HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:42:48 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep3.154025.27348@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
> Yesterday, George "Santa Claus" Bush announced wheat
> export subsidies in South Dakota, relief for cotton
> farmers in west Texas, and the sale of F16 fighters
> to Taiwan in Fort Worth.  Things must be getting
> desperate for the man who promised to do anything
> to get re-elected if he's handing out goodies in 
> South Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a 
> democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and
> selling planes to the enemies of his bosom buddies,
> the butchers of Tianeman Square.

	Before frothing at the mouth, one should check their maps.

	Taiwan is not the PRC.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43735 talk.abortion:35007 alt.politics.bush:4072
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:12:29 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>By this reasoning, a newborn baby sucking on its mother's breast is
>>(technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.

It is on the level of a flea, not a tapeworm. See the difference? I
guess not, since you continue to be so obtuse in the face of an unassailable
argument. Keep wriggling, Doug, I'm waiting for a memorable quote.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
In-reply-to: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu's message of 3 Sep 1992 20:16:27 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<185rqrINNnlq@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:53:12 CDT

Bradley K. Sherman writes:

   What is [Bennett's] claim to fame, anyway?  Henry Kissinger
   award for most respected intellectual with absolutely no
   accomplishments?

Something like that.  He strikes me as an intellectual-for-sale, the 
guy who makes a sleazy cause seem more respectable because he has brains.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:32:21 GMT

In article <Btp1Cq.JvE@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <19778@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>In article <3463@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>} In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu?? daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>>} 
>>} ??I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
>>} ??term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
>>} ??
>
>>"Vote for their opponent.", you say?  Well, what if they run unopposed? 
>
>  How often are Congressional seats uncontested?  (Ans: almost never)
>

I'm not sure this is correct. I seem to recall a report to the effect that
a rather significant number of incumbents run unopposed in the typical election
year, something like 10-20%. Also, 'unopposed' can also mean 'without
credible opposition', by which is meant freak, single-issue candidates.

>>Or what if there is opposition, but it is, in your view, even worse? 
>
>  This would still be an issue with term limits.
>

Not necessarily. If the incumbent has to retire, there is more of an
incentive for people - good people - to get into the race, because there
is a realistic chance of winning (i.e., running against a non-incumbent).

>
>---peter
>

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43089 talk.abortion:34257 alt.politics.bush:3686
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:15:07 GMT
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

In article <ystymj=@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
}c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
}
}>This assumes, of course, that the unborn is just a scum sucking parasite
}>stuck in the mother's womb sucking the life out of the mohter, and therefore,
}>we should have the right to terminate that parasite.
}
}This statement is not correct.

Certainly not!  He mispelled mother (as mohter) the second time.

But seriously, IMHO, up until a certain point of development, the object
(whatever you may care to refer to it as) of this argument is a POTENTIAL
human being.  At some point, the exact moment of which is widely disagreed
about in both science and religion, the potential passes a threshold and
the object becomes a human being.

What annoys me is that, although the "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem
to think that their arguments are superior, they evidently do not trust
women to see this for themselves. 

They seem quite unwilling to place their arguments on the anvil of time
to see if they are indeed superior, and prefer to assert the superiority
of their arguments by government fiat.  Exactly what they complain about
when government decides that school prayer is not constitutional.  If
they truly believed in Democracy, they would work, not to block abortion
clinics, but to change enough people's minds to gain the support they
need to change the laws. 


Lance
-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43519 alt.desert-storm:1739
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Colin Powell's Record (was Bush giving up? (Colin Powell))
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:53:56 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <60064@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
> More to the point, there was never any serious possibility of
> continuing Desert Storm for much longer. The entire alliance
> was built around the sole function of removing the Iraqis from
> Kuwait. Once that was acheived, it was over. Sure, we could have
> destroyed a couple more divisions of Guards, but the effect
> would have been nil. Only a complete conquest of Iraq would
> have made any difference.
> 
With a couple more divisions destroyed the rebellions in the North and
South probably would have succeeded.  There would have been no need for  
house-to-house if the encirclement had simply been completed.

Powell bears a heavy responsibility for that failure.  According to other  
people present at the meetings that decided the issue, Powell left the  
impression that allied forces had sealed off the major escape routes.  
Position is everything in a cease-fire in place, and Powell fell down in  
his duties as a military advisor in not insuring that the allies had good  
position when the fighting stopped and in not alerting his superiors to  
the importance of the issue.  I believe he said it wouldn't be  
"chivalrous" to continue the fighting, as if chivalry had anything to do  
with modern war.

His advice leading up to the war was suspect too.  In _The Commanders_,  
Woodward describes Powell pitching the continued sanctions option to Bush  
and several top advisors.  The text describes him as using the body  
language of an advocate for the option, while falling short of actually  
endorsing it.  He would have endorsed it if _one other person had spoken  
up in favor of it_.  Military advisors get paid to give unvarnished  
military advice, not to be yes-men to the group consensus of the  
government.

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:35:07 GMT

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Someone wrote:

>>GHWB
>>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>>whose life sentences he commuted.

>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>>Sure, it's another example of the kinder, gentler nation that 
>>George "pro-LIFE" Bush has in mind.

>So, you feel that the governing actions of an individual should not be
>an issue discussed during a political campaign?

>Or, only the records of those you support shouldn't be discussed, as
>that would be "negative campaigning"?

As I stated in a followup, I MISREAD (repeat, I misread) the post as 
"...whose DEATH sentences he commuted" instead of LIFE sentences. The fact
that I misread it had to do with my being off-base.

I think that Bush's and Clinton's record are certainly up for scrutiny in
the context of this prez election (BILL Clinton's record, that is). I don't
think negative campaigning is necesarily bad but when either side spends all
its time attacking the other guy and no time defining itself, that's what I 
have a problem with. Besides, it's typical politics to distort your opponent's
record while inflating your own; I think both candidates are holding their
own in that department (although one more than the other, IMO).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (talk.poli.misc user)




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43570 alt.politics.elections:12338 alt.politics.clinton:3941 alt.politics.marrou:1016 alt.politics.bush:3976
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:13:16 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Sep2.175839.27113@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com writes:
> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> :   I wasn't trying to leave that part out of the issue; I just took it for
> :   granted that this was understood (that the nobody wants to pay for these
> :   things).   
> : 
> You should not take it for granted. Many of us think that our taxes are the
> price we should be paying for good government. It's not true that nobody 
> wants to pay; we just don't want to pay more than our fair share.

If this were really true, they wouldn't be taxes, they would be 
voluntary contributions.  As for 'fair share', that's just a way
to salve your conscience when forcing people to pay for things they
may not want or need or get.

To Peter Nelson:  Yeah, people want big government, but that's because
big government sells itself by hiding the costs and misrepresenting
the benefits.  There's nothing sacred about the opinion of the majority,
especially a misinformed majority.  The right conclusion to draw from the 
public's desire for big government is that we should work harder toward 
getting more real information out there.  The goal is not to elect
Libertarians.  The goal is to spread information about libertarian 
solutions to political problems.  One way to do this is to elect
Libertarians.  But it's not the goal.

thant
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: The REAL Reagan Record
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:17:27 GMT

In article <farenebt.714948494@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>
>>   Huh? National Review? Now there's a good example of objective reporting. 
>>   Their editors seem to yearn for a military government. Is Buckley still
>>   connected with that rag?
>
>>Have you ever read NR?  Would you be so kind as to enlighten with
>>facts proving their lack of objectivity?  How about some proof of your
>>preposterous claim that the editors yearn for a military government.  Oh,
>>now I see you cover your dishonest attack with the claim that the editors
>>"seem" to yearn.  Clever.
>
>Well, they are a right-wing magazine and flaunt it every issue. Just read the
>This Week section of the mag. There's nothing wrong with them being a conserv.
>magazine but they are not an objective source of journalism (much like the
>liberal New Republic). 
>

The New Republic? The magazine that:

* Supported the Contras in Nicaragua

* Supported the Gulf War, because there *was* a Gulf War

* Has run article after article proposing that 'workfare' replace 'welfare'

* Has run numerous articles proposing cuts in the FICA tax

* Has run cover stories opposing 'multiculturalism' in education

About the only conservative totem NOT supported by TNR is the capital-gains
tax cut, which they have steadfastly opposed, NOT because it 'benefits only
the rich', but because they oppose ANY preferential treatment of income in
the tax code. They believe that all income should be taxed alike, regardless
of the source.

(They also liked the Heritage Foundation's health-care plan)

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:09:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172809.27543@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>You seem to be saying that the change in the tax law had little or no
>>effect on the labor supply.  Well, unless it makes people more willing
>>to work longer hours I hardly see how it could.  After all, the labor
>>supply is the total number of hours that employable people are willing
>>to work, no?  
>
>My impression was that an increase in the average tax rate would make
>people feel poorer.  Labor supply would then increase, as people work
>harder to maintain their standard of living.

Apologies.  In a bit of fuzziness, I forgot to mention what the
effects of supply-side tax cuts would be.  If the marginal rates were
decreased, people would be inclined to work more.  This is an
incentive effect, as they would keep more of each dollar they earn.



--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43597 talk.politics.mideast:19563 misc.headlines:6174
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:56:34 GMT
Organization: ACME Widget Company, Widget Falls, Southern North Dakota

In article <5072@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>
>One of those polls tracked opinion on whether people thought that replacing
>the Republican President with a Democrat to match Congress was the best way
>to solve the nations problems or whether replacing the Democrats with
>Republicans in Congress while retaining a Republican president was the answer.
>
>
>Clean the House!

Interestingly enough, a Yale professor just released a book devoted to this 
issue, and concluded that since the end of WWII, it has made no difference 
whether the President and Congress were of the same or opposing parties
where the passing of important legislation is concerned.  There was recently
a writeup about it in the NY Times, and if anybody is interested I will dig
up the relevant information about the citation.  What it does suggest is that
a President who makes the claim that the Congress is the reason for the 
logjam is unfit to govern.

Steven Brener



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:34:39 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson
gs> Gary Strand

gs> One little stat they mentioned was that 76% of donations from Hollywood
gs> persons goes to Democrats. It's pretty much uncontested that the majority
gs> of movie/TV actors, producers, directors, and so on are liberal, and I
gs> believe it's these people that Dan Quayle is talking about.

pn> So what?

  Merely pointing out a fact, that's all.

pn> As I mentioned in a recent posting, there is a free market in "media" in
pn> this country.

  *De jure*, yes, *de facto*, no.

pn> Presumably if, say, movies or TV shows had a liberal message that grated
pn> on the nerves or consciences of the viewing public then they would turn
pn> off their TV's or reward some other shows offering different, more con-
pn> servative world views with their business.  

  That's generally true. Of course, this assumes that the body politic and
  those who view television are one and the same, which isn't necessarily
  true, you being a specific example. Those who watch a lot of television
  (and thus help determine content) tend to be younger and more liberal com-
  pared to those who regularly exercise their political control (and thus
  help determine the current political setup.)

  Anyway, it's been fairly well documented that the world as presented by
  Hollywood is nowhere near the world that really exists, and that when we
  watch TV, we have to be skeptical and critical about what we see. However,
  this trait is not common enough.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:10:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.153417.8602@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.023229.6076@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.205721.9905@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>>>Of course, I don't agree at all with the principle that consent to sex =
>>>consent to bear a child, in the case of contraceptive failure or even in
>>>the case of not using contraception. So we're probably arguing from opposite
>>>viewpoints.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
>>to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
>>sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  
>>
>>So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>>a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>>be held accountable for your actions. 
>
>I guess I'm really missing what you're driving at. You "didn't really mean to
>say that 'consent to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like
>'consent to sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'"
>If the consequence of your action is pregnancy, and your definition of being
>responsible includes not aborting, then these strike me as functionally the
>same.  To reword, you seem to be saying "consent to sex = not aborting (being
>responsible) a fetus (to any consequence of your actions)." Is there a dis-
>tinction I'm missing?  Does your definition of responsible include abortion?
>
>I don't see why having an abortion is not a responsible action. My working
>definition of responsibility includes accepting a problem and coming up with
>the most workable solution to it. If the problem is unwanted pregnancy, the
>most workable and effective solution is abortion. How is it irresponsible?
>It's not as if, in the case of pregnancy, you can opt to do nothing. You may
>not like what a woman does, but that doesn't mean it's irresponsible.
>
Perhaps you forget that the unborn may, in fact, be human life?  Or are
the unborn just a parasite sucking things out from the mother and therefore,
we should be allowed to 'exterminate' that pesty parasite?

Please, let's not get into it again.  Consult other threads for the 
abortion debate.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43188 ca.politics:7341 ba.politics:4972
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:11:03 GMT
	<1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>   In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>   >  Iraq too claimed that 
>   >"Kuwait was *not* occupied territory," but the world didn't seem to 
>   >agree with such assertion either.
>
>   Iraq has no historical presense in Kuwait.  Jews, and Israelis have
>   historical presense in Jerusalem.  Was thier presense illegal in 1947?
>   If no, why is it illegal now?

This is a simple nonsequitur.  There was no Israeli presence in
Jerusalem in 1947, as there was no Israel.  International law does not
mandate against Jews in Jerusalem, but rather against the Israeli
occupation of East Jerusalem.

You shouldn't confuse the occupation of houses by residents with the
occupation of foreigh territory by nations.  (Jake Livni was confused
by this a while back, too, so you aren't alone.)

[The rest of Adam's posting was deleted, as it simply repeats the same
simple logical error many times.]
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh