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 05:33:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Aug31.190913.21608@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> The territories are no protection at all. With the exception of the Golan
> heights there is no particular military value to any of it. Israel has borders
> with both Jordan and Egypt with or without the territories. The Golan heights
> had military value before the guided missile got onto the international arms
> market. If Saddam can bomb Tel Aviv from Iraq then Syria would have no problem.


	This is almost as clever as saying "The Channel had lost its
	military value after the introduction of the V-2...." 

	Just curious, Phill. During the Gulf war, would your rather
	be in Kuwait (no territorial protection, no missiles) or in
	Saudia (territorial protection, missiles)? 


> 
> The territories also have a net negative military value. So long as Israel
> occupies territory there is absolutely no possibility of outside assistance.


	Just curious once again. Before the '67 war, what kind of outside
	assistance did Israel get? 

	Had the international community prevented Nasser from blocking
	the straights there would have been no war at all, no territory
	to occupy...

	Whether Israel occupies any territory at all doesn't make 
	any difference in this regard. Israel will never get outside
	assistance.


> It is not a question of insincerity, if an unjust peace is forced then it will
> not last.

	True.
> Phill Hallam-Baker

Noam
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:04:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.


>I know you like to go out of your way to avoid being labelled as 'conservative'
>or 'liberal', but I would really like to know your specific objections to
>the Canadian plan, and to the concept of National Health Insurance in general.
>By 'in general', I mean you must confine yourself to objections on the
>theoretical level only; to say that you don't like the way bureaucracies work
>in this country is a practical objection, and doesn't count in this context.

Well, *my* objection to a National Health Care Plan is basically that it 
*forces* some to pay for others. In a system of pure privatized insurance
(and we really don't have that here in the U.S anymore), you wouldn't
*have* to have insurance. Then, of course, there are the runaway costs
involved when demand is artificially stimulated, resulting in more government
intervention to control the rising costs caused by the government in the first
place. Before Medicare and Medicaid, we didn't have a health care crisis.

If we phased out these destructive programs, a lot of people wouldn't 
*need* insurance; market forces would keep prices down.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

John R. Moore) writes:
|> Keywords: 
|> 
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> ]It appears that none of you were college age at the time of the viet nam
|> ]war.  For those in college it was a sign of success and planning to avoid
|> ]being drafted.  There were student deferements, occupational deferments,
|> Except for those who volunteered!
|> ]medical deferments, family hardship deferments, etc.  All legal, and all
|> ]used.  Even joining the Guard, signing up with a reserve unit (to lower
|> ]the odds of involvment), or opting into a military vocation unlikely to
|> ]lead to war-zone excitement (like computer programmer) were preferable
|> ]to the real thing.
|> ]
|> ]Both Clinton and Quayle accomplished the goal of every male I knew,
|> ]though each in a different way.  The fact that this system was biased
|> ]toward the wealthy, the educated, the white ... led to the lottery
|> ]system.
|> 
|> There are two fundamental differences: (1) Clinton has been lying and
|> changing his story about what happened, rather than simply telling
|> it like it is. That says a lot about his character today, as opposed
|> to what it might have been 20 years ago; (2) Clinton used a government
|> program (ROTC) to avoid the draft, but then failed to live up to his
|> obligations on that program. Quayle at least lived up to his obligations.
|> 
(1) What Clinton has called leaving out facts that he did not think were
relevant, you call lying.  Your option.

(2) Clinton did not fail to live up to his obligations to ROTC.  It was
a voluntary program and had no obligations.  ROTC was a college class for
units.  There were no requirements to go into the military, no requirements
to stay in ROTC, no ...

On this item you are either uniformed or campaigning (not a compliment).

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: James Baker
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:47:26 CDT


If Bush really needs James Baker to save his campaign (ie create
a domestic program for Bush to run on), why not dump the middle
man (Bush) and have Baker run for prosident.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH: ON MANUFACTURING JOBS
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:50:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.223904.14932@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>Unfortunately, those other countries' governments can afford to do it, since
>they haven't thrown a great party with tax payers' money and created a mess
>of politically untouchable subsidies and programs.

	Don't get out much?

	Every major power in the world (except the US) has a a national
health care policy. Most provide more funds for higher education then we
do. Most have a higher rate of government investment in non military
research then we do. The more sucessful countries (France, Germany, Japan)
provide services that americans wouldn't dream of: child care, high speed
transportation. The streets of Paris are hand swept *every day*, the garbage
is picked up daily and mail is deliver three times a day to most buildings.
The French public education system outperformes private education (there and
here) with ease. The list goes on and on.

>In the final analysis, the U.S. economic problems (other than short term
>regulating problems) are so inextricably tied to the cultural, political and
>productivity realities of this country that THERE IS NO CLEAR FIX.  At
>least Bush is trying less to appear to have a fix for the fundamental economic
>problems.

	I get it: vote for bush, becuase he doesn't even have the pretense
of a solution. Why don't we all just eat cynide instead - it's so much more
convienent.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Talk Radio Host = Stan Major = Endorses Ross Perot
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:50:00 GMT

Confirmed non-voter Stan Major, who has a nation-wide talk
radio program which runs for 5 hours mostly after midnite,
said tonite he would definitely vote Perot.

To vote on November 3rd -- you must register now -- even if
it's only to protest being screwed over with overall more taxes,
and ever more spending -- even though the cold war is over, and
we can still nuke any major (or minor) threat with surgical precision
due to the global positioning satellite system, and have co-opted
and brain-drained the ex-soviets into a joint USXSSR mega-ultra-
superpower.... but I digress. 

Modify the following to suit your own state/province/territory:

To register in Texas --  do so through the county court house (with the
registrar of voters) in person or by mail (but you have to use the right
form/postcard for the latter). The trick once you register is to figure
out where your voting place is, normally in a school or similar building
in your local area. You have to call the court house to find out. Then
come election day, on November 3rd, a Tuesday, intentionally meant to
keep working people from voting, you should take the day off  --  and go
vote early  --  to avoid the crowds. 

Kick back the rest of the day -- no one should be working, or at school, 
on election day anyway. Consider it a civic duty. 

 /  /                  \      |      /      Please, Help      \  \
(  (   Stephen D. Tice  )  -- S --  (   Enact Mail-In Voting   )  )
 \  \                  /      |      \                        /  /
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45300 ca.politics:7750 ba.politics:5284 soc.motss:39016
From: tovah@panix.com (Tovah Hollander)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:51:44 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Clayton Cramer writes:
>I would be happiest of all if homosexuals stopped trying to involve
>the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
>private.

Are you suggesting that the qualified job-seeker and the bigoted
potential employer are both "consenting"?

Or the apartment-hunter and the landlord: do they both "consent"
to the refusal to rent?

Or maybe it's the bash-er and the bash-ee who are "consenting adults"?

-- 
Tovah Hollander
tovah@panix.com -or- tovah@onion.salad.mssm.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:50:13 GMT

The danger of a line-item veto isn't in its application after a bill is
passed.  The danger is in the power that the president would then wield
over individual congressmen.  Certainly, a good president would veto all
the pork out of a bill, and this would be a good thing.  However, a more
probable scenario has the president holding opposition pork hostage to
votes on other issues.  "Vote for the anti-abortion amendment or I veto
the Superconducting Supercollider project."

As long as we are discussing abuses of power...

Could the Congress pass a law withholding Federal Highway funds to
states that don't ratify an amendment to the Constitution?

/Roger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.215013.16654@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>As long as we are discussing abuses of power...
>Could the Congress pass a law withholding Federal Highway funds to
>states that don't ratify an amendment to the Constitution?

As I understand it, they could: I don't think there are any constitutional
restrictions on who Congress gives such funds to (since such Congressional
spending was never anticipated, or considered within the federal government's
legitimate powers by the framers.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What was that?  Yeah, right...I think : )
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:21:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.022451.4048@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!gatech!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire.wright.edu!demon
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
>Subject: What was that?  Yeah, right...I think :)
>Message-ID: <1992Sep11.022451.4048@desire.wright.edu>
>From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
>Date: 11 Sep 92 02:24:51 EST
>References: <01010064.cg0620@titipu.meta.com> <1992Sep01.175640.20463@ssc.wa.com> 
> <BuD5IB.Mu8@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> <jwtnrdm.lmb@netcom.com> <1992Sep11.021918.4046@desire.wright.edu>
>Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
>Lines: 26
> In article <jwtnrdm.lmb@netcom.com>, lmb@netcom.com (Larry Blair) writes:
>> 
>> If you want to live with inferior care supported with your taxes, move to
>> Canada.  The last thing I need is no alternative to `California Care'.
>> Canadian care is not inferior, I hear you say?  Bullshit.  I'll give you a
>> very typical example: my sister (who lives in Montreal) developed a
>> neurological condition.  Diagnosis required an MRI.  There is *1* MRI machine
>> in Montreal and it was booked for the next 6 months.  She ended up having to
>> go to New York, at her expense, for the test.  After this, and many other,
>> problems with the Canadian health care system my sister and her family have
>> opted out of the government system and bought private health insurance.  Not
>> that they still don't have to pay taxes that you would find appauling.
> 
> 	Thanx for posting this.  When I posted that I had met Canadians in New
> Hampshire who said basically the same thing, the resident Usenet Canadian
> Defenders of the Realm managed to muster up a: "yeah, right".
> 
> 	So, Gary, going to rush in and defend mother Canada from this vicious
> assualt?
> :)

     Not to say that I'm not sure there are plenty of Canadians who just
flat out love their health care system, I wonder just how much weight to
give their (expressed net) opinions regarding health care in the
United States.
     Sometimes I think Canadians would close ranks and sing the praises
of good, solid Canadian dirt so long as they could have a chance of
saying it was better than American dirt.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:00:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.232527.24528@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.223356.13308@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>No...it is only fine if the creative artist labels (defaces) their own
>>work.  If the company, or publisher, or government, or anyone other
>>than the artist does it, it is censorship.
>
>1.) Ordinarily, censorship is normally spoken of as a government action.

No...a censor is any official (if the artist does it to him or herself
it is self-censorship) who examines and rates artistic material before
public release...it has nothing necessarily to do with the government.

>2.) Censorship is defined as one who suppresses or deletes objectionable
>	material.  Putting a warning label on does no such thing.  Banning
>	people from buying an album with a warning label does, but simply
>	putting the label on does not.

Putting a rating on an artistic work defaces the work and constitutes
censorship...or certainly a form of censorship.

>3.) Since the "artist" is working for the company/publisher, they
>	have the right to do that to it.  If he doesn't want the company
>	to do that, he shouldn't work with them or sell his product to them.
>	It *becomes* the company's own work when he sells it to them.  If I 
>	buy the Mona Lisa and burn it, that isn't censorship.

In a commercial relationship between an artist and their publisher,
I agree it may be sometimes unclear where the editorial process ends
and censorship begins...however, putting a label on it constitutes
censorship.

>Otherwise, by your definition, Siskel and Ebert are censors, since they
>are not the creative artists, and they're labelling movies.

Their reviews aren't attached to the movie...there is nothing wrong
with reviewing artistic works as long as the reviews are not forced
upon the artistic work. 

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:10:28 GMT

In article <1903v4INNkmm@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.064122.16106@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>|> A.  If one side in a malpractice suit offers to settle for $X and the
>|> other side refuses and the eventual judgement is for less than $X then
>|> the side that refused to settle must pay the other side's court costs.
>|> For example, if you sue me for $1,000,000 and I offer to settle for
>|> $500,000 but you refuse and the eventual judgment is $400,000 you have
>|> to pay my court costs.
>
>In case nobody noticed, the Senate rejected a cloture motion on debate on
>a bill that contained precisely this above provision, among other things.
>Thanks due to, amongst others, Sen. Ernest Hollings, who is in the deep 
>pockets of the trial lawyers. 

Darn, the bad guys win another one ..


>|> B.  Jurors can assess punitive damages against the PLAINTIFF if they
>|> feel the suit is frivolous.
>|> 
>|> C.  Guidelines for the amount of damages for different kinds of cases.
>|> Judges are expected to alter the jury award if it is out of line
>|> unless there are extraordinary circumstances.
>|> 
>|> D.  If a lawyer takes a case on a contingency basis and the eventual
>|> judgment is that his side must pay then he is responsible for a share
>|> of the judgement.  For example, if I sue you and my lawyer does it for
>|> 40% of any money received but the jury says I have to pay you $100,000
>|> for a frivolous suit then my lawyer has to pay $40,000 of it.
>|> 
>|> E.  If the judge thinks there is a good chance of a judgment against
>|> the plaintiff he can require the plaintiff to post bond before suing.
>|> 
>|> F.  Elimination of deep-pockets lawsuits - defendants pay a share of
>|> the eventual judgment based on their percentage responsibility, not
>|> based on ability to pay.
>
>Amen. What's that phrase that is used to get someone with 5% liability to 
>pay a 100% of the costs (the bill in the Senate would have eliminated this
>too, btw) -- joint and several liability?
>
Sounds right to me.

BTW, "Public Citizen", Ralph Nader's group, aka "Public Nuisance",
has been sending their people to the talk shows to make the case
*against* tort reform.  Invariably, the shows fail to mention
that much of Public Citizen's funding comes from trial lawyers.

Pat


>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: sysrick@orion.spd.louisville.edu (Rick McTeague)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH: ON MANUFACTURING JOBS
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:09:21 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1992Sep9.015914.637@genome.wi.edu> Bert Smith <bowler@athena.mit.edu> writes:


>REMARKS BY GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON
>STANDARD KNAPP, INC.
>PORTLAND, CT
>SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
> .
> .
> .
>Under the theory that we have, I think it's pretty
>clear that we haven't supported manufacturing.  The
>theory of trickle down economics is that if taxes
>are made low enough on the highest income
>individuals, and the highest income companies, and
>the  government does nothing else, all the right
>investment decisions will be made and manufacturing
>jobs will grow.  That's our theory.

>Our competitors' theory is quite different. They
>believe that government has to support the free
>market with real incentives to always modernize
>plant and equipment, with intense support for
>constant retraining of the work force, and with
>aggressive trade programs, not just for larger
>companies, but for small and medium-sized companies
>as well.

Huh? This sounds backwards...

Rick
-- 

Rick McTeague
Electrical Engineering Department, Speed Scientific School
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
(502) 588-7020

Internet: sysrick@starbase.spd.louisville.edu

Disclaimer: I'm a stand-up comedian; if anyone takes me seriously, I'm
            doing something wrong!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Cat Control!
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:58:02 GMT



  The latest plank in the animal-rights platform: cat control. Animal
  lovers want to make it illegal for people to let their kitties out of the
  house. It seems that animal-rights activists have discovered that cats
  have a nasty tendency to kill birds, rabbits, frogs, and other cute
  creatures. "A housecat hunts for fun," says Merrit Clifton, former editor
  of The Animal's Agenda. "It gets all its calories indoors, and then it
  goes out to devastate whatever there is to devestate."

  Richard Roberts, executive director of Chicago's Christian Industrial
  League, has learned a few things about people who listen to National
  Public Radio. On July 4, the league threw a barbecue for the city's
  homeless. Roberts did an interview publicizing the event on Chicago 
  public-radio station WBEZ and mentioned that the picnic would include the
  launching of red, white, and blue balloons. The league's office was 
  flooded with phone calls...protesting the balloon launch. Callers feared
  that birds might try to eat the balloons and choke on them. Not one
  caller volunteered to help with the event. Asks Roberts, "Where were
  these 'concerned' people last winter when we ran out of food at the
  shelters and were in desperate need for help?" They were probably trying
  to train their cats not to kill birds.



Reprinted without permission from:
  Reason
  3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
  Los Angeles, CA  90034


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45721 ca.politics:7852 ba.politics:5374