HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:45:29 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <1992Aug15.223532.19090@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
|> (Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
|> >
|> >In article <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com
|> >(Dennis Worden) writes:
|> >>tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
|> >>>      In the US, currently only the rich and the lucky people with
|> >>>good employers get health care.  The fact that the infant mortality rates
|> >>>are among the highest in the western world, and that some 30% of the
|> >>>country isn't covered for all medical costs is quite pathetic.
|> >
|> >This number is way off base. See below.
|> 
|> No, it's not.  Read what was written, "30% of the country isn't covered for
|> all medical costs."  The past ten years have seen large increases in required
|> co-payments, deductibles, reductions in benefit coverage.  Studies show that
|> a large number of Americans (even more than 30%) would have their savings
|> completely wiped out by a single serious episode of medical need.
|> 

Which is an argument for people having some form of catestrophic health
insurance rather than insurance which covers 'all medical costs'.  People
wonder why insurance is so high.  Imagine how much auto insurance would
cost if it covered fill ups, tune ups, oil changes, etc.  Insurance should
be just that, insurance.  Minor medical procedures, check-ups, etc.,
should be covered by the individual.  Doctors fees can be increased
simply because the customer (patient) isn't paying the bills.  When
you intervene in a market transaction so that the customer doesn't
realize what the good or service he is buying costs, its not surprising
that the market 'fails'.

|> 
|> I was without insurance one time for 3 months during a job change.  It
|> completely changes your life-style.  Stopped playing racquetball becuase I
|> couldn't afford it if I got hurt, not to mention the possibility of pre-
|> existing conditions not being covered.  Used two forms of contraception,
|> because there's no way we could afford to pay for a birth.
|> 

Gee, personal responsibility.  What a concept.  Of course, judging by
your comments you would prefer if someone subsidized your life-style.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1864 talk.politics.misc:39481
From: jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deja Vu All Over Again (Was: Clinton becomes vulnerable)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:37:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: International Business Machines AWD at Austin

In article <6!3m0ph.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>There is nothing wrong with fighting over vital interests
>
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com

There is when you're violating the soverignty of another nation to obtain
or in fighting for those interests.  In fact, Kuwait was part of (what was
to become) Iraq, and was seperated out by the British army, and the Emir
installed, so that the British could have a friend in the oil fields.  This
happened in the 1920s.  It is the basis of Iraq's claim over Kuwait as 
their "19th province".

peace,
Joe Bowen
personal replies may be sent to 72520,3156@compuserve.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2288 alt.politics.bush:2212 talk.politics.misc:40728 soc.culture.usa:6685
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:06:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.180110.11083@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
} 	If you read the whole second amendment you would have found
} a preface to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  This 
} preface specificly mentions a "well regulated militia."  I don't remember
} the exact wording but it is something close to "Being a well regulated
} militia is required to protect democracy, the right of the people to keep
} and bears arms shall not be abridged."

Actually, it says: "A well-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
	
} This mention of a "well regulated
} militia" in the same context of the "right to bear arms" has been
} interpreted to mean that people have the right to bears arms in a well
} regulate militia, e.g., a state militia.  

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." -- George Mason.  He was the framer of the
Declaration of Rights, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of
Rights.

} 	The second amendent says nothing directly about bearing arms 
} outside of a "well regulate militia",

It doesn't have to.  The Bill of Rights only mentions a few of the rights
that we have; it does not grant them.

} The Supreme Court, which is given the absolute authroity on the Constitution 
} by the Constitution itself, has already said that the right to bear arms
} only applies to state militias.

Do you have any references for this?  As late as February 1990, the
Supreme Court stated in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez: "The Second Amendment
protects the right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine -- DLO) to keep and
bear Arms".

} 	Question, has the Supreme Court ever debated if the right to bear
} arms outside of a militia falls under the Ninth Amendment?

The Supreme Court concluded in U.S. v. Cruikshank that this right does not
even depend on the Constitution for its existence.  That is, even if the
entire Constitution was scrapped, we would still have that right.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2431 tx.politics:4299
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:34:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.182455.29917@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.092811.1486@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>>One other thing that you fail to mention is that the double-digit inflation
>>during the Carter term was spurred by a *worldwide* energy crisis caused  by
>>the OPEC oil embargo.
>
>And, Carter had nothing to do with that embargo, right?
>

I would have to say that he probably had very little to do with the embargo,
as it started in 1972, under Tricky Dickie's term. Also, if you'll check your
history books, it was Carter who got several warring factions within the 
mideast to talk to each other and got some pretty significant peace accords.
You DO remember the summit that he basically locked up Anwar Sadat and Menachem
Begin (sp?) up in Camp David for a couple of weeks until they hammered out  a
workable peace treaty.  The only real mistake he made was to not take Khomeni
seriously enough until it was too late.


>Maybe they'd have done it anyway, but the fact remains that only
>Carter managed to have an oil embargo during his term.  Reagan,
>the supposed boob, didn't, and he had twice as many years.  The
>Saudis won't pull that on Bush; Desert Storm guaranteed that.
>

Do you honestly think that we would go to war with Saudi Arabia over the price
of oil?  True, they are a major supplier, but we learned a bit about diversity
(under whose term you ask?  That's right, it was indeed Carter) of locations of
our oil supplies as well as alternative fuels (which Reagan/Bush gutted as soon
as the crisis was over. Great long-term planning, guys...)
The American people fell for the Desert Storm bit once, but I don't think
they will do it twice.  Before you ask, I was indeed for D.S. as well, but it 
was because of the apparent threat to other nations in the region - one that we
later found out wasn't that great to begin with.....



>-andy
>
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu


Tom H.


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2420 talk.politics.guns:19757
From: il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:30:33 GMT
Reply-To: iho@cac.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Tacoma

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>>I personally believe that if we disarm America, some day a few generations
>>down the road (or sooner if Socialists like Feinstein get elected Senator from
>>Califruitty) someone will declare themselves "President For Life". If we 
>>ever find ourselves in that situation and are unarmed, we are in deep trouble.
>>That is the long and short of it.

>OK, Dick, riddle me this:
> 
>If your assertion is correct, how was the military backed coup of Gorbachev
>overthrown by an unarmed population?  Keep in mind that the conventional
>forces of the USSR were the largest of any nation in the world. 

> 	The simple answer is, "it wasn't". The coup against Gorbachov
> 	failed because too much of the Army chose to oppose it.
> 
> 	For example, the tanks outside of the White Palace....

Are we to assume by this thread, that a population armed with "legal"
guns will be able to overthrow a despotic government backed by an army
quipped with tanks, bombers, and the rest of the military goodies we're
always buying for them?

-- 
Il Hwan Oh                              | What is "Martinizing",
Computer Facilities Manager             |  and why does it
University of Washington, Tacoma        |   take one hour?
iho@cac.washington.edu                  | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:44:22 GMT

Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>...And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
>firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
>be squished yourselves?

 Nope. We would point them at the tank crews, fire them and watch the
tank crews drop. Then the tank won't be a problem anymore.

 Ooops, sorry. Didn't mean to inject reason, logic and tactics into
the debate. Carry on with your senseless ranting...
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:03:49 GMT

In article <_66m+3#.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> The Liberals are out to remove the weapons best suited for exercising
|> the "ultimate recall power" from the people
|> 
|> They are trying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to the Consititution
|> thereby getting the inconvenient constitutional question out of the
|> picture -forever
|> 

It's hardly an inconvenient constitutional question!  Go read your
Constitution.  Look at the second amendment (ALL of it). Then ask
yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an individual's
right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the second amendment
gives the States the right to maintain their own militia.  Period.  Why
maintain such an anachronism as part of the Constitution?  It makes
about as much sense as Wyoming maintaining their law that you can't
take a photograph of a rabbit on a Sunday.

That the NRA and others can so misconstrue the meaning of the second
amendment is a sorry comment on the teaching of language in American
schools.

-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology,alt.politics.perot
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Kibo's Final Decision on VP, Cabinet, etc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.kibo
Reply-To: kibo@world.std.com
Organization: Between a rock and a type specimen sheet, Boston.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:50:08 GMT

[]
	Re my 1992 Presidential campaign:

	My various choices for Vice President (Sy Sperling's hair, Mike
Jittlov, Gary Stollman, and Richard Stallman) have all proved to be
unavailable or ineligible (Sperling's hair is not a natural-born
citizen.)  However, earlier, today, I realized that this was just God's
way of telling me I was a bozo.  It would be best NOT TO HAVE ANY VICE
PRESIDENT AT ALL!

	Having no VP in the administration would eliminate any
Quayle-factor-like negative effects on *me*.  Also, the monologues of
Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, etc., could all be shortened, thus making room
for more commercials to support our sagging economy.

	In addition, I will have NO cabinet, NO Congress, NO Supreme
Court, etc.  It's all going away the moment I get into office, sneak
into the National Archives and edit the Constitution with my White-Out.
The end result will be that I will be in charge of a complete anarchy,
and I will rule benevolently yet firmly.  In fact, this amalgam of
statist and libertarian policies will result in vastly lower taxes, as
the government will be many orders of magnitude smaller.  Every American
citizen will pay a flat $1 tax each fiscal year.  The $250,000,000 in
revenues will go into a one-line budget: to me.  What will I do with all
this money?  Why, bribe other world leaders to make their countries
almost as nice as ours (but not better), of course.  I'll also be the
first President to be able to afford repainting the White House to a
more "hip" color than that Sherwin-Williams Oyster White Primer Semigloss.

	Having no members of the government but me would, obviously,
eliminate ALL interdepartmental and partisan bickering ("YOU caused the
collapse of the economy!"  "No, YOU did--and YOUR MAMA!")  Also, I'd hire
Ross Perot to make my morning coffee and to be chief of security.

	Not to mention that I'll have Suzanne Somers deported.
								-- K.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Metricification
Followups-To: alt.politics.kibo
Reply-To: kibo@world.std.com
Organization: Between a rock and a type specimen sheet, Boston.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:49:13 GMT

[]
	Americans would be much more likely to convert to Metric if
American men realized that a 15cm penis sounds more impressive than a
6" one.

	However, Metric still has its flaws, the most prominent being
that intelligent people like scientists use it, and this is a serious
drawback in America, where it is not K00L to be overly well-educated.
Therefore, instead of Metric, I propose a similar, yet, different, system:

		THE BATTLESTAR GALACTICA UNIT SYSTEM (B.o.G.U.S.)

	All schoolchildren will be painlessly educated through viewing
of reruns of a late-seventies "science" fiction television program, and
will be introduced to terms such as:

	centon    yahren    frack    felgerkarb    megon    kilon
        turboflush     "positive shield!"    pulsar     cylon basestar

	If any terms from this long-forgotten TV series which contains
the total wisdom of our ancestors prove to be inadequate, we can
substitute more euphonius terms from the epic drama, "Mork & Mindy":

	nanoo-nanoo     nimnul    scrimm, scrimm    shazbot    gleek

	Last, but not least, Sy Sperling's dalmation, "Mugsy", will be
renamed "Sy's Non-Bald Dog", and will be equivalent to a ten-spot.  Spot will 
be equivalent to a spot, and thoroughly devalued, because he's just a dog.
								-- K.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.kibo:51 alt.flame:12110
From: rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Gary Stollman For President...
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: 15 Aug 1992 23:51:55 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug15.162256.9659@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
>kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>> Gary, if you'd like to help take back control from the government, I'm
>> running for president (see alt.politics.kibo.)  Would you like to be my
>> running mate?  (I asked Mike Jittlov, but he seems to be busy.  You're
>> every bit as energetic, and I see energy as the prime quality necessary
>> to properly confuse the media.)

>Hey!  I thought that Sy Sperling was going to be your running mate!?

You clueless lame retarded FUCK.  You have no clue whatsoever and have no
right to be posting on this group.  Take your lame Nazi ass out of Kibo's
politics and don't come back.  

5150
next: rfd for alt.get.kevin.mcbride.out.of.the.american.gene.pool
Xref: sparky alt.politics.kibo:53 alt.religion.kibology:3555 alt.politics.perot:1311
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Kibo's Final Decision on VP, Cabinet, etc.
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:04:48 GMT
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH

kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:

> []
> 	Re my 1992 Presidential campaign:

> 	Not to mention that I'll have Suzanne Somers deported.

Oh eww, geez... YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T GOING TO MENTION THAT!

-- 
Kevin "Thighmaster Thighmaster Thighmaster"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,talk.bizarre
From: klein@frith.egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Klein)
Subject: The Candidate for YOU
Organization: Michigan State University College of Stunt Piloting
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 00:49:14 GMT

That Troll guy is STILL the only candidate with a jewel
in his tummy you can wish on!
-- 
Jeff Klein             | "Happily, Ral doffs his outer clothing for a
Browsing Boy of the LNH|  refreshing dip in one of the dangerous 
klein@kira.egr.msu.edu |  chemical vats." - Ty Templeton 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:17:14 GMT

In <1992Aug13.204955.26397@news.acns.nwu.edu>
 brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski) writes:

>> SH:  So I see that we're working for the system, eh? And not vice
>> versa.  

>BZZZT!! Wrong. Next contestant, please. I barely even want there 
>to *be* a "system" and I'll be damned if I'll work for it. 

	<guffaw!>  Sorry, but there's something slightly strange about
seeing this from a person posting from an "edu" site.  The "system" is
what paid for that equipment you're using, and probably partially payed
for the education you are receiving/had received there.  I find it
somewhat ironic, anyway.

	Back to our regularly scheduled newsgroup.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 08:04:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.012930.23612@news.acns.nwu.edu> brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski) writes:
>As has been stated before, the generic pronoun (e.g. 'he') *does*
>include the female gender. Therefore saying "he" instead of "he or
>she" eliminates a superflous elaboration and is, by the quoted
>defintion, more concise.

And yet, most Americans speaking English don't think it does.  So,
what are we to do?

>The fact is that if we started saying "she" to mean "she or he" no 
>one would know that we meant to include the male gender.

But many people don't think generic masculine includes women.  If I
write of a physician doing his work, and everyone thinks of a male
physician, does this show how inclusive generic masculine pronouns
are?  

>Linguistic traditions evolve largely due to conveinience. If we 
>could implement a totally new word that meant "he or she" 
>unambiguously (the definition of "he" relies upon context) and do 
>so without causing an undo amount of confusion, then I would agree 
>to it in a second. Unfortunately, I do not see a mechanism which 
>allows for this kind of instantaneous consensus on language.

No, but what you are seeing is many people not believing that the
singular generic masculine is generic so they use plurals when they're
not grammatically correct.  

>I agree, but language *necessarily* involves some reference to 
>context to be meaningfully interpreted.  Whether the speaker or the 
>listener provides the interpretation is a matter of convienience.  
>If I think my listener is too dim to get my meaning or I have 
>somehow confused the context, I will say 'he or she', otherwise I 
>assume that an unspecified 'he' denotes both genders.  Why do
>anything else?  IMO, People who automatically assume the worst 
>intention of any speech (especially in the face of established
>conventions) serve principally to frustrate themselves, 
>inconveinience others, and detract from communication in general.

This is a false assumption on your part, imo.  What people are saying
is that many (most) people only see boys and men when generic
masculines are used.  I only begin to suspect sexism when I see the
defense of generic masculines being so strenuous.  (Unless I've managed
to run across a bunch of anal retentives who get upset when they see
the word "ain't" used.)

Why not try it for a week?  Write everything assuming generic
feminines and let me know if you feel included when you read about
a physician doing her work, a student handing in her paper, a poster
and her post.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct