HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Family values
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:34:17 GMT

The debaters herein seem to think "family values" is a debate about
abortion, gay rights or Clinton's inability to keep his pants zipped.
But the real debate is about how the state has worked against the
stability and integrity of the family unit.
 
The new FBI crime figures came out the other day, and they show that
youth crime- and were're talking armed robbery and murder- has shot up
over the past two decades. Seven out of ten perpetrators of serious
crimes, if I recall the numbers correctly, are juveniles.
 
A case can be made that those who have sought to "empower" children
in the name of protecting them from abuse have instead succeded only
in a creating a situation in which children receive a stronger moral
message from the state then from their parents. Don't like the way
your parents are raising you? It's okay, you have a right to sue them.
And *your* leagal costs are covered.
 
Sound extreme? It's not. It's happening. Parental pressure doesn't prevent
teenagers from getting pregnant- nor does economic pressure. The state
insures teenage mother will get an income- so long as they don't marry,
of course. That certainly helps the average 16 year old mother raise her
children along the straight and narrow.
 
The family policies that came out of the great society have amounted for
the most part to talking making everyone play by rules designed for the
worst few. Some parents beat their children? Okay, all parents will have
all their behavior monitored by social workers. All decisions will be
monitored and approved by the state. Think it's a joke? It's not. Friends
of mine, good hearted liberal Democrats living on the edge of an upscale
neighborhood, nearly had their children taken away from them by a social
worker called by a neighbor who didn't like the fact the youngest (2 years
old) was playing naked in the yard. They had to put up with months of
unnanounced visits from the social worker to prove they were sufficently
good parents. Want more?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: congress bashing
Date: 25 Aug 92  00:05:00 EST

-> He did say in his inaugural address that "the American people didn't
-> send us here to bicker." He did compromise: the Budget Deal of 1990.
-> He has compromised: the Civil Rights Bill of 1991. Re the Civil Rights Bill of 1991:  in 1990, Bush vetoed practically the same bill he signed a year later.  After the veto, compromise talks were commenced between big business, represented by a group headed by AT&T CEO Robert Allen, and civil rights groups.  The talks were showing some promise when John Sununu and C. Boyden Gray stepped in and worked to sabotage the talks.  Allen was quoted as saying, "They don't want a bill, they want an [election] iss
ue."  Whether George Bush had anything to do with the actions of his Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel, no one can say for sure.  But the actions can be read as possibly being an attempt to play to the "Bubba" vote.

One instance of Bush and Congress working together that I find interesting is the Clean Air Act.  Bush signed the legislation, some elements in the business community didn't like it, and suddenly Dan Quayle's Competitiveness Council short circuits enforcement provisions, all behind closed doors, thanks to an executive order from the President of the United States that said the Competitiveness Council could work in camera and out of the public eye.  More than his alleged incompetence, more than the lack of 
public confidence in the Vice President, I find his use of the Competitiveness Council to be the most egregious example of why James Danforth Quayle III should never take office as president of the United States.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Four more months!  Four more months!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: 10% check-off proposal
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:16:14 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

My problem with this whole 10% checkoff thing is that it is totally
ambiguous. I don't know what it means, and GHWB won't tell me, but as near
as I can tell it doesn't mean anything.

The fact is that close to 15% of all government spending is already going to
service the debt and that could approach 25% next year.

So what is the 10% checkoff s**t? It sounds to me like what GHWB just
proposed was a program which would make it possible for me to certify on my
tax form that 10% of my money should be used for exactly what they were
already using 15% to 25% of it for (not to mention the chunk greater than
10% of my money which they will continue to use for debt service).

It's meaningless BUSH-wah!

(I can't wait for the next Mayoral race in my town -- they'll probably offer
me a checkoff box which will allow me to specify that 10% of my solid waste
goes into the land fill or 10% of my sewage goes into the water treatment
plant.  Sheesh!).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Health Care & Canada
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:37:47 GMT

In article <1685091A0.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>The two arguments put forward for Canada's health care system are
> 
>1. It has lower administrative costs
> 
>2. It covers everyone.
> 
>Seldom is it argued that it provides superior health care. The facts
>dictate otherwise.
>

You've forgotten doctor choice...more doctor choice than Americans
with HMO's.

American hospitals and universities are on continual raiding parties
up here to get our doctors...I wonder why.

>Costs are lower than for US health care coverage for two reasons: First,
>Canada has a younger population. That accounts for perhaps 30-40% of the
>variance. Older people need more health care. Second, Canada limits costs
>by simply limiting health care. That's the secret. If you're 65 and need
>heart surgery, you just don't get it. You die. The Detroit Medical
>Center, down the road from my office, has an unbelieveably high percentage
>of Canadians who are taking advantage of the loophole that pays for any
>and all medical care for Canadians abroad.
> 

There is excess capacity in Detroit hospitals...why waste money building
over-capacity in Windsor...it is cheaper for OHIP to send patients
across the border to a Detroit hospital, than to pay send them to
Toronto.  Most of the use of Detroit hospitals by residents of Windsor
is approved by OHIP.  The excess capacity in the US means that Canada
does not have to overbuild the infrastructure, and only build it as
it becomes necessary.

>If you'd like a preview of what universal government-controlled health
>care would be like in this country, look at the existing system: The
>Veteran's Administration's medical care system.
>

The Canadian system is more like a huge private US HMO with more doctor choice
than the VA system.

>Instead of destroying a system that works very well, who not simply
>propose limited, subsidized health care insurance for the working poor
>not currently covered? The non-working poor are already covered, and most
>working people have some coverage.

That's the least one would think should be done, considering the huge
tax subsidy given to the welloff in the US.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Bush steals from Clinton yet again!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 25 AUG 92 17:49:19 GMT


1) Bush proposes an education-for-service plan and is blasted by Clinton,
   who had been highlighting such a policy as part of his agenda.

2) Bush quickly organizes a foreign-affairs speech after finding out 
   that Clinton was planning an address in a matter of days.

3) In an address to the foreign legion, Bush envisions a job-training plan 
   for veterans and those working for national defense. Clinton has been 
   stressing the importance of this from the beginning.

I suppose it wouldn't be fair to mention Clinton's suggestion that the
UN move quickly to show solidarity against Saddam's continued resistance.
Bush's reaction could be looked at as "methodical" at best. What else is new.

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11974 alt.activism:15683 talk.politics.misc:42854
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:41:16 GMT
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 <wqtpbd2t@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.012632.13048@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug21.114529.16549@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug20.155755.10597@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp
>>>(Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>>In article <9208192139.AA01280@poly.math.cornell.edu>
>>>>harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:

>>>>>We're Number One in percentage of population without health
>>>>insurance.

>>>>Note that Harel posts no evidence for this.  He just lets us mislead
>>>>ourselves by providing an irrelevant table.

>>Also, I saw no reference for the claim that we are number one in
>>number of people without insurance.  I also pointed out the total
>>absurdity of this claim.  For example, do you really beleive thata
>>larger proportion of Bangladeshis have insurance than Americans?

>I think he was probably talking about the industrial democracies.

That's not what he said.  A lies is a lie is a lie.

>The
>health care situation *for the population as a whole* is worse in the USA than
>any country in Europe (with the obvious exception of Yugoslavia as was), in
>addition to Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan Korea etc. etc... 

Evidence please...  To begin with, please define "The health care
situation for the population as a whole."  I don't think you can and I
think your statement above is just someone blowing hot air and
propaganda out their ass.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:42:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181459.29119@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1684EBE20.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>> 
>>Here's a politician who actually wote his own speech- a very fine one, I think,
>>with some wonderful humor in it- and the critics spend their time faulting
>>him for not knowing that his reference source is in dispute by Lincoln
>>scholars? Obviously the man is capable of anything...! ;-)

The liberals in the media didn't like Reagan and often looked for ways to
point out his faults. 

>Admittedly, Reagan is one of the fines speech-readers of this century,
>but when was the last time he actually wrote one?  Peggy Noonan must
>have been doing something during the 1980s.
>

Very true but I doubt Ronald Reagan just read them, I am sure he had final
say over tone, theme, content, style et al.

I have listened to his speech at the convention and it is simply great.
Surprisingly, reading is makes appear even better - its a classic.

Joe
joec@morgan.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Clinton's lies
Organization: Clark University
Date: 30 AUG 92 02:12:43 GMT


In a previous article, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) wrote:
>>Let me guess, you also agree with Bush that Clinton "raised taxes 128
>>times" as governor in Arkansas.
>>
>That's as impressive a non-sequitar as any I've heard. Are you trying to tell
>us the peak inflation rates (near 16.5%, one month) and unemployment rates
>under Carter were just a figment of our collective unconciousness? ;-)
> 
>Or is it just an attempt at an ignoratio elenki?
> 
I was not disputing nor confirming what you say are facts.
My point was that your statistics and the manner in which you posted them
(with "selected" Clinton quotes) seemed biased much in the same way that 
you claim Clinton's statements were.

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:56:43 GMT

In article <17ro3fINNrvm@news.aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>The other aspect of Pushkin raises a question for the libertarians.
>He was a libertine. However he objected to anyone paying too much
>attention to his wife. As a result he died of a dueling wound. My
>question is would libertarians allow dueling? If not why not?

Well, I can't say it's a subject I've invested a lot of time
thinking about, but on the surface since all parties agree to
participate in a duel of their own free will I see no reason that
libertarians would forbid such activity as long as it was
conducted in a way which prevented innocent third parties from
being endangered by the combatants.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Organization: NASA
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:00:10 GMT

David Scharfe writes
> 
> Wow!  My opinion of organized religion just took a large leap
> towards the positive end of the spectrum...

  Could someone please elaborate on this?  I caught a CNN brief about the head  
of Bush's denomination denouncing the partisan use of religion, but I've heard  
little more.

Thanks,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Subject: Re: Clinton's lies
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:15:00 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>From a recent speech of Slippery Bill's:
> 
>"  Our productivity has fallen way below that of other rich countries
>like Germany and Japan..."
> 
>But Japan's productivity is 80% of that of the US, and Germany's, 75%.
>And US productivity grew twice as fast in the 80s as in the 70s.

But I read a few months ago in US News & World Reports that
the rate of productivity increase for Japan and Germany is larger than
the US's. 

Saurav Chatterjee
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:07:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.183217.14282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale) writes:
>In article <PA146008.264.715036128@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>      It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
>> "serious whacko."  However, I've seen his letter quoted six times 
>> from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
>> objects to.
>> 
>>      Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
>> baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
>
>The amendment changes the consistution as follows (this is from memory:)
>
>It says that there can be no discrimination based on sex.
>
>That's it. That's all it says, except in legalese. Of course,
>you can see how witches ("Burn witches!!!") and children-sacrificing
>comes naturally out of that statement.
>
>Steve
>

I think that I heard on CNN that proposed change to the constitution was 
basically making "All men...." into "All men and women...", or something
along those lines.

Such a change does seem innocent enough, but the spokesman for Robertson 
cited Connecticut -- which passed a similar change.  He said that recent
court rulings in that state protected gay marriage, and adoption by gay
couples, based entirely upon that small constitutional change.

Evidently, it is homophobia that is fueling the Robertson opposition.








-- 

					-- Mike

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Ford 1976 comeback
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:42:18 GMT

munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>...It's no coincidence that 1984
>came and went during the Reagan-Bush years of shame; they adopted most
>of its principles, from the rewriting of history to Newspeak ("family
>values").

Don't forget Pat Buchanon's two-minute hate (expanded for prime time,
of course).

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:43:20 GMT

In article <168509AE6.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.132944.3601@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>  
> >In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >>
> >> Here's the AP wire report on the Pat Robertson letter.
> >>
> >
>      (deleted)
>  
> >Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
> >amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
> >
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>  
> I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
> shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be running
> around loose.
>  
> Jim McMaster
> 
> 

I agree, but for the purpose of completeness and full disclosure, it
would be nice to see the text in order to see just how whacko he truly
is. Until that is done, some unnamed individuals will say we are taking
his words out of context (or some other fool thing).

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11841 talk.politics.misc:42554 alt.politics.bush:3303 alt.politics.clinton:3347
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:44:14 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <rrqyzl#@rpi.edu>, jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:

|> I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
|> (anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
|> Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?

	"New Age" religion.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Doctor of Gonzo
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:22:56 GMT

kpbg3203@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kestutis P. Boyev) writes:
>     Does Dr. Hunter S. Thompson still write about politics?
>     Has he got some kind of syndicated column that some people are 
>     reading but which has escaped my notice?  I know he put out a
>     book recently, but where is the razor-sharp commentary on 
>     current stuff like Bush v. Clinton?

The current Rolling Stone has an article where four RS
reporters interviewed Clinton in a cafe in Little Rock. Representing
the National Affairs Desk, of course, was Dr. Thompson. His questions
seemed pretty laid-back though, at least what they printed. He said he
intends to vote for Clinton, even though Bill was a little jumpy even
being in the same room with Dr. Gonzo. The other interviewers were
Jann Wenner, P.J. O'Rourke, and William [?] Greider.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: The lie of "school choice"
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:42:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.123606.6371@iscsvax.uni.edu>
fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
 
>
>I'm going to guess that most people in favor of school choice as a solution to
>all of our educational woes come from cities.
>
>I grew up in western Wisconsin, from a town of less than 1500.  There was only
>one school in town--in fact, we had students bussed in from two other towns and
>a lot of farm routes to get my graduating class up to 80.
>
>If I had wanted to go to another school, how would I have gotten there?
                         [...]
This is the problem with being a Democrat- you're so insulated from, protected
from and in general prevented from thinking about markets that you forget
they exist ;-)
 
Baumel's insight is that it's not the existing number of competitors
that determine whether a monopoly exists, but rather two considerations:
Barriers to entry, and a single producer. The existence of potential
competition alone could cause an improvement in quality in schools
(asssuming, of course, constant long run average and marginal cost).
 
Maybe, if the money was there, someone might *start* a school? Once
the monopoly is broken down new players can enter the market. Consider
William Baumol's notion of *potential* competition- see his book, "Contestable
Markets". Even the possibility of potential competition can act as a
competitve force...unless competition is prevented by law.
 
Take a look at Finland...where they've had choice for 70 years. It's
resulted in both private schools *and* better public schools.
 
The quality of your reasoning certainly leads one to argue for choice in
the hope that it might provide future students with a better background.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections