HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:19:34
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU's message of 6 Oct 92 21:58:00 GMT

In article <01GPMW8JF60W001UUK@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:

> NPR reported he went. Another Clinton supporter has said he 
> went. I am *asking* why he went, where (Moscow? Eastern Europe?),
> and what happened?

You're asking why he went travelling during his Christmas vacation and
what happened?  I still don't understand the mystery; he went
travelling so that he could sightsee, and what happened was that he
saw sights.  Haven't you ever been a tourist?

> This whole thing sounds just like the typical cases we're told to 
> watch for in counter-spy training in the military.

Good grief, this is even better than the smears that Bush is putting
out!  Bush contents himself with insinuating that his opponents are
unpatriotic, but here we have a real, live assertion that Clinton is a
KGB agent!  

Or maybe this is a joke, and I'm just not getting it; maybe this is
just supposed to be a parody of the sorts of things that the Bush
campaign is saying.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:39:20 GMT

This article appeared in the October LP News.

LP SHOWS UP IN POLLS - The Marrou/Lord Campaign has
begun to show up in some national polls, reports
campaign chairman Steve Dasbach.

"For months, CompuServe Information Service has excluded
Marrou from the list of candidates in their on-line
poll," remarked Dasbach. "Finally, in late August, he
was included. The most recent results (9/11/92); Bush
43%, Clinton 42%, Marrou 5%, Someone Else 3%, No One 1%,
Undecided 5%."
 
The campaign has also received information about the
most recent Gallup/USA Today poll. "That poll asked
respondents who they would vote for: Bush, Clinton,
Perot, or Other," said Dasbach. "If they responded
'other', they were asked to name who they were going to
vote for. Our sources report that over half of the
'other' vote was for Marrou (or Libertarian). That
indicates 2 1/2-3% national support in spite of not
being listed in the poll."

Whether or not a candidate is listed has a tremendous
effect on the results. "When Perot was listed in the
Gallup/USA Today poll, he received 14% verses about 3%
for Marrou," said Dasbach. "However, when Marrou was
listed in the CompuServe poll, he received 5% versus 3%
for 'someone else'. Since Perot was not listed, his
support would fall under 'someone else'. Since Perot was
not listed, his support would fall under 'someone else'
and appears to be less than Marrou's. Clearly, whether
or not you are listed affects the results."

The CompuServe poll had another interesting result for
Libertarians. Respondents were asked: "Which political
party's platform do you feel is closer to your own
values or position?" The results: Democrat 36%,
Republican 43%, Libertarian 11%, Some other party 2%, No
party 7%.


-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326


-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Another Proof of the Utility of AffirmativeActionPlans
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.205134.27642@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Eric,
>
>I does believes you are missing the fact that this
>was a quintessential affirmative action program for
>anotherwise IntellectuallyChallengedPerson, and
>hence proof that the Bush-Qyuale {why does QuaaLude come to mind...}
>Ticket understands the importance of helping those 
>who can not help themselves...

You could be right.  Especially when considering the Dandroid
had to suffer the social deprivation of public schools.
And, he is a member of an often-overlooked minority group:
people who prefer golf to sex.

>Would Dandy Dan, without government support,
>been able to make anything of himself????

Well, he probably wouldn't be living in the style to which 
he has been accustomed.  A recent posting on alt.fan.dan-quayle
mentioned the public housing available for the Vice-Shrub:
nice mansion, spacious grounds, servants provided by the
US Navy, taxpayer supplied home-improvements like additional
rooms and a putting green.  Not bad, considering Dan-o's
major in college was "booze and broads".

As a contribution to public safety, it is best that the
US Government manages the enhancements to Chateau Quayl.
Otherwise, Our Boy would have to do them himself; I think
we are all better off if Dan-o is kept away from power tools.

>Thus it kept him off the welfare roles,
>and is Clearly a Positive Good.....

Being Vice-Shrub is a form of WorkFare for DQ.  I'm not
sure what job this qualifies him for; but, hey, most
federal job-training programs have not been very successful.

>ciao
>drieux





-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49119 talk.abortion:40030 alt.activism.d:3471
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 1992 16:53:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Oct2.034327.3571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Why isn't a fetus considered a living entity??

As far as I am concerned, it is. Now my question to you: why is this
significant, or why should it be significant to me?

>Simon

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:38:31 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
: 
: >Yes, I would agree that most people who engage in sexual activity know
: >this, and if they're interested in avoiding conception, they use birth
: >control.  They are still risking pregnancy.  HOWEVER, if that contraception
: >fails, THERE IS A RELATIVELY SAFE, LEGAL (for the moment) ALTERNATIVE.
: 
: 	Abortion is certainly not safe for the unborn child involved.

Being born to parents who don't want you isn't exactly the safest thing
in the world, either.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: So lets Get this Straight
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:39:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.200503.18310@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>] In article <1992Sep24.005021.26871@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>] >Since a fertilized egg can divide into twins up to 6-8 weeks after
>] >conception, how many individuals are present at conception?  When does
>] >the additional individual appear?  What factor(s) constitute an individual
>] >in this context?
 
>] This is an excellent point. If there were any logic in the abortion
>] debate every one would agree that a fetus can not be a person at 
>] least until after this period.

>I wish folks would decide to be HONEST about being
>anti_christian, and opposed to the traditional 
>christian position that there is no person till birth.
>But I guess in these Post_Christian Days that is
>far too much to hope for....

Especially since the Roman Catholics decided that the soul enters at
conception. I'd like to know how souls split since they aren't alleged
to be matter - or maybe the African belief that one of a multiple birth is a 
person and the others are devils is valid?
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>
>
>-- 
>Modern Day Problems
>
>Does that 'answer' your question,
>or should I be a little more vague.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:12:52 GMT

In article <4OCT199222470702@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>In article <1ao6gsINN5cu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes...
>> 
>> 
>> Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
>>*******************************
>> 1.  Shorty errs?  Nope!
>> 2.  He's ornery, Sport!
>> 3.  Spy on the errors.
>> 4.  Open yer shorts, R.!
>> 5.  The sorry person.
>>*******************************
>
>I love it Dave.
>
>-- Stephen
>

	Stephen Tice - The Nice Pets
		       Pec This Teen
		       Steep Hen Tic


-- 

 ***** * ****  ***** ****  *  ***    * *   *    ***   ***   Make the Choice!
   *   * *   * *     *   * * *   *   * **  *   *   *     *    Don't Vote!
   *   * ****  ****  ****  * *   *   * * * *    ****    * 
   *   * *   * *     *  *  * *   *   * *  **       *   *      NO NEW SIGS!
   *   * ****  ***** *   * *  ***    * *   *   ****   ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 06:36:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes ...
>Recently posted by Rini Clarkberg:
>> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
>
>This is sort of like a murder - suicide.  The woman had no right to take
>away her baby's life and died while trying.

It is precisely this utter lack of compassion and disregard for other
people that makes abortion both as common and as needed as it is.  In
another form it shows up often as "stupid woman, she got pregnant so
now she should have to suffer the consequences".

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49874 talk.religion.misc:17769 talk.abortion:40941
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:02:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> trivia question here teddy dearest....

> but does this not also mean that giving
> up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
> construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...

No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR GEORGE BUSH!
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Boston University

Just wanted everyone in Mass to know that the Prez is gonna be at 
Faneuil Hall Friday at around 4pm.  Remember, Slick Willie was here last
week and unfortunately he got a decent crowd, so if you're gonna vote for
Bush drop by..........
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:07:04 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

My, my, my.... what an interesting collection of groups in the Newsgroups:
line.

If only this newsreader would handle (recognize, and not remove when posting)
Followups-To: lines.....

ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:

: She is only the victim of her own choice to irresponsibly have sex when
: she was not willing to bear the potential consequences.  If she really
: didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it. 

And what if the mother may have been willing to risk the physical and
mental strains of pregnancy at the time she consented to sex, but later
found out that she could not handle those strains?  What do you say
then?  "Grin and bear it?"  even though doing so might have serious
physical and/or mental repercussions.

: > It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of BTV all over.
: It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of people denying responsibility
: for their own actions all over.

It wouldn't be USENET without people denying others the chance to admit
they made an error in judgement.

: Elf Sternberg wrote:
: > 	And, as a man you have a right to make that decision for her
: > beforehand and pass judgement on her afterwards?
: I have no problem with condemning something that is wrong.

In your opinion.  Since you are not God, I cannot accept that your opinion
of what is "right" and what is "wrong" applies to anyone other than you 
and your children under the age of 18, if you have any.

I once tried on the "outfit" that lets men feel what it is like to be
with child for a little while.  Even though I was "pregnant" only for
a few minutes, it was enough to give my mind what it needed to imagine
_part_ of what it would be like to go through a full-term pregnancy.
I'm surprised that any woman would want to willingly have a second or
a third child after they find out just what it feels like.

In a deranged sort of way, it's kind of sad seeing all of these 
anti-choice men out there saying that women should "grin and bear it"
if they accidentally get pregnant, and if they aren't ready to have
a child.  It'd be nice if those men tried a "simulated pregnancy" for
a week or two.  I'd have a good bit more respect for them if they
can still make good anti-choice arguments after going through that ordeal.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92








Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49132 ca.politics:8365 alt.politics.homosexuality:6330
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: RE: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:39:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) wrote:
>This Associated Press report should be of interest:
> 
>DENVER (AP)---A child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a
>family member than a homosexual, a new study shows.

Well, obviously a homosexual cannot be a family member.

       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:32:57 GMT

In article <1aij51INN4fs@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >In article <1992Oct2.212215.12961@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Well, would you rather get beaten with bruises, or lose all
    >>your property (house, car, money, clothes) with no chance of
    >>insurance or recompense?
    >>
    >>Sometimes physical violence is less awful than property loss.
    >>
    >>
    >That is interesting philosophy- it appears that in the
    >materialistic world of today that we have put the value of
    >property ahead of people. And we certainly see this day after
    >day by the way people live and corporate act.
    >
    >If someone is assaulting me because they want my property, I
    >will say take it and enjoy it. It just isn't worth it.
    >Property is replaceble, expendible, etc.
    >
    >But that is definitely a viewpoint that many people hold. I
    >suppose it arises from insecurity and the need of feeling
    >selfworth based upon the collection of material things.

Man is nothing without property. If you do not have the right to your
own body (not being sold into slavery for example), your food, your
water, your air, your clothes, your shelter, why then, how long would
you survive?

Many totalitarian states agree with your position. With organizations
such as Amnesty International, all one has to do is NOT to kill
the dissenters -- after all, you haven't killed them now, have you.

You've just LEGALLY removed some of their property, like, a place to
live in, and left them only LEGALLY able to live in the
Great Wall jail house for example.

In short, and again, without property rights, you are nothing. 
A slave ....


-- 
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 ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49610 talk.abortion:40622
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:06:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>No, no, no! According to Barbara Bush last night on Larry King, "we must
>>teach our children that sex is DEATH!"
>
>Eek, did she _really_ say that?  What was the context of this quote?
>

Yes. Although she quickly backtracked to say "PROMISCUOUS sex is death,"
I liked the unfiltered original better. The context was Larry King asking
her to clarify her views on abortion. She kind of side-stepped that one
with a statement about how nice it would be if there weren't any unwanted
pregnancies in the first place, and we have to teach kids that sex is death,
etc.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot gets a free ride.
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Mario Cuomo was correct.  The press wants Perot in the race.  That must 
be the reason for the free ride he is getting.  This is across the board -- 
radio, TV and newspapers.

Consider that Ross has been running and funding a campaign non-stop.  
He has been writing letters to registrars of voters telling them he is a 
candidate.  He tells us that his campaign is bottoms up, but not one of his 
supporters agreed with his earlier "imaginary withdrawal."  Now he tells 
us he has to ask the people who have been begging him to get back in the 
race if he should get back in the race.  And then he does it in a way that 
prevents both sides of the spectrum for answering his message.

What does the press do?  First, they play along with the non-campaign 
and allow the issue to revolve around whether or not he will run.  He has 
never stopped.  They have supported his discussion of the issues without 
subjecting him to the same standards as the other candidates.  Does he 
have the character or skill to lead us?  We will never know.  They have 
continued to call his ideas "his ideas."  So far I have not found any that 
haven't been around awhile.  Whenever a candidate tried to propose 
these ideas in an open contest, he/she was soundly defeated.  Finally, the 
press keeps interviewing Perot supporters asking them if they think he 
should get in the race.  Maybe the press doesn't understand what the 
word "supporter" means.

There is certainly a question about whether Perot "re-entering" will help 
Bush or Clinton.  But there is no question about who the big winners 
will be out of a three-way campaign -- the press.  They are staging it, 
helping it along, and praying that it will happen.  And we, the public, 
will pay the price with a diluted campaign with a press-protected 
candidate.

This is a perfect case of the press making, not reporting, the news.  This 
year the press has decided to hold the candidates to a higher standard.  
They should look to their own standards first.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48910 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6154 alt.politics.bush:7383 alt.politics.elections:14826 talk.abortion:39762 alt.politics.clinton:8035