HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:11:11 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <23814@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu talk.politics.misc:50832 talk.abortion:41065
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!dtix!oasys!bense
>From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
>Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
>Message-ID: <23814@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>Date: 19 Aug 92 12:24:17 GMT
>References: <1992Aug14.161857.39397@watson.ibm.com> <1992Aug18.235801.10526@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
>Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
>Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
>Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
>Lines: 21
>In talk.abortion, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>>matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>
>>>Except, of course, where Bush's or Quayle's relatives are concerned...
>
>>You wouldn't happen to have a reference for this libel, would you?
>
>>Thought not.
>
>You thought wrong, if you thought at all.
>
>From memory, from a tv interview when asked whether he would support
>his grandaughters decision to have an abortion, Bush answered "Well,
>who else's decision could it be?". Proving to me that 1) Bush is a hypocrit,
>2) Bush has no concept what being pro-choice is about, as he just stated
>the pro-choice position while claiming to be pro-life, or 3) Bush is a
>hypocrit. I believe the show was Dateline, from last Friday.

     Look at it this way:

     Currently the law says that women have the right to choose for
abortion.  That is why the Republicans are suggesting a Constitutional
Amendment, because that is the only way to change the law.
 
     Were Bush to say *anything* else would be to suggest that he would
disobey the law.  What exactly *should* he do to not be a hypocrite?
Abuse his power as President and have her *jailed*?

     I don't necessarily disagree with you about Bush.  The man wouldn't
know a conviction if it bit him.  But don't act so all high and mighty.
Most of the people calling Bush a hypocrite over this statement would
have just as soon jumped on him if he had gone the other way.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:49:11 GMT

In article <Bt1D8x.7Lp@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> sitomlin@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Stephen I. Tomlinson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.214828.6067@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>. . . the FTA forced much of the restructuring that the US will only 
>>begin to have to face with NAFTA.  . . .
>
>We sign a Free Trade Agreement.  The country goes into recession.
>And almost everyone assumes that one caused the other, even though
>the evidence suggests otherwise.
>

I said the FTA caused a lot of restructuring...not the recession...
there is a difference.  The recession was primarily caused by
federal, provincial, and municipal government overspending and
over taxation, and misplaced spending priorities that did not
ameliorate or account for the restructuring associated with
the FTA...just to make my position clear.

>
>NAFTA comes into effect in 1994, and it seems likely by that time
>our economies will be growing at a good clip and employment will be rising,
>just like after the 1981-82 recession.  You can bet some people will
>give all of the credit for that to NAFTA.  Don't believe them either.
>

Mexico essentially already has a one-way FTA with Canada...we have 
extremely low tariffs for their products, and they have high tariffs
and huge obstacles for us selling into their market...for example,
in the auto trade...I think I read Mexico already has $2 billion
dollars of auto related trade in Canada while we have essentially
none in Mexico because of their trade barriers.  Because of the
low tariffs we have with Mexico...any company that would leave
will leave with or without NAFTA...what NAFTA does is allow us
greater access to the Mexican market.

Gerald

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Summary: Claytoon *knows* stereotypes.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 09:38:40 GMT

In article <11782@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.235549.8542@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> In article <11727@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
>> >Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
>> >themselves as influence your perception of them?"
>> 
>> More likely the psychiatrist would lean over and ask:  "Tell me,
>> Clayton, how long have you had this obsession with homosexuality?"
>
>Since it became clear that the homosexual community can't bear
>to tell NAMBLA where to go.

Okay, one simple question for you -- see if you can answer this one:
are you speaking for the heterosexual community?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

     "Can't have everything.  Where would you put it?" -- Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:45:30 GMT

In article <11787@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> I suggest that "normal" homosexuals -- the ones that don't
> have their entire lives tied up in constantly changing sexual
> partners and chasing children for sex -- either take an aggressive 
> position of showing that homosexuals aren't the groups that engage
> in the scary and absurd behavior, or ask the weirdos to stop
> screeching, "We're the gay community."

Actually, Claytoon, we 'normal' homosexuals think you're
a moron, too.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:22:59 GMT

js> Jim Stiver

js> It is theoretically possible to be legally ignored to death under a lib-
js> ertarian government.

  ...and we know that we can be "helped" to death by a non-libertarian gov-
  ernment. For example, the new FAA rules that states that young children
  must be in a child seat on the plane. Therefore, the parents must go to
  the expense of another ticket, since airlines are not going to give away
  seats for free, generally. This can be expensive. Ergo, the parents choose
  to go a cheaper route, say, driving. Driving is much more dangerous than
  flying, ergo, more kids will be in cars than in planes. Ergo, more kids
  will die in auto accidents. Net result: more kids' deaths. 

  What a helpful rule!


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: system@coldbox.cojones.com (Bryan Lockwood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: : A good reason to vote for Clinton
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 18:05:21 PDT
Organization: The Generation Gap

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:

> It is clear now that the large military build up initiated by Reagan was
> completely unecessary in the early eighties. Although this build up slowed
> during the mid eighties, it did not do so fast enough, and combined with an
> inability to reform welfare and other entitlements led to a quadroupling of t
> national debt. Today, the interest payments on that debt are said to be the
> largest single expenditure of the budget. The responsibility for this rests
> largely on the Reagan-Bush administration, and the impotence of George Bush a
> a President. 

Many have put forth the theory that our large military spendings during the
years you cite are the straw that broke the camels back over in Russia. They
liken it to a global poker game: we continued raising the bets so high that
eventually the Russians had to fold. Question is, will we soon be able to
recover from the cost of this gargantuan bluff?

I suppose the question that could be asked in response to your quoted
statement is: Was it worth it? Did we do a good thing by forcing the breakup
of Russia?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\   This PUBLIC DOMAIN post is brought to you courtesy of:  Bryan Lockwood   /
  \            Usenet: system@cojones.com         WWIVnet: 1@501           /
    \                We don't need no stinkin' copyrights!               /
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40254 alt.activism:14961 misc.headlines:5670
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:19:18 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.142234.22584@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.153110.3400@desire.wright.edu>,
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> |>Subject: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
> 
> |>    "Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of Kuwait
> |>    added little to it, ..." --The Noamster
> 
> 
> Brett's ignorance of the middle east is obviously so vast that he has

	(I guess this means the truce is over :)

> not heard of the Iran/Iraq war. This was a far greater crime committed
> by Saddam than the invasion of Kewait, the number of lives lost was far
> greater and the destruction far worse.

	But started during Carter's term, not Bush's.  In fact it ended before
Bush became president.  So just a weee bit irrelevant when you are trying to
slam Mr. Bush.
	(After all there are so many other things you can do that on, why
weaken your position with irrelevancies?)

> In any case I hardly think that there is much point in distinguishing
> internal and external attrocities.

	There is if you are going by UN rules.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:22:00 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 64289@cup.portal.com, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>One of the speakers at the Republican convention was rather emphatic about
>blaming Jimmy Carter for having a high inflation rate.
>
>Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
>inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
>Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").  Am I
>misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
>as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.  On the
>other hand, I was barely sentient then and my have my sequencing
>wrong.

You remember well.  

Nixon had a unique brand of solution to inflation, wage and price 
freeze/control.  He basically told everybody how much their salaries 
and prices could go up.  No price rises, no inflation, QED.  However,
it never seemed really, well, _American_ to do stuff like that.

Ford's solution was those stupid buttons.  I don't recall him ever
doing anything else to reduce inflation.

Carter was unfortunate enough to be on watch when oil prices went thru
the roof.  There's not a lot of stuff you can buy in this country that
doesn't require oil...  In fact, I can think of nothing.

Carter tried to control inflation via interest rates, sort of the inverse
of what Bush is doing (ie, getting the fed to lower rates, and hoping not
to cause inflation).  I think Bush's technique will work until consumers
start spending again.  Then, watch out!  I also think, if Clinton is elected,
he's gonna get blamed for the inflation, and Dems aren't going to be elected
for Prez for the next 50 years, always being called the party of inflation.

--f2
--------------------------
  "I wanna be elected!"
  --Alice Cooper or George Bush, I can never remember which


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40023 ca.politics:6851 ba.politics:4557
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 09:14:53 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

> > Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
> > shun child molesters?
> > -- 
> > Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> 
> Did you watch the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco?  The NAMBLA marchers
> were booed and subjected to thrown trash all along the parade route.
> 
> Would you consider that to be shunning child molesters?

No, we're all child molesters from the start, in his mind.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39774 alt.politics.clinton:1960 alt.politics.bush:1619 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4500 alt.rush-limbaugh:3625
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: faxes and other terror tactics
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:02:50 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <l8l2dhINNhnl@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>> 
>> Let us not forget a couple of things...
>>   Mary whatshername's "bimbo eruptions" statement was a quote from a CLINTON
>>     campaign aid
>
>This is a really important point.  And if someone in the Clinton campaign
>said the next thing the republicans will do is call us rapists, then Mary would
>be justified in calling them rapists?
>
>The best part of Clinton's campaign is that the Bush campaign can't find
>anything to say about Bush.

One tiny point:  ol' George pointed out that the most memorable phrase in Mary
Matalin's 3-pager was a quote from a Clinton campaign aide.  Unfortunately the
most memorable phrase was NOT "bimbo eruptions" (that was old hat, especially
as it had turned out that all three "eruptions" had been paid for, one by a
Republican campaign staffer), but "snivelling hypocritical Democrats".  Both
Mary Matalin and ol' George lied in their teeth about THAT being authored by
a Clinton aide -- that was pure, unadulterated Mary Matalin.

The drivel from Bond the other day (yesterday?) doesn't exactly keep Bush's
campaign pristine, either.

BTW, an article in this morning's Sacramento Bee says that Barbara Bush ALSO
disagrees with the Republican platform's support for a constitutional amend-
ment against abortion.  The article says that she thinks the government
should keep its nose out of what is clearly a private matter.



Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244	     ---------------------+
| "Creativity in programming is to find deep simplicities in a complex	  |
| process."					- Harlan Mills 		  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State 
Summary: no g@ns, no l!bertarianism, no ab#rtion
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:54:05 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In <80489@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@snake.tc-suns sez:
>In article 7984@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>There was a case out west recently about a couple of state employees who
>>were using peyote (a mildly hallucinogenic plant).  I don't remember
>>many of the details, they tried to get a religious exemption to the laws
>>and or regulations and were denied.

That would be _Smith_ case, which went to the Supreme Court not once
but twice: once on whether the employees (drug counselors) could be
denied unemployment benefits after being fired for participating in
the Native American Church sacrament, and once on the pure first
amendment free exercise claim.

>So what?  To take a more extreme example, some religions have
>practiced human sacrifice.  The 1st Amendment does not mean that
>people can do anything they want in the name of religious freedom.
>While the 1st Amendment does not clearly limit outrageous religious
>practices, the courts have the power to judge what is, and is not,
>socially tolerable.  

In addition to the many terribly important questions on which the
Court has granted certiorari for this fall (such as whether Antarctica
is a "foreign country"), the Neocon Nine will hear a case involving
the free exercise issues surrounding the practices of Santeria (viz.
animal sacrifice).  Those of you who loved the _Smith_ rational basis
test will undoubtedly get your rocks off on the opinion in this, a
troubling case guaranteed to make bad law.

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Corporate Shortsightedness? (was Re: SigGraph, Chicago, and Unions)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:27:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.031126.15943@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>#sarcasm ON
>
>	Can they all be blamed on the pernicious effects of government
>regulation?
>
>#sarcasm OFF

The case of the auto companies and small cars is a clear case of management
consciously resisting a market trend. The philosophy in Detroit for decades
was 'small cars, small profits', and this held on even as the market for
big cars declined steadily.

The fuel issue is more complex, something of a chicken/egg problem. No one
will build vehicles that will use alternative fuels unless those fuels are
widely available; but, no one will invest in the facilities to produce the
fuels unless there is a ready market for them.

One often-cited solution would be for the government to use its purchasing
power to break this dilemma: require that all fleet purchases consist of
cars able to burn, say, methanol as well as gasoline, thereby creating an
expanded market for methanol, thereby incentivizing the potential methanol
producers, and so on.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'll do anything to be re-elected
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:43:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>    OK, what are you willing to give up?  

There's the crux of the matter isn't it?  Most of my tax-supported aid
comes from NJ rather than the feds, so I hereby volunteer to give up
my Homestead Tax Rebate.  Since money is fungible, I assume that the
money thus saved can be used to replace federal copayments for
something or other.  (For non-NJans, the HTR is the renter's version
of the mortgage deduction--an idea which makes no sense from any point
of view I can see.  Unless, of course, we view it as an attempt to buy
my vote with state funds.)  (There's a move on to remove the HTR in
the state legislature now, so I'm not just blowing smoke about
something that will never be cut.)

In addition, I'm willing to see my gas taxes go up, which would have a
large impact on me.

As a starting point for reducing the deficit, the porgram which came
from the Perot camp was a good start.

>    Do you benefit from any NSF, DoD, or other federal grant programs
>    that colleges and universities often enjoy?  Give those up?

Last year I benefitted from a DoD grant which could probably be
removed from the budget without plunging the US into a new Dark Age.
I believe that government has a legitimate role to play in basic
research, but we need to set research priorities in a more rational
manner.  I've probably just started a whole new flame war in the last
couple of lines, but I'll let my statement stand without further
explanation.  Flame away.

>    Are your parents deducting their mortgage interest?  Would you
>    give this up?

Hey, if I'm giving up my HTR, it's the least they could do.

Your point is well taken that deficit reduction will cause pain.  If
we divide the deficit by 250 million, it works out to an average of
$1600 worth of government spending per year per person that needs to
be cut.  But we have to do it.

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39095 comp.misc:3206 alt.society.civil-liberty:5521
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,comp.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Some facts about the NSA, whee.
Date: 12 Aug 1992 16:49:35 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Aug11.211744.23349@bcars64a.bnr.ca>, schow@bqneh3.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:

|> (I am Canandian, so I should be safe from them, until they decide
|> to snatch me for trial in the US)

Just wait until they have World Government... (:-:)


|> Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39539 ca.politics:6756 ba.politics:4493
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:24:11 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <11718@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <183014@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
># You have yet to answer the question:  Who appointed the US as Global Policeman?
># 
># George Lambert
>
>No one.  I'm sure you're the sort that would see a rape in progress,
>wring your hands, and walk on, doing nothing.
>
Having lost the argument, Clayton resorts to an attempt at character attack.

You lose on both counts, Clayton.  Be a good boy and go thrash elsewhere.

George Lambert
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ