HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:51:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan22.174030.4325@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <13948@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## leftist rhetoric about special interests perfectly.  Perhaps, like Pat
# 
# #He did?  He was OPPOSED to special interests.  The left is nothing
# #but special interests (not including, however, corporate special interests).
# 
# Oh, I see.  This is the redefinition of the language so that people are
# special interests while those nice rich people that Republicans are so
# fond of are Americans.  

Special interests: those who seek favors from the government for their
particular group.  This includes anyone who has a lobbyist up there.
I don't have one.  Neither do most other Americans.

# ## Buchanan, you think anyone more liberal than Adolph Hitler is a leftist, 
# ## but you're wrong.  Brown *was* the left.
# 
# #I think of Adolf Hitler as a leftist.  He believed that individuals
# #didn't matter, and unlimited state power is a good thing.
# 
# Well, if you're going to redefine terminology, fine.  I think of Stalin
# as a rightist.

You mean Stalin OPPOSED unlimited state power, and championed the
individual?  Of course not.  You just don't like to admit that your hero
Stalin and Hitler have anything in common.  Why do I say that he is
your hero?  Because you have chosen to identify him as being in
opposition to Hitler.

# David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:28 PST
Subject: Clinton Text: Mexico City Policy
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600074:000:2059
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Jan 25 23:28:00 1993


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: Clinton Text: Mexico City Policy

To: Clinton News <c-news-distr@campaign92.org>,
        Clinton Volunteers <clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org>,
        Clinton Foreign <c-foreign-distr@campaign92.org>
Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy

                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                   Office of the Press Secretary

  For Immediate Release                          January 22, 1993

                       January 22, 1993

 MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACTING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE AGENCY FOR
 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 SUBJECT:       AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy


 The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits nongovernmental
 organizations ("NGO's") that receive Federal funds from using those
 funds "to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family
 planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice
 abortions."  (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)).  The August 1984 announcement
 by President Reagan of what has become known as the "Mexico City
 Policy" directed the Agency for International Development ("AID") to
 expand this limitation and withhold AID funds from NGO's that engage
 in a wide range of activities, including providing advice,
 counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign
 government to legalize or make abortion available.  These conditions
 have been imposed even where an NGO uses non-AID funds for
 abortion-related activities.

 These excessively broad anti-abortion conditions are unwarranted.  I
 am informed that the conditions are not mandated by the Foreign
 Assistance Act or any other law.  Moreover, they have undermined
 efforts to promote safe and efficacious family planning programs in
 foreign nations.  Accordingly, I hereby direct that AID remove the
 conditions not explicitly mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act or
 any other law from all current AID grants to NGO's and exclude them
 from future grants.

                                    WILLIAM J. CLINTON


                              # # #




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70436 alt.peeves:19780 talk.politics.medicine:772 soc.culture.usa:10268 soc.culture.african.american:14472 sci.med:24615
From: sizex@bnr.co.uk (Eric Barber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:41:09 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, England.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.199.202.49

In article <1993Jan27.153152.19699@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> res4w@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Robert E. Schmieg) writes:
>...  It has NO place in
>clinical medicine in the US, or elsewhere for that matter.

something similar happened here in England recently. the guvmint has
introduced local budgets for hospitals, and two hospitals argued for
so long over who was going to pay for a pensioner who had come in to
the emergency room of the one but would have received better treatment
for the particular emergency at the other that the patient died. and
this is a country where there is a national health service.

Eric
   _    "just a Texan a long way from home"
 _| ~-. Eric Barber, BNR Europe Limited, London Road, Harlow, England CM17 9NA
 \, *_} AT&T/BT/etc. +44 279 403527/429531 x 3527, ESN (NT/BNR) 6 742 3527
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, BNR  | Eric.Barber@bnr.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:48:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.144844.18829@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <C16q75.JpI@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>}In article <1993Jan20.133520.2550@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>In article <C14tAw.FMn@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>}>}In article <1993Jan19.135040.16713@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>}>[various flues and colds around the world]
>}>}>
>}>}>Regardless of slogans, the world is still there...
>}>}
>}>}Yes, but why should we solve their problems for them?
>}>
>}>Maybe you missed it - we live on earth.
>}
>}Sorry, I keep forgetting about those Canadian armored divisions poised on
>}the North Dakota border not to mention those Mexican terrorists infiltrating
>}the American lawn care industry.
>
>That's ok.  I wouldn't want you to worry about the nuclear-tipped ICBM's located
>in the Ukrain, or the minor nit that most of the oxygen in the air that you are
>breathing comes from South America, or that the food you ate this morning came
>from all over the planet.  Why worry about breathing, eating, or being incinerated?

Ah, yes. The whole world will just go to pot unless America becomes the
worlds policeman/nanny.

>What a cozy world you must live in...

No doubt, you're still ducking and covering everytime an ambulance rolls by.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 04:14:47 GMT

In article <C1E30o.2wB@unix.amherst.edu> acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin) writes:
>The GW clause does mean something. It serves as a general catch-all for those
>unforseen cicrumstances when Congress must spend for the good of the nation. 
>The first debate in Congress over it was in 1793 over whether they had the
>ability to aid the city of Savannah, which had been devestated by fire.

I'm very reluctant to accept the views of a Federalist Congress on the
subject: These Congressmen, by and large, were the same ones who 
thought the Alien and Sedition Acts (allowing criminal prosecution and
censorship of anything the President declared as "seditious") didn't
violate the First Amendment. 

>...In the instant case, they agreed that
>the commercial effects of the Savannah tragedy did have a national impact upon
>trade. In addition, the crisis was one which the state of Georgia alone could
>not handle, so it was necessary for the national government to step in.

Which, typicially of Federalist doctorine, is an argument based on
the needs of the current situation and ignores the legal limits on 
government action.

>...In other words, we can spend for the
>GW, but nothing else. In this construction, the phrase "to provide for the 
>common defense and general welfare" is the _why_ of "The Congress shall have
>the power to lay and collect taxes".  We tax so that we can spend the money
>received, plain and simple.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is possible to use taxes to promote
the general welfare without spending a cent (i.e. by using taxes as
an indirect form of economic regulation). Further, the powers to spend
are part of the other clauses of the section. The clause grants the
power to tax so that the government may spend, but I don't see how 
this grants to power to spend for any reason.

>But the phrase itself is, and must be, somewhat vague. A Congress strictly
>limited to the enumerated powers cannot handle everything, and certainly
>we cannot amend the constitution every time there is a new crisis which
>requires national spending. 

However, this issue is moot: Congress has suffiecient freedom to spend
derived from other enumerated powers and the "necessary and proper"
clause.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70001 talk.religion.misc:27660 misc.legal:23385
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:37:27 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
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.

In article <14060@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.221012.14456@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> In article <14009@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan19.162031.25785@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
># ## #mature choice then?
># ## 	What difference does it make?  I fail to see how it is the task of
># ## government to mandate "mature" behavior.
># ## 	It would certainly cut down on usenet volume if this were true...
># #Odd.  But liberals seem to have an unlimited list of reasons for the
># #government to mandate other forms of "mature" behavior -- like
># #prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.
># 	I have yet to see anyone of any political persuasion justify
># anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of "maturity".  The 
>
>You don't read USENET much, then.
>
	I do, but apparently different fora from those which you frequent.
In any case, I have never seen or heard such an argument made as legislative
justification for anti-discrimination laws.  The argument generally revolves
around harm to other citizens.

># 	Vandalism, assault, and theft are all behaviors which could easily
># be classed as "immature", but that's hardly why they are baned.  I really
># don't see your point here.
>
>My point is that liberals believe in mandating morals for some
>causes, and then get all self-righteous and angry when conservatives
>attempt to do the same thing.  I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy.
>
	(Shrug)  I'm sick of hypoicrisy in general.  Unlike yourself
(apparently) I don't deceive myself into believing that this obnoxious trait
is the exclusive product of only one political philosophy.  Shall we get into
a point system comparing examples of conservative vs. liberal hypocrisy?
Shall we discuss conservatives who label themselves pro-life while helping to
illegally fund terrorists attacking civilian targets in Central America?
Anti-drug rightists who push tobacco subsidies?  Conservative advocates of
free speech (when the speech is racist or sexist) who suddenly lose their
dedication to the cause when confronted with a bit of erotica?
	This could go on forever and still be pointless.  If you're willing to
accept the fact that hypocrites exist across the political spectrum, fine.
If you wish to maintain that holding mutually contradictory positions is
something done only by liberals, you'll have to ignore a great deal of
political reality.
The_Doge

[note change in Newsgroups line; this is no longer appropriate for 
talk.abortion]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68939 talk.politics.theory:5701 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13288
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Minor Historical Nitpick (Was Re: National debt is not bad)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:52:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>Defense expenditures during peace didn't become a Very Big Thing for
>the US until the Cold War.  The US has historically had a very small
>military establishment prior to 1939 or so, and has depended more on


      Historically, the U.S. has been a second-rate agrarian colony too.
      Take the good with the bad.  I wonder if the Japanese will 
      require us to learn japanese?

>its geographical isolation to keep foreign invaders away.  Look at
>Paul Kennedy's _Rise and Fall of the Great Powers_ for expenditure
>numbers.
>
>
>
>--
><Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
>President."
>			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70069 alt.politics.clinton:21352
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:41:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>In article <9301272139.AA25748@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> Broward L. Horne,
>blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu writes:
>> 	Congratulations!
>> 
>> 	You just bought yourselves a Triple 'E' ticket on the 
>> 	greatest deflationary ride in HISTORY!
>> 
>> 	Come, on, Billy Boy!  Energy Tax, we NEED it!  Gotta cut 
>> 	consumption!  Cut that military too.  
>> 
>>         And there go those entitlements!   YES!
>
>
>pathetic.........
>

        yes, totally pathetic.  I agree whole-heartedly.

        But I was wrong.  It should have read,

           " in *U.S* HISTORY! "

        Just out of curiosity, Doc.

        Are you planning to rebuild America BEFORE or AFTER
        the fire is out?????





>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: The Failure of Gun Control in New York City *Jails*
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:18:49 GMT


In article <13969@optilink.COM>, 
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) said:

> If gun control in its most extreme form -- gun prohibition -- can't be
> made to work in a JAIL, where you have strip searches of incoming
> prisoners; where you are subject to arbitrary search and seizure at
> ANY time; where people on the outside have only limited and controlled
> contact with the prisoners; where the guards who must be bribed to get
> a weapon smuggled in have a VERY direct interest in not arming the
> prisoners -- if you can't make it work in THAT environment, what makes
> you think you can make it work in any milder form on the outside?
>
> Of course, the gun prohibitionists will have a solution -- make the
> outside more like a jail.

Point One: He's right, I think.

Point Two: Y'know, you can make almost exactly the same statement about
drugs instead of guns.  (No, Clayton, I'm not accusing you of supporting
the War on Drugs; I'm just pointing out something that might otherwise
be overlooked.)

Point Three: Why is it that with reports of this sort of thing --
prisoners possessing contraband with the knowledge and, often, the
active cooperation of the guards -- we never seem to hear about any
serious movement to reform the prison system to the point of at least
only hiring honest men and women as guards?

Point Four: Giggle factor -- I read a more detailed article about this 
scam in New York prisons... seems that it came to light only after a
prisoner who was trying to intentionally shoot himself in the leg with a
guard-supplied gun screwed it up so badly that he actually accidentally
wounded a _guard_ instead.  ("Gun control means hitting your target,"
anyone? :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:06:35 GMT

In article <C18xEA.FuG@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Charles M Kozierok (cmk@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <C16u87.MpI@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>: >Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.
>: >
>: >[then later]
>: >
>: >A balanced budget does not prevent the government from issuing bonds.
>: 
>: are you really sure about this? how do you think the government
>: raises the money it spends on misbalancing our budget now?
>: 
>
>Positively sure.  Bonds SHOULD be issued for one-time purchases, not
>for continuous misbalanced budget defecits.
>
>: they may not be exactly the same thing, but the government uses
>: bonds almost exclusively to do the borrowing which causes the deficit.
>: 
>
>You got it backwards.  The defecit causes borrowing.  That's the problem.
>Borrowing with specific agenda for the money is brilliant.  Borrowing
>because you can't manage your budget is stupid.

agreed.
this may be just a silly argument about semantics, but i was
disputing the argument that "a balanced budget does not prevent the
government from issuing bonds". many bonds are issued to fund the
deficit. so eliminating the deficit will stop the issuance of those
bonds which were used to finance it.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: that: Xianity Thing
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:53:09 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
] 
]     I think some people use the "x" abbreviation because of their
] struggle in either writing or saying "Jesus Christ."  (For those of
] you in this category, do not feel alone -- Billy Graham used every
] euphemism for "Christ" that he could conjure up during his inaugural 
] prayers.)
] 
]      C. Perttunen

Hum....

My father who is a Missionary uses the Xtian format
in writing to me. So did the professor of the Apologetics
class in Bible School, and the dean, and .....

Your reference to Billy Graham also makes me wonder,
were/are all of them ToolsOfTheDevil[tm]????

ciao
drieux



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Am I A Statist? (was Re: Amazing (Was: Libertarianism...))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan22.005532.6644@s1.gov> <ATAYLOR.93Jan22140353@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan23.022722.23553@s1.gov>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:48:20 GMT

<In article <1993Jan23.022722.23553@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan22140353@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   >In article <1993Jan22.005532.6644@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

<   :	   I think that it is legitimate to charge a government-basher
<   :   with being for anarchy, since if government is bad, then no government
<   :   is good, and no government is anarchy.

<   >	If so, then it is just as legitimate to charge a government-
<   >	lover with statism, since if government is an unalloyed good
<   >	than total government is the best.

<	   Well, I try to find Aristotle's Golden Mean. Do you?

	Hah! Petrich accuses anyone who criticizes government projects
	that Petrich likes of being an "anarchist"....where's the
	"Golden Mean" in that, pray tell?
	

<   :	   I'll show you my list of things I consider it inappropriate
<   :   for government to be involved with (and it's a sizable list) if you
<   :   show me your list of things you think that government should be
<   >,   involved in.

<   >	Considering that I have posted said list on this and 
<   >	other newsgroups numerous times over several years,
<   >	we can put this down as yet another dodge by "Blaster".

<	   Well, I didn't see _that_ lately.

	Exactly WHOSE problem is that, Petrich?

<   >	Which leads to the conclusion that Petrich's "list"
<   >	probably consists solely of things that bring personal
<   >	pleasure to Petrich....

<	   Are you sure that _you_ don't so the same? 

	Reasonably so.

<I try to avoid
<purely selfish concerns when I think about such things.
<   >	Something like, "The government has no business interfering
<   >	in *MY* sex life".

<	   So? I don't think that governments should be meddling in
<   yours, either. 

	No? Who called, on this newsgroup, for Government-funded
	"masturbation instruction" less than 90 days ago?

	HINT: "Blaster" must have been posting when "Master"
	wasn't watching.

<Or anybody else's, except if someone is forcing sex on
<another. And do you think that governments _ought_ to? 

	Strawman, again.

	Petrich either will not or *cannot* debate, innuendo
	and flailing at strawmen are apparently more fun.

	Typical government-lover.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:46:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

>In article <C1BoL2.83y@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>Ah so the "Libertarian" cause is reduced to a squalid excuse for draft
>dodging?  It is one thing to object to a war as immoral as Clinton did
>over Vietnam, quite another to justify draft dodging on mere self interest.

Your constant unfounded assumptions about Libertarians are becoming quite
tiresome.  I hope most of the net has seen fit to stop taking you
seriously, but for the benfit of those few who still might, I will
continue to post the feelings of a _true_ Libertarian.

I would be willing, indeed proud, to die for my country.  I will not,
however, lift a finger in support of a government that practices
slavery in the form of the draft.

Those who cannot distinguish between "my country" and "my government"
will never understand Libertarianism.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70164 alt.activism:21473