HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: C558172@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:10:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: mizzou1.missouri.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep2.175645.829@ornl.gov>
de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Sep1.161349.24795@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>Keywords:
>
>You ought to fix your news poster.  It's leaving the Keywords out of the
>header.
>
>>In article <1992Aug31.220420.11509@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>]
>>]      About kids suing their parents, I think she was talking about
>>]cases in which parents are seriously abusive.
>>
>>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
>>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
>>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
>
>Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
>children deemed responsible by the court should be able to sue their parents
>over matters that can significantly affect their future, e.g., child abuse,
>surgery to repair a hair-lip, ability to stay in highschool, etc.  I also
>understand that her position is now standard practice and well within the
>legal mainstream.
>
>--
>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
A lawyer <Insert Obligatory Boo here> wrote a letter the the editor, in the
St. Louis Post Dispatch explaining this issue. He? said that auto-insurance
companies were refusing to pay off on a child's injuries in an accident because
children could not sue their parents and the insurance cos were not legally
required to pay up if the driver wasn't (or couldn't be?) sued.
He said that most (or all?) states now allow children to sue their parents.
--Shannon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:28:46 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug26.034057.1@fnala.fnal.gov> maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
]O.k. Paul, try this:
]$50k in 1970 was worth a hell of a lot more than in 1990.
][hint: how much did a nice car cost in 1970? A nice house?]
]
]Times *are* tough.
]Be glad you're not a black man-- they'd be tougher.
]
]jerk.

If the shoe fits...

			   1978   1980  1982  1989  1990
Blacks living in poverty    30.6   32.5  35.6  30.7  31.9
Whites living in poverty     8.7   10.2  12.0  10.0  10.7

Number of black Owned Businesses  1982:308,000   1987 424,000 (+38%)
Receipts by black owned firms         $ 9.6B         $ 19.8B
Median income growth - black households 1980-1990: 31%
Median income growth - white households 1980-1990: 19%

Between 1978 and 1982, the number of poor blacks rose by more than 2 million.
Between 1982 and 1989 the number of poor blacks fell by 400,000.

So much for the racist decade of greed.


>
>repulsed.max
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ignorant.some


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3225 talk.politics.misc:42422 alt.politics.clinton:3283 alt.politics.elections:11783
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
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 92 21:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Aug26.210515.6149@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.150756.6925@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>>   a) Pleasure is a positive value.
>>   b) It is immoral to deprive people of pleasure simply because you disapprove
>>      of the means of obtaining it.
>
>Let's say I find it pleasurable to find virgins off the street, kidnap them
>torture them break a few of their bones, abuse their bodies, have sex with
>them, and if they have children, molest them too then burn them alive and 
>bury them and pile all the ash in my backyard.
>
>What?  You disapprove of me kidnapping and stealing people of the street?
>How could you!  It is immoral to deprive me of my pleasure simply because
>you disapprove of the means of obtaining it!

Such behavior ought to be prevented because it violates the rights of others,
namely the virgins and their children (?), who have the right to live their
lives in peace.  The idea is that we should all be free to do as we please,
provided we don't violate the rights of others.  On the other hand, some
people might disapprove of pre-marital sexual relations, but it would be
immoral of them to force abstinence on others.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3485 alt.politics.elections:11960 alt.politics.clinton:3500
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:39:52 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> If the alternative is to run off the cliff, yes.  I do prefer stagnation
> to a quick disaster.
>
> Branley seems to believe that "Bush is clueless" implies "Clinton will
> do good".  It doesn't.  As bad as Bush is, we could do worse.  Branley
> argues that Clinton will do more of the things that Bush has done
> wrong.  Branley prefers the sure thing, running off the cliff, to the
> random chance of wandering aimlessly around at the top of that cliff.
>
> >Freeman fails to realize that Bush's blaming of Congress is going to get
> >nowhere.
>
> No, I assume that that's true.  Then I listen to Branley tell us what
> Clinton's plan is, that it is the worst mistakes that Bush has made,
> only magnified.  Clinton will get his way on this with Congress,
> because it's their plan too.
>
> While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
> "right off the cliff" aim.
>
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

You continually claim that Clinton will drive us off a cliff.  How about some
specifics?  We're heading constantly down under GHWB.  What is there about
Clinton *specifically* that will hasten what GHWB has already begun?

I'd like to hear your explanation for how you get that I have stated that
Clinton's plan is the worst of Bush's mistakes.  Bush's biggest mistakes have
been ones of character.  He is a liar, and has cynically denied that he is a
liar.  That in itself justifies his removal from the Presidency.  Given that
Clinton has not been President, therefore could not lie to the people the way
Bush has, I don't see how his plan could be composed of the mistakes Bush has
already made.

Frankly, I sincerely hope that the Bush campaign has the same cynical attitude
towards Clinton that you hold.  You go on believing that Bush is still better,
no matter how bad he is.  So long as the Bush campaign keeps that attitude up,
we will not see any new ideas from them, we'll see more of what we saw in terms
of response to crises, etc.  That's fine by me, since the electorate is seeing
through this and the gap in the polls will continue to widen.



|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2987 talk.politics.misc:42045 alt.politics.clinton:3068 alt.politics.elections:11613
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
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: 26 Aug 92 18:14:55 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <NEERI.92Aug26163447@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:

> People won't like saying they have to give up something they
> like in order to solve a problem.  Instead, they say, "lets preach abstinence
> so they can have the best of both worlds: health and morality."  That's fine.
> But it's blood on their hands every time someone is impregnated or infected
> with some sexually communicated disease because of unprotected sex.

So every time "someone is impregnated or infected with some sexually
communicated disease because of unprotected sex", it's the fault of those
who encourage abstinence?  What about the people who chose to have the
unprotected sex?

People who encourage abstinence are in no way responsible for those who
chose to have unprotected sex.  People show their values in their actions.
If their actions include unprotected sex, then it's certainly not the
fault of the people who discourage those things.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3899 talk.politics.misc:43389 alt.politics.clinton:3872 alt.politics.elections:12272
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:44:17 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >John Sims) writes:
|> >>>Who is tearing families apart?
|> >>Hmm. Well, let's see, where to start?  An example, pointed out recently
|> >>could be Hillary Clinton, likening marriage to slavery, and stating that
|> >>children should have the right to divorce their parents.
|> >
|> >	Pure quotation out of context.
|> >
|> >	Hillary Clinton does not seem to consider herself Slick
|> >Willie's slave :-)
|> >
|> >	About kids suing their parents, I think she was talking about
|> >cases in which parents are seriously abusive.
|> 
|> You think wrong.  Children *already* have rights when they are
|> abused. Rights to protective custody and rights to legal representation.
|> Courts can and have made these determinations in the past and present.
|>  
|> The cases Hillary Clinton was considering have to do with other
|> things, like "cosmetic surgery, abortion, ..." and other choices
|> a child might contemplate.  She wants to expand the scope of
|> litigation to cover choices a child might make in contravention
|> with the wishes of non-abusing parents.
|> The "abusive" parents aspect is a deliberate red herring to
|> deflect the issue.
|> 
Close, but.

1.	These writings are 19 years old, and at that time the courts were
	not in sync on the protection of children in abusive situations.

2.	According to very conservative (read Republican) attorneys interviewed
	on niteline and CNN, the "non-abusive" areas she suggested were
	a) parents refusing to allow children to attend school, and b)
	cosmetic surgery for physical defects such as a hair-lip.

3.	At the time of the writings (19 years ago) Hillary was not a 
	proponent of providing abortions to teen agers without parental
	approval.  Abortions had only been legal a couple of years at 
	most, and children were still chattel.

Were there any other FACTS you wanted to mis-state?
From: jsimon@bnr.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Intellect of Electorate
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:20:46 GMT
Organization: Cardiff & Lonne

How clever are the electorate of the US?

1.  Independents (non-partisan):	Most intelligent
					(because of reasoning power,
				         knowledge and sense of fairness)

2.  Democrats				Second most intelligent
					(because of the record of voting
					 based on issues, no blind party
					 loyalty)

3   Republicans				Most intelligent AND least
					(1. because of mastery of art of
					 exploitation, telling lies,
					 manipulation of people,
					 need to hold on to power.

					 2. Blind party loyalty, arrogance
					 and the assumption that they are
					 the greatest and their way is the
					 only right way, etc. Religious
					 fundamentalism and extremism
				    	 fogs reason).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Clarence Thomas
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 22:13:19 GMT


 Is there a Republican out there willing to defend the appointment
of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court? He is the judicial 
equivalent of dragging drunks to the polls on election day, to
the point of physically helping them pull the lever. He is 
additionally a slap in the face to African-Americans, by 
condescenscion. Are conservatives proud of the law he makes?
Did he ask a question this term? I would be embarrassed to have
this man defending my ideology.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Distortion of facts
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:57:45 GMT
Distribution: na

     I'm predicting that George Bush's plan will backfire on him.
     Just as he did four years ago, he is misrepesenting information
     to the American republic.  Case in point:  Bush telling everybody
     that Clinton has raised taxes over 100 times.  It's just not
     true.  Even the Wall Street Journal said that.  He has proven
     that he has no scruples.  His theory of trickle-down economics
     isn't working.  His pro-right wing view does not reflect the
     opinions and attitudes of American Republic.  He is not the
     choice for the future.


-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu (Denis Hancock)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:27:52 GMT

In <Btup5I.B9u@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.124201.12832@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>How did President Bush screw up the hurricane relief effort?
>>
>>Jeff.

>Outright leadership failure.  With a Class 4 hurricane coming, do you pre-stage
>your equipment to react in minimum time for deployment to areas where they're
>needed?  Do you send representatives of FEMA to stay by the Governors of states
>which may be affected?  Do you prepare for a major disaster, and then relax
>ONLY if prompt response is not needed?  With 12 years to control such federal
>agencies, do you make sure that the appointees are competent and can react
>appropriately when needed?

Actually, according to CNN, the equipment was prepositioned, and the troops
were ready to move BEFORE the hurricane made landfall. What was lacking was
a request from the State of Florida, which did not come until Thursday.

It was the job of the Governer to know whom to call and when to call. His
failure to do so speaks for itself. He claims that "he was told. . . ", but
he has not identified who it was that told him.

President Bush can be faulted for many things, but the response to Hurricane
Andrew is not one of them.

-- 
Denis Hancock, Research Specialist              1-314-882-1722 (voice)		
dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu -or- agrohanc@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia MO 65211 USA
"Computeri non cogitant, ergo non sunt"
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:05:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <2392@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
>This is a very good question. I noticed the other day during a reading fit
>that in one of Reagan's elections that he took something like 53 or 54% of the
>popular vote but captured 49 states! Can anybody come up with data that will
>show the absolute smallest percentage of the popular vote a canidate can get
>and still get elected? 

Yes, a candidate can theoretically receive < .0001% of the popular vote and
still be elected president.  How?  Well remember that the popular vote
numbers depend on voter turnout so the winner could get 1 vote in just
enough states to give him an electoral majority and not receive a single
vote in the rest of the states where the turnout is 100%.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: nope
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:59:34 GMT

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

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.  They're the natural consequence of
sex by people who WANT to get pregnant or don't care whether or not
they do.  Unless someone is proposing some sort of mandatory birth
control (norplant?), birth control policy can't affect that.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:56:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <J3XFqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:

> Get real.  You'd make a great bureaucrat.  When people need food and water,
> waiting around for a FORMAL request, as you put it, is only going to show how
> out of control the bureaucracy really is.  Bush blew it.  He could have had the
> stuff staged and called a press conference while down there saying "I've got
> all this stuff waiting for the OK."  He didn't do that, but rather let the
> system spin its wheels.

Ah I see.  So let's see what the consequences would have been in different
circumstances.

* Hurricane Hits.  Bush sends troops without waiting for Governor's
request.  
  First, people like you would accuse him of only doing it because
   he wants votes.
  Second, if the Governor really didn't want troops, he'd flip out and
protest
   the intrusion.
  Third, Congress would form some silly committee that would investigate 
   the president.
  Forth, Clinton would talk about how the President has little regard for
   states rights.

* Hurricane Hits.  Bush waits for request before sending troops.
  First, people like you would accuse him of not doing anything.  Then
   when he DID do it, you'd accuse him of doing it for votes.
  <blah, blah, blah>

You see, he is really in a lose-lose situation because of people like you
who expect the president to respond within seconds of an emergency. 
Responding quickly to everything breeds disaster.  
 
He waited for the Governor.  Blame HIM.
--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:45:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.030929.26035@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu (cindy davies) writes:
>In article <JASON.92Sep1124501@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>  A few days is not long enough to organize an entire disaster relief
>>system large enough to handle that level of destruction.  
>
>The United States used to have just such a system.

Actually, the US' system is better now than it was in "the good old days".

I got a chance to listen to an official in the Florida Democrat party
comment on the "relief failures".  He said that everything was in
place and running almost before the wind stopped, before candidates
made their photo-op tours, everything but the military.  He said that
the military really was a small part of the relief effort.

As has been pointed out, no president since Lincoln has sent troops
into states without an explicit request from the governor.  The florida
governor didn't think they were important until the relief effort had
been underway for a while and they're not a big part of the effort
anyway.

Precisely why is this a real issue?  Most of the net.complaints have
suggested that FEMA wasn't ready, but the Florida Democrat party
disagrees.  Others have suggested that the military is a huge part of
the relief effort, but again the Florida Democrat party disagrees.

Or, is it that any attack on bush is acceptable, regardless of its
truth?

I learned a long time ago that Repubs lie; why are Democrats trying
to prove that they're no different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3813 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3282 alt.politics.elections:12191