HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 10:02:27 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <b8rC02d624xt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, jej20@ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin) writes:
|> 
|> >
|> >The main point of all this is to show that the 'deficit' and 'debt'
|> >are not the bogeymen that most politicians make them out to be.
|> >As long as the deficit is not monetized, the impact on the economy
|> >is minimal, at least at current levels.  Does this mean we shouldn't
|> >do something about it?  No, it just means that it would be foolish
|> >to ruin the economy in order to solve a 'problem' that really isn't
|> >as bad as people would like to think.  
|> 
|> If the impact on the ecomony is only minimal, then why do we 
|> need to do anything about it?  :-)
|> 

We don't.  The problem isn't with the deficit, its with the level of
spending.  If we could raise enougy money through taxes to pay for
the deficit (assuming that spending doesn't increase), the effect
on the economy would significant.  We need to let people keep more
of their own earnings.  We need to stop meddlesome regulation.
If people got to keep more of their own money we wouldn't need to
create entitlement programs to help them out because they no longer
have the money needed to support themselves.

|> Deficit spending is certainly not a bogeyman.  However, we should
|> look at the trend.  Entitlment programs are on autopilot with expenditures 
|> doubling every 6 years.  At this rate, expenditures for Entitlements 
|> alone will exceed all U.S. Government revenues by the year 2000.
|> What then?
|> 

All I am saying is that concentrating on the deficit and debt is
focusing on the wrong problem.  If we concentrated on reducing
spending, we would have to look at entitlement programs which
are on autopilot, we would have to look at business subsidies,
etc.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: perot's media schedule....
Organization: None
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:24:04 GMT


Ross Perot has purchased TV time and the schedule is:
 Tuesday 10/6 CBS  8:00pm (30minutes)
 Friday  10/9 ABC  9:30pm (30minutes)
 Friday  10/9 NBC 10:30pm (30minutes) - this is tentative right now


His book "UNITED WE STAND" continued another week of being #1
on the NY Times Bestseller list for paperbacks.

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: From CDC Summary 8/4/92 and 9/21/92
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<8424.1778@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>
	<1992Oct4.015020.18897@jack.sns.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.015020.18897@jack.sns.com> jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
>In article <8424.1778@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>>Even frank discussion of AIDS has not been
>>effective for teens because they still feel they are not at risk. While
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>        This is exactly why the GREAT CONDOM give away and the "SAFE SEX"
>        myth has had no effect on this problem. Until we start telling
>        these kids and adults admit that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
>        SAFE SEX" AID's is going to continue to run unchecked through
>        society.
>
>        I know it's tough on you liberals out there, but there is no cure.
>        And the only answer is to return to teaching tradition morals. I
>        know some of you just went ballistic!!!!!!!!! tough. As far as I am
>        concerned anyone teaching kids that there is such a thing as "SAFE
>        SEX" is no better that a killer, because that what you are doing
>        to these kids, Your killing them by telling them there is safe sex.

So you are suggesting that the same kids that don't use safer sex because they
feel they are not at risk will stop having sex? Right, right.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "No, what he didn't like about heroes was that they were usually
    suicidally gloomy when sober and homicidally insane when drunk."
                          -- Terry Pratchett, _The Colour of Magic_
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yes on 9 (was Re: William F. Buckley opposes anti-gay ballot measure)
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:26:14 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Followup-To: misc.test,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Sep.30.20.07.12.1992.5604@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>I just want to take this opportunity to announce that if I were an
>Oregon voter, I would vote "YES" on Prop. 9

That's nice, Ted.  Tell us something that we don't know.  A new and
intersting story, please.


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48355 talk.abortion:39048
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:39:12 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Adrienne Regard) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.164104.18842@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
|> >Why don't abortion opponents join together to help get a ban
|> >on something around which a consensus could be contrived: say,
|> >a ban on abortions after the first trimester? 
|> 
|> Just taking a wild guess, I'd suggest it's because you can't
|> formulate a nice clear cut emotional argument for such a thing that
|> doesn't invite intense scrutiny and argument.  It's much easier to
|> point at conception as an 'event' from which to protect feti, than it
|> is to point to some arbitrary time along a continuum and make an argue-
|> ment for it.
|> 
And then there is the basic problem of determining when pregnancy began.
Unless intercourse only occured once in the appropriate month, there
is no flag that goes up and says "YOU ARE NOW PREGNANT."

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49258 ca.politics:8386 ba.politics:5815
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:21:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <12594@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (BIFF!!!!1) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.195932.6777@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>
>>You make me ashamed to be straight.
>
>#HEYYYY!!!1 RIGTHEOUS DUUUUUDE DICCCCCKY:
>
>IF YOUR ASSHAMED 2 B STRAIT WHY NOT BECOMED A H0M0SECTU"ALL?!!!>?
>
>IT"S YOU"RE CHOICE--SEE DANO FER MORE INFOOOOOO!!
>
>I HERE THERE RECUTEING TOOO!!!!
>
>
[deleted bandwidth waste- my opinion only]

Hmmm! again this type of attack process accomplishes nothing, 
except the possible satisfication of the poster.

You have accept arguments from another poster (let me be sly and
not say "the same origin') as being correct in there (their) conclusions.

I would only say, examine the content of the post, study the post
in the sense of, is it correct- do conclusions follow without doubt
from the premises.

And BTW I hope your spellings were in a joking manner... otherwise???
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:03:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
you have to have people go and fight.

But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
-- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.

(aired on C-Span today). 

Clinton better tell the whole story now. And he better go
beyond a reasonable doubt.


-- Stephen D. Tice,  Veteran    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:06:05 GMT

In <1992Sep24.140350.17545@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>> A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>> consent to sex.

>If a couple is using contraception, that indicates that they are explicitly NOT
>consenting to pregnancy.

	If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
protection does not mean they don't face the risk.

>> No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
>> child for convenience's sake is deplorable.

>You know, I am curious about that word 'convenience.'  Do you regard pregnancy to
>be a mere 'inconvenience?'
	
	To some women, pregnancy is a wonderful thing - the creation of
life - something sacred. To others it is an inconvenience. 

>Seriously, I am wondering how women who have had abortions would respond
>to your charge that they were cowardly and irresponsible.

	Dunno - haven't gotten any yet.
			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot treating us like idiots
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:01:25 GMT

From article <Sep.29.09.22.14.1992.16320@romulus.rutgers.edu>, by kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis):
> 
> Nonsense.  On Larry King Live he gave out an 800 number to call if you
> want him to get back in the race.  When I called to express my opinion
> that he should _NOT_, instead of a live operator (or even a mechanized
> choice), all I got was a taped message saying my call had been
> recorded.  

The said from the start that it was the number to call if you wanted him
to re-enter the race.   

> It looks to me like we're dealing with a stacked deck here.

When you ask your supporters a question you're always dealing with a
stacked deck.  The intent was not to find out whether supporters of Bush 
or Clinton want him in the race, the answer to that is obvious.  There
is no way that supporters could use a "yes" or "no" phone in system to
indicate their desire without having the "no" ballot box stuffed by
supporters of the other candidates.  

The only real use for a single number dial-in like that is as a very
rough indicator of interest.  100000 calls means more interests than
100, etc.  Of course that's assuming that there weren't too many people
who couldn't understand what the line was about to begin with.

> (And the scary part is that, presumably, this is how he had intended
> to run his computerized "National Town Hall".)

"Presumably" based on what?  Your desire to construe everything and
anything about Perot in the most negative possible way?  



"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Presidential Candidates Asked to Pledge Commitment to Government Ethics
Organization: NDA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 08:28:07 GMT

Here is a press release from the Council for Excellence in Government.

 Presidential Candidates Asked to Pledge Commitment to Government
Ethics
 To: National Desk, Political Writer
 Contact: Mary Beaulieu of the Council for Excellence in Government,
          202-728-0418

   WASHINGTON, Oct. 2  -- Calling for an all-out effort 
to refocus the meaning of "ethics in government," the Council
for Excellence in Government has called on President Bush, Gov.
Clinton and H. Ross Perot to endorse a statement released today of
ethical principles for public servants.
  The council statement was drafted by a committee under the
leadership of Elliot Richardson and signed by more than 400 of the
council's principals.  It calls for returning to "basic ethical
principles that should guide and inspire public service," instead of
relying primarily on the "plethora of restrictions" adopted
to prevent appearances of conflicts of interest.
   The council hopes to expand the government's focus from rules and
regulations whose primary purpose, in the statement's words
is "not to promote high ethical standards, but to dispel the
suspicion of unethical behavior."  The statement is the result of
a year-long effort by principals of the council to find an effective
way to expand the meaning of ethics in government beyond specific
laws, rules and regulations.
   In letters to the major presidential candiates, council Chair
Frank Weil asked each to publicly endorse the statement and pledge to
hold all appointees in his administration to the two basic standards
presented in the statement: "to serve the public interest and to
perform with integrity."
   The Council for Excellence in Government is a bipartisan
organization of 750 private sector leaders who formerly served in key
government posts, and who use their experience and know-how to
support effective performance of government.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: "...And You Can't Pretend to Have a Choice, Shake Your Head..."
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:05:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct3.054344.22103@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes...
> 
> 
>A liar, a dodger, and a quiter.
> 
>What kind of choice is that?

If you get knocked down, and stay down, then you're a quitter.

If you duck a punch, then you're a dodger.

If you get a fat lip, and blame the other guy, you're a liar.

And when you let someone else think for you -- there ain't no choices.

-- Stephen    

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:03:23 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <lcnsptINNrcv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed
Falk) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-290992185354@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> |In article <Bv9K8H.J03@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu
> |(Bruce Varney) wrote:
> |> 
> |> Have you ever seen a film of a child being killed in his/her mother's womb?? 
> |
> |No, and neither have you.
> |
> |Look up the word "credulous" and see what it means.
> 
> Try looking it up yourself; it's not *in* the dictionary.

It is, in fact, not in "Dr. Seuss' A B C".

I suggest you get yourself a better dictionary.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:14:34 GMT

In article <BvAGBD.FJo@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> [deleted]
>
>  31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!

SHUT UP ALREADY about your stupid state tax!!!  

If you want to complain about Federal taxes, fine, as this is
germane to discussions about Perot.  Ranting about your state
tax will gain NOT ONE IOTA of sympathy from me.  

Assuming that state taxes are still deductible from federal 
income tax, you would deserve just the opposite.  YOU have 
the opportunity to DO something about your state taxes.  MY 
only option is to continue to subsidize them!

Dave
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Unemploment (Re: Presidential Debates)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:42:23 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 12327@hemlock.cray.com, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>Do you mean the way that there were 57,000 fewer jobs last month, new claims
>for unemployment has been up every week for the last 5 weeks, yet the
>unemploment rate went *down* to 7.5%?
>
>I'm still trying to figure out how fewer jobs and more unemploment claims
>can result in lower unemployment.  Maybe I'll find out after November 3rd...
>
>The country has 200,000 fewer jobs than 2 months ago while the unemployment
>rate has dropped 0.2%.  
>
Very simple.  The unemployment rate has dropped due to the large number
of people who were decided that they were never going to get jobs that
they killed themselves.

A similar drop in the unemployment rate is expected this winter when thousands
of homeless people freeze to death.

Thank you, Mr. President.

--f2

------------------------
  Pot is a herb.
  Bush is a dope.
  --seen on a bumpersticker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:50:35 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <oem7ddi00WB51DRh8G@andrew.cmu.edu>  ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>
> Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women
> (especially young women) to become infertile and have multiple mis-
> carraiges (sp?) in later life.

You're talking about 20 years ago.  Abortion today is about the safest
form of elective surgery around.  There is no evidence of problems
with later childbearing among women who have an early abortion
performed by the most common method - vacuum aspiration.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:50:22 GMT


Follow-ups to talk.abortion

In article <1992Sep30.011551.18978@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
[misleading statistic deleted - Townsend seems to believe that all
births are normal vaginal deliveries, that all people who performed
illegal abortions did so under sterile conditions with the latest
medical treatment, and that all abortion deaths were reported to the
CDC.  He also included a statement by a leader in the anti-abortion
movement - for some reason, he wanted to make sure everyone knows
that Bernard Nathanson, maker of the "Silent Scream," is an admitted
liar.]

#|# # Furthermore, several
#|# #surveys, including one by Planned Parenthood, confirm that at least 90% of
#|# #women who have abortions do so not by choice, but because they believe they
#|# #are forced to.  That is, they would rather carry the baby to term, but for
#|# 

Townsend has not chosen to respond to the fact that Planned Parenthood
has done no such study.

#I've heard it from several sources, including one woman who verified it with
#her own independent survey of 1,000 women who had had an abortion.  It seems
#intuitive to me:  abortion is a pretty unpleasant experience, and if childbirth
#were made a financially and circumstantially viable option for these women, it
#stands to reason that many women would opt for it instead.  Note that this
#statistic does NOT say that 90% of women regret having their abortions, only
#that they would have preferred childbirth if that had been a more viable
#option.

It's interesting that the rest of the anti-abortion movement has
not heard of this study.  Townsend really should find the woman
and have her publish her results.

Then again, he could be referring to the "study" that Mary Cunningham
Agee claims to have done.  Of course, she only says that she had
100 subjects.  She also claims to have simply called 10 clinics
and asked for the names of 10 former patients (and their phone 
numbers.)  I guess Townsend has no trouble believing that a
well-known anti-abortion activist could persuade ten different
clinics to violate confidentiality laws over the phone.  That's
not surprising - he also believes that 100 (or 1000?  or 100000?)
women all were willing to discuss their abortion experience
with a total stranger on the phone.

[Other blustering and Limbaugh-worship deleted]

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:50:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.232325.22775@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:

>*side note*  In AZ this week a 16 year old high-school student was given a 5 day
>suspension for passing out KKK literature/membership cards.  The KKK 
>asked THE ACLU!!!!! for assistance.  They felt the boys civil rights where
>violated.  Don't you love it when the KKK asks the ACLU to make sure they
>have the civil right to promote the denial of the civil rights of non- whites!

They do, though. The ACLU has taken such cases before, and was right to
do so. You can't play the same kind of tricks the Klan themselves do, and
take away the legal rights of anyone you don't like... no matter how
justified that dislike may be.

>Ron Feigen
>ronf@panther.mot.com

	-Nora
-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou