HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Ask mommy
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:24:44 GMT

	Somebody said(posted) that people should mind their own
business and let the mommy(see, I am a kid! Gaga!) decide
to terminate the offspring.  Well, seems to me the offspring
should be the one to decide whether or not it's terminated;
Follow this little 'Socratic' discussion-

Life)"Should it not be the offspring who choses to be aborted?
I mean, the mother is, after all, a separate organism."

Choice)"Hah! The offspring has no thoughts! The only conscious
being 'feeling' the effects of the pregnancy is the mother. She
should be the one to decide the status of the offspring's life."

L)"Suppose I knock the mother unconscious, and am then given
the bill for her hospital status until she awakens. Obviously
I am paying the bill and deriving negative effects of her
continued survival, am I not? Why should I not be able to knock
someone unconscious and then kill them if I subsequently
am billed for their hospitalization?"

C)"The mother will wake up if she is only unconscious;
you have only delayed her status of being unconscious. She
is ultimately a conscious being."

L)"But if I allow the offspring to grow, will it not also
eventually be posessed of consciousness?"

C)"Yes. Unless it is born dead or in a vegetative state."

L)"But if that is the case, then isn't the whole question of
getting an abortion rather silly unless the stillbirth threatens
the life of the mommy?"

C)"There are many such instances. Thus to make a law preventing
abortion is to sign the death sentence for women threatened
with still-birth."

L)"But today there are no federal laws making abortion illegal;
the states take precedence. You would make federal laws which
prevent states from deciding for themselves the exact nature
of such laws;  would it not be more applicable and perhaps
successful for a state to have a law restricting abortion except
in the case of the mother's life being threatened by a still-
born?"

C)"That law would be better than a law preventing all abortions."

L)"And if that is so, and we also proclaim certains rights
including the right to life, then it would be in the best
interests of the states to make such a decision."

C)"But 'L'!  While there are many states in disagreement
and states of transition, women are dying! This must be done
immediately, and that can only be done via a federal law!"

D)'C,' Remember that old saying, 'Haste makes waste-' if we
barge into this we can make serious mistakes having very profound
effects. It may take months to create a law, but decades
to remove it.  Everyone dies; many people, in fact, everyone
in our history has died and yet today some would claim that
they passably enjoy life.  These stillborn death cocktails
will continue until a valid solution can be worked out by one
state, and as there is unanimous adulation, other states
will follow without need for coercion."

C)"Praise Sartre!"

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Summary: Don't think, just do as I say
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:20:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.234015.29976@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackel writes...
>In article <1992Oct06.145614.26643@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.232634.14126@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>>And if every war the president decides to fight
>>is "just" by definition, then it's not surprising
>>that you think we've never been in an unjust war.
> 
>By definition, action to preserve the security of our
>country is just.  The President is sworn to protect and
>defend the constitution (and the country) against all
>enemies.

What about when they instigate a war as in the Mexican/American war?
And what about your definition of enemies. If Dallas decided that 
Houston waas their enemy, does that make it O.K. to bomb Houston?
How about when the U.S. violated international law by mining 
Nicaraguan harbors? Can we just arbitrarily pick enemies, or do 
they actually have to do something? BTW, the country and the constitution
are two different things. Presidents have by tradition, been reluctant
to abide by the restrictions that the constitution puts on them.

>David Shackelford
>Veteran and damn proud of it!

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:54:38 GMT

In article <BvD7un.Hxw.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>I don't want to get off the real issue, which is that John 
>Palmer doesn't seem to want to get caught in a lie.  He claims
>that he has an Amnesty International report sitting in front of 
>him which says "the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people".
>We're still waiting.

Me, too. :) 

=============================================================================
		Professor, MIRV E. Brown School of Debate. 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:34:35 GMT

In article <14076.2acc6e92@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.172429.17081@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> The politically correct (corrupt) people advocate the restriction of free
>> speech, so what's wrong when someone else does it to Liberals??
>> 
>> Can you say--HYPOCRITES!!
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Here at Ohio State Clinton gave a speech a few days ago
> in which a band of about 200 Young Republiclone weasles like yourself
> brough in lots of signs, and rushed right up to the podium and
> chanted throughout his speech, so that noone else could hear what was going on.
> Noone confiscated their signs...
Hmm... As far as I have learned, Slick Willie and all the other Democratic
morons have preached "free speech" It should not bother a single liberal out
there that someone wished to express their feelings. After all, the Democrats
accepted a pretty hefty check from Time Warner...What happend when police
organizations around the country wanted the Dems. to reject the endorsement?
Ice-T became a martyr for the liberals and the ACLU. So what if they chanted at
Slick's speech? Did anyone whine when the POW protesters chanted at a dinner
when Bush was speaking? No of course not. Why? Because he handeld the crowd,
and came out looking strong. What did Slick do? Nothing, he relies on cretins
like Garrett to bail him out. 

> The little assholes also started scuffles in the crownd. A real militant bunch.
'Militant' College Republicans? Give me a fucking break! Is the world THIS
tough on you Garrett? Are the C.R.'s too much of disturbence for you? No wonder
the Dems. could not handle the prospects of Desert Strom. 

> Hey Simon, you weasle, you know as well as I do what a bunch of low-life
> your little fascist buddies are. I can't wait until after
> election day when Fearless Leader and Co. are out of a job.
I am intrigued that you use the word "little" in your tantrum. Judging by your
grasp of the English language, I'm willing to wager that you are either a
sophomore or a freshman... or at least you should be. You know what your
problem is? Simon was too much on the mark. I can see how that would aggrivate
so much. ('Fascist' C.R.'s... Sad Garrett...Sad.)
 
> Republiclones suck.
Republiclones? Ah. What then 'Democrotches'?  
> -Garrett

P.S. IMHO I do believe the word you have been attempting is 'No one' not
'Noone' please correct me if I am wrong, so that I may add this new spelling to
my ever increasing lexicon.
Here endith the lesson
		--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:27:19 GMT

I've gone to good school districts (Hastings, NE) and bad school districts
(Pocatello, ID [in junior high, h.s. was fine]). The most important ele-
ment in my success was involvement by and encouragement from my parents.
School choice may work for some as those parents who are actively involved
in their child's education will look around. Because the parents are
involved, the child has a better chance of doing well.

Paul

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:37:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.043550.7425@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
>A check of the passport records for Bill Clinton for the 69-70 time period
>has revealed that the pages for that period are missing from the state
>department records. The FBI is looking into this matter now.
>I wonder who has them?
>
yeah, I guess that dirty, sneaky Clinton guy broke into the State
Department one night and stole those incriminating records...

Or, who would be in a better position to convientantly lose records
than the current administration. Nice coincidence, the Bush
administration says "Oh my, Mr. Clinton took a trip to Russia
when he was a student...", and about the same time the same
administration points out "Oh my, some pages are missing from
Mr. Clintons record, I wonder what that means..."

John



>-- 
>Defend your 2nd amendment rights. 
>NRA ACLU VFW
>Fred Brooks   			        Portland Oregon


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrats & Hippocracy
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:44:11 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Center for Supercomputing Applications

In article <1992Oct4.070521.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

   Just because the Democrats on this board have been whinning [...]
                                                      ^^^^^^^^

Now would that be ``whining'' or ``winning''?  (Both, I suppose.)

Hippocracy.... government by hippos... heeheeheehee...

Marc

--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: None.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:45:27 GMT

The "Aids Epidemic" is a problem where a disease is killing many
people.  It can be solved through medical research.  It isn't easy.  It
might never be finished.  The government is spending some money to
achieve this goal, however they are playing with the numbers to make it
look like much more money is actually being spent.

The "Aids Crisis" is a political problem where the government is
blocking any concerted plans to get information out to people.  By "the
government" we mean all levels of government.  We mean Republicans and
Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives.  The "Aids Crisis" also deals
with the prejudice around Aids.  Much of the cause of the "Crises" is
due to politicians and people not wanting to deal with issues that
effect people of various races.  The Aids Crisis is as much political
as it is racial.

--

Aids activist organizations are begging for the AIDS CRISIS to be be
end.  It can end.  The AIDS EPIDEMIC might not end, and activists will
admit this.  Before the epidemic can end, the crisis must end.

However, when aids activists shout "BUSH ISN'T DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE
AIDS CRISIS" he responds saying that he's spending money on a cure.
That is avoiding the CRISIS and talking about the EPIDEMIC.

What are the funnymentalists yelling about?  They're involvement is
hurtful to ending the AIDS CRISIS.  They are attempting to block
information and block efforts to educate.  They promote racism, sexism
and homophobia as a means to maintain the crisis.

What are people on the net talking about?  They're looking to find
someone to blame.  None of them care about a cure or ending the
CRISIS.  Most of them don't have safer sex and will become HIV+
soon, if they aren't already HIV+.  Most people looking for a blame
don't think they can get HIV so they do not get tested.  However,
when they start getting KS or PCP or any of the other OI's associated
with HIV, they will be the first to scream, "Why me?  Why didn't
anyone warn me?  Who caused this."

I think the real "search for blame" should be to find the people
causing the AIDS CRISIS, not the EPIDEMIC.

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:27:57 GMT

lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>In article <1afrioINNnuf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.133331.2763@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>>Let's get down to cases -- Norfolk Public Schools.  The public schools
>>>are for poor people.  Nobody of any means send their kids to public schools.
>>>The public schools suck.

>>	2)  Under the present system, only people with money could send their
>>		children to private schools.
>>	3)  With School Choice, the "poor" could send their kids to private
>>		schools.

>Hmmm. Last I saw, a Bush voucher was worth about $1000. But private
>school tuition (secular) runs at least $6000. I don't see the poor
>scraping up the other 7K. Sure, a few people on the margin will be able
>to use private school for the first time. The public schools fo the poor
>will become more of a dumping ground. The middle-class is supposed to
>fall in love with Bush for what amounts to a $1K tax cut.

Correction.  The public schools *ARE* a dumping ground.   The well-off 
will always be able to privately school their children.  Why shouldn't
the less well-off get some of their own money back so they at least have
a shot at doing the same thing?  It's time families get a hand-up, not 
a hand-out :)  Empower them by giving them control over their own child's
destiny - don't just tell them they are only allowed to queue up at certain
low-class shops for their educational allotment.  The Soviet nomenklatura
would undoubtedly have said "Sure, a few of the marginal citizens will be
able to buy meat for the first time, but the poorest will be even worse off.
Better if they get no chance at all in our private shops.  Let's just give
them vouchers for the public stores they already use.  We must continue
to work at IMPROVING those public stores!!"  Capitalism, Soviet-style.
Don't change the system, don't even think about changing the system, just
work for seventy years to IMPROVE the system. 

A little competition will go a very long way toward destroying the government
education stores.  And that can be nothing but good for the country.

>andy

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6839 alt.politics.clinton:7388
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:27:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep27.214729.550@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> I've been very concerned about Bush's failing health.
> 
> If you compare pictures of him from the last 12 years in 4 year
> increments (I looked though old Time magazines at the library) after
> each election he's really looking a lot worse.  The rate is
> accellerating.
> 
> I called an old college friend who is a political advisor in D.C.
> (well, actually he's in Virginia, just outside of D.C., but his firm
> does most of their work for D.C.-based politicians).  He's conservative
> and works for a conservative think-tank.  When in school we argued
> constantly and never agreed politically.  However, we still call and
> chit-chat now and then.
> 
> He claimed that the word in D.C. was that Bush's health is bad and it's
> getting worse fast.  There was a time this spring when they weren't
> sure if they were going to have to replace him with Baker on the
> ticket.  This is why he didn't officially declare his candidacy until
> relatively late in the game.  He also claimed that word has it that his
> vomiting in Japan was actually a minor stroke.  It was the incident in
> Japan that make the GOP start to consider running someone else.
> 
> Tom "Can you say PRESIDENT QUAYLE?" Limoncelli
> 
> -- 
> Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
>        Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
>           one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
>
     Oh please -- not any more unsubstantiated rumors!  But, since
rumor and inaccurate data seems to be the fuel for the alt.politics.*
fires, let me break my own rule and throw in a rumor I heard about
Clinton.  I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
that a Little Rock prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams claims
to have a 7-year-old son fathered by Bill Clinton.  She also
claims that Clinton refuses to take a blood test to verify it.
Has anyone else heard about this?  Aren't these rumors more fun
than actually discussing facts?!

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Arkansas growth
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:54:23 GMT

	Ok, I think it was 'Lemonjelly' or someone who
said that Arkansas was growing while the rest of the country
is on a plumbing tour.  Well, I'd like to see how Arkansas's
growth stacks up against the growth of the other economically
rather underdeveloped states with very low cost of living
and relatively low taxes(relative to national average).
This is, in most statistics regarding economic development
Arkansas will be forty-something.  Why would there be growth
in a recession?
	1 and only 1)Factory, or blue-collar labor increases.
This happens when the general productivity per worker decreases
in an high-cost of living area; the plant wants to save money
to keep up with decreasing profits; they look for some ways
to cut costs. One way is to use cheap labor; witness plants
moving to Mexico, SE Asia, and states like Arkansas.
	In fact, if you go to Arkansas and most poor rural
areas you will find that many people will tend to work in
onebig factory or plant or.... such as Tyson. Southside
Chicago used to be like this with steel-mills; thousands
of people who were willing to work for low-wages worked
in the steel-mill. If we took their collective income after
they worked for the steel-mill, you will note that it increased.
Still, the steel-mills were passe and now there are many unemployed.
	Arkansas used to be more of a local, close-knit community
type place, where everyone knew each other in town, life was
kind of relaxed, there were some big factories-but there was
also community economic structures/cycles that could resist
outside economic effects and provide employment. Today the
average Arkansas worker works in a large factory, not a small
mom-an-pop business as was once the case.  There are many interesting
social developments, artificial constructs of redneck deception,
but those are a bit more involving to discuss.
	The point is, it is the nations current economic woes,
and not its prosperity, which is really helping Arkansas by forcing
U.S. companies to cut costs, primarily by using low-cost labor 
such as is found in Arkansas.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: cable tv
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:02:11 GMT

T.W. Hazlett "In Cable War, Consumers Get Snagged", WSJ Fri 2 Oct, 92, A14.

Discusses the cable bill and all of the nefarious forces pushing it.

Conclusion: you can't regulate it, because the FCC can only control the
price. Constitutionally, they can't do anything about content.

Therefore, cable companies will cut the basic service to continue making
whatever profits they want where they are monopolies. The bill will
make more of them monopolies because it allows local government control.

So, the networks, who have been losing audience to cable, support the
bill because they project lower quality from cable as a result of the
new bill.

Lew

-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:07:48 EDT
From: <JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Acceptance Speeches

Well, when Georgie showed up here in Happy Valley, a large portion
of the English grad students turned out to protest.  One of our
signs read:

Bush couldn't complete a sentence if his second term depended on it.


Just a thought.


Jim Thomas
Penn State
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:52:21 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

: NOBODY WANTS A PRESIDENT QUAYLE!

Except, possibly, Dan Quayle and Mr. Potatoe Head.  :-)

--
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 alt.politics.bush:7702 alt.politics.clinton:8435
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:19:56 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO

In article <1992Oct4.051914.26556@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I don't think I'm a fascist...
>
(the fact that Simon can't spell 'swastika' deleted)

>So, therefore, I am not a fascist.

Well, I think we have determined that goofball is not majoring in logic. 
But I think he'd get along famously with Wagner from U of Chicago.

Alan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d