HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot on the issues: week of 7/13/92
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:10:14 GMT
Organization: Surely you jest

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

> In article <abYS03qI36Kk00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug
> >In article <1992Jul15.152919.21195@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.c
> >>In article <cbc1.711137957@Isis.MsState.Edu> cbc1@ra.msstate.edu (christoph
> >>>
> >>>Actually, one of the best ideas I've heard goes like this.
> >>>You can drop out of school any time you want, BUT if you don't have
> >>>a job withing 6 months, you are put in the army.
> >>
> >>If that's one of the best ideas you've heard, I think you should seek
> >>out some more intellectually capable company.  Wherever have people
> >>gotten the idea that the military is supposed to be a social program,
> >>a substitute for jail, a training and jobs program, etc.?  It's not.
> >
> >  How about this one-
> > 
> >   If you drop out of school, you lose your license to drive.  
> >
> >   Guess which presidential candidate has proposed this?  I'll give you
> >a hint- he enacted legislation enforcing it.
> >
> >   ...Hope you got a bicycle to get back and forth to work :-)
> 
> I've always thought that this was rather silly.  Someone is going to
> have to explain to me the connection between going to school and
> driving.  Doesn't this amount to the same thing as saying that if you
> don't graduate high school you aren't allowed to have a Social
> Security card, vote, or some other silly restriction?
> 
> All this does is force people who have no interest in being there to
> remain in school, degrading the education of everyone else.

Really. Schools are okay, I suppose, but a high school (or college) 
diploma is no guarantee of wisdom - or even intelligence. Last grade I 
completed was 8th, and I seem to be doing quite well in spite of this 
so-called handicap.

--
55: It's not a good idea - it's just the law.
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Demopublican or Republicrat ?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:38:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <Brsn0p.BDK@apollo.hp.com>,
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.021646.4576@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>>From article <BrrCyK.AEz@wrs.com>, by gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven):
>>>
>>> Why is this so hard for people to understand?  NO NON-DEMOPUBLICAN WILL
>>> WIN THE PRESIDENCY IF EVERYONE VOTES DEMOPUBLICAN!  That goes for
>>> elections at any level, really...the very very low number of
>>> independent, Libertarian, or any other third-party holders of partisan
>>> offices is a testament of that.
>
>
>  This is simply wrong.   Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a
>  socialist independent.

Sanders is NOT a Senator. He is a Congressman, and a member of the House
Democratic Caucus despite being a Socialist. Vt.'s two Senators are
Republican James Jeffords and Democrat Patrick Leahy.

'Course, since VT has only one House seat, a Congressman is just as
prominent state-wide as a Senator.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: Homeless
Organization: DAZIX / An Intergraph Company
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.152534.2936@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>
>It seems to me that the main reason insurance companies get away with this
>is a matter of relative economic and legal power.
>
>For example, suppose one has health insurance. One gets cancer, aids, or
>some other major illness which is expensive to treat and is fatal if not
>treated. The insurance company for one pretext or another quits paying
>the bills. The victim is out of money. She or he has to find someone to take
>the case on a contingency fee basis. The insurance company stalls the case.
>The patient, who is also the main witness for the plaintiff, dies. 
>Plaintiff beneificeries have a very hard time of proving the case. So
>the insurance companies get away with it.

You are making the assumption that "insurance companies get away with this".
Granted, there are people who let their policies expire and/or fail to
pay the premiums on time.  For them to "blame the insurance companies"
because they gambled and lost is unfair.

In most states, including California, any attempts of an insurance company
to engage in such practice is highly illegal.  They cannot raise your
rates unless they raise all rates in your category at the same time and
by the same rate.  In fact, for long term illness and/or disability,
most insurance policies have an inclusion which actually pays the 
premiums while you are incapacitated.  As long as the premiums are paid,
they cannot cancel your policy.  Any attempts of them doing otherwise 
would be greeted with the entire state's Unemployment/Disability legal 
eagles staff knocking at their door threatening to close them down and 
keep them in court for years.

************************************************************
*Ron Phillips                        ronp@dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                  *
*DAZIX / An Intergraph Company                             *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue              VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041             FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: SuperCollider: "For" or "Against" -- Tell the Committee  @ tele...
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:18:46 GMT

In article <01GMPYXLP9GW001CAQ@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
(Stephen Tice) writes:

|>What they aren't saying in the Dallas Morning News is that it
|>cost about $8 billion to construct the SSC over 8 years, that
|>it has about a 25 year projected lifespan and that it will
|>take about a billion dollars a year to run.

Thats because it's not true.


The SSC is merely a scaled up version of HERA. Our running costs here
are nothing like the original design and development costs.

Cost of building HERA, ZEUS and H1 was arround $1 billion

Running costs are mainly the electricity bill and cost of personel. The
personel are mainly free (grad students, they even pay to work!). Just
got an estimate of 2 million DM for the fixed running costs, or $1
million.

To put that in perspective we spend more than that at CERN running the CRAY.


The SSC will cost a bit more to run, however there is no reason why it
should not cost vastly more than HERA. The equipment will be new and the
number of shift personel should be much less since they will be able to
automate much more. The main energy usage is the cryogenics for the
magnets, in the worst case this will scale linearly with the size of the
ring. 


Estimated lifespan of 25 years sounds rather long. They got the physics
at LEP in two weeks, the SSC is a rather different machine. It will take
at least a year to get working to a reasonable level of confidence,
another to collect the really interesting physics and then perhaps 5/6
more years of collecting really precise measurements of exotic events.

I can't see how anyone would want to do a 25 year run, anything with a
cross section that small just won't be seen, the probability of some
wierd process faking the signal would just be too high. Most machine
runs are five years in the first instance followed by an upgrade program
and another five year run.  Unless there is a further experiment using
the ring there would be no real point in running longer. The machine is
really targeted to find just two particles, the top quark and higgs
boson. Once those are in the bag nobody could justify running costs on
the scale that Tice claims.

Sounds like Mr Tice has not improved his credibility since ceasing to be
a Perotista.


Phill Hallam-Baker 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35364 talk.religion.misc:12524
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Acceptance speech text - Bible misquote
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:07:38 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul22.175854.3127@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>Well, since English speaking Christians have been using "New Covenant" since
>|>at least 1611 when the KJV came out.  I would guess that it would have
>|>been used much earlier in the Geneva bible if not in the Bishop's Bible.
>
>And in Scotland you will find many a Presbyterian Lawyer who would crack
>up lauging if it were claimed that the word Covenant was an exclusively
>religious word.

Not the word Covenant, the whole phrase "New Covenant."  If he would have
said, Great Covenant or Neat Covenant, or Clinton Covenant (wow. alliteration)
I may not have thought anything of it.  Instead he presented the term 
"New Covenant" against a sea of Scriptural allusions.  Well, maybe not a sea,
perhaps a small lake.  I did not watch the whole thing, but I heard two 
allusions and heard of one here on the net.  Maybe I am more religiously minded
than Clinton and tend to recognize connections to Scripture, but I think with
all the Scriptural allusions that Clinton's speachwriter(s) if not Clinton
himself also would have made the connection.

>Who mentioned the New Deal? Of course this is what Clinton is refering
>to, he wants comentators to be continualy reminding the public of the
>1930's depression, caused by an unregulated stock market and cleared up
>by a democrat President and Bush's recession caused by a deregulated S&L
>market. Nice piece of work.

Someone said that Covenant was not so different than a Deal.  maybe he
could have just called his agenda the "Re-Deal."

Link Hudson.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36782 ca.politics:6195
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:49:28 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <Bs621H.G0p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   Because currently HIV infected individuals are not contagious
>   by casual contact and so *as individuals* do not represent any

The AIDS virus they carry is not (yet) contagious by casual contact.
As immune system compromised individuals, they are also 
potential carriers of OTHER diseases, many of which are contagious.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35411 alt.politics.clinton:365
From: david@xlnt.com (David Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:26:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: XLNT Designs, Inc (XDI)

Everything else being equal, I would vote for the candidate who is
drug free and adultery free but not everything is equal.  The
Clinton/Gore ticket is the first ticket in a long time that I will be
voting for rather than voting against another ticket.  Clinton may
fail as president but I think he has a much better chance of success
than any president of the last 30 years.

-- 
David Johnson
XLNT Designs, Inc. (XDI)
david@xlnt.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:35:22 GMT

In article <l6rlosINN8ki@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:


>This is apparent from your statements about the parents responsibility to
>instill their values in their kids.  Did your parents teach you to be selfish?

No, they taught me to mind my own business.

>So all laws are a waste.  Community standards are a waste.  Tear up the
>Libertarian platfor -- it is a waste.  Re-word it to 

Not at all.  Laws that have no effect are a waste.  And laws that inhibit 
private behavior are wrong.

> I had better get a pair of dueling pistols (that pull a few
>degrees to the left).

Classical dueling pistols were smoothbores, designed to miss or wound.  You 
were also not supposed to aim them.  You just pointed them, and God decided 
who was in the right.  If you really want to re-tailor society the way you 
describe, get yourself S&W 659 9mm pistol.  Simple, reliable, and accurate 
at short range.  

Me, I prefer to depend on the law to watch out for my individual rights.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:25:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.002733.21858@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>In article <BrqnvK.H59@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>|>   Would you agree to holding parents responsible for the actions of their
>|>   children, then?   I.e., subjecting them to whatever penalties would accrue
>|>   to their children for doing some hurtful thing?

>Naw, the Libertarians wouldn't go for that.  Each individual must be 
>responsible for his/her own actions.  If a little kid gets drunk and then
>does something stupid that kills somebody, Libertarian doctrine would 
>require you to lock up the little kid.  Kids have full rights and full
>responsibilities according to these guys.  

That depends on the age of the "child."  I know nothing about children 
except that I would rather have one foot nailed to the floor than be a 
parent.  It's cheaper, less painful, and interferes less with your life.

But those who know about children and child-rearing can probably come to a 
consensus as to when (on average) a child is capable of taking 
responsability for his own actions.

In my mind "children" in our society are sheltered from the consequences of 
their acts far too long.  If a "child" is old enough to commit a crime, then 
he is also old enough to suffer the consequences.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thoughts on '92
From: marx@flash.gac.edu (Timothy Johnson)
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:05:20 -0600
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul28.050907.6055@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>  writes:
> In article <16831BB14.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>,  
MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> |> >>The only reason that Clinton won out over Tsongas is that he was  
willing
> |> >>to put his campaign in deeper debt than Tsongas was.
> |> >
> |> Does anyone really doubt that Clinton won over Tsongas because he was  
simply
> |> more attractive and doesn't sound like Elmer Fudd? There were no  
issues
> |> discussed in the primary. There were no debates. It was all image.
> 
> Interesting point.  Remember the group interview that the Dem candidates  
had
> before the primaries with Peter Jennings?  Two things impressed me about
> the meeting:
> 
> 1.  Clinton sounded _great_ in 30 second intervals.
> 
> 2.  Tsongas sounded _funny_ in 30 second intervals.
> 
> 3.  However, when everybody started talking at once and things generally  
got
>     out of hand, when Tsongas started talking, something about his  
manner
>     got all the rest of them to shut up and listen.  None of the rest of  
the
>     candidates were able to project authority like this.
> 
>     If you gave yourself 3 minutes to get used to his prosodic  
idiosyncracies 
>     (ok, thats a fancy way of saying he sounded like Elmer Fudd) he  
sounded 
>     much more impressive than Clinton, IMHO of course.  The only problem  
is
>     that we don't give our candidates 3 minutes.  We give them 30  
seconds.


So you do not want to base an election on who looks good, but on who  
sounds good.  Wow that makes much sense to me.  Now if you mean base an  
election on what policies one advocates over another, then you may have a  
point...but I am wondering if that is what you meant to say.  Clinton  
talked about real issues as much as Tsangas.  In fact, they were the only  
two that were talking issues.  Jerry was only saying "Call 1-800..." and  
the other just could not cut it.  IT is not fair to say that Tsongas would  
be better, Clinton has as much or more experience.  He has also had to  
endure a lot more than Tsongas (although I give him much credut for  
returning after having cancer).  

TIMOTHY
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: (What?) Struggle Between Clinton and Gore
Date: 24 Jul 1992 18:44:25 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Jul24.053134.27421@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
|> 
|> 	It seems that Clinton finds Gore's emphasis on Ecology irritating
|> 	and is resisting his efforts to guide the party platform away from
|> 	stressing purely economic reforms to a more global perspective.
|> 	He desparately needs the credibility of having Gore as a running mate,
|> 	but he is unwilling to give Gore's ideas serious consideration.
|> 	Frankly, I don't think Clinton can expect to have it both ways.
|> 
|> 						Gerard Vignes
|> 
All this is great analysis.  You and segments of the press and the
republican party are trying real hard to change a difference of opinion
into a struggle.  I have seen them together several times now, have 
heard them each interviewed, and have seen no signs of a struggle.  No
party insiders discuss a struggle, etc.

This year Clinton is in charge of the platform, and Gore is going
along.

What the hell are you talking about?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:47:51 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <11481@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Because subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic are about 80%
> of the population, and homosexuals are at MOST 3-6%?

Glad to see you left a small slot for those of us who are neither gay
nor Judeo-Christians.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.activism
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President Bill and International Trade
Date: 22 Jul 1992 20:38:54 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Vignes Gerard M writes:
|> 
|> 		President Bill and International Trade
|> 
|> President Bill is addressing a convention of US Industrial Leaders.
|> In the middle of his speech, a  representative the Aerospace Industry
|> interrupts him with an impromptu question.
|> 
|> Representative:
|> 	Mr. President!  Excuse me please, sir...
|> 	What about American companies dependent on exports for survival?
|> 	Won't your get tough policy with Japan and the EC invite retaliation?
|> 	Have you taken their possible responses into consideration?
|> 
|> President Bill:
|> 	Hmmmm... Well...  I wasn't expecting a question and answer session...
|> 	but that's a good question, and it deserves a good answer.
|> 
|>   ....

If I selected the words you would use to answer the question "How do you
justify taking up space on the network," you'd sound even worse than
you are trying to make Clinton look.  If you're going to do fiction,
you ought to find the right news group.  

Try alt.put.your.stupid.words.in.others.mouths.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35011 soc.men:13489 soc.women:13860 alt.censorship:6082 misc.legal:14617
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:59:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul10.162300.11498@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun26.155004.6614@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>The legal context in which MacKinnon works exists and it is valid.  
>>
>>*NOT*

>Feminist legal theory, and critical legal studies in general, in which
>MacKinnon works, is the only strain with an interest in justice, for it
>addresses the fact that the playing field vis a vis men and women is not
>level.  Critical legal studies addresses the ways in which other playing
>fields (such as between employer and employee) are not level.

	Oh, yes?  I haven't heard MacKinnon's statements on the absurd way that
much lighter sentences are given to women than to men for the same crime.  Nor
have I seen her damning the ridiculous biases and suppositions that are used
to decide custody and child support payments.
	Oh, *I* get it; she's interested in justice *where it pertains to women
being in the disadvantageous position*.  It's an interesting set of justice
scales you use, Ed...

>The maturity of the opponents of critical and feminist legal theory was
>clearly demonstrated last Spring at Harvard Law.  These bozos
>"lampooned" a feminist law professor who had been murdered.

	Ah, yes, obviously *all* opponents of critical and feminist legal
theory support this satire, and apparently all opponents of critical and
feminist legal theories are college students with college student mentality.  

	And all feminists are lesbian man-haters.  Ed, you feminist, you. ;-)

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:15:55 GMT

heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

>For the last 10 years two Republican Presidents have ignored AIDS. It
>took 70,000 deaths for Reagan to even say the word AIDS. Bush only
>continued that legacy by annualy deacreasing AIDS research funding,
>the only hope for a cure, while my friends were dying. Even when AIDS
>activists came to Kennebunkport to protest Bush's inaction, all he
>said was that his sympathies were with the shop owners whose bussiness
>was being disrupted for that one day.

>This man, and an awful lot of those who support him, really don't care
>if some American's live or die.

Then you must have even more contempt for the Democratic Congress, who
cut President Bush's proposed funding for AIDS research last year. 

If smaller amounts of funding indicate less compassion and caring as to
whether Americans live or die, then Democrats in Congress are more guilty
than President Bush.
.



>-- 
>"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
>			-Joseph Beam_
>Terrance Heath 
>heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc