'm not a big Bush fan but I have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt...for
now.

Let me ask anyone if they know this: was this a bill by itself or was it
a rider to another bill? If so, what were the other provisions in the bill?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians don't have a problem with
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: gary@khonsu.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:42:26 GMT

ds> Dennis Shea
gs> GaryStrand

gs> I always thought externalization of costs and internalization of benefits
    was something to be avoided. We read all the time about how polluters
    should pay for the costs of their pollution, rather than externalize those
    costs to the rest of us. Does the principle still apply when it comes to
    health care, or not?

ds> In fact, the aim would be to internalize all costs and benefits, that is,
    to try and make people account for all costs (both to themselves and to
    other members of society) in making decisions.  If you can set up a system
    to do so AND there are no other problems in the market (monopoly power,
    uncertainty, etc.) THEN a free market has certain desirable properties.

  Well, you're partly right, and alotly wrong. The intent is to internalize
  costs and *externalize* benefits as much as possible; the market does not
  create monopolies, governments do; and "uncertainty" is a problem because
  we humans are not omniscient. I have yet to hear of a bureaucract that was
  able to foresee the future and avoid uncertainty.

ds> If external costs and benefits cannot be internalized OR there is more 
    than one source of market failure, THEN alternatives to the free market
    may be both economically desirable AND politically necessary.

  So far, you're not talking about the market for health care. Costs are in-
  ternalized very easily: *you* get hurt or sick, *you* pay for it.

  BTW, why is the health care market different from the car market or the 
  food market? 

ds> The answer depends on whether or not a functioning free market for health
    care can work. IMO, the American free market gave it an admirable try and
    is now failing.

  The free market never got a chance.

ds> Rising levels of uninsurance and and underinsurance coupled with rising
    costs indicate the failing of the market.

  And the government is going to contain these costs? Haha. 

  I'd be more afraid of a national health care system if the private insurers 
  were in *favor* of it. Can you imagine, a guaranteed return on their dis-
  bursements, courtesy Dennis Shea, American taxpayer. Why, I'm surprised they
  haven't realized that there's plenty of room for them at the public trough.
--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:06:45 GMT

In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

	[an anti-discrimination bill...]

>As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
>Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.

	Bullshit. Rape and child molestation are acts of sexual
aggression. No matter whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. O
Claytoon, what would you think of a "North American Man-Girl Love
Association"? Would you flay straight people to death for not
appropriately denouncing this NAMGLA?

>> It is interesting that if the NEA were abolished we would be the only
>> "first world country" where the federal gov't did not fund art.

>Big deal.  We are also one of the few first world countries without
>an established religion.

	Not quite correct.

	Since you apparently crave a state religion so much, why not
have one that's really fun?

	Like neo-paganism?

	Bring back that old-time religion! :-)

	You'll be dancing in a circle under a sacred tree in no time
at all. :-)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Good Cop, Bad Cop (Was: Bush is a father mucker)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:24:05 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>I am seriously wondering if this is a ploy to break the French
>>logjam via the EC in the stalled Uruguay Round talks ... that
>>Bush's announcement will not end up being spent, but part of a 
>>good cop/bad cop act that we're playing?
>
>How does this put pressure on Mitterand to compromise...it just 
>gives him more incentive to side with his farmers since Bush 
>just increased American subsidies even further for nothing but 
>political purposes...

Good point, Frankie is caught between the rabid nationalists on
Maastricht and the farmers on their "traditional way of life."
He could at least retreat to Arthur Dunkel's position since it
does provide certain "outs" for him to save face; anything the
French do will cause another wave of farmers' riots anyways.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Five new alt.politics groups
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:08:32 GMT

alt.politics.usa.misc		Misc. USA politics.

A group for discussions on politics specific to USA - federal domestic
issues, foreign politics, politics in areas / states, general
development and political atmosphere.

alt.politics.usa.constitution	U.S. Constitutional politics

Discussion on the role of the U.S. Constitution as a major document
shaping the happenings in the country.  Theoretical discussions on
that role as well as practical reports on the role and interpretations
belong into the group, as well as methods of supporting USA as a
country based on the principles of the constitution.

alt.politics.reform		Political reform

Discussions on how to achieve political reforms, what tools to use,
when reforms are desirable as well as political reforms currently
going on around the world (like in the x-USSR).

alt.politics.libertarian	The libertarian ideology

The libertarian ideology aims for limited government and individual
and economic freedom.  	With more than 80 libertarian organizations
there is a growing interest in the ideology around the world.

alt.politics.org.misc		Political organizations

Generic group for discussions on political organizations of economic,
military or other kind - examples include NATO, GATT, European
Council, OECD etc.

//Jyrki
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:05:58 GMT

In article <12211@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>The homosexual fascist lobby is creating a situation where the choice
>is "the devil and the deep blue sea."  If you were told that you could
>preserve your right to free speech by giving up your right to not be
>searched at random by the police, and that these were your ONLY
>choices, what would you do?  You would have to decide which right was
>more important, and hold your nose.  I would prefer to not make that
>choice -- but the homosexual fascist lobby seems intent on using the
>government's power to force people to hire and rent to homosexuals
>against their will -- and the only realistic way to stop it is by
>assisting another group that I don't like.

So I take it you will have no objection is queers in Oregon took any action
necessary to defeat the OCA? After all 10% of the citizens of Oregon will
soon be stripped of there right to free speech if the OCA gets its way.
And Clayton unlike your fantasies that queers molest your children, the
OCA will definitly molest queer child. So I assume that given the gravity
of the situation in Oregon you would applaud the use of heavy artillery
and chemical warfare agents by QN against OCA? After all the only way to
stop an action you don't like is to commit another thats even worse...


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45648 alt.rush-limbaugh:4930 alt.politics.elections:13225 alt.politics.clinton:5582 alt.politics.bush:5246
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Horton Adds Worked Like A Charm (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:31:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep14.225745.21723@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>As an aside, has anyone noted that Saddam Hussein is Bush's Willie
>Horton?  Think about the parallels.  You've got a known murderer.  You
>could impose stiff penalties on the murderer, but instead you decide to
>be nice to him and hope he'll suddenly become a nice person.  Not
>surprisingly, this murderer takes everything you give him and then goes
>out and murders again, anyway.  
>
>Of course, the difference is that Willie Horton only killed 2 people the
>second time around, and Saddam killed thousands.
>
Actually Willie Horton didn't kill anyone when he was out on furlough.
Let me repeat: Horton didn't kill anyone when he was out on furlough.
As proof let me remind everyone that the victims of Horton's furlough
escapade briefly campaigned for Bush in 1988, hardly something a dead
person can do.  

I believe the line used by the Bush campaign was something like "Dukakis's
furlough program allowed a convicted murderer to go out and rape and
terrorize a Maryland couple."  It is easy to be fooled by this
statement (and I believe this was intentional) into believing that
Horton actually killed someone while on furlough.  You have to look to
Reagan's furlough program to find someone who actually committed a
murder while on furlough.

Paul.
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Runoff elections Re: Electoral College
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:47:39 GMT
Reply-To: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|
|I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
|college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
|most popular votes to be the winner?
|
|(I've heard the run-off concept defended by argument that the
|democratic system, in order to retain a veneer of legitimacy, "needs"
|to be able to display a winner who garnered a majority of the votes; I
|suggest that twiddling the democratic system in order to generate such
|a result _artificially_ instead gives the system a smell of hypocrisy
|that does more harm than good.)

Allowing a plurality to win can often allow a viewpoint that is
rather unpopular to win if the more popular viewpoint splits between
two or more slightly different candidates.  For example, a few years
ago, a Republican candidate won a generally liberal/leftist district
in California with only about 40% of the vote, because the Democratic
and Peace & Freedom candidates split the rest of the vote.  If there
had been a runoff, the leftist voters who voted for the Peace &
Freedom candidate could then have voted for their second choice
(almost certainly the Democratic candidate).

Another effect of allowing a plurality to win is to discourage voters
from voting for new or small parties, since many voters might be
afraid of splitting the vote as in the above example.  Runoffs would
allow voters to vote for whom they really want, while giving them a
chance to make their second choice if their candidate loses and
no candidate wins by majority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                 timlee@btr.com  ...!decwrl!btr!timlee
This message comes with no warranty, not even an implied warranty of
fitness for any particular purpose.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.rights.human
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Israel and Kuwait in the Spotlight
Followup-To:  talk.politics.mideast
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:16:04 GMT

eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
#jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
##   Arabs who are citizens of the State of Israel actually may and do vote
##   for political leaders who actively represent their interests, 
#
#Jake, you know as well as I that the Arab political are not allowed to
#question the Zionist nature of the State of Israel.  Thus for example
#if in the future the Jews become the minority in Israel (as is the
#fear of many Kachists), the Arab parties would not legally be able to
#exert their otherwise normal democratic right to take over the
#government.  

Not accurate. There is no law against electing Arabs to any position
in Israel's political hierarchy. Remember that the anti-Arab KACH
party was barred (twice) from running, so don't claim that Arab
parties are discriminated against.

#Thus your claim that Arab Israelis are allowed to vote
#for political leaders who represent their interests is false.

No it is not, if these interests don't call for the destruction of
Israel. If I am not wrong, the communist party is not allowed to
run in the US, and you cannot compare the danger they pose to
the US with the danger the Hamas etc pose to Israel. Arabs vote
for their representative, and they have two deputy ministers in
the new government.

#I should also point out that the Israeli policy of deporting
#"troublemakers" extends to Arab politicians of the West Bank, and
#often the only trouble some of the deportees made was actively
#representing the interests of the Palestinian Arabs.  Thus your claim
#is not only false, it is hollow.

Again, you are stretching the "interests of the Palestinian Arab"
to inciting violence and attacks on Israelis. And anyway, how many
deportations have taken place in the last year or two? The decision
to deport twelve Palestinians was recently reversed.

##   as
##   opposed to all the other Arab states where elections are non-existent,
##   total shams or merely electing figureheads who have no authority
##   anyways.  The Arab voting-block was not insignificant in the recent
##   Israeli elections.
#
#What is your opinion of the recent elections in Lebanon and Yemen?

And what about Algeria? Not to mention the important, powerful Arab
countries? Lebanon and Yemen are an exception. Also, I understand
that most Christians in Lebanon did not vote, as a protest to the
Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which makes the elections a joke.

-Danny Keren.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 14:02:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer):
> Do I make myself clear?

actually, i always thought of you as quite opaque, a walking,
breathing, eating, talking, shitting bottle of Liquid Paper.
white, white, white, white, white, ...
-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:01:32 GMT

In article <12159@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <183397@pyramid.pyramid.com>, rtener@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (Rex Tener) writes:
>> In article <12106@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> > increase regulation on businesses

>> Name a regualtion.

>Airbags.  5 mph bumpers.  Helmet laws (whoops, that screws with
>individuals).  Low income housing requirements.  Building codes
>(see how well they worked in Florida?)

	Such things as airbags and 5 mph bumpers and building codes
are for safety purposes. How do you propose to handle _that_, O
Claytoon, in the absence of government regulation? To discover that
one's car is unsafe when it is too late?

	I'm not saying that government regulation should be there just
for the Tartarus of it; I think a case can be made for eliminating
_some_ kinds of regulation and simplifying others (like specifying
goals to be achieved instead of doing micromanagement).

	O Claytoon, I know how much you would like to be rid of
anti-discrimination regulations, especially those that prohibit
discrimination against gay people, but I'm not sure if you would enjoy
it if a lot of businesses in your favorite residential area started
discriminating against WASP's.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45144 alt.rush-limbaugh:4698 alt.politics.elections:12986 alt.politics.clinton:5162 alt.politics.bush:4918
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:04:21 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:

>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:


>Even though I am personally against the government's interfering with
>businesses' rights (as well as normal people's rights), might I mention
>a couple of other excessive costs in the system:

>  VI.   Excessive profit-making by health care products manufacturers and
>	distributors.
>  VII.	Excessive profit-making by drug manufacturers.

>I personally won't like direct government intervention to reduce costs
>in these areas, but I could see the federal government coming up with
>some way to put a stiff tax on companies in these fields making too
>much money.

That is a very scary statement, there.  "...a stiff tax on companies in
these fields making too much money."  

Ever read _Atlas Shrugged_?  While reading it, I kept telling myself
that people could never *really* have this attitude.  But I keep being
brought abruptly back to reality by statements such as yours...

Aside from anti_trust laws, how do you propose to tell which companies
are making too much money, and how do you think this will affect the
business climate?


-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:28:55 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep12.072042.28813@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <ART.92Sep10121700@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.065717.16708@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>   Furthermore, Clinton had NO powerful insider connections.  News flash.
>>   Clinton was some average guy, with no multi-millionaire parents who
>>   could exercise influence.

>>Oh?  How about his rich uncle and Judge Hill who were using all their
>>influence to get him into the Navy Reserve?  Ah, I see, they weren't his
>>parents.  Makes all the difference.

>Hello, McFly!  No, the difference is he didn't enter the Navy Reserve.

Yes, Dave.  We all know that.  What they did is they delayed his
induction by nine months so he could get out another way.

This is a typical tactic of Clinton's apologists on the draft -
pretend that the person making the accusation is accusing Clinton of
doing something he didn't do.  Then defend Clinton on that basis.
Meanwhile, ignore the actual accusation.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43883 talk.politics.mideast:19645 misc.headlines:6219