HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 5 Sep 92 06:23:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <25475@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.144615.8627@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
> =>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric
> =>S. Perlman) writes:
 
> It's been thrashed out dozens of times how Israel instigated the '67 war, to
> mention just one example, but you just don't seem to get it, do you. I


	Thrashed out dozens of times, huh? Do you really think that
	your discussions with the mirror deserve anyone's attention
	but the psychiatrist's? 


> wonder if there's anything that *has* penetrated your skull. Why do you
> bother debating when you've already made up your mind?

	Now look who's talking...

 
> =>... and in any
> =>case the US army has only won one war in history without foreign assistance 
> =>and that was against Mexico.


	Yeah. It needed the Europeans help in both WWI and WWII.

 
> Hold on there, Phill, you're forgetting the glorious conquest of Grenada.

	And how can we not mention the defensive war in the Malvinas
	(probably another one instigated by Israel...)?


> -Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte


Noam
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:44:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



# Suppose the ordinance contained language which made it clear that
# "sexual orientation", as used in the ordinance, meant the common usage
# of the term as applied to gays, lesbians and bisexuals, that is,
# referred only to the different gender combinations (male and/or
# female) possible in intimate relationships.  Then would you be happy
# with the ordinance?  Or would you look for another nit to pick?
# 
# Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,


(cramer)
/I would be happiest of all if homosexuals stopped trying to involve
/the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
/private.


You didn't answer Michael's question, Clayton.  Do you have an answer,
or do you not?

Also, cite three examples of homosexuals "trying to involve
the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
private".  Hint:  non-religious employment and for-profit rental 
situations are not private situations.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anyone done a recent Usenet Poll?
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:33:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep8.162033.9340@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

> Has anyone performed a recent usenet poll on Bush/Quayl and
> Clinton/Gore?

What for?  We all know what the poll results are going to be without
anyone even taking it.  (For example, polls revealed that in '84 users
of usenet were overwhelmingly in favor of Mondale, and in '88 in favor
of Dukakis.)  Why waste our time with what is obvious?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 23:19:12 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Police response to a refusal to allow a search is often to use the
refusal as probable cause for a search warrant; they detain you until
they get a signed search warrant from a cooperative judge.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44394 alt.activism:16094 misc.headlines:6274
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:05:15 EST
 <1992Sep8.110912.3960@desire.wright.edu> <1992Sep9.000710.5515@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: A difference in attitudes, perhaps

In article <1992Sep9.000710.5515@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.110912.3960@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>> Canada is not a poor country.  The standard of living is fairly similar
>>> to the U.S.  It is a democracy.  Do you seriously believe that Canadians
>>> would put up with a system that wasn't serving their needs?  Why do you
>>> rarely hear *Canadians* complaining about their system?
>>
>>	When I was in North Conway, NH on vacation, I heard plenty of
>>complaints about Canadian health care.
>>
>>	Too-high taxes, mediocre care.  Assembly-line like conditions.  Waiting
>>lists.
>>	Yes this was from Canadians.
>>
> 
> They were complaining about what they know...not about what they
> don't...they have no idea that if they were in the States that they
> might not be able to get any care at all because they couldn't afford
> the huge deductibles, or because their HMO would limit their choice
> of a doctor.  

	Huge deductibles?  That might make payments hard.  Unless you mean huge
premiums.  My wife works for GM though, so up till now it's been "free" :).

	Most HMOs let you keep your present doctor if (s)he is not on the list. 
Our current HMO list contains thousands of doctors.  In addition, since they
are on the list, you know that they are meeting the HMO cost guidelines,
something you can't know otherwise.

	Sure costs are a problem.  But they won't go away if you ration
services or put the government in charge of the budgets.

> The trouble in Canada is that middle-class Canadians
> expect care equivalent to upper middle class Americans...and that
> if they found themselves in the state that even many middle class
> Americans found themselves in, they wouldn't be complaining.

	I don't know.  If I had to switch, I would be complaining.  Expensive
or not, I want those procedures available the second I get to the hospital.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44585 talk.politics.mideast:19802 misc.headlines:6292
From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Accusations
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:17:13 GMT
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology

In article <1992Sep9.001234.855@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.222347.14708@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake
>Livni) writes:
>|>In article <1992Sep1.183356.1384@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
>|>writes:
>
>|>>I am still waiting for Jake to list the dates of his military service in
>|>Israel.
>|>>Perhaps Makowsky could also oblige. One of the most disgusting aspects of
>|>the
>|>>whole situation is the fact that those who are most vociferous in their
>|>demands
>|>>to continue the occupation of the territories and confiscation of Arab
>|>property
>|>>are also the very same people who wheedle out of military service on
>|>"religious"
>|>>grounds.
>|>
>|>You used to sound so believable, Phill!  Now look at you!
>|>
>|>First you tell us what I believe, then you infer things about me from
>|>entirely unrelated things I had written and now you are telling the
>|>world about my religious stance and my excuses for military exemption.
>|>Who ever said that I had any legal requirement at all to join the
>|>Israeli army?
>
>You spend a long time trying to prove your Zionist credentials. Only if you were
>a Zionist you would have bought a plane ticket and gone and lived in Israel.
>
>You are just the same as the "settlers" in the occupied territories who do not
>serve for religious reasons, you are making maximalist demands that you are not
>prepared to pay the price for yourself.

Phill, I am not aware that there is a significant tendency in the settler
community to evade army service - all the fit men serve faithfully. Some
Yeshiva students make arrangements with the army to combine military ser-vice
with Yeshiva studies (they are considered very fine soldiers).
[These are the "Yeshivot Hesder"]

There are some Ultra-Orthodox settlements that engage in the evading
practice of Yeshiva students - they are located in the WB coincidentially 
they are not particularly right-wing - just live there by chance.

David.
-- 
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Are Tax and Spenders in second place
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:36:35 GMT

In article <lacb8jINNdab@spim.mips.com>,
 mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>During an interview on PBS yesterday, the statement was made that if you
>added up all federal welfare programs since the 1930's (the onset of 
>federal welfare), the total is a small percentage of the S&L bail-out
>cost.  Does anyone have access to data to support or refute this?

It's an obvious crock of sh**.  The usual estimates for the S&L
bailout give the number as 500 Billion; let's severely overstate that
and say that it will take a full Trillion dollars.  We've spent more
than twice that much on welfare just since Bush came into office!
(Completely leaving aside Social Security from this, by-the-way.)
Just for the 1992 budget, here are the relevant numbers (provided to
me last year by Barbara Boxer's office):

Total (all figures are in Billions)
  Budget Authority                             $1,590.1
  Outlays                                       1,458.8
--------------------------------------------------------------
500 Education, training, employment and social services
  Budget authority                                 50.6
  Outlays                                          47.2
550 Health
  Budget authority                                 83.1
  Outlays                                          83.4
570 Medicare
  Budget authority                                120.1
  Outlays                                         116.9
600 Income security
  Budget authority                                221.9
  Outlays                                         180.1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total "welfare" spending:
  Budget authority                                475.7
  Outlays                                         427.6

If you object to my inclusion of the first two (or three??) items in
the category of "welfare", then all that changes is the number of
years for the remainder to severely outrun the S&L bailout.  For
example, if we only include item 600 then it takes just over five
years for it to exceed a Trillion dollars.

Make no mistake, I agree that the S&L bailout is a travesty and that
the snake oil we were sold falsely labelled as "deregulation" was vile
and corrupt.  But bizarrely counter-factual statements like the one
quoted above from PBS are just not helping the problem.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 22:09:35 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

|> In article <9026@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> > In <1992Sep6.223640.21393@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> > 
|> > >If he had stated anti-war sentiments in a ROTC program, he would have
|> > >probably been kicked out, and would certainly have been hassled.
|> > 
|> > Clinton never joined the ROTC.  He told the draft board that he was going
|> > to join in order to delay getting drafted.  But when it came to time to
|> > actually participate, Clinton decided that he would rather go back to
|> > England to continue his education.  A country that was conveniently beyond
|> > the reach of the draft board.
|> 
Wrong.  They still could have drafted him.  If he had refused to come back
to serve, he would have had to go to jail on his return.  It was many
years later that an amnesty was announced to allow many to return of those
that went to Canada.  Is it your contention that Clinton would have given
up his right to live in the US to avoid the draft?

If so, you are the one that inhaled -- recently.
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:06:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <BuBJy3.JzG@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <5156@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>>Who really cares? But the way he answered the question regarding his
>>"experimentation" with marijuana makes him look very suspect.

>It would be political suicide otherwise.

Perhaps you should explain that to Al Gore.  You see, Al the ecofreak
admitted that he smoked marijuana which pretty much deep-sixed it as
an issue.  Clinton could have followed Al's example, but he didn't.
That's why he is called Slick Willie - he seems to have a
psychological aversion to telling the truth about things he perceives
as negative about himself even when there is clear evidence that
telling the truth won't hurt him.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: "No New Taxes!"                 (*)For the rich
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:24:38 GMT

In article <9209142025.AA03627@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>                --------------------------------------
>                Study: 90% Pay More due to Tax Changes
>                --------------------------------------
>
>    "WASHINGTON-- 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes
>    now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

why did they pick 1977? ....

>    in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.
.... Another Ralph Nader spinoff group.
>
>    But the very rich, as a result of tax-law changes over the last 13
>    years, are paying up to 36 percent less than they would have, the
>    group said.
Blatantly false. The rich are paying a larger percentage of income
taxes then in the 1970's. They assume (incorrectly) that increases in
rates correspond one-for-one with increases in revenues. This is
provably false, and is refuted by the result of the very tax changes
this press release is attempting to criticize. 


>    Several congressional Democrats cited the report as additional
>    proof of their contention that the Reagan and Bush administrations
>    pushed changes in the tax law that reward the rich and penalize
>    everyone else."

THEN WHY PICK 1977? Why not, instead pick 1981 as the baseline?
Do you want to know why?

Becuase it was the changes in the Social Security tax laws,
passed by the Democrats in Congress and President Carter, IN 1977,
that raised the Social Security taxes for working Americans and
forced them to pay more in taxes. 

THAT is why many Americans pay more in total Federal taxes then before.

In 1981, Reagan increased the personal exemption, providing a tax cuts for
every taxpayer.

>[From: Chicago Tribune, 3/9/90 p.12. While our Free Press reports
>"Read My Lips" etc as front-page material, this little fact, affecting
>only 90% of their readers, was reported by the Tribune in the tiny
>note I've just reproduced, near the bottom of page 12.]

Yeah. Too bad this baised press release didn't mention the Democrat
Congress' and Carter's involvement in this.

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.122014.9097@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep13.191358.12326@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> In article <BuIxL2.27x@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>> >pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> >
>> >: A history lesson:
>> >: 
>> >: In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
>> >: administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
>> >: (substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
>> >: conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
>> >: Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
>> >: the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
>> >: raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
>> >: The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
>> >: signed by President Bush.
>> >
>> >Bush could have not signed it.  He could have let it pass without
>> >signing it ("I'm not going to sign my name to that piece of cow
>> >droppings!"), or (*gasp*) he could have vetoed it.
>> 
>> Well I wish he had vetoed it.
>> 
>> The only poblem was that the Gov't was running on "continuing resolutions",
>
>Huh?  I thought the budget agreement was made in July, not after the old
>budget ran out (Oct 1st).  What "continuing resolutions" are you refering to?

No, July was when the negotiations *started*, but like typical negotiations,
they stuck to their positions until the last minute. Bush was gunning
for capital gains tax cuts, for example. Unfortunately, he quaked,
and the Administration (Darman, Brady) and Democratic leadership (Foley,
Mitchell) made an agreement in late September. (out at Andrew AFB?).
This agreement failed to pass the House in early October. 
Continuing resolutions to get around Gramm-Rudman sequesters and fund
the Government were used to keep us limping along. My memory is vague
on this, but there might have been one day when the Federal Govt even
shut down. In late October, it finally came to a head, when the
revised budget plan passed both houses by the Democratic majorities and
was signed by Bush.

>> and a veto would have ended the Federal Government in a situation akin
>> to California's 'no budget' situation of the last few months.
>> Bush apparently saved his resolve for the Gulf situation.
>
>Did Bush know there would be a "Gulf situation" in July?

Again, October '90, not July.

You said earlier that Bush signed it and *enjoyed* it. Reminds
me of some dialog from Star Trek:

Scotty: Captain, I can't give you warp 8.
Kirk: You'll give me warp 8 and you'll like it!
Scotty:  I'll give you warp 8, but I won't like it!

Pat,
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44820 talk.politics.mideast:19886 misc.headlines:6308
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep10.155952.12193@ramon.bgu.ac.il> ioffe@chen.bgu.ac.il (Alex Ioffe) writes:
>Sorry, I made a little mistake. It wasn't peace treaty in 1949, but small treatyof stopping fire and moving troops ones from others. The Green Line was that line.

Yes, a *temporary* cease fire was signed. Only Egypt has signed a peace
treaty with Israel. *If* the other Arab states sign a peace treaty with
Israel, *and* demilitarization takes place by *all* parties in the region, 
*then* the meeting at Armagedden will have been postponed. As long as
armed Arabs and Jews coexist in that unhappy region, however, the spectre 
of Armagedden exists. The best the rest of the world can hope for is that
they not be sucked into the maelstorm as well.

Gary
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:12:27 GMT
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO

bf> Bri Farenell
lb> Larry Blair

lb> Having the govt. pay for all medical care is a guaranteed failure.

bf> It is still better than having no medical care at all.

  Why don't you ask the millions of taxpayers who would pay thousands in taxes
  for such a program if they think it's "better" that it doesn't work? Or, do
  you *prefer* a failure (which implies nothing) over nothing?

  At the very least, no state-supplied medical care is cheaper than failed
  state-supplied medical care.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 23:18:04 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Jason Austin) writes:
|> In article <lavha2INN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> -> Jason Austin) writes:
|> -> |> 
|> -> |> 	Rush Limbaugh made a good point about this bill today.  Bush
|> -> |> has vetoed this bill in the past and the Democrats know he will veto
|> -> |> it now.  They want him to veto it, because when he does veto it, they
|> -> |> will scream, "SEE! He doesn't care about family values!"  The
|> -> |> Democrats know there's a sucker born every minute.
|> -> |> --
|> -> Sort of like when Bush asks congress to throw partisanship aside and
|> -> pass a Republican-partisan bill he wants.  He knows they won't pass
|> -> it.  Welcome to the sucker ranks, Jason.
|> -> 
|> -> Doesn't it embarass you to see only one side?  Is Rush L. your idea
|> -> of objective reporting?
|> -> 
|> 
|> 	Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist, so why should anyone expect
|> objective reporting from him?  Instead of resorting to personal
|> attacks, how about adding something to the discussion?
|> 
Obviously I need to be more direct. 

	The Republicans "know there's a sucker born every minute." 

Since these are the original posters words, I am sure they will do
a better job of communicating.
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45631 ca.politics:7825 ba.politics:5347