HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe)
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues (was Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:56:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.183949.29060@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
|> In article <tfvymml@rpi.edu>, blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:
|> >Murder, theft etc. are *not* moral issues. 
|> 
|> How about rape?  To say that rape is wrong is a MORAL statement (morality is
|> all about what is right and/or wrong).  Clearly, to a rapist, rape is fine.

first off, this is (somewhat surprisingly) not true in *all* cases.

|> To make it illegal is to impose a majority-held moral conviction, namely that
|> rape is wrong, on a small minority of people, namely rapists.

Nope. To make it illegal is to remove the randomness of rape upon the individual
rape victims; in such it is much the same as a serial killing: the serial killer
often has little remorse for what they do, but we still charge them. 

I think the main disagreement we have is as to what laws are supposed to do; to
me they are supposed to protect the public; to you they seem (I'm not trying to
point a finger here) to be to catch the guilty. These two represent different
ideas, much the same as deciding whether jail should be punitive or
rehabilitative in nature. Unfortuneately, I see this country turning towards a
"catch the criminals and punish them" attitude as opposed to a "protect society
by rehabilitating criminals (if possible)" attitude. 

|>                                      ...  Does the
|> difference come because it is a MAJORITY-HELD moral belief?  All criminal laws 
|> are the imposing of moral beliefs on others.

Like I said, laws should not be intended to "impose", the should be (to coin a
police phrase) "to protect and serve..."

|> 
|>   -- Scott @Brandeis

  ==================================================================
  Stephen A. Blythe                |    RPI
  Dept. of Computer Science        |  "where Hell has finally
  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |      thawed out ..."
  blythes@sirius.cs.rpi.edu        |
  ==================================================================

 My views do not necessarily reflect those of the bozos surrounding me.

				"NO MORE
			       BU__ SH__"
From: jrdobbs@milton.u.washington.edu (J Robert Dobbs  Esq.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:43:52 GMT
Organization: University of Wellington, Beef

In article <athos-010992122750@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>Hey,
>
>Why not take a look at the unemployment rates, inflation rates, etc of all
>those countries your Clinton Man wants to emulate.  I think you'll find
>that the US is doing incredibly well in this recession than the rest of the
>world.  Go for it.  If you can refute this, I would like to see it.

How 'bout that Free Market paradise, Great Britain?  Thatcher's legacy
is the longest recession since WWII. I don't have the figures handy,
but they are significantly worse than most countries in Northern Europe.
Also, be skeptical of "low" unemployment rate in the US and UK in "good"
times, since they only apply to a fraction of people who are involuntarily
without jobs.  Other countries provide more of a safety net to their
workforce, therefore they have more people getting unemployment benefits
(as opposed to turning to crime and extreme exploitation).

Any of the horribly "socialist" countries in Europe (Netherlands, Sweden,
Germany) have significantly stronger middle classes and far less violent
crime than the US, in good times and bad.  Its amazing how many Americans
know they live in the best country in the world...without having even
talked to foreigners (let alone having traveled outside of N. America).
Having seen many of my friends suffer from not being able to afford
medical insurence has made me capable of voting for a Democrat, even one
who claims flag burning should be illegal.  Maybe that's what it takes
to get the Bubba vote in AmeriKKKa. To say Clinton wants to "emulate"
other countries is a misnomer; he'd be considered moderate-right in most
of Europe or Canada.

- Another American thinking of leaving if Bushe/Quayl get re-elected


_____________________________________________________________
Libertarianism would be cool, if it wasn't just for the Rich.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:18:49 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


|> I don't even regard abortion as a "necessary evil."  It is a medical
|> procedure, & one that women employ as an absolute last resort.  It is
|> a vicious, unfounded, cynical republican conservative myth that there
|> is an army of women out there that "got drunk, got laid, got pregnant,
|> got scraped." without a second thought.


Is that a quote from someone, or is it your own interpretation of what you think that the anti-abortion position is?  I don't recall hearing anyone say that.  I also don't think that many of the pro-life people push their agenda on some kind of punitive basis.  The gist I get from most people that I have talked to who are opposed to abortion is that they believe (and I DISAGREE) that the fetus is a human life at conception, and thus, is worthy of protection under law.  I don't agree that the government sho





uld be in the business of preventing women from terminating pregnancies in this way, but that does not make the people who feel that way cranks, or imbeciles, or fanatic right-wing idealogues.  People pushing for the government to ban abortions are misguided (IMHO) but should not have to put up with the generally mindless, exceedingly vitriolic attacks that they typically get.  (Please note:  I do not consider your comments either, but many, if not most, are.)  (Also note that there are many in the Pro-lif





e movement whose behavior is also unacceptable, i.e. Randall Terry and Operation Rescue.  It is one thing to picket peacefully, but many of the things that group does are not beneficial to anyone, and do not contribute IN ANY WAY to helping resolve this issue.  In fact, their behavior often does more harm than good to their cause, IMHO.)
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Are you experienced?
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:20:11 -0500
Summary: Bush & for pol
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Let's consider what GHWB might call "the experience thing".

1)  The Presidents (or VP's who became Pres) w/little or no foreign policy
experience include Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S
Truman, and Ronald Reagen.  

2) Reagen has said "experience isn't the only thing that should count in
electing people to public office."

3) Reagen also said the being governor is the best experience for being
president (like FDR, maybe?)

4) Before Bush gained his experience in the CIA, UN, and China, he had
ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE in any of these areas!  He was not a diplomat, a
member of the agency, a Sinologist...no experience before taking on those jobs.
        A)  He did a good job, so experience counts less than intelligence,
        ideas, dedication, etc.   

        or

        B)  He did a bad job, in which case we may not want that kind of
        "experience" to count favorably.

5)  Bush's China experience came at a time of China becoming more open and more
democratic.  Because of his time there, he has repeatedly stated that he "knows
China", even though the situation there has now markedly changed toward greater
despotism again.  His "experience" here actually hinders rational decisions.

6)  Bush says experience comes form bad decisions.  
        I guess he really is the most experienced.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3722 talk.politics.misc:43140 alt.politics.clinton:3710 alt.politics.elections:12110
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Bush bashing, etc....
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:29:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.005824.8872@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
>>It sounds to me like what Mr. President
>>said what that he would not create any new taxes, and 
>>although he stressed in his campaigning in '88 that he 
>>would not *like* to raise taxes, a lackof agreement 
>>between the executive and legislative branches (no matter 
>>on whom you place the blame) forced him to do that.
>
>No actually Mr President made quite clear that he expected
>Congress to *push* and he would say no, repeated it and then
>told what is normally called a lie.
>
>As to Governor's Clinton's avoiding the Viet Nam War. I
>
>attended President Bush's war in the Persian Gulf and can only
>respect those who may have participated in what was essentially
>the slaughter of nearly helpless Iraqi conscripts. Viet Nam was
>an equally questionable undertaking.
>-- 
>Ben Hansen
>bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu

	You're right.  And you must have respect for those helpless
Iraqi conscripts who slaughtered Kurds and Kuwaitis as well, and the
helpless Iraqi conscripts who blew up well heads and led to a large
scale ecological disaster.  If the Iraqi conscripts had not been
helpless, but had inflicted equal bloodshed on our own troops, you would
respect not only them but us more for the heightened challenge.
	You're right-Vietnam was stupid.  Just why President John F.
Kennedy sent in 12,000 military advisors to prop up a Catholic ruler
who was hated by the people for his anti-Buddhist policies, or why
Lyndon B. Johnson then escalated the war big time is beyond me.
   	How can Clinton command troops into 'Yugoslavia,' and expect them
to go?  What if everybody just decides to stay home?  As 'commander-
in-chief,' Clinton is a hypocrite and a horrible example.  He is
basically a politically-oriented coward with a shit-faced grin.

				J. Wagner
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (JZ)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: GB's Foreign Policy Record? Gimme a Break!
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:49:33 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


I can't believe George Bush is using his handling of Desert Storm as
an issue to win re-election. 

He claimed yesterday that he stopped the advance because we are not in
the business of slaughter, but simply in the business of stopping aggression. 

I guess he failed to realize that Saddam Hussein is still in the business
of slaughtering the Kurds and Shiites, whom George Bush encouraged to 
rise up and revolt. They did, and George left them twisting in the wind. 
I guess GB can only fight for those who have golden toilets. 

Even General Shwarzkopf was outraged, but as a good soldier, held his 
tongue when ordered to by his Commander in Chief. 

Well, I'm not a soldier, and I don't have to remain silent. If that's 
the best George can do with foreign policy, I'd rather have Bozo the Clown
in there doing his job. 

Of course, since George snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the
world has had to put up with Saddam making all kinds of trouble for the
UN investigators, thumbing his nose at all of us since he knows 
George doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. 

Now George realizes he's in trouble with this issue, so he's gone and
declared a no-fly zone over the shiite areas. Nice work, George, too
bad you didn't do that when it would have done some good. And when
he was asked what he would do if the Iraqis used ground troops to 
kill the shiites, he said "Well, we hope that won't happen." 

"We hope that won't happen" - that's a hell of a basis for foreign 
policy. And this guy then turns to me and asks "Who do you trust?" 
My answer is "Anyone but you, George." 

You have to really *try* to fuck up as bad as he has. Today, Iraq could
be under a new government, with a Constitution guaranteeing fundamental
human rights and democracy, except for George's dithering. Kuwait could
have a similar Constitution if George had been willing to demand it 
in exchange for liberating the Emir's golden toilets. And he would have
gotten it, too....what other choice did the Emir have? 

And the situation in Yugoslavia is disgusting. And George sits and
wrings his hands. Someone ought to sell him a peanut farm in Georgia. 
This is a guy who would get laughed out of any bar in Texas....

I voted for Buchanan in the primary, but I'm voting for Clinton in the
general election, on the "Anyone but Bush" ticket. 

JZ
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3582 alt.politics.clinton:3577 alt.politics.perot:1373 rec.humor:27445 talk.bizarre:28153 talk.politics.misc:42955
From: slarsen@copland.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:09:15 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <ART.92Aug29110417@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>
>   In article <1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>   How about the way that his administration continues with efforts to have
>   the Endangered Species Act legally "re-interpreted" to support his
>   position on logging in the domain of the Spotted Owl?  This appeal has
>   been rejected twice by two seperate high courts that have realized that
>   the Act is funtioning in just the way that was intended:  to keep men
>   like Bush from _bending_ the laws when the law dosen't suit them.
>
>   Do you need more?
>
>Actually, the environementalists are the ones bending the law.  The fact
>is that the Spotted Owl is not a separate species.  It is a subspecies.
>The Northern Spotted Owl mates with another owl and produces fertile
>offspring.  The production of FERTILE offspring the the critical factor
>in deciding if two animals are of the same species.  The use of the
>Spotted Owl as an "endangered species" is a sham to preserve the old
>growth forests.  Now, I am quite in favor of saving the old growth
>forests, we have precious little left, but make no mistake about it, the
>use of the spotted owl is a sham.
>

Not true.  According to the American Ornithological Union, the body that 
makes the decisions with regards to bird species, the Spotted Owl is a 
distinct species.  There are various subspecies of the Spotted Owl. You 
may check any number of field guides (Peterson's, Golden, Geo) to verify this 
information.

Sue Larsen, bird-watcher and wannabe-ornithologist
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why is there Federal Disaster Relief?
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:39:24 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.155055.24811@Princeton.EDU> 
>kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:

>> 1. Why don't all Florida residents have full private insurance for this
>> sort of risk? Shouldn't the wonder of free markets allow them to be
>> fully insured?

It should be mandatory.  If you cannot afford the insurance, do NOT buy
the home.  For that matter, what brilliant planner decided to build
housing at the waterfront.

>> 2. Won't disaster relief create a "dependency" relationship between
>> recipients and the Fed Govt - people will continue to live in Florida
>> despite the hurricanes because they know the Feds will always bail them
>> out.

This is correct.  A situation such as this exists in Wayne, New Jersey.
After each rain and severe flooding, the residents move back into the
flood-prone areas, and the state and federal agencies pour money into
rebuilding what should not have ever existed.  Not ONE family should be
allowed to rebuild in flood-prone areas, no matter the location.

>Not only that...I forget what the name of the program is, but the Feds 
>have been subsidizing insurance for beachfront and coastal residents for 
>years "to encourage development" which would otherwise be too risky or 
>expensive.  Well, it worked.   There are now beachfront homes along most 
>of the coastline, and the government subsidy has grown to enormous 
>proportions and the government has a problem.   They'd like to drop the 
>subsidy, but the homeowners and developers are saying,  "Hey!, you 
>promised us affordable insurance if we would build here.  You can't back 
>out now"  

The person(s) responsible for this program are guilty of mis-management
in my opinion.  This program is plain stupid.

>This is just but one good example of what happens when the government 
>tampers with free-market economics.

Agreed



-- 
David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
__________________________________________________

"We're sailing on the wind of better days"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: The domestically prudent Bush
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:40:14 GMT

In <1992Aug28.130358.8691@acd4.acd.com> jjs@iedv7.acd.com ( James J. Song       ) writes:

>Whenever American people need government help, Bush is always prudent.
>He waited until LA rios was dying down before sending in troops. Now he 
>waited again to send help into Florida. I guess he just would like to save 
>a few days spending.
>___

Read the excellent article/exerpt in last week's Time from the new
book "The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush". It will put your
observation into context.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4009 alt.politics.marrou:1023 talk.politics.misc:43623 alt.politics.elections:12364 talk.politics.theory:4020
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: FFT on top spenders
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:17:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

Just read the article about the top spenders in congress,
and decided to play with it a bit:

Chopped out all the headers, etc., and said:

		grep "(D," Alt.politics.bush | wc -l

	My machine returned:

		94

If you notice, the pattern I was looking for is

1       Boxer, Barbara    (D,CA)        $406            $-1.26          $405
                          ^^^ <-- Right there.

the democrat/republican field.

So, 94 of the top 100 spenders on capitol hill are democrats.

Not that that's necessarily bad, I'd like to see WHAT they're
spending it on , though... How does one get a hold of the voting
record of his/her congresscritter?

-- Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------
Something about whose opinion this is...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: RNC platform please
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:19:11 GMT

In article <oneil.715491500@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.173615.18460@aosg.gsf.dec.com> yackel@ccvax1.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Dan Yackel) writes:
>>>I dont know if this is the right place but could someone post the
>>>RNC Platform please???
>
>>It's 90 some pages.  Get your own copy by calling (202) 863-8500.
>
>True, but if someone at the RNC would take the time to scan it, it would be
>all over the net in no time!  If you ask me, it looks like they don't want
>people to read it because the Democratic platform was online in about a day!

So?  If you ask me, they think that they've got better things to do.
They may not even know how much distribution on-line stuff gets.

Asking either of us is rather silly.  If you want to know why they
haven't made it available, ask them.

>Furthermore, does the Republican party /charge/ for copies, given how 
>thick it actually is?  I don't want any of my money going to the Republicans.
>
>I just want their platform.

Yawn.  It's easy enough to find out.  If it isn't worth checking, it
isn't worth me telling.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: gemmell@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Gemmell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Offended at being called a racist and a hatemonger!!
Date: 26 Aug 1992 00:47:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu


>  cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes
> 

> I consider my political ideals 
>to fall somewhere inbetween Pat Buchanan and George Bush.  I disagree on 
>some issues...for example I am pro-choice w/restrictions, but most of the 
>time I take a conservative line to issues.   Other than that issue, I 
>agreed with the things stated by Buchanan which I did not consider racist 
>or suggestive of gay-bashing.   ...
>I make 
>a concerted effort to treat everyone the same regardless of race, sex, 
>religion, etc.  ... The director
>of many of the plays I have worked on is gay as are many of the actors.  I 
>judge them solely on their ability as an actor and the way they treat me, 
>which usually is good.   I consider the director to be a longtime friend 
>and consider him one of the finest directors in this area.   However, I 
>personally do not accept the gay activists assertion that their lifestyle 
>is normal and should be accepted as such, but I do not interpret this as 
>hating people who chose to practice that lifestyle.   I do condemn any 
>acts of violence or harrassment against gays.  I would not discriminate 
>against gays regarding housing and employment.  

If gay people are not "normal", then what are they? ... criminals?,
deluded?  If someone came up to me and said "Your heterosexuality
(or some other fundamental aspect of my personality) is not 'normal' and
should not be accepted," I'd think they were crazy; if a major
political party said it, I'd be really concerned for my safety.

It seems to me that you make an effort to be fair to people in your
own life and I have no doubt that you would directly  harm 
someone on the basis of their being gay.  However, there are
a lot of people who would.  I don't understand why you would
not grant gay people the same legal protection from 
discrimination that is granted to blacks, women, religious minorities,
etc.  Why not add the term "sexual orientation" to discrimination
clauses?

Pete

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections