HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moses@convex.com (John Moses)
Subject: Clarity please
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:44:20 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.



   I must confes to having a rather confused picture of what is
happening in Yugoslavia.  Could someone help me with details?
Here is what I (think I) understand:

   1) The Serbians have attacked the Croatians and pushed them
      back into a small area in the northwest region of the 
      country.

   2) The Serbian/Croatian conflict is now somewhat stable
      with UN intervention but is stabilized to the dismay
      of the Croatians since they have lost territory.

   3) Having pushed the Croatians aside, the Serbians are now
      attacking the Bosnians (who are predominantly moslems and
      previously lived in the central region) in an effort to purge 
      the country of them.

   4) The Croatians don't ally withe the Bosnians against the 
      Serbians because the Croatians don't like the Bosnians either.

   5) The Serbians are in the drivers seat by virtue of having fallen
      hier to most of the (former) Soviet weapons, and having a ruthless
      leader.


  Summary:  nobody likes anybody, and the Serbs have all the guns.



  Have I got this about right?


	John
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:19:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.230050.29551@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>In article <2A941FCC.282@orion.oac.uci.edu> assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site) writes:
>[lots of useless drivel deleted]
>>Bush/Quayle '92!
>>
>>Kris
>>kris@fs2.assist.uci.edu
>
>I wish I could e-mail you a quarter so you could go out and buy a clue!
>
>						reb


Watch out "reb" it looks like you might get your way and after
four years of being SLICK WILLIED and al GORED you will look
back at the Bush years as the good old days.  Yep, things can
get alot worse. BTW, Kris has already has a clue, maybe she 
found the one "you" lost.

**************
Rich Lund
lund@noao.edu
**************

Opinions are my own etc. etc.

****************

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40740 alt.individualism:5279
From: system@coldbox.cojones.com (Bryan Lockwood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Please fill the jar....  Drug testing is a two way street
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 18:28:35 PDT
Organization: The Generation Gap

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

> Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> Bob Blackshaw) writes:
> |> ...
> |> > Didn't think Mr. Archer and I would be agreeing on too many things,
> |> > but here we do. Any company has a right to have a no drug user
> |> > policy, but where they go beyond the boundary is in having a drug
> |> > 'testing' policy. If I seek employment at company X and they ask
> |> > me if I use drugs, I will tell them the truth, namely no I do not.
> |> > Now if they then say, well you won't mind taking this test, that's
> |> > when I head out the door. After all, I am taking 'their' word that
> |> > they will provide all the good things they say they do, so they
> |> > will simply have to take my word. To insist on a drug test means
> |> > that they don't believe me (and I suspect the reason would be that
> |> > they are a bunch of liars themselves). This, IMHO, is a damned
> |> > good indication that you really would not want to work for such
> |> > people.

Now now. Certainly promises are made on both sides of the fence (employee AND
employer), but expecting both sets of people to back up those promises is
reasonable.

What is NOT (IMHO) reasonable about drug testing policies is that they
provide data of no possible (or should I say *reasonable*) use to the people
mandating the test.

I would have no problem with taking a drug test designed to determine whether
or not I was under the influence of drugs *at the time of the test*. On the
other hand, I do have a problem with taking a test designed to show whether
or not I had been using drugs within the past 30 days. Most employee
relationship laws (at least in my state- Alaska) allow the employer to judge
a person ONLY on those qualities which affect job performance.

How does that joint I may or may not have smoked last Saturday night affect
my job performance on Tuesday morning?

Thus a mandated drug test (of the type currently in use) may be equated with a
polygraph test in which I am asked whether or not I beat my wife. The employer
has no right to know this, since it does not affect my job performance.
Unless I am seeking a job counseling battered wives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\   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!               /
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:52:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug19.153541.25676@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>  Oh, if you are going to insist of adhering to your above comments about
>"where the jobs are", I'm going to want to see some figures. 

  That's exactly why I referenced the Fortune cover story.


>not energetic enough to dig mine up, but I know there were overall
>increases in factory employment.  In fact, a good part of the reason
>for the slow growth in "average manufacturing wages" is because a large
>number of new entrants drag the figures down. 

   So?  A robust economy is one that can generate good jobs at a
   sufficient rate to meet demand.  I don't care HOW many new 
   jobs were created -- if it's significantly fewer than the
   number of people who need jobs then it's a lousy economy. 
   When 2000 people line up for a couple of dozen Home Depot
   jobs, as happened here a few weeks ago, you wouldn't win
   many votes by telling them about all the jobs the 80's 
   generated.   Nor will the 5000 Wang and 15,000 DEC workers
   who are about to be dumped into a crowded job market be 
   impressed by such talk.  Absolute figures mean nothing --
   it's like saying India has a better economy than Norway
   because they have a higher GDP. 



>>  The bottom line is that we have an outrageously high unemployment
>>  rate and no sign of any impending improvement.   
>>  Look at last week's issue of _Fortune_ magazine. 
>
>  Please. _Fortune_ is a rag.  How anyone can take it seriously is
>beyond me.  They have been calling for protectionistic policies for
>some time now and preaching the typical "gloom and doom" rhetoric that
>one always sees during downturns.  

    Calling it a rag just because you disagree with it doesn't carry
    much weight.   Fortune is a widely read and respected business
    magazine which is quite a bit more conservative than many others
    in its field.   What would be an example of a major business or
    economics periodical that you agree with?   Can you cite some 
    articles about job growth in that publication that reach a 
    different conclusion than Fortune's?   I only mentioned the
    Fortune article because it's a current issue and a cover story.
    But Business Week and the Wall Street Journal have run similar
    articles in recent months.  In the BW article a few weeks ago
    they predicted 8.0% unemployment by November.  In the current
    issue they have an editorial advocating government retraining
    and other programs for workers displaced by NAFTA.   

    If you have some evidence that Fortune is wrong about the jobs
    picture I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.


>  I don't suppose increasing employment figures are at all valid.

    Only with respect to demand (see above).   
   


---peter
 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40761 alt.activism:15133 misc.headlines:5764 sci.econ:6945
From: howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:10:49 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug13.213828.9337@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?
>
>Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?
>
>Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?
>
>Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?
>
>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
>

 Can the government enforce a religious doctrine that stealing or murder
 is wrong?  This is getting tiresome...
 Regardless of whether or not a particular religion teaches this, society
 has to decide whether life begins at conception.  We can't go through
 the doctrines of every religion to make sure that none of our laws 
 coincide with them.
>Can the Federal Gov't allow State Gov'ts to infringe upon Constitutional
>rights?
>
>Can the Gov't selectively enforce Laws?
>
>How do you force the Executive to do its duty, to protect and uphold the
>Constitution?
>
>
>-- 
>Michael Sandy
>michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
>"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
>It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40386 ca.politics:6917
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The media, again (was: Why Benson Hedges #2 gay cigarette?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:51:01 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11818@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <l8m2j5INN1r1@spim.mips.com>, thomas@mips.com (Chris Thomas) writes:
|> > -  And someone from Queer Nation apparently speaks for the gay community
|> >    on smoking and advertising.  I'm sure the person didn't present himself
|> >    as a spokesperson, but that's certainly the way it got reported.  And
|> >    how did CBS pick this person?
|> > -- 
|> > Chris Thomas                                                (408) 524-8067
|> 
|> Hmmm.  Even CBS recognizes that there are people who speak for the
|> homosexual community.  If a liberal, pro-homosexual organization
|> like CBS feels this way, I can't be that far off, can I?  Only 
|> 1/2 :-)
|> 
|> 

Not far off, just far gone.  If you really think that the majority
of people who are gay/lesbian agree with QN then you've got your head
so far up your ass that you can lick your stomach lining.  Do you ever
read any newspapers?  Can you read?


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Newest Quayle Quote!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:26:08 GMT

In article <4723@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>From the Washington _Post_ today:
>At a gala, "where Bush praised his running mate as a man who has 'given
>better than he's got,' Quayle jokingly promised the President, 'I will
>not represent you at a spelling bee.
>	"Quayle said that he spells LIBERAL:
>
>	C-L-I-N-T-O-N <<adding after a pause>> -E."

NYT today:

_AIDS Speech Brings Hush to Crowd_, p. A21

"Many of the delegates at the first seemd not to be listening.  They
could be seen chatting and wandering about the floor.  But as she went
on, the room gradually feel to attention.  By the middle of her speech
almost everyone was staring up at the podium, quiet and with grave
expressions.

"There were exceptions.  A television camera caught Vice President Dan
Quayle, standing in his box in the rear of the hall, glad-handing a
beaming Arnold Schwarzenegger."


--
But this is.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41076 alt.activism:15219 misc.headlines:5809 sci.econ:7007
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:07:31 EST
 <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>>b > Brett (Stupendous Man)
>>b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>b > do not automatically translate into more money.
>>da> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>>da> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
>>da> something to do with it.
>>
>>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
> 
> You meean , No I am rolling on the floor now you take the PHTTT! chortle
> chuckle LAFFER CURVE SERIOUSLY!!!!  
> Supply side economics?
> Oh dear guess you do
> sweet dreams in your trickle down fantasy world!
> 
> oh by the way eight years have passed and EVERYONE
> else can see the ruin this has brought.

	Define "everyone".  Obviously Gary doesn't believe the media
revisionism.  Nor do I.  Nor do many people.

	The Laffer curve is real, supply side works.  When you examine the
countries with the most improved economies, they have switched from
socialist/interventionist economies to supply side economies.

> oh well what do you expect from people who think
> Fujimori is president of Venesuela!

	An understandable mistake.  Both Peru and Venezuala are in the same
region, and are experiencing much the same problems.  It's not like he said
President of Congo.

	But then again I guess that's what you have since you can't (wont?)
disprove Laffer or supply side.
         
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40069 talk.abortion:32016 alt.politics.bush:1794
From: wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 1992 02:49:15 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
born.

William F. Tell
UC Berkeley
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39312 talk.abortion:31479 alt.politics.bush:1355
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 07:26:59 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BswBy6.ECK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
>is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
>a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
>a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
>would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?


OK, Tim:

So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?

I don't believe women have rights merely because fetuses don't.  I believe
that women have rights because women are born human beings, who are capa-
ble of exercising their rights.

What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?

Adrienne Regard

(I just want to hear Tim say it, that's all....)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39432 talk.abortion:31540 alt.politics.bush:1428
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 13:07:00 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>OK, Tim:
>>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
>>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
>
>Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             

Who says?  Why?  In fact, this isn't how the world works today, Tim, so you
are suggesting a change that has more than trivial implications for ALL PEOPLE
on this planet.  I don't think that's quite as 'simple' as you maintain that
it is.  If the right to life takes precedence over other rights, then we could
force all people to donate kidneys to save lives, to donate blood, to donate
money, to give up their material goods. 

We don't have that power today, and we aren't about to get it any time soon
(for which some of us are glad).  But you would hold pregnant women to a
standard that doesn't apply to ANYBODY ELSE.  Why is that?  And why would you
imply that it is a standard that we currently live by, when it plainly is not?

>It isn't that the woman does not have
>rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
>fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
>assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
>human being.

No, it isn't.  A woman's rights (other rights beyond your purported right
to life) don't get put on ohld in a rape, in her normal medical affairs, in
her choice of job or recreation, etc.  There is NO OTHER ARENA wherein a
woman's rights are abrogated to this extent except in your proposal, where-
by you would give a fetus rights that NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet
enjoys.

>The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
>that the fetus is NOT a human being.

Not necessarily.  There are some, me among 'em, who don't give a damn about
the human-being-ness of the fetus.  We are capable of recognising that fetus
worshipers would annoint fetuses with rights NO OTHER HUMAN BEING has on
this planet.  And we see something wrong with that.  You aren't merely 
talking about raising the rights of a fetus to be equal to the rights of an
existing person, no.  You are talking about raising the fetus's purported
rights to a level FAR BEYOND those anyone else would have.

Many people see something 'wrong' with that.  Your simplification of the
argument mearly ignores the argument.  It does *not* address the logic of
the arguments.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,misc.test
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:56:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.011906.1590@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> There are two reasons for this posting.  One is to make fun of Doug 
> Holtsinger.

Thanks Mr. Hekhuis, I like you a lot too.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39462 talk.abortion:31558 alt.politics.bush:1446
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:24:50 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> Tim Buckley) writes:
|> >>OK, Tim:
|> >>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
|> >>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
|> >
|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
|> 
So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
etc.

Is this the same right to live the president and the republican 
party support?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40944 alt.politics.bush:2335
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:04:58 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug17.031115.11565@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>>spending.  
>
>Like Carter and his Congress?  The came very, very close to balancing
>the budget in '79, I believe.

.... if close is considered to be a few percentage points of GNP.

Of course it helped that, thanks to the Carter inflation, middle
income taxpayers were being pushed into higher and higher tax rates.

The bracket creep, of which the Democrats were quite fond, was like
an unvoted tax increase every year, bringing in more revenue while
leaving less and less after-tax income to the taxpayer.

It took the Reagan tax cut to end the nonsense,
indexing tax rates to inflation as well as lowering tax rates.

---
Pat
P.S. Clinton is just a Carter retread, with the same false promises
and platitudes hiding an agenda of increased spending and taxes.