HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Please fill the jar....  Drug testing is a two way street
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:13:00 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Haven't had the change to test it myself, though :)

In article <1992Aug14.145456.13047@cos.com>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
> In <archer.289@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <l7u1amINN9qp@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
...
> Didn't think Mr. Archer and I would be agreeing on too many things,
> but here we do. Any company has a right to have a no drug user
> policy, but where they go beyond the boundary is in having a drug
> 'testing' policy. If I seek employment at company X and they ask
> me if I use drugs, I will tell them the truth, namely no I do not.
> Now if they then say, well you won't mind taking this test, that's
> when I head out the door. After all, I am taking 'their' word that
> they will provide all the good things they say they do, so they
> will simply have to take my word. To insist on a drug test means
> that they don't believe me (and I suspect the reason would be that
> they are a bunch of liars themselves). This, IMHO, is a damned
> good indication that you really would not want to work for such
> people.

	Carry your own specimen jars with you, and if asked to fill something
during the interviewing process, bring out your jars and say

	"Have the president/CEO/my potential boss/etc fill these, then we can
exchange samples."

	It might be interesting to videotape the proceedings for "America's
funniest home videos."

        Those doing the insisting usually don't want to submit to one
themself....

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40862 talk.abortion:32678 alt.politics.bush:2276
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:36:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <19AUG92.21584972@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) wrote:
>>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
>> 
>>> I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>>> wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.
>> 
>>Only if the newborn _died_, Wes.  Up to that point, the usual
>>charge is child neglect.
>
>So can we charge George Bush with neglect?  He is willfully withholding 
>medical treatment from human beings with Parkinson's disease, diabetes and 
>other painful and deadly conditions.  
>
>He knows that fetal tissue transplants can help these human beings, but 
>appartently he hates human life so much that he'd rather throw away this 
>material than use it to save lives.
>
>
>
>                                     .... Heather.



Did you happen to catch"60 Mintues" Sunday? A great story about a pro-life
minister whose unborn baby was diagnosed as having a genetic defect that 
could be cured w/ a fetal tissue transplant. Of course the current 
administration will not allow any government funds to do this with. So this
minister found one of the few private doctors in the country which would
perform the procedure. He and his wife now have a healthly normal baby girl.
The story went on to explain that *NO* woman thinking of having an abortion
is ever approached about donating fetal tissue intil after the final decsision
has been made.(~50% said no!)
60 Mintues then went to a medical spokesman for the Bush administration to
find out why they were against useing fetal tissue to save/help an existing
life.(when to tissue would otherwise be thrown away) The answer was a steadfast
"It would be immoral to transplant[tissue]what should have been a life into 
another."(This is not an exact quote but close--trust me:-) After some 
investigation 60 Min. finds out the real policy of the adminstration is that 
while aborted fetal tissue cannot be used on other humans it is perfectly ok 
to take the same tissue and transplant it into *RATS*. When asked about this 
the medical spokesman said that was part of the government's genetic research
to "save lifes in the future." When asked why it was ok to use this tissue
for research but not for a living baby----no answer. They then reported that
the minister(who's still very much pro-life)is working "full time" towards 
getting government approval for this procedure.
I don't have to agree w/ everything our leaders do but a little consistency
would sure be nice. Anyone who doubts this post *PLEASE* write to 60 Min. 
and get a transcript.

Stan Knight
|"Observe, Obsorb, Adapt"---motto of the Knights of the Round Table     |
|"I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then"--Bob Seager(I think)|
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Flat Tax: Net vs Gross Income
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:16:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   I'm not sure this follows.  Jobs which have high up front 
>   expenses typically also have either high pay (e.g., doctors) or
>   at least potentially high r.o.i. (e.g., IC's, software, pharm-
>   aceuticals). 

Salesmen/women often have high travel expenses which are reimbursed by
the company.  A flat tax on gross income would clearly be a
disincentive to people in this line of work.  I'm sure that with a
little thought, we can come up with some other examples where people
with high expenses don't necessarily have high incomes.

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40567 alt.politics.elections:10923 alt.politics.clinton:2226 alt.politics.bush:2109
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:54:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


In <92Aug14.134331edt.118@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> Yuanhui Liu states:

|Disarming some assault-rifle touting ultra-right religious fanatics
|and put them in concentration camps seems to be a good idea.

No shit; you would put "ultra-right religious fanatics" into 
"concentration camps" for the simple state of being so?

I'm sure glad I don't live in Canada.

|Pat Roberson can be the camp spirital leader.  

Interesting; Neal Knox states in the Firearms Coalition Report of
Feb. 20, 1988 that "Bush's firearms statements has been as strong
as Pat Robertson's (whose 700 Club television program repeatedly
had anti-gun segments)."

So Pat Robertson is sympathiser of Handgun Control Inc., and certainly
not of the U.S. gun owners.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Morality discussion Re: Bush on Abortion
Date: 14 Aug 1992 18:54:14 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> +EMIL CHUCK writes:
|> +
|> +What the hell does one person's definition of morality have to do with
|> +this?  You act like there is only one definition of morality, one 
|> +definition of when life begins, one definition of how to be a "good"
|> +person.
|> 	My morality is based on people being responsible for their own
|> actions. (I haven't described how I've defined when life begins at all in
|> my posts, to the best of my knowledge. Nor have I pontificated about how
|> to be a good person to any post that I've saved.)

My point exactly.  Under some circumstances, some of us consider an
abortion to be a much more responsible decision than carrying a
child to term.  Your argument is circular, in that your morality
is based upon responsiblitity which is based upon your morality.

So my original question needs to be ammended to question the importance
of one persons definition of responsibility.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41092 talk.abortion:32860 alt.politics.bush:2398
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Misattribution Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:17:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

Please note that this note that part of this note was misattributed to me.
I believe the response belonged to one Peter Lauren.

Thanks!

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug19093856@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> >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.
>
>What if, for example, the child seemed normal in the womb, but when born,
>got tangled in the umbilical cord and suffered some brain damage?  Would
>you then be faced with a difficult decision of whether to put it out of
>your misery?
>
> >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.
>
>Abortion is chosen less frequently by those who are on welfare anyway,
>according to what I've read.  If someone has actual figures to back
>this up or to refute it, It would be helpful: if we could find out the
>demographics of abortion recipients, we could find out whose right to
>choose we're primarily discussing.
>
>Being a Republican myself, I think that the issue is trying to spend
>money responsibly.  The welfare system needs some work.  Taxes need to
>be reduced, but there are certainly other areas that could give back
>greater returns, and I think they are being sought out.
>--
>Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
>Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
>"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
>			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40674 talk.politics.theory:3738 soc.culture.usa:6674 alt.conspiracy:10150
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Kulturkampf
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:45:23 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
actions and relationships.  This proposal is clearly akin to 
the fascist, Communist, and Nazi programs of subordinating
culture to political -- governmental -- control, and of
eliminating free expression.  The Nazis called the program
_Kulturkampf_.  Is there any way in which the Buchanan
proposal differs from the _Kulturkampf_?  Or are there
defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his
statement otherwise?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40159 talk.abortion:32062 alt.politics.bush:1854
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 1992 16:17:36 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <Bt23ov.CA3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
|> In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
|> >
|> >I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
|> >another human being.  This is still true if the human being is
|> >a fetus.  If that human being is a fetus in the first two
|> >trimesters it will not survive without the assistance of the
|> >mother.  If that assistance is witheld the fetal human being
|> >will die, but no murder will have been committed.  If that is
|> >not an argument based on the appropriate assumptions I guess
|> >we should just drop it.
|> 
|> I think that you are correct.  It can be a serious crime but I doubt
|> that it would be considered murder (at least not first degree).
|> However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
|> the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
|> she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
|> something?
|> 
Does this imply that an abortion method that disconnects the placenta
from the wall of the fetus and then waits for nature to take it's course
would be OK?  Let's get the medical community going.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush "above the law" (was Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:16:13 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Please someone post to talk.politics.abortion. Thank you.

jcav@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
:tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
:>barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
:>>Did you all hear that the original ads had to be pulled because they
:>>voilated a federal law against using the presidential seal in any form
:>>for endorsement?
:>>
:>>Bush has shown again and again that he
:>>thinks he's above the law.
:>>
:>James, I'm not sure that you know what happened.  What does "original"
:>mean.  These ads were never shown.
:
:I'm pretty sure James was referring to Bush's most recent abortion quote,
:not to the Presidential Seal mess-up in the ads.
	I didn't quite read it that way. But since
we're on the subject ...

:The Republican platform advocates a constutional amendment outlawing all
:abortions (whether or not there is to be allowed an exception for
:rape/incest/life-of-the-mother isn't relevant here).
:
:Both Quayle and Bush have said is that they would "support" the decision of
:a daughter/granddaughter to have an abortion.
	No, they both said they loved and supported their daughter or
granddaughter in spite of their decision. That's not the same thing.

:Doesn't such "support" advocate the breaking of the law?  (Or at least, the
:law as Bush/Quayle have stated they would like it to be)
	Yes it does if you look at it like that. But assuming the
hypothetical situation is one in which the girl (daughter or
granddaughter) willingly engaged in sex outside of her being married to
the man, she broke her family's trust. She did something that her
parents would have disapproved of. She broke a family rule (assuming she
was in my family) that you shouldn't have sex before marriage. Although
two wrongs -- one moral and one societal, i.e., the "law" -- cannot make
a right, the parents should still love their daughter.
	Now, whether they lock her up in the attic for the rest of her
known existence is another story. :)

:Would such a law not apply to members of the Presidential and
:Vice-Presidential families?
	I wish they'd make laws that were applicable to Congress too!

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.021305.3644@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>do not automatically translate into more money.
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!

Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
something to do with it.

For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:32:31 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>In article <Bt8HE2.6GF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>... 
>>>        Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?
>> 
>>>        [Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the Bush
>>>presidency has been very close to a disaster.
>> 
>> Yes but what did Reagan really do? Under Reagan we went from the
>> world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor
>> nation. 

>	Misleading.  We are still the worlds largets creditor nation.  "From"
>implies a change in that status.

OK, worlds largest *net* creditor nation to worlds largest *net* debter
nation.

>> Reagan just put everything on a charge account and now
>> he's dying and *we* get to pay. Bush just inherited the mess.

>	If we charged our way into prosperity, why aren't we booming now?
>                                                

some would say we are currently paying the piper.  that the bill is
due.  the wells run dry.   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39679 talk.abortion:31695 alt.politics.bush:1562
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 1992 09:40:00 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug14.061049.19344@athena.mit.edu> howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.213828.9337@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>>
>>Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?
>>
>>Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?
>>
>>Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?
>>
>>Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?
>>
>>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
>>
>
> Can the government enforce a religious doctrine that stealing or murder
> is wrong?  This is getting tiresome...

No.  The government cannot enforce a religious doctrine that stealing or
murder are wrong.

The government can enforce an ECONOMIC doctrine that stealing and murder
are wrong.

The government can enforce a LIBERTARIAN doctrine that stealing and murder
are wrong.


The government can enforce a CONSTITUTIONAL doctrine that stealing and murder
are wrong.

Etc.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment
From: rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis)
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:15:06 GMT

In article <57138@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

[deleted section]

>...                                            I suggest that buses be
>required to pay at least the gas taxes and property taxes that cars
>pay, 

Obviously cars don't pay property taxes, but even allowing for allegory,
cars don't pay property taxes because such taxes are collected from
people regardless of whether they use a private automobile.  I have
never seen a reduction on property taxes for not owning a car.  Property
taxes should not cover any of the costs of roads, rather the full costs
of each form of transportation should be covered in its use.  The
easiest way do do this would be through a gas tax, larger vehicles would
thereby pay more, roughly equivilent to their greater use of space and
road wear.

>and that the 50-75% subsidy be removed.  I suspect that most public
>transportation systems would go bankrupt.  

The removal of all subsidies might have different effects than you
posit.


Robert M. Lewis
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dfoster@ils.nwu.edu (David Foster)
Subject: advocacy group for Fiscal Responsibility and Deficit Reduction and etc.?
Reply-To: dfoster@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:23:49 GMT

A request for info:

I heard on the news a week or two ago about a new political-action
organization of sorts which is dedicated to letting Washington
know that it will be held accountable for its budget deficit 
problems.  I seem to recall that the current organization membership
consists mainly of younger people (e.g. in their 20s and 30s), and
than Tsongas and Gramm strongly endorsed the organization's efforts.
Unfortunately I don't know its name.

Being a person with a huge angst about the federal budget deficit, I
would like to get involved with an organization about this.  Does
anyone know how I could get in contact with this organization, e.g.
an address, e-mail address, or phone number?  I would be very grateful
for this info.

Please e-mail me directly.  And thanks.

- David Foster

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Ron Echeverri concocts a lie about Bush's abortion stance
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:47:28 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Aug14.172234.3074@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug14.161857.39397@watson.ibm.com>
>> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>
>> > [.. article from Clarinet ..]
>> >
>> > HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee Monday
>> > overwhelmingly passed a plank calling for the adoption of a
>> > constitutional amendment banning all abortions.
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >     The subcommittee on individual rights, good homes and safe streets
>> > voted 17-3 to approve the plank, which is essentially the same as the
>> > anti-abortion planks contained in the 1988 and 1984 platforms.
>> > ..
>> >     Although the subcommittee included a few members supportive of the
>> > Republicans for Choice, the majority endorsed President Bush's stance
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > against abortions.


Incidently, tothe press was asking Marlin Fitzwater about the statement
the Barbara Bush made regarding abortion.  He said something about her
being entitled to her opinion and then said that President Bush considers
the platform plank justified.

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush