HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:34:42 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 5642@news.duke.edu, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.

That may explain it.  ;-)

>I don't believe the lines that some of the pro-Clinton people are taking
>regarding Clinton's stance for peace during the Vietnam War. Many in
>comparing Bill Clinton's dodging with Dan Quayle's dodging say that Bill
>Clinton deserves more respect because he was standing up for his
>principles and could have been arrested for what he was doing while
>Quayle was just taking advantage of his connections with his family and
>being a coward by going into the Indiana National Guard.

I don't think that Clinton deserves any more "respect" on this issue than
Quayle.  Both were trying to avoid going to Vietnam, and Quayle even admits
that he wouldn't have gone if he had it to do over again.  But what makes
you think that Clinton could have been arrested for anything he did?  As far
I know, everything he did was open and legal.  At that time, you were told to
keep the draft board informed if you planned to leave the country or do any-
thing else that might have an impact on your obligation.  Clinton kept his
board well informed, and he even got permission to become a Rhodes scholar.
I'm not sure that the board had the authority to delay his induction under
those circumstances, but they did it anyway.

The only real difference between Quayle and Clinton on the Vietnam issue is
that Quayle seems to feel (with some squirming and hedging) that the policy
of going to war there was good.  He still voices disagreement with the way
the war was prosecuted.  So maybe he just feels that he didn't want to 
risk fighting when the political leaders of the time were uncommitted to 
victory.  But it was ok for others to take the risk.  Somebody had to.  At 
least, I think that that's his position.  He has yet to "come clean" with 
the people on this one.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:23:47 GMT

In article g8B@engin.umich.edu, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>There are several issues related to the deficit and debt that are rarely
>discussed, and yet are very important.  The first is level of debt.
>Debt by itself is not a problem, it is the amount of debt relative
>to your income that can create a problem.
...
>  Our debt/GNP percentage is not historically
>out of line either.  In other words, our current debt situation is
>not dramatically different than it has been in the past.
this was shown to be false by another poster.  Our debt hasn't 
been this large since WWII.  Then we had a globally economic 
advantage, cuz the rest of world was bombed out.

>The main point of all this is to show that the 'deficit' and 'debt'
>are not the bogeymen that most politicians make them out to be.
the deficit as an isolated occurance is not scary.   it is 10
straight years as $100Bil+ deficits that are scary.  It is the interest
that is the largest portion of budget that is scary.   It is that
fact that the govt. is fiscally impotent during the recession that
is scary.  it is the fact that the deficit sucks up >1/2 of investment
capital that is scary.....

>As long as the deficit is not monetized, the impact on the economy
>is minimal, at least at current levels.  Does this mean we shouldn't
>do something about it?  No, it just means that it would be foolish
>to ruin the economy in order to solve a 'problem' that really isn't
>as bad as people would like to think.  Perot's proposal is the most
>idiodic.  Many of his ideas would simply kill economic growth, and
>in turn reduce revenues available to the government.  Many of his ideas

i hate to argue with such elegant specifics, but the revenue enhancing
features are lowest impact by design.
1) nothing happens until stagnation ends.
2) phased in gas tax (on prices at historic all time lows).
3) tax on SS for folks earning >$25K.
4) change highest marginal rate from 31% to 33%.   there are folks
that pay 33% already.  2% is low impact.  he plans to eliminate
the deficit in 10years, not the debt!!!  think about that.

>would make the economy worse, and would therefore result in lower
>tax revenues,
non-sequitur!
> leading to bigger deficits
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:47957 alt.politics.bush:6721
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:12:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep29.062745.26471@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>   There are many ways things can go wrong.  This is one of them but
>>   a 1930's style depression is another, a totalitarian regime is yet
>>   another.  The proper coping mechanism and means to be prepared vary
>>   with each one of these....
>
>The key to this problem is not to say maybe this or that will happen
>under this or that circumstance, and then we should do this or that.  My
>whole point was that any academic speculation is playing catchup with
>hopeless chaos.
>
>The key is not to let it happen at all.  That's the difference between
>proaction and reaction.  Balance the budget.

  But as I pointed out in an earlier posting, effectively taking $350
  billion out of the economy to pay the deficit could cost nearly nine
  million jobs -- this would precipitate a depression.   Arguing about
  whether it should be spending cuts or tax increases only affects what
  sector of the economy the jobs are lost in - private or public; it
  doesn't change the basic numbers.

  The point is that a significant chunk of our ~ $5 trillion national
  economy is borrowed money -- the economy is, in effect, artificially 
  big and we now need to get back to reality.  I don't see any good way
  to do this without precipitating one of the problems suggested
  earlier: depression, high inflation, breakdown of social order, or
  a totalitarian government -- and maybe ALL of these.


>BTW, that's also why natural sciences/engineering have been so successful
>and why social sciences/engineering have failed to produce anything nearly
>as useful.

  The social "sciences" have failed us miserably because they refuse to
  be sufficiently rigorous in their theories and models, and thus failing,
  they refuse to acknowledge this to the public.   


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48728 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6108 alt.politics.bush:7272 alt.politics.elections:14719 talk.abortion:39570 alt.politics.clinton:7910
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:11:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Sep30.011551.18978@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>                                                   In 1972, the year before
>7 men threw out the life-protecting laws of all 50 states without a consensus
>and no accountability to the people for their actions, 39 women died from
>abortion-related complications.

A classic example of the rhetorical trick of conflating an opinion with a
fact.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Few Images to Ponder...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:54:38 GMT

yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:

] In article <mlbruce.717738296@husc8>, mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew
] Bruce) writes:
] 
] |>	Do you truly see no difference between joining a National Guard unit
] |>in which positions were open (contrary to dominant-media-culture
] |>misinformation, the Indiana Guard was not at 100% capacity when Quayle
] joined)
] 
] It has been shown many times that the ONLY openings available in the
] Indiana National Guard were kept for people with political ties.
] Little Danny's father used his ties so his son could play golf instead
] of going to war. A war that Danny claims to have supported (as long
] as somebody else has to fight it). So you're right, Danny was not
] anti-war, he was just a coward with connections.


thank you for clarifying my stand on National Guard Units....

No pause, Ponder, and its 1967,
and you're a Kid serving coffee
to the walking wounded coming off of
medivac flights from viet nam....

Roll Forward....

How does Dandy Dan's Position look now....

A BarStool Hero is a BarStool Hero....

There were a lot of ways to Dodge the Draft,
at least let us be honest about the General's
football team players.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:13:48 GMT



In article <96864@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>What if the employer looses clients because of an homosexual employee that
>>has a very "homosexual" behavior?
>
>That's sexual misconduct.
>

Not really.
Suppose that you have some kind of bussines in some place. Suppose that you 
have an employee that is Gay. Suposse that he does not make any sexual passes
to anyone, but hios behavior is such that other people might feel uneasy 
around him (For example: the way he looks, he talks, or he walks). Then, 
soppose that you start loosing clients because of that (maybe your town is 
an homophobic one).
Do you have the right to fire him, because you are loosing money, or not?

This is the same with all this anti-discrimination laws in housing. 
What if I do not like how my tenant behaves when he is living in MY house.
After all, that is my property where he is living in.  


>This strangely parallels the logic that the armed services use to exclude
>gay men and lesbians.
>
>If these men make unwanted passes at other soldiers, then throw 'em out
>for sexual misconduct.
>
>If these men don't deny being gay upon inquisition by a superior following
>up on rumors, then there is no reason to discharge them, provided they
>have good conduct.

This is a different case, because the Armed Forces are a national service. 
They are "owned" by the State, and then, they are owned by all the citizens.
I am talking about a private case. The same with the BSA. If they do not want
Gays, why should they be pressure to accept them?

>
>Makes you wonder---the navy discharges sailors with near-perfect records
>for merely making a verbal admission of homosexual orientation, but gives
>a little slap on the face and repromand to the fliers involved in the rape
>trials (Tailhook scandal).
>
>Now, WHO has screwed up priorities?

You are mixing things here. Is a good tactic, but not a honest one.

AAP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:02:41 GMT

In <1992Sep21.142008.7238@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>doodley. Of course it's life or it wouldn't wiggle, but human? No way

	Please define human for us then Mr Walz. And not some madeup
mumbo jumbo definition that has no basic in fact but supports your claim.

>in hell! Totally without experience, and even before any reflexes are
>triggered, forget it! It doesn't even know HOW to know yet. That's why

	No reflexes? Have you ever seen a film of a child being
killed in his/her mother's womb?? They certainly DO have reflexes.

		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.003526.28743@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
    >Phil, you still amaze me after all the time I've been reading
    >your postings on the net. Maybe it makes sense to you to
    >compare violent acts against people with property damage, the
    >"crime" of catching STDs and private acts between consenting
    >adults...but I just don't get it.

Well, would you rather get beaten with bruises, or lose all your
property (house, car, money, clothes) with no chance of insurance or
recompense?

Sometimes physical violence is less awful than property loss.



    >>99% of all anti-semitism derives from totally false images of
    >>Jews and their behaviour.
    >>
    >>I'd say 50-99% of all "anti-homosexual feelings" result from
    >>accurate images of homosexual behaviour.
    >>
    >>BIG DIFFERENCE.
    >>
    >100% of anti-Semitism derives from the mindless reactions of
    >boneheads to hate-mongering lies told about Jews. 100% of
    >anti-gay acts derive from the reactions of boneheads to
    >personal activities that are none of their fucking business.
    >Personally, I wouldn't want to watch a gay porn movie but I
    >don't give a damn what my friends do in private.

If by "anti-gay" you mean initian of coercion, then I agree with
your above paragraph. No matter how much I dislike Ted Bundy,
I never ever had the right to initiate coercion against him, even
though I may have had good reason to despise him.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: NY Times quote on Perot
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:37:59 GMT
Organization: pubs


New york Times, 10/2/92, p A11 ("Center of Attention"):

"
In terms that revealed the startling degree to which he regards himself
as the embodiment of national sentiment, Mr. perot described an America
in which one man, himself, represented the sacred will of the people, a
will that was precisely known to himself, and that had been corrupted
and ignored by the Government and the two major parties.

"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Hill & Knowlton: Hired PR for Genocide White Wash
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.163329.3943@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>Decima Research, founded by Allen Gregg who made quite a pretty penny
>selling his outfit to WPP and retaining a position with his firm, also
>provides the 97% figure on Canadian rejecting any move to a privatized
>health insurance system like the U.S. (2+% undecided, of the remaining
>3%), from the Macleans newsmagazine's annual profile survey of Canada.
>This figure has been quoted by Activ-L without attribution or context
>(which is even more powerful ...).
>
>gld
>
>PS: Gregg is cool; he's always been a Tory, but dresses like an MTV
>host.  Some old hardline Tories can't stand him for that, but he's
>helped to keep Mulroney in power so ...

He also manages The Tragically Hip...one of the few decent Canadian
rock-n-roll bands.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 13:09:41 GMT

In article <BvHxM8.LLu@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <lcnsptINNrcv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>In article <lefty-290992185354@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
>>|Look up the word "credulous" and see what it means.
>>
>>Try looking it up yourself; it's not *in* the dictionary.
>
>  For those who are credulous enough to believe Falk's posting isn't
>  a joke, it's on page 338 of my American Heritage Dictionary, Second
>  College Edition.

Page 142, Grosset/Webster New Revised Edition, Published in 1966, so I
would imagine that any dictionary after that would have it...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:10:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep28.133044.26818@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <Bv5G77.F7H@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):

>>   You obviously have no clue how old I am -- this was decades ago
>>   and there have been several budget *surpluses* since then.
>
>How old you are doesn't mean a thing.  If you and your "affluent"
>family hadn't been on the dole

  What were we supposed to do, *make* them take the money back?
  I'm not running a charity -- if they give me this money legally
  and with no strings attached I'll take it, but that doesn't
  mean it makes sense or I have to support politicians who believe
  in such things.   


>> "Why we are in this mess" is because some voters kept demanding
>> more and more government services.  THOSE are the ones who should
>> bear the costs of fixing it.  *I* was not among those.  *I* kept
>> demanding balanced budgets.
>
>It's not just the people who have demanded more government services,
>it's also the people who have abused those that we already have.  It
>sounds like you were in the vanguard of that movement.  Your self-
>righteousness is laughable. 

  How is this "abuse"?  We didn't ask for the money.  This is like
  arguing that if the government, currently running a deficit, 
  fixes a bridge, that it's an "abuse" to drive on that bridge.

---peter






Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49751 misc.legal:18161 alt.politics.usa.misc:96 alt.politics.usa.constitution:542
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:10:35 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <9476@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <1992Oct6.092628.1598@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>>Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.
>>Do you have any evidence that the Framers considered placing a child
>>molestation clause in the Constitution?  If not, then your posting makes
>>no sense.  There's a huge difference between something not being in the
>>Constitution because the Framers actively decided not to put it there,
>>and something not being there because there was never any consideration
>>of putting it there.

I could bring in my copy of Madison's notes on the constitutional
debates and copy about three or four screens full, but better you
should get a copy yourselves. Term limits were discussed and left
out of the Constitution deliberately. As I recall, the subject was
treated in the Federalist Papers as well. I don't know where the
study in the subject line got its information (and since it was
"left out") term limitation 'might' be constitutional, but it
sure as heck is not what the Framers intended. But then, I've
only been a citizen since May 1st, so what the heck do I know.

>There is also a big difference between the framers not putting term limits
>in because they didn't want term limits and there not putting it in
>because they didn't think it would be necessary.

>This may be apocrophal, (legal historians can jump in now).  I remember
>reading that when the senate was discussing the amendment that allowed
>for income taxes, somebody proposed an amendment to limit the tax rate
>to 3%.  It was voted down because they thought that nobody would be
>foolish enough to raise the rate that high anyway.  sigh.

>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Bob. Nobody's opinions but my own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Not associated with any organization
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:51:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:

>	Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
>	women too.  Give it up.

This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
women, but this is just to make them look like anti-choice is the voice
of women.  This kind of "information control" is called "spin".  They
know what they're doing.

The real "issue behind the issue" of abortion is the woman's access to
employment(*).  If you talk one-on-one with Randal Terry you'll find
that he couldn't care less about killing fetuses, etc.  He HONESTLY
believes that a woman's place is in the home and that if women have
access to safe, legal, birth control OR abortion that it will be easier
for them to be a part of the workforce.  His anti-choice goals are just
a vehicle to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  Notice that he never
lets his wife talk to the press.

The anti-choice movement is anti-woman.  That's why we must work
against it.  I do.  You should to.

Tom

(*) foot note this to a friend of mine that knows Randal Terry.
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
       Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
          one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:53:13 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.201600.5463@ncsu.edu>, bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS) writes:
>> 
>> Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>> spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>> no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>> plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 


I don't really think "love" is something tangible.  Even when plotting a
seduction, all that is really going through the plotters mind is: "I wonder
what she looks like naked" and "I hope she's a good fuck".  Nothing else.

The drunk "wham bam" is simply a more efficient method of seduction.  


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc