HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drm@stimpy.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NAFTA WILL NOT DECREASE FOOD PRICES FOR CONSUMERS
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: drm@stimpy.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article AA16129@poly.math.cornell.edu, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
 >
>Forty-five percent of the $5.5 billion in farm trade between the  
>U.S. and Mexico will face special quotas and other provisions for  
>15 years, which will restrict competition and increase prices,  
>according to sources.  

Amazing.  Harel posts data that critisizes NAFTA for not opening markets 
_enough_.  (In context, the passage expresses the thought that agricultural 
prices will be higher than they would be if there were no trade barriers at all,
not that reducing some of them will increase prices.  To get the full benefit
of free trade there should be no barriers at all.)

 >Mark Ritchie, executive director of the Institute for Agriculture  
>and Trade Policy, criticized the elimination of U.S. restrictions on  
>Mexican cattle imports.  Ritchie predicts the U.S. would face 10  
>times more cattle shipments under NAFTA, which would send  
>cattle prices plummeting in the U.S. ..
>
In other words, NAFTA will decrease food prices for consumers.

Harel, who opposes the treaty, apparently is in favor of exploiting 
the working classes by forcing them to spend more money on 
food.  This heartless stance can only be interpreted in the context
of his long-running battle against the heroic working people of
America.  
 
---
Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns. 
drm@esl.com  |
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:32:16 EDT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Aug22.025130.12133@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
>>>> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
>>
>>It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
>>comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his


Andy, Andy, Andy. Is everyone from Stanford a die hard neo-fascist
Fallwell supporter? I have a sousin who went to Stanford and is the
same way.


What, oh What has Reagan/Bush done for you? Are you gonna benefit from
the PRIVATE school funding? I bet you just might :)

'.. he steals his...', un huh. What you see here, and what is classic among
this wierd republican rally is the old 'accusing your enemy of what you
are'. Republicans have done their share of stealing during the Reagan/Bush era.
Gee, would'nt it been nice to hear from Niel Bush (who got off scott-free
after ripping off the US population of over $100M during the
'S&L Thing'. 

$100B scandal? Nahh, never hear of it.

> 
> The term "putting people first" has always been so ubiquitous that it is absurd to say that it is anyone's "property".  It's like saying that the term 
> "After Christmas Sale" is the property of the store which first used it.
>                                    
> Peter Lauren
> 

-Garrett



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DearOldDoug GooseSteps With Goebbels...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:23:22 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <oiprc0c@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
] cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
] 
] > Holtsinger clearly is unfamiliar with the Clarinet news.  Often
] > three or four versions of a story go out on the wire, each with
] > slightly different wordings, before the reporter settles on a
] > final version.  
] 
] Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that the original
] UPI story posted by Mr. Echeverri was false and misleading.  President 
] Bush does not support a ban on all abortions, as the original story 
] had suggested.  Bush supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the 
] life of the mother. 


first off, my apologies to the folks in t.p.m and a.p.b,
we try to keep DearOldDoug at home, but you just can't
keep them chained to the bed post all the time....

Now DearOldDoug, repeating your Hoped For Belief that
Ron said something that you didn't like is not going
to change the facts in the matter.

Just apologize to the Man, and get on with it.

We know that you are still emotionally distraught because
the Big Bad Girls in talk.abortion, like susan garvin
have pointed out where YOU HAVE DOCTORED QUOTES, and that
this has made your little peepee shrival up. But just
because you do it, does NOT mean everyone does it.

Trust us DearOldDoug, Not all of the Conspiracies out
there rest upon your Brilliant insight to protect us
from them with your stunning revelations....

so, Just apologize to the Man, and get on with it.

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:59:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.222440.27721@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>If Bush thinks it's  time for a   change  then WHY  should  we reelect
>*him*? Let's vote for a *real* change and throw the fucker out!

But what kind of change do we want?
Is Clinton's plans for yet another tax increase real change?
His plans to increase spending are just more of the same.
Clinton opposes the school-choice proposals supported by Bush.
If you want greater change and reform in schools, Bush is your man.
While Bush proposes a bold change to create a North American Free trade
zone, Clinton waffles.  Now Bush, realizing the error of the 1990
tax hike (note that Congressional Democrats are unrepentant there),
is proposing new tax cuts along with spending caps.

In other words:
If you want the right kind of change, vote for Bush.
If you want to lose your change ( :-) ), vote for Clinton.

And while we are making changes, why don't we change the Democratic Congress?
They have engaged in blatant partisan bickering, and have misruled for years.
---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:14:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>b > Brett (Stupendous Man)
>
>b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>b > do not automatically translate into more money.
>
>da> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>da> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
>da> something to do with it.
>
>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

You meean , No I am rolling on the floor now you take the PHTTT! chortle
chuckle LAFFER CURVE SERIOUSLY!!!!  
Supply side economics?
Oh dear guess you do
sweet dreams in your trickle down fantasy world!

oh by the way eight years have passed and EVERYONE
else can see the ruin this has brought.

oh well what do you expect from people who think
Fujimori is president of Venesuela!

ALEX
(the social-democratic secular humanist)
.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Memorable speech quotes (what the hell)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:49:15 GMT

In article <4746@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Dan "he seems a lot more confident now" Quayle:
>"If Bill Clinton and Al Gore are moderates,
>then I'm a world-champion speller."


Translation:

     "My fellow Americans,
        I may be an incompetent nincompoop
           but my opponents are ... not moderate."


Which isn't all that far from:

     "My fellow Americans,
        I may be an unlikeable putrid rutabaga
           but my opponent is a  ...  L I B E R A L."


Q. E. D.



Dhanesh

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Call for transcripts Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:30:16 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> :
|> :Bush has fallen on his own sword (so to speak) he and the republican
|> :party have gone on the family values crusade and now its coming
|> :home to roost. Even if Clinton did have an affair it would be much
|> :less serious than is Bush did simply because Bush is running on the
|> :family values platform, which makes him a hypocrit as well as an
|> :adulterer.
|> 
|> And Clinton and Gore don't care about family values during this
|> campaign? The Dems are making damn sure they're perceived as having
|> family values too. Remember the DNC speeches by Gore and Clinton.
|> If the Gennifer Flowers thing is a substantive issue, wouldn't that make
|> Clinton a hypocrite and an adulterer too?
|> 	Adultery is adultery. No "sin" is less serious (albeit I guess
|> it can be in politics) because of the person who sinned.
|> 
Adultery is only a sin, if you believe in one of the religions that
carry that as a tenant.  Legally, adultery is a violation of the
contract between two people, and if one spouse give the other permission
even that violation is gone.

Several religions believe in polygamous relationships, which in the US
would be equated to one spouse plus adulterous relationships.  Several
cultures believe that a mistress is a normal social form.

All 4 candidates happen to believe that adultery is terrible and a sin,
but that doesn't mean that the rest of us agree.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39986 talk.abortion:31933 alt.politics.bush:1728
From: rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 15 Aug 1992 23:30:47 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

(followups out of a.p.bush and t.abortion)

In article <1992Aug16.000244.16184@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Check out Al Gore's voting record. Up until a few years ago, he voted
>pro-life over 80% of the time. 
>Now, he's "pro-choice" all the way. 
>How can you trust him? 

Easy.  He's not running for president.


5150
pardon me, mr. chaney, your right wing is showing
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.abortion
From: jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (JohnC)
Subject: Re: Bush "above the law" (was Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Reply-To: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:34:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.213148.14123@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Both Quayle and Bush have said is that they would "support" the decision of
                                ^^
Ack!  Poor editing.  I apologize.

-- 
John Cavallino                  |  EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Hospitals |         John_Cavallino@uchfm.bsd.uchicago.edu
Office of Facilities Management | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 0953
B0 f++ c+ g++ k s++ e+ h- pv    |         Chicago, IL  60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39707 talk.abortion:31710 alt.politics.bush:1576
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:24:27 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
>|> 
>So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
>to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
>etc.

So maybe he should of said the right to life of the innocent.  In the
death penalty case, the criminal has done something that has caused him
to forfiet his right to life.  In a sense he has voluntarily given up this
right.  The fetus has done nothing that warrants the death penalty.  Unless
you feel that being inconvinient is a capital offense.

The War against Irag.

Self defense is still and will always be an excuse to kill.  If the mothers
life is in danger, than abortion is warranted.  I don't know of any
abortion bills that outlaw abortion in this case.

Public safety.

A very vague statement.  A man firing a gun in a crowded area will be
shot by the police.  By his actions the man was putting other in risk of
their lives, we're back to the self defense argument.  If that same man
were merely going around hitting and kicking, then the police would
restrain him, and haul him off to jail.

Economic interests.

If a breadwiner with 5 kids were to lose his job, and could now only 
afford to support three of them.  Would he be justified in killing
two of them?  Are nation would be a lot better off financially if
we did not have so many people on welfare.  Would we be justified
in having them killed?
-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40748 ca.politics:6960 ba.politics:4683
From: shibumi@joes.garage.com (Kenton A. Hoover)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:59:31 GMT
Reply-To: shibumi@joes.garage.com
Organization: Joe's Garage, San Francisco, KA

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># Did you watch the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco?  The NAMBLA marchers
># were booed and subjected to thrown trash all along the parade route.

I was at 2nd and Market (behind the Hambrecht & Quist building (1 Bush Street)
) and NAMBLA punted the parade before they had made it that far.  Lost my
chance to spit on them, I guess.

>It's a start.  But I understand that a lot of signs were carried
>as well decrying "yellow journalism" against NAMBLA.  It sounds
>like the community is still quite divided about child molestation.

No signs seen, and the whole parade route (from where I was to Civic 
Center) was pasted with anti-NAMBLA stickers.  Must be a press thing --
one sign seen and therefore its a trend.


| Kenton A. Hoover                                                            |
| P.O. Box 882643                                             +1 415 957 3614 |
| San Francisco, Kalifornia 94188-2643                shibumi@joes.garage.com |
|==============442.075+100=146.850+=444.625+131.8=440.900+114.8===============|
|         I love a high moral tone from a guy who faced down the Reds         |
|                       by joining the National Guard.                        |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40764 talk.abortion:32586 alt.politics.bush:2223
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:58:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes in response
to me:
>>"Well, who else's decision could it be?". 

>     Currently the law says that women have the right to choose for
>abortion.  

>     Were Bush to say *anything* else would be to suggest that he would
>disobey the law.  What exactly *should* he do to not be a hypocrite?
>Abuse his power as President and have her *jailed*?

Not really, he could have remained consistant, like Dukakis, when asked
whether he would want the death penalty for a rapist/torturer/murderer
of his wife. He said "No." And that killed him politically, even though
it was consistant with his position. Why, because it shows the uncaring
aspects of that postition, and that he would not do anything to correct
what most would see as a grievous wrong done to him. He could have said,
"I'll seek the maximum penalty possible, up to life in prison without
parole" which would still have been consistant, but shown a much more
caring portrait of himself.

Bush took the opposite stance from his professed view, stating exactly
what his 'opposition' says is its view, and the way that the situation
is supposed to be now.

>     I don't necessarily disagree with you about Bush.  The man wouldn't
>know a conviction if it bit him.  But don't act so all high and mighty.
>Most of the people calling Bush a hypocrite over this statement would
>have just as soon jumped on him if he had gone the other way.

I'll have to disagree with your last statement. He might have been jumped
on because he came off as an uncaring selfish oaf, but at least he wouldn't
have so blatantly come across as a hypocrite. Personally, I do believe
he may be about to swing pro-choice again, unless he's reaffirmed his
'pro-life' stance after that remark. He and his wife have both affirmed
that they are actually pro-choice in the last week and a half, or so.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:46:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>But one question I pose to you is this: When can you say a "fertilized
>ovum" becomes human?  At what point can you say this person becomes human?
>
It is always human, in the same way as my hair is human.  But, prior to the
development of the CNS, it has no sense of identity.  As you have pointed out,
it is distinguishable from its mother on the basis of its DNA structure.  So,
shortly after conception, you are talking about protecting DNA molecules
because they are unique.  I am not an authority on embriotic development and
can, therefore, not say when a persona, or psyche, develops.  That is why
abortion is such a difficult issue.  

I can say, in principle, that the fetus should be protected in the middle
and later stages of pregnancy (or after the development of the CNS).  But, if
my wife found, in the second trimester of pregnancy, that the fetus was
seriously abnormal,  we would be faced with a very painful and difficult
decision.  And, quite frankly, I don't know how we would act.  It is one
thing to talk about such things and another to actually live through such
circumstances.  It seems ironic that the republicans are the party which
opposes abortion but is also the party which is least inclined to help the
mother (parents) or the child.  To them, the only issue seems to be cutting
taxes, particularly for the wealthy.

Peter Lauren.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 16:54:44 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ohmuigo@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <675m43g.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Get real, read your history.
    >>
    >You are the one that needs to do some reading.
    >
    >Do you know where the pink triangle came from? They were the
    >symbols that homosexuals had to wear in the camps. Are you
    >aware that homosexuals were the bottom of the prison
    >hierarchy?
    >
    >Do you know what happened to these people when they were
    >released from the camps? They were harassed by their
    >"saviors" since they felt that these people were rightfully
    >imprisoned. And then, in a typical revisionist fashion,
    >mentions of homosexuality were dropped. It took a lot of
    >research to find out more about the lives of these people.
    >
    >If you are interested in learning, which I suspect you are
    >not, I can recommend some interesting books.

I suggest that you stop the little attempted slurs and read some of those
books you are recommending.

In terms of priority (there was an actual priority list), by the end of
WWII, the descending order of those to be exterminated (the lower in the
list, the more you were likely to be exterminated) was Jews, homosexuals,
Slavic peoples, and the Gypsys.

Why the Gypsys were so hated is still not understood in any of the
writings I've read.

After the war, the bulkd of the DPs were set free. The ONLY group that
was still imprisioned in concetration camps were the Jews, primarily
of course by the British, who were placing them back into camps as
soon as the caught them trying to get into Palestine.

I doubt that the British officer corp, with its above average
predilection if not tolerance for homosexuality was as anti-homosexual
as it was anti-Jewish.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.202319.20731@news.columbia.edu>  
gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 
> Disclaimer: This in no way advocates a direct transplant of Canada's
> public health insurance system, just clarifying a few things about how
> things are set up there.  It just works for Canadians, and I do not
> see why Americans have a desperate need to knock it down unless some
> quarters just can't accept that it does work for us.  Guessing games
> about how Canada is set up (politically, geographically, etc.) can
> be amusing until one realizes that an American audience often does
> not have any sources to check their veracity ... those Labatt beer
> commercials showing a guy going to a bar in Vancouver harbour via
> canoe don't help matters, either. (-;
> 
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gary L. Dare


Truthfully, I'm happy that Canadians are *happy* with their system, but I could  
care less how "well" National Health Insurance works in Canada.  I can probably  
produce as much documentation that says there are severe problems with the  
system as you can produce positive documentation (I had an analysis from the  
Cato Institute, among others, but I usually toss them after I read them).  If  
you are happy with the system, great! :-)  However, since you already have your  
system, and apparently, there are no Canadians arguing against it here,  the  
argument appears to be to use the Canadian model as an example for the U.S.  I  
believe this would be disasterous!  Most of the U.S. problems in health care  
exist because of *TOO MUCH* government interference in the medical, and  
insurance industries, not because of too little.

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40294 ca.politics:6885 ba.politics:4606