HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grohol@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re^2: help needed regarding termination of Bush
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:26:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL


And if anybody needs 1001 more reasons not to vote for Bush,
please check out Spy's July/August, 1992 issue. But here are 
a few that come to the top of my head:

1. Bush has specifically reneged on the most important campaign
promise that got him elected in 1988 -- no new taxes. And although
he now shows remorse for his decision to go back on this promise,
I see no reason to believe his remorse anymore than his original
promise since it is also being done during a campaign. This is a
serious character flaw, in my eyes.

2. Rather than taking forward responsibility for all of his actions
as President, he constantly and consistently blames Congress for his
own inactions, vetoes, and flip-flops on important issues.

3. In his four years of office, his record has shown no sign of
concern for the domestic situation other than mild indifference.
As far as this is concerned, he has had plenty of opportunities to
focus on the domestic situation, and him saying that he'll do so
now is no better than his last campaign promise of no new taxes.
He has shown no reason why Congress would be any more cooperative
in the next 4 years with his Presidency as it has been in the past
4 years. Logic dictates to me that it is much easier to throw out
one incompetent President and his staff than throw out the odd
hundreds of Congressmen needed to get work done.

Cheers,

John

-- 
  John M. Grohol, M.S.    grohol@novavax.nova.edu     Nova University
--::--::--::--::--::--::--  the indigo girls:  --::--::--::--::--::--::--
   "Dark and dangerous like a secret that gets whispered in a hush,
    When I wake the things I dreamt about you last night make me blush." 	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:26:40 GMT

In article <BuE0w3.DoC@apollo.hp.com>
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>
>In article <PA146008.276.716169870@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Davd Veal) writes:
>>In article <BuD6LG.J5u@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) wrtes:
>
>>     I think you missed one.  Specifically, watching the network news
>>is *easy*.  You've got your television there, click it on, and away you
>>go.
>
>  But NOT watching it is even *easier*, i.e, doing nothing is even easier
>  than doing something even if that something is pressing "on" on the
>  remote.  Also you can listen to news on the radio in your car if you
>  have a car radio, or at home while you're doing other chores.   But
>  however easy it is, this would not explain why, if TV's views really
>  clashed with that of the viewer they would put up with it.

     It's not really a question of what is "easier," although I would
say that it is not easier to not watch.  Television doesn't require
a lot of brain power.

     I think that most of these people have *some* curiosity as to
what is going on in the world, but not enough to go and find out for
themselves.  So, they take the easy way out and flip on the television.
     People are not *looking* for certain views when they watch the
news, no matter how much you say we should expect them, and indeed
we should.  (Which doesn't require we be happy about them.)
     Obviously the views do not grate to the extent that it would turn
people off, like, say, the 700 Club does not a great many people.  I
do, however, think that a subtle bias, in whatever direction, would
easily hidden in a news program.  As has been mentioned, most people
don't really understand how the news can get things wrong until they
see a news story they have personal knowledge of.  It's tough to to
spot a bias when you don't know the situation yourself to compare.

>  But i'm the wrong person to ask since I don't know how anyone can
>  stand ANYTHING on TV.

     Mindless entertainment has it's place.  :-)

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4136 tx.politics:4825 alt.politics.bush:4161
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:52:22 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep4.140158.2029@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>>Some facts:
>>
>>	62% of the "poor" own a car
>>	14% of the "poor" own two or more cars
>	
>Yeah, but do they run?  :) 

Of course they run.  The fastest growing group of "poor" people are
the elderly.  The elderly, coincidentally, have higher average net
worth than the non-elderly.  This is why they don't have to work,
and therefore have no wages.  Because they are so rich that they
don't have to work, they are poor.  Because they don't work.  This
is supposed to make sense.

This is the logic AARP uses to get more free handouts for the elderly.
Who already own over half of the country anyway.  And who get special
tax credits.  These are the people Bill Clinton supports.  People like
his elderly mother.  The same mother he got off on murder charges.  If
there is a special interest, Bill Clinton is out to support it.  Will
he call the Attorney General and Medical Examiner when your mother
kills someone?  Are your interests special enough?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5211 alt.politics.bush:4951 soc.rights.human:3441 alt.society.civil-liberties:679
From: weyand@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:51:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep14.005113.16938
	<1992Sep9.065435.20154@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep13.201757.11744@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.


   [...]

   A better plan would legalize drug distribution at rates high enough to
   deter some of the curious but affordable enough to kill drug related
   crime.  Furthermore, narcotics would be distributed by employees of the 
   Department of Health (or whatever it is you call it down there) to
   licensed addicts.  Rehab services could also be offered at the same
   distribution sites, though enrolment in such programmes would remain
   the choice of the addict.  First time users could receive licenses to
   acquire narcotics after completing a one-week information session on
   the effects of these substances on the body, most particularly the 
   nervous system.  To control drugs, steps need to be taken to eliminate
   the criminal element, restrict their spread and limit the amount of
   money leaving the country.  It has to be harsher than the Dutch system
   (which is a bold attempt but pretty stupid anyway) yet more leniant
   than a total limit on personal 

I'm beginning to hear this line more and more from liberal pro-legalizers and
it saddens me.  Legalizing drugs and then giving the gov't complete control is
a perverted idea in my mind.  The government has no business being in the
business of selling drugs.  
It seems to me that conservatives and liberals really offer the same choice,
that is no choice, in different disguises.  The conservative prohibitionists
say "drugs are evil and we must save the ignorant masses by banning them and
making their use a criminal offense" the liberal pro-legalizers say "drugs are
evil and we must save the ignorant masses by controlling their drug intake,
absolving them of responsibility for their actions by telling them their
addiction is a disease, and then coerceing them into drug rehab"
Both options are equally repugnant.  The only option I can accept is absolute
freedom of self-medication with no governmental control over the drug market.

   I know that such a system could work.  I think the only reason
   American governments have not done anything substantial on drugs and
   AIDS is because they don't want to.  Both are excellent means of
   destroying the lower class, which means less unemployment.  Maybe 
   that's not such a bad idea in itself.

What do you mean by work?  If you mean it would continue to violate a person's
right to self-determination, self-medication, and control of one's body, then
yes, you're absolutely correct. 

   C. Armour-Kidson

Chris Weyand
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4490 alt.politics.homosexuality:5842
From: keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:26:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep8.150715.27352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:

>In article <AWERLING.92Sep7182057@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.154642.12539@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>>
>>- "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
>>- what is detestable"
>>-	   --Leviticus 18:22


Read the chapter before it, and after it....  Are you wearing a cotton blend?
  Ah, then the sin you are committing is just as detestable!  Do you eat meat
 without first offering up the proper sacrifices...?  Well, I'd hate to be in
 your shoes, when God finds out about this..

>>
>>You left out the death penalty part.

Which death penalty part?


>>
>>- "In the same way [as women who had turned to lesbianism] the men also 
>>- abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
>>- another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in them-
>>- selves the due penalty for their perversion."
>>-	   --Romans 1:27
>>
>>- "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>>- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>>- adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor
>>- the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
>>- kingdom of God." 
>>-	   --I Corinthians 6:9-10
>>


>I've been thinking about this lately, and the only New Testament Christian
>Bile^H^Hble references condemning homosexuality seem to have been written
>by Paul (Saul of Tarsus, taxman) IS this correct? You know what they say
>about Paul :)


Yes, that's right.  All the references to homosexuality are from Paul, 
written in letters (not necessarily intended for Bible inclusion!) to
little foundling Christian colonies...

These little foundling Christian colonies needed new baby Christians... 
problem was, all the new Christians, with their new found love of life, and
their new found religion were fornicating with each other in ways which
weren't creating a lot of new baby Christians.  If you have a religion 
with very few followers, and more and more are being thrown to the lions every
day or so, then you really want to encourage your new foundling Christians
to be fruitful and multiply!!!


>I'd really like to know, I suppose...

Hope this clears things up... can't tell you about Paul, but I believe 
he never married......

-- 
--Karin
keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:23:54 GMT

Lee Cambell writes

>>      Maybe Clinton is now in Quayle's league with his comments
>> on the Patriot missiles going through chimneys. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
>> (And this could be our future commander-in-chief?)
>> 
>>      Cary Perttunen

>I guess I misunderstood the post I saw. I probably didn't read it
>as carefully as I should have, and I didn't look back to see your
>earlier post. What can I say; I screwed up.

>As for Clinton's blunder about the patriot missile, he really did
>get that wrong! And then when Quayle corrected Clinton in public,
>Quayle said it was *cruise missiles* not *patriots* that flew down
>chimneys! Quayle looks even more foolish getting his *correction*
>wrong!! We all know it was laser guided smart bombs, not patriots
>or curise missiles!

THERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!  BULL!!!!

You are wrong! If you are talking about 'missiles', the only 'missile'
that we have that WILL FLY DOWN A CHIMNEY, OR THROUGH A DOOR is a
CRUISE MISSILE!  True, a laser guided 'smart bomb' will also, but
that is a plane delivered 'bomb'.  The commentator on CNN during
the war joked that he watched a Tomahawk (Cruise missile) come down
main street, and take a right at the light!

You (and the liberal media) need to check YOUR facts before you try
and discredit a man that OBVIOUSLY knows more on the subject than
EVEN YOU!!!

Chad
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:46:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.155846.13922@athena.mit.edu>
jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

>
>In article <CKD.92Sep6184416@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) wrtes:
>
>Jude G. Federspiel in a previous article writes:
>>
>>Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for drugs, and that no
>>one would defend their legally bought drug supply from somebody
>>out to steal it, possibly resulting in death.
>>
>>>Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for money, and that no one
>>>would defend their legally earned money supply from somebody out to
>>>steal it, possibly resulting in death.
>>>
>>>Time to outlaw money, I guess.
>>>--
>
>What percentage of people growing up with constant exposure to and use
>of illegal narcotics like cocaine, for example, would kill or rob for
>them?  I don't pretend to know, but I bet it's a hell of a lot more than
>would kill or rob for money, which _everyone_ lives with.  But nice try.

     What exactly do you think all the violence between drug dealers is
*over* anyway?  What do you think all the violence in Columbia is over?
Money's maybe third on a list of all time big items people get killed over,
behind power and land.
     Drugs aren't even in the running.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:16:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
|> 
|> Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
|> the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
|> the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
|> girlfriend.

You are not comparing like with like.  Gay-bashing does not refer
just to playground bullying.   Every month or so there are reports
of people being killed simply because someone thought they were 
gay.

As for being beaten up for making a pass at someone's girlfriend,
are you suggesting that violence is a frequent consequence of
sexual competition among straights?   If so, why is it ever 
directed against Gays?

|>     While none of these is truly acceptable, the source of the
|> problem has nothing to do with homosexuality; it has do to with 
|> low tolerance for someone else's views or lifestyle, or in the 
|> latter case, selfishness and (usually) insecurity.

What do you mean when you say "nothing to do with homosexuality"?
When a gang of toughs beat or kill someone because they think 
he or she is gay, how can that have "nothing to do with homosexuality"?
When a group is trying to get Gays expelled from their jobs or
housing because they are Gay, how can that have "nothing to do 
with homosexuality"?

I realise that you don't like comparisons with Germany, but did
the Holocaust have "nothing to do with Jewishness"[1]?   Was the
Holocaust just a matter of "low tolerance for someone else's 
views or lifestyle"?

The Nazis did have a very low tolerance for other people, as
do some extremist groups today, but how can one say that 
intolerance for other people has "nothing to do" with who or 
what those other people are?   What does it even mean to make 
such a statement?

|> 
|> Any doctor can tell you that you cannot cure a disease by 
|> attacking the symptom(s); you must attack the disease itself.  
|> In this case, morality itself is diseased.  How do you propose 
|> curing it?

If you want to 'cure' morality, go to it.  Personally, I'd be
content to see people leave one another alone to get on with
their lives in peace.

|> 
|> Anyway, I'm rambling.

No, you're not exactly rambling, but you seem to be a master 
at mixing up your metaphors, and confusing one issue with 
another.

jon.

[1]  Or being Communist, or Gay, or a Gypsy or any of the other
groups the Nazis attacked. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks)
Subject: Re: Helping business, health care costs
Keywords: health care costs
Organization: Guns for Peace
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.113746.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>
>As far as the German health care system goes, I think that it
>offers more at a cheaper rate than the US. My wife had
>a baby in Germany for $1000.00. I can't believe that anyone in the
>US could do that. 

My health cost is $25 per month with my company Kaiser Health Plan. The
total cost for the birth of my last child was $7.50.
Most of the cost was for the television in her room. Price per visit is $1.00
to her doctor during the 9 month period. She had at least 3 ultrasonic exams

Let's have a poll here. Others post the cost of their health care.


-- 
Defend your 2nd amendment rights. 
NRA ACLU VFW
Fred Brooks   			        Portland Oregon
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:10:13 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Distribution: usa
 <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep10.002625.12614@news.columbia.edu>
 <1992Sep10.161239.34776@watson.ibm.com> <1992Sep10.200418.4732@cs.cornell.edu>
 <1992Sep10.231952.36311@watson.ibm.com>

In article <1992Sep10.231952.36311@watson.ibm.com>, john@johniac.austin.ibm.com
(John Iacoletti) says:

>Sure they would, but then nobody would buy insurance.  They set a
>"prevailing rate" that is the maximum that they will pay for a specific
>procedure, and guess what?  All the doctors charge exactly that amount
>or just above it.  And by the way, the doctors can't price compete

As I noted in another post, price dispersion in
medical care is common.  Insurance companies pay hugely different
amounts to physicians for the same procedures.  You might want to look
up some of the data from Medical Economics, or from the company Medstat.



>with each other or advertise their fees because the AMA has decreed
>that "it's not becoming to the profession".  It's not becoming to
>their pocketbooks either.

Let's take a look at the most recent Journal of Human Resources, one
of the top academic economic journals.  An article on the effects of
physician advertising on prices and quality in medical care?  The article
finds that physician advertising has raised prices and had an indeterminate
effect on quality.  It raises prices because it impacts both the size of
demand and price elasticity (i.e. it both shifts and swivels the demand
curve.  Other studies are cited which indicate that when quality is hard
to discern, price competition is not used by companies because consumers
use prices as information about quality.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.john-palmer
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:34:31 EST
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.john-palmer
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.053429.22958@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
...
> Perhaps, Mr. Matrix, Bill Clinton will find ways to PREVENT wars from
> occurring without the loss of lives. I would consider that man a real

	Bwahahaha, yeah just like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and
Kennedy/Johnson did, eh?

> leader. Unfortunatly, he has an uphill fight against dumb-head red-neck
> ex-marines whose IQ is less than the number of bullets in their M-16's 
> who go around shouting "Duh KILL DA RAGHEADS MAN - KILL KILL KILL". 

	Such stereotypes!  Why, you'd think the marines had killed Roger Rabbit
or something.

> I'd rather be occupied by an enemy force than to live in a state 
> run by such airheads. People: Its these kinds that make people like
> George Bush possible. The "dumb"ing of America. Sigh.....

	For more information, call CAT-TALK :).

> Oh, and don't call me a coward - at least I use my real name, Mr. 
> "Matrix".

	HOOOhahahahahahahaha.  Right.  "Roger" or is it "Dr." or even "Rabbit"?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties