HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Absolute Rights (was no on 9)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.012133.23982@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >>A woman has the right to NOT be raped. (This is a corrally of
    >>FOA and of course, something I hold as an absolute).
    >>
    >I agree that a woman in our society has a right not to be
    >raped, but that does not make it an absolute. In many
    >societies other than our own, women do not have that right.
    >There are 100 million women alive today who have had their
    >clitorises hacked off, something which we consider incredibly
    >barbaric, but which is considered as "normal" as male
    >circumcision is in this culture, to us.
    >
    >Rights are a product of a culture. The only way that the
    >right of non-rape will be extended to all women globally is
    >if our culture (or some other culture which values women as
    >individuals) somehow invades or influences or dominates the
    >cultures where rape (or genital mutilation) are accepted.
    >Might makes right, essentially.

Might makes right?

You and Hitler would really get along, mate.

Get on an airplane tonight and go over and visit with some Moslem
Croatian women after they've just been raped by some Serbs. Tell them
that by the Serbs morality (they are the dominant might makes right
culture there right now) they haven't been raped.

Go ahead.



Me? Call me old fashioned, but if a woman (or man) does not want to
have sex but is forced to anyway, her/his inherent property rights
(to their own bodies) has just be violated.

They've been raped.






-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:54:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.075407.9367@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

> I mean, geez.  Ross always talks as if we ought to run the government
> more like a business.  What kind of business would get rid of its
> employees every two years and hire new ones?  Not a successful one.

Actually, I don't see much reason to attack Perot here.  I think that
Perot and Clinton were in almost complete agreement on this issue, and
that both of them made a good deal of sense.

What Perot said, remember, is that we needed a great many different
kind of reforms to open up politics, and that term limits without
those reforms would be meaningless, or maybe even harmful.

And, as it happens, Perot is right.  Here in California we have term
limits for state legislators, but it hasn't made anyone more
accountable; the insiders, and the big-money folks, stay in power, and
only the faces change.  The problem is that politics has been
professionalized, and until this is changed, it doesn't matter at all
whether we get the same professional for ten years, or a different
professional every two years.

Clinton is also right: if we have term limits without reforming other
aspects of politics, then the power of the professional bureaucracies
and lobbies will become too great.  They, after all, will be around
after the legislators leave, and they will be the ones who know the
ropes.  I think those groups already have too much power, and I don't
think we should give them more.
--
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,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:17:05 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct6.184207.27208@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.144949.11768@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> >I have much less of a problem with elected officials, such as Gov. Reagan,
|> >enacting the will of the people they represent than I do with a few guys in
|> >robes handing down decrees that override the will of people who never voted
|> >for them and have no recourse against them.
|> 
|> Well then I guess that you'll be having no problem at all when Clinton,
|> promising choice, gets elected by a huge margin. Proving that the majority
|> of Americans are pro-choice. It will be the will of the people you know.

Since when did the President have the authority to make the laws of this
country?  I guess that if an activistic Supreme Court can confer such authority
on itself, an activist President might as well exhibit equal disregard for the
Constitution and do the same.  Note that Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion;
it merely struck down laws made by duly elected representatives of the states.
If Clinton wants choice, let's see him offer equivalent funding to Crisis
Pregnancy Centers.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52047 alt.politics.clinton:10656 alt.politics.bush:9314
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on DODGING this question?
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:42:14 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> Will people earning less than $200,000/year see higher or lower taxes under
|> a Clinton administration. Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on
|> equivocating on this crucial question? Is Quayle right or not? Will we be
|> replacing one tax-and-spend republicrat with another or not?
|> 
|> Lets have some truth in advertising, for a change.
|> 
|> Give us the Bill!

Apparently you don't listen very well.  Both Clinton and Gore and their
net.apologists have said that the Clinton plan would give those under
about $50,000 a tax decrease and those between there and $200,000 no increase
or decrease.

You may decide whether to believe it or not, as I have about Bush's
statements on a variety of issues, but if you claim they haven't answered
this question it is you that needs to display "some truth in
advertising, for a change."  Ignorance is no excuse.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:48:23 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:

>[stuff deleted]
>>	If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
>>support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
>>because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.
>> 

>Excuse me, but isn't "voluntary and avoidable behavior" by the man also 
>involved in this process?  Do you think it is fair to force women to pay for 
>consenting to sex with their health and possibly their lives without insisting 
>on the same consequences for men who consent to sex?


>                               .... Heather.

Certainly.  If abortion is illegal, child support laws have to be given
some very real teeth.  Men have to be made to be responsible for their 
actions.  However, if abortion is legal, men should be able to shuck 
child support (i.e. legally "abort" the unviable tissue mass and all
that might ensue).  You can't have one without the other.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
From: bmasel@igc.apc.org (Ben Masel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I didn't SHOOT THE SHERIFF...
Date: 10 Oct 92 08:31:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483600030:cdp:1483600031:000:2222
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Oct 10 01:31:00 1992


						516 E Mifflin #4
						Madison, WI 53703
						608-257-5456 Oct.
						4, 1992

Rick Raemisch, Dane County Sheriff 210 Martin Luther King Blvd.

	As I am sure you are aware, I have declared my candidacy
for the office you currently hold, and to which you seek
re-election. I have registered my candidacy with the Dane County
Clerk. This letter formally notifies you of my intention to
personally campaign among the elegible voters in your custody at
the Dane County Jail and Ferris Center. I intend to visit these
prisoners in company of a voter registrar. We will be willing to
submit to a search before entering secured areas.

	You are reported in the Oct. 1 Isthmus as being unwilling
to approve my visit citing security concerns.  In view of my
willingness to co- operate on particulars in arranging access, I
can only conclude that your real reason for obstructing such
visits is concern for your job security.

	If this is indeed the case I believe your use of your
position to obstruct my campaign activity constitutes malfeasance
sufficient to cause your removal from office and criminal
prosecution. In any event I am prepared to bring action before the
Wisconsin Elections Board and/or Dane County Circuit Court to
compel access to all eligible voters in your custody.

	I also hereby request (persuent to the Wisconsin Open
Records Law) to be informed of any arrangement your department has
made to enable all eligible voters in your custody on Nov. 3 to
exercise their right to vote, and to inform them of the steps they
must take to do so. When I was in custody in the Ferris Center in
1986 I was told prisoners would only be allowed to vote by
absentee ballot. This is insufficient, as it disenfranchises any
individual placed in custody after the absentee voting deadline. I
strongly recomend you immediately take steps to insure sufficient
staffing for Nov. 3 that prisoners unable to vote absentee may be
safely escorted to their designated polling place. Since there are
candidates for Federal office on the Ballot this year, your
failure to do so could violate Federal, as well as Wisconsin,
Election Law.

					Tenaciously yours, Ben
					Masel Write-In Candidate
					for Dane County Sherriff
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51812 sci.environment:11971 talk.environment:4212
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:38:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <MATT.92Oct14124320@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>I think Peter is almost right here, but not quite.  My interpretation
>is that the people want high government spending, low taxes, *and* no
>budget deficit.

So instead the Democrats offer high government spending to be paid for by
high taxes,  on somebody else.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51642 talk.politics.theory:4530
From: lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: spoken word piece
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:42:08 EDT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Cornell University

SPOKEN WORD PIECE

liberal man meets conservative man.  conservative man wears his myth 
on his skin. liberal man has to explain as he keeps his sleeves rolled 
up and his shirt buttoned down.  conservative man greets liberal man 
with a well-rehearsed cold stare.  liberal man replies by issuing 
forth horseshit.  conservative man retaliates by taking his concrete 
reality of the situation and lodging it like a wedge right between 
both sides of liberal man's brain.  liberal man is caught off guard 
by this apparent non-abstraction.  there is one full minute of confusion.
liberal man becomes conservative man.  conservative man becomes liberal 
man.  war is declared.  liberal man shoots and calls for reinforcements.  
conservative man is set upon by a mob and murdered.  said mob then turns 
on liberal man and he dies a broken man.

-- from the Minutemen LP _3-way tie for last_

From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Just how old is Simon anyway??? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 01:12:32 GMT

In article <lefty-091092133622@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>> 
>> I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>> an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
>> responsibility???
>> 
>> And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.
>
>Out of choice or necessity?

Well, if he'll be able to "force his views on us" in 2005, that would
make him 7 or 8 years old in 1992...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51220 alt.politics.perot:2015 alt.politics.elections:16327
From: markn@firenze.orc.olivetti.com (Mark Nass)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:13:04 GMT
Reply-To: markn@firenze.orc.olivetti.com (Mark Nass)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Olivetti Research California

> I find these numbers interesting. During the debates President Bush said
> that he would allow social security to cover cost of living increases and
> grow per the population. How is he going to reduce the deficit?
> 
> Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

   Under Bushs administration the U.S. government has run up something like
$950 Billion dollars in defecits. This is about 25% of the total us defecit, 
he did all of this in only 4 years. What on earth leads you to believe that
he is going to or even has any intentions of reducing the federal defecit?
  
Mark Nass


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51947 alt.politics.usa.misc:221 alt.politics.clinton:10574
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Why Do Soak the Rich Schemes Always End Up Picking Everyone's Pocket?
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:12:08 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore



  "Mr. President, Read Our Lips: No New Taxes"
  by J. Peter Grace

  ...

  If 100 percent of all untaxed income in this country above $100,000 of
  taxable income were confiscated today, we would generate only enough
  money to run the government for 19 days -- less than three weeks. There
  simply is not enough money raised in the highest brackets to contribute
  meaningful amounts of revenue.

  They once asked the famous bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks.
  He answered, "That's where the money is." And if you want to raise
  serious tax revenue in this country, you have to go to where the money
  is. Ninety percent of all taxable income in this country is generated in
  brackets of $45,000 and under. More than 75 percent is generated by
  people who make $25,000 or less each year. If politicians raise taxes, it
  is these people, not just the rich, who'll be soaked.

  ...



Free subscriptions available from:
  Imprimis
  Hillsdale College
  Hillsdale, MI  49242
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51851 alt.politics.perot:2171
From: jbp@rti.rti.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal (Yeah, and our's is first among equals!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:58:28 GMT
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC

In article <56494@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> it is written:
>   Under Bushs administration the U.S. government has run up something like
>$950 Billion dollars in defecits. This is about 25% of the total us defecit, 
>he did all of this in only 4 years. What on earth leads you to believe that
>he is going to or even has any intentions of reducing the federal defecit?

Remember how the federal budget is ``decided'' (simplified version): 

(1) Entitlements are just automatically ratcheted up by law, and 
(2) the rest of the federal budget is decided in about a dozen 
(or so ??) bills, anyone of them can choke a horse with all those 
budget line items.  Every Congressman's mission in life is to pander
by maximizing spending for his/her pet projects and pork-barrel in their
district/state by cramming as many of these silly line items into
these bills.  So each one of these little monsters gets passed by 
Congress and then it lands on the President's desk for approval/
disapproval IN TOTAL.  If he has had enough input into the process to 
minimize the damage (relatively speaking), then he grits his teeth and 
signs it into law.  If he vetos or pocket vetos (the only other options)
then the entire bill goes back to Congress for the override vote.  The 
choice is rather stark is it not?  Clearly, the President has little 
control over this process and the Congress knows this.  How anybody
can blame *any* president for increases in the federal debt when he
does not have a line item veto is not understandable by me.  In fact,
I think it is only the enormous magnitude of the current debt that
keeps the Congress from spending more!  When the people really want to 
solve this problem, they will INSIST that the Consitution is amended 
to make provision for a line item veto.  (A balanced budget amendment
is total bulls**t -- Congress will find a way to short-circuit it
just like Gramm-Ruddman).  Then and only then can one begin to seriously
hold one individual (The President) ultimately accountable for the 
the federal budget.  There still are those Automatic Entitlements,
though, which must be put into the normal budget process and not
raised automatically.  I seriously doubt that Founding Fathers thought 
that we (the collective ``we'') would let anything so crazy happen, or 
they might have put provisions in the Constitution to prevent it.

Now, when is somebody other than Ross Perot going to begin to talk
about those pesky off-budget items (like S&L bailout)?  The deeper you
look, the more the true magnitude of the problem reveals itself......
-- 
John Posthill  jbp@rti.rti.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50112 alt.rush-limbaugh:6788 alt.politics.bush:8061 alt.politics.clinton:8935 alt.politics.elections:15506 talk.abortion:41179 alt.sex:32235
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:16:44 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article (Michael Polen):
> 
> Considering the chances for a normal miscarriage (abortion by God?  This
> could start a whole new branch of discussion!) and our abnormally high
> infant mortality rate, not being aborted isn't exactly safe either?

Abortion is 100% fatal.  Obviously, being born isn't.
Anyway:
According to the book "The Politics of Breastfeeding" by Gabrielle (last name?),
the world infant mortality rates are directly related to the rates of hospital 
births in a given country.  Procedures in maternity wards in hospitals around 
the world tend to discourage new mothers from breastfeeding, simply by making 
it extremely awkward and uncomfortable.  It has been documented by the World 
Health Organization that the lower the breastfeeding rate, the higher the 
infant mortality rate.  In fact, when Papua New Guinne began modernization, 
just a little bit of forethough brought them the lowest infant mortality rate
of any country in it's league.  It simply required that every baby-bottle
sold require a doctor's prescription, and that that prescription required
a significant health reason.

Just something to think about.

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: [cars] Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:36:19 GMT


     [Se bezonos, mi faros Esperantan tradukon.]

     I missed some early discussion, because our company's machine
has not beening receiving articles for a month.  Has anyone any
estimate what prices it will be like if the government tax gasoline
and only gasoline to pay for roads in the U.S.A., and when the
government will be doing it?  It really is unfair for people who
do not use gasoline (that is people who do not use the road) to pay
for the roads.

					Daniel Chung (Mr.), China
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:21:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.212635.29350@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>>denied.
>
>Oh really? I think not.
>
	Very likely not, in fact.  I get the impression that Mr. "Stupendous
Man" has never applied for any sort of security clearance and has, in fact,
no idea at all what he's talking about.  I have not only applied for one, but
actually *had* one for a while shortly after completing my Masters' degree.
My political activities as a student weren't regarded as tremendously
interesting.

>-- 
>Zack Sessions
>sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
>University of North Carolina at Wilmington
>"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51203 sci.environment:11880 talk.environment:4173