HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: School choice: comments and questions
Organization: nope
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:09:05 GMT

In article <REB.92Aug26123406@cssn02.ssc.gov> reb@cssn02.ssc.gov (Bob Blair) writes:
>Most people who oppose the voucher system see it in a very different light.
>The main beneficiaries of a voucher system will be those who currently enroll
>their children (with no government compensation) in private or parochial
>schools. Vouchers is a way to give a tax break to those who are wealthy and
>those who are religious (two core conservative constituencies).  It is not
>viewed as an educational program, if anything it will decrease the amount
>of available public money for educational (and other) programs.

Actually, vouchers don't affect the amount of public money spent on
educational or other programs.  They merely affect whether or not it
is spent in public institutions.

Food stamps can be spent at ANY qualifying store, public or private.
(The qualifications are basically "don't trade food stamps for cash or
other verbotten substances.")  Why is it wrong to spend public funds
for education at certain levels at private institutions?  We spend
public funds for education at other levels at private institutions.
We generally DO not discriminate between public and private suppliers;
why should K-12 be any different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Taxes
Date: 1 Sep 1992 15:03:14 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Aug31.195309.15516@news.ysu.edu> af610@yfn.ysu.edu (Ben 
Hanson) writes:
>  Is there a taxpayer in the country who sees George owning a
> vacant lot in Texas, using this as a dodge to avoid paying
> state taxes, and considers him ethically superior to Ronald
> Reagan's mythical welfare queen?

Ben, I'm getting tired of this.   Bush has claimed Texas as his home for 
the last 30+ years, long before he went into politics.  He has worked 
here, he has been a congressman here, he has owned at various times 
several houses in different locations around the state.  The house in 
Maine has been a vacation home, handed down to George by other family 
members.  George pays all property taxes to Maine, and has never been 
anything close to a permanent resident there, let alone worked there.   
Apparently, because George has spent the last 16 or so years in 
Washington, he saw little need to maintain multiple houses.  Now what does 
he get rid of... the family heirloom in Maine, or the modest little house 
with no special significance in Houston.  Not a hard choice.   Like 
millions of  other apartment renters,  George has found it more economical 
to rent rather than own.   Most of his political and business ties remain 
in Texas.   We Texans thank him for letting us host the RNC and the 
Economic Summit.   And even in a state with a Democratic governor, I see 
no movement to strip him of his resident status.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Promiscuity
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:37:40 GMT

In article <mjenkins.715352882@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>
>PROMISCUOUS, adj. 1. indiscriminate.

Okay, so I long as one doesn't have sex indiscriminantly, one isn't
promiscuous?  So people who choose their lovers based on a set of criteria
that don't apply to every potential target are not promiscuous.  I.e., if you
exclude dead people, live or dead animals, members of your own sex, parties of
less than 100 people, etc., you're not promiscuous by this definition.  Fine. 
I can live with this defniition.  Now, explain why condom distribution would
promote promiscuity by this definition.

>2. having sexual relations with many people.

Alright, assuming meaning (1) doesn't apply to sex, then...  What is "many"? 
What time frame is this applied over?  E.g., if I marry and divorce 100 times
in my life, does that make me promiscuous?  Or do you mean "having many sex
partners"?  How about sex with animals?  Sure, that's probably considered
"perverse", but wouldn't sex with herd of sheep also be "promiscuous"?

>Nah, that was easy.

BZZZT!!  Thanks for playing.

Next!

Hint:
pro-mis-cu-ous \pre-'mis-kye-wes\ adj
[L promiscuus, fr. pro- forth + misce^-re to mix -- more at PRO-, MIX]
(1603)
1: composed of all sorts of persons or things
2: not restricted to one class, sort, or person: INDISCRIMINATE
     <education...cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of
     diplomas --Norman Cousins>; esp: not restricted to one sexual
     partner
3   :  CASUAL,   IRREGULAR   <promiscuous eating habits>

Perhaps "not restricted to one sexual partner" is what you're looking for. 
Explain why the government should be in the business of attempting to control
promiscuity, and how (or better yet what proof you have that) condom
distribution programs will relate to promiscuity.

Just Say No to "Just Say No to ..."

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: BACK TO LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NONAGENDA
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200218.322@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

[ article deleted  ]

>
>-- 
>
>	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
>	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
>  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke

A remarkably sane, dogma-free post. Stick around and help improve the
t.p.m signal-to-noise ratio!

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:45:35 GMT



>>Is there a Republican etc

>Is there a Democrat etc



So the short answer is "No, I'm not prepared to defend this

unqualified political hack."

-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3150 talk.politics.misc:42280 alt.politics.clinton:3214 alt.politics.elections:11722
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 16:03:18 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael Doel) writes:
|> james.a.parker) writes:
|> 
|> Perhaps you don't understand what I mean when I talk about our traditional
|> values system.  I'm not including anything about Jesus Christ being the
|> son of God, or don't eat meat on the Fridays of Lent, or any other
|> RELIGIOUS belief or practice.  Our values system is much more fundamental
|> than that.  Despite what you say, I think there are traditional values that
|> just about everyone would agree with:
|> 
|> 	good things:                   bad things:
|> 	   honesty                       cheating
|> 	   responsibility                stealing
|> 	   hard work                     unprovoked violence
|>            the "golden rule"             promiscuity
|> 
|> and so on.  Some people will try to put controversial things in one category
|> or another (e.g. Pat Robertson and the like would surely put homosexuality
|> in the bad things category), but for the most part people agree on most
|> categorizations.
|> 
|> I believe that we as a society usually suffer when things move out of one
|> category and into the nebulous middle.  There are exceptions of course,
|> but I don't think that condoning promiscuity is one of them.  You are
|> free to disagree.
|> 
I'll disagree.  Why is promiscuity necessarily bad?  It does not violate
or interfere with others, it is not inconsistent with your list of "good
things," and it is impossible to define.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:18:27 GMT

<1992Aug27.130233.7176@news.uiowa.edu> (Kent Williams) writes:
>> And my unscientific opinion is that there is one major cause for
>> unwanted pregnancy: ineffective birth control.

<1992Aug27.185934.15283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> (Andy Freeman) writes:
> That unscientific opinion seems to have little basis in this reality.

> Few of the "teen" pregnancies are due to ignorance or inaccessible
> birth control, let alone failures.  

True, but teen pregnancies do not account for the majority of abortions.
The typical woman seeking an abortion is in her early 20s.

__________________________________________________________________

This is a chart from 1983, the most recent year in my source.  It's
numbers are in the same ballpark as those for other years from 1973
to 1983 (i.e. this year is not an anomaly):

1983 Abortions by Age, Race, Marital Status
-------------------------------------------
		Number		%		Rate*		Ratio+
Total		1,575,000	100.0		28.5		30.4

Age (years)
<15		   16,350	  1.0		 9.1#		46.0
15-19		  411,330	 26.1		43.5		42.2
 [15-17]	 [166,440]	[10.6]		[30.8]		
 [18-19]	 [244,890]	[15.5]		[60.4]
20-24		  548,130	 34.8		51.1		31.4	
25-29		  328,280	 20.8		31.1		22.5
30-34		  171,560	 10.9		17.8		23.0
35-39		   78,090	  5.0		 9.6		34.2
>40		   21,260	  1.4		 3.1@		51.4

Race
White		1,084,360	 68.8		23.3
Nonwhite	  490,640	 31.2		55.8

Marital Status
Married		  294,670	 18.7		10.3
Nonmarried	1,280,330	 81.3		48.1

* Abortion rate is number of abortions in this category per 1000 women
  in this category.
+ Abortion ratio is number of abortions in this category per 100 known
  pregnancies in this category (those not ending in miscarriage or 
  still birth).
# Population of 14 year old girls used in calculation.
@ Population of women aged 40-44 used in calculation.
============================================================

Sources:  
_USA by Numbers: A Statistical Portrait of the United States_. Zero
Population Growth.  Washington.  1988.

The information I cite comes originally from:
Henshaw, SK.  "Characteristics of US Women Having Abortions, 1982-1983."
_Family Planning Perspectives_, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Vol. 19, 
No. 1, Tables 1 & 2, Jan./Feb. 1987.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:26:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.204545.28084@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>Apparently the Bush property is also subject to a 'covenant' that makes
>it illegal for Bush to sell of give the property to a member of a racial
>minority. Source: NYT, week of 8/24, Schanberg column.
>
>Cute, huh?

	Yes, but credit where credit is due, it's pretty irrelevent unless
Bush added to covonent personally. Many properties carry such covenents,
and while they are illegal to enforce, they cannot be removed except through
court action, so they just get ignored.

	My father, who devoted his life to school desegregation, bought a
property with a similar ban, but never had it removed because it wasn't 
worth the trouble (and it made good conversation).


-- 
                               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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:17:35 GMT

In article <i1HZPB9w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> He's obligated to keep submitting year 1 of the plan, reworked to take
>> into account changes since the previous time it was proposed.  Are
>> you claiming that he didn't?  He says that he has, but that each
>> year it has been declared dead on arrival and the demos have gone
>> on with a continuation of their plan.
>
>The problem is that there is no extension of the plan past the first year.
>The OMB has no long-term goals for the budget outside of Gramm-Rudman.

Until year 1 is started, why should they plan as if it was in place?
The plan hasn't been started, so it is rather silly to act as if it has.

>> What would you have him do?  Veto the budget and let the fed govt
>> coast (like CA is doing) until he gets something acceptable?  As
>> long as Congress won't accept his plan, that's his only option.
>
>Why not?  He's wielded the veto stamp often enough on abortion.  If he feels
>strongly about balancing the budget, why not threaten to veto a bill that will
>not conform to an overall deficit-lowering strategy?

Okay, so now we have an advocate of "going to war with Congress".
I didn't expect that from a Clinton supporter; Clinton is pushing
cooperating with Congress.

>> No one ever claimed that he wasn't.  We're arguing about how we want
>> to get out.  We've been trying the Clinton plan (more taxes and
>> "investment") since the 1990 "deal"; is it working?
>
>The Reagan/Bush years have been nothing but borrow and spend.  How is this
>different from tax and spend?  What we need is substantive cuts in programs.
>Bush is unable to make those cuts.

Bush is at least interested in a freeze on borrow and spend, with a
move toward a decrease.  While we can argue about how possible that
decrease is, Clinton is asking for an INCREASE in borrow and spend;
the tax increases won't pay for the increased spending.

We've effectively followed the Clinton policy since 1990.  Is more of
the same going to to do any better?

>If we move away from borrow-and-spend, we stop writing checks agains the
>future.  Faced with the prospect of more taxes or less spending (borrowing
>removed from the equation), the voters will be forced to allow politicians to
>make tough choices.

That's all well and good, but Clinton is even further from that than
Bush is.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner)
Subject: Re: The media
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:22:21 GMT

In article <Btwyp5.IJC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner) writes:
>In article <1992Sep01.180807.46966@watson.ibm.com> born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
	
	Gee...I'm responding to my own post! ;-)
BUT, I need to clarify.

>>My point is, WE respond to what the media reports. Depending
>>on that response, the media will react in return, i.e.,
>>change the format, the message(in what way you ask!), etc...

	EXACTLY!  :--)
>
>	EXACTLY CHRIS!  I am with you 100% on what you said in all of
>your post!  The media controls a lot....I have to concede that.
>To some extent, they do control what issues are highlighted.
>But, the bottom line is, we get what we generated or DON'T react to.
>If you don't want to hear about Quayle forgetting to leave out an
>'e' (even on his own name), then change the damn channel!

	I don't mean you in particular Chris.  In general, I mean that
we as Americans somewhat control what is aired on TV.  Since a lot
(not all) Americans are couch potatos, (no 'e'  ;-)  ), we tend to
not change channels.  We all need to switch channels when we don't
like what is said.  Eventually, not over-night, we will see a difference.
It doesn't help matters that people blindly applaud a speaker for what
he or she says just because they are a guest or an honored person
such as when Quayle launched this whole damn "family values" thing.
That was planned.  It was a planned statement for a specific group.
And it worked.  But I sure as hell hope it backfires.

Ted
-- 
         Swallowing your pride rarely leads to indigestion.
         A hard thing about business is minding your own!
-trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu   &    trwagner@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:40:17 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.163115.13625@kadsma.kodak.com>
>pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
> 
>>     [...]
>>
>>Actually, Clinton's primary economic idea is a long-term plan to improve
>>the skill level of the American workforce, primarily through education.
>>Clinton recognizes that only a highly skilled workforce - along with a
>>first-class infrastructure - can provide a country with the sort of
>>competitive advantage that is needed in the global economy.
>>
>This would make sense if the main economic problem in the US was an
>undereducated work force. It is most assuredly not. During the Reagan
>years people did not suddenly become educated, and during the Carter
>years people did not suddenly have their education taken from them!
>More education will not help when the problems have to do with capital and
>policy.

the problem is proper education.  that means lifetime education and 
retraining.  that is part of the clinton plan:  help people keep up
with the dynamic economy on a nationwide basis.
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Computer Simulation of the Election: Bush vs. Clinton
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Aug26.021219.21764@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Aug26.033123.7866@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:37:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.033123.7866@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
-> Recently, I ran a computer simulation using
->    PRESIDENT ELECT: 1988 Version 
-> pitting Bush and Clinton.
-> 
-> These are the settings I used:
->    Inflation: 3.0%
->    Unemployment: 7.7%
->    GNP: 0 (rate of growth)

	None?  The US is the biggest producer in the world.

->    Morale: 3 (in a scale of 1 to 9.  1 is we are the worst while 9 is 
-> 		'We are Number One!'  3 means 'shows signs of demoralization')

	3 according the CNN maybe.  I would put reality around 7.

-> 
-> Note that the above settings were my appoximations.  If anyone has any
-> comments or exact figures, please do tell!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3444 alt.politics.elections:11936 alt.politics.clinton:3467
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:42:47 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

> Edward J. Branley writes
> > So, tell me, do you include that chapter of the Hitler
> > Youth (oh, excuse me, Young Republicans) that charged
> > the doors of the building where Ron Brown was holding his
> > press conference during convention week in Houston
> > 'intelligent students' also?  Give me a break.
>
> Again, exactly how does that differ from young ACT-UP "nazis" shouting down
> George Bush ? Except - of course - that the Young Republicans probably were
> better dressed and cleaner ?
>
> Be serious. Rudeness is a vice in anyone. Fortunately, rudeness alone does no
> a nazi make. And quite frankly, I'd rather deal with a rude republican, than
> with a machete-wielding berkeley radical heroine.
>
>       Carl Edman

Heckling and rudeness during speeches has been around for ages, on both sides.
Over fifty people charging a building is not rude, it's threatening and
violent.  It's something you'd expect from the SA in late '30s Germany.  When
Clinton spoke here in New Orleans, he was heckled by a pro-lifer.  That happens
to lots of speakers, and is not unique to politicians.

Charging a building and threatening to break up a press conference is a
different matter.  That's using force to silence people who are opposed to your
point of view.  That sort of behavior is way past rude.  It's damaging to our
society if it is viewed as acceptable, or is shrugged off as 'rudeness.'

BTW, the Nazis were pretty well-dressed folks.  Lots of clean, neatly-pressed
brown shirts, black hats, red armbands.  The SS were really sharp in those
black uniforms.  Yup, they looked real good when they were looting Jewish
businesses and beating up people in the streets.  They looked as good as those
Young Republicans who were trying to break down the doors of that storefront
where Brown was speaking.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections