HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: just me
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 19:42:12 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <21173@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In article <11OCT199212142038@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
>>reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
>>U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
>>new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).
>
>I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere in the 200-300 range.
>The figure of 25 isn't currently correct.

I suspect that Jim is about to come up with references.  You got any?

>But the bigger question is why?  Probably because North Dakota has one of
>the lowest rates of drug abuse and homosexuality.  The last figures I saw
>stated 87% of AIDS victims still fell into the drug abuse/homosexual
>catagory.  And that hateful "family values" thing still is in effect
>in North Dakota.  I'm a native New Mexican, and I'm here because of the
>quality of life.

This "family values" stuff is just a nifty way of legislating moralism.
It is hateful, being the core of the new Christian Conservative politics - 
"You don't believe in family values?  What a sinner folks, this one would
probably kill you and eat your kids without a thought!"  Just bush-league
manipulation.  Please let me know when these family values we have supposedly
lost produced a peaceful, loving American society.  Was it 30 years ago?
90?  150?  Funny, all of our history has featured violence, whether or not
people believed in the stereotypical values embodied in the current usage
of the phrase.  The "Good Old Days" never were, and certainly never will be.

>
>We don't "tell" our kids not to have sex, we try and instill values in
>them that cause them not to run around like minks.  We teach honesty
>and judgment.  We have one of the highest graduation rates in the country,
>and intelligent kids know right from wrong.

Graduation from high school does not imply intelligence, and sexual activity
does not imply running around like minks.  Intelligence certainly does not
imply knowledge of right from wrong.  Heck, that's even in the Bible - 
remember Adam and Eve?

>
>And as far as the failure rate of condoms goes, I stand by my original
>figures of 15-30%.  Maybe all the talk about lower rates is just trying
>to justify placing your life in a piece of rubber.

Yeah, all those studies by the government and industry are wrong - it's all
a giant cover-up.  Here's what I think - when you can't believe the figures
on a box of birth control products which have been used for decades and 
tested by every concerned group under the sun - you really need to hit the
decaf.  Condom companies conspiring to encourage dangerous behavior?  I
think that's a bit extreme.

David Pipes
robear@digex.com
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Buy George
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:41:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
-Q: What do Donald Trump, Charles Keating (S&L deadbeat), and Henry
-   Kravis (Wall St. takeover artist) all have in common?
-
-A: All are members of Team 100, a group of 249 individuals who
-   contributed $100,000.00 or more to the 1988 Bush/Quayle campaign.
-
-Team 100 consists mostly of the top execs from major investment firms,
-government contractors, multinational corporations, and oil companies.
-
-ARCO chairman Lodwrick Cook, along with the company and CEO, gave a
-Bush and the Republican party $862,360.00.  According to the National
-Petroleum Refiners Assoc., ARCO "gets most of the credit" for the
-reformulated gas plank of the Clean Air Act.  The Bush administration
-made a last-minute change in the act to allow reformulated gasoline
-to be marketed in the USA.  This experimental fuel requires more oil
-than traditional gasoline and emits more pollutants than other fuels.
-
-Source: The Riverfront Times, July 8, 1992 (a St. Louis paper). The
-article credits the June issue of Common Cause Magazine for most of
-the figures.
-
-I don't have figures handy for 1992 donations.  In a story aired during
-the RNC, CNN investigated the source of Bush/Quayle 1992 donations.
-Most of them traced back to U.S. Tobacco and big oil companies.  The
-same story noted that former Prex. Gerald Ford was ferried to the RNC
-by private jet, compliments of Atlantic Richfield (oil company).
-
-I just thought people might like to know who the money is behind the
-Bush/Quayle ticket.  Not that it comes as any surprise that Republicans
-get most of their money from rich individuals and corporations.

So?
Could you list all the special interest groups and people who are
supporting the Clinton campaign? 
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: vp debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:06:39 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


	i can only use one hand now so pardon the all lower-case letters.
the admiral, i.e. mr. perot's vp, was basically an old codger who,
like perot in the earlier debate, played pet monkey to the clinton/gore
during the beginning and sounded rather stage frightened. i was listening
on the radio, no tv.  gore had his usual good strong politician's con
man voice.  he was beaten badly about the environment and had to use some
juvenile'you answer my question first' to get out-against quayle, although
both the admiral and quayle were blasting him.  quayle sounded good
but he hasn't yet developed the keen politician's charismatic ability
to incite genocide like hitler, clinton and gore.  this is a 'paternalistic,'
'pacifying' tone of voice such as the nurse uses right before prying a flap
of half-regrown flesh from a gunshot wound without anesthesia(this won't
hurt a bit.) suckers use it well. i just hope they don't get too excited;
swastika over donkey looks kindof affected.
	quayle did a good job otherwise of displaying his ideological strength
in adversity, and even his coherence; if one would listen to the media
quayle would be expected to be babbling in babytalk. of course, if one
follows the media one would probably believe in big foot, aliens, and the
 loch ness monster.

					john
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: ==> Bush Empty Promises On Crime, Statement Concering
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:48:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.123354.21670@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>Since this was brought into alt.politics.clinton, its fair to comment on
> it here also... 
>
>In article <92284.163736U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>, U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>[deleted]
>|>             GEORGE BUSH: MORE EMPTY PROMISES ON CRIME
>|>     [Statement by Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director]
>|> 
>|>       One week after he helped to defeat crime legislation supported
>|>  by major law enforcement organizations throughout the country, George
>|>  Bush had the nerve to claim he was tough on crime.  More than three
>|>  quarters of the police officers killed in the line of duty last year
>|>  were murdered with handguns, but George Bush won't help pass the
>|>  Brady Bill.
>
>What does the Brady Bill have to do with preventing the murder of police
> officers?

Nothing much.  Most police officers who are shot are shot with their own
weapons!

>    The Senate version had a background check inserted in it; unfortunatly, they
>    also left in most of the loopholes, and added a few more.. and since the 
>    Senate version differed from HR7, they would have had to be reconciled, with
>    god knows what for a result.

The final result was in a conference committe compromise bill.  Mitchell
pulled the Brady Bill out as a separete bills, S. 3282, for a vote but got
nowhere.  They have to start all over next year, with a new (hopefully,
Clinton-proof) Congress.

> - The BB also granted the power of denial to a non elected offical,

This is gone from S. 3282.

-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10891 talk.politics.misc:52325 alt.politics.elections:17242
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:27:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.010800.4709@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <29153@life.ai.mit.edu>, Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com> writes:
>...
>>                    Statement of SEN. AL GORE
>>         On the first debate among the presidential candidates
>
>	:D, Al Gore is sooooo unbiased!
>
>>  George Bush finished fourth -- behind Bill Clinton, who was the clear
>>  winner, in expressing a plan for economic recovery, behind Ross Perot
>>  in an understanding of why the economy is in trouble, and even behind
>>  Jim Lehrer, the debate's moderator, in an ability to present a plan
>>  for America's future.
>
>	Actually, George finished second, behind Perot.  Although the media
>(and you) would like us to believe otherwise.  The commentary by the media (and
>you) after the debate was pathetic.

I second this view ... the "media elite" view, and the "people's" view,
as evidenced by the C-SPAN call-in, was like night and day.

To the media elite, it was "Clinton won, because he didn't lose."
These guys base their analysis on yesterday's polls and their
own prejudices instead of what happened.

While to the people calling, Perot was honest and funny, Clinton
was a dishonest bozo. Of the people who said they changed their minds,
almost all went for Perot, one or two went to Bush.
The only "Clinton" mover I recall was the guy who said he was picking
up his Clinton/Gore sign out front and trashing it.

Two best lines --
Perot: " Well, if you're asking for experience in running up a $4 trillion
dollar debt, I don't have that ...."

Bush: " Yeah, the market went south ... whoosh ... like that,
because they had a sudden fear that Clinton might win."

Worst line -- Clinton's "McCarthyism" attack was a patronizing counterpunch
attack, especially using Bush's own Dad as mr Hero. Why doesn't he just
answer the question?

>	Perot clearly stomped all over both Bush and Clinton.  Clinton kept
>attacking Bush.  Bush fared better by at least stating what he was for/against.

Yup. Bush wasn't really agressive, but he stated his case plainly and
with sincerity and, quite frankly, came off as the most stable.

He also was actually the most accurate about the state of the economy.
We *aren't* falling apart at the seams, we are in a temporarily
slow-growth stage. The economy will grow 3% next year, according
to most economists - and even Clinton couldn't mess it up that quick.

>	My wife had the joke of the day: when Clinton was doing his academy
>award stint by thanking everyone in the US individually, he said "...and all
>the people who have touched me during this campaign..."
>
>	Whereupon my wife interjected: "and what was her name???"
>:D brought down the house.

Good line!

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo candidate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:56:55 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
: burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
: 
: #Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
: #bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
: #in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
: #that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
: #this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
: #being
: 
: Please tell me just where in the B of R a right to life is granted.

It isn't granted in the Bill of Rights.

However, the Fourth Amendment does grant "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons...."

The Fourteenth Amendment does say that no "State shall deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property; nor deny to any person within its juris-
diction the equal protection of the laws."  I think this is the Amendment
referred to in the Republiklans' platform plank against abortion.

Two other related ramblings: 1.  The unborn are not citizens of the U.S,
since the 14th defines citizens as those "persons born or naturalized
in the United States...."  Either that, or the unborn are not considered
persons by the Constitution.

2.  If the unborn are legally considered persons, can expectant parents
claim their unborn child as a deduction on their IRS forms?
--
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: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:23:19 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1bjsd9INNq6p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>Is it fair to the average working person making 30,000 per year 
>to have people such as Ross Perot who I can bet made more than 30K
>last year pay the same amount of taxes ? No it is not ! Ross Perot

It's not only fair to put your savings in tax-free municipals, it's
arguably good citizenship.  Congress has made certain investments tax-free
in order to encourage people to invest in them.  People who do so are
doing what they're being encouraged to do... it's not a tax loophole, it's
a congressionally-mandated incentive.  Where's the problem?

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	jim@rand.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.010800.4709@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Face it, Perot stomped you guys.  The media will say differently over
>the next couple of days, but the people aren't listening to the media.  (The
>media hasn't even figured out why it's polls aren't working.)
>
>Brett                                                      

 
  Okay, Stuped, George Bush has already won the 1992 election. It's the fact,
the truth, the truth by Stuped. It doesn't matter if the media doesn't report
it this way, it doesn't matter if the American public doesn't buy it. It's
the Stuped truth.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8779 tx.politics:5884
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:39:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct7.140823.2844@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>At any rate you should learn the difference between "All people with
>AIDS have engaged in 'irresponsible activities'" and "All people who
>engage in 'irresponsible activities' get AIDS."
>
>The first is (trivially) true, the second (and relevant issue) completely
>false.

I disagree with your assessment that the first statement is trivial.  That
is exactly the point that should be stressed.  If all (or most) of the
people who have AIDS engaged in some sort of irresponsible behavior then
it stands to reason that if you stop the irresponsible behavior you can
have a big impact on the spread of the disease.  I assert that this should
be the first and foremost attack on the disease.  Get people to give up
the lifestyles or activities that are causing the largest amount of spread of 
the disease.  This would slow the spread of the disease so that we can have
more time to find a cure or treatment.  Everyone talks about how AIDS will
become the black plague of the 21st century.  If this is so, then it would
seem even more imperative to stop engaging in irresponsible behavior.  If
and when we come up with a cure or effective treatment then we can get 
back to the morale debate, but right now it seems pretty logical to try 
and stop certain types of behavior whether you agree with the morales or
not.
From: ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Presidental Politics
Keywords: Read their lips!
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:45:55 GMT
Organization: Adelphi University Swirbul Library


   Has anybody but me noticed that when true blue, God fearin', Gun totin' 
conservatives speak, you only see their bottom teeth?  If you think I'm 
kidding, then watch Bush tonight.     
   These toothy matters may seem trivial, but they have been important 
throughout modern history.  Roosevelt's secret weapon was a reassuring 
smile.  Ditto Eisenhower and Kennedy.  Then Reagan came in with a new secret 
weapon - the sneer.  Reagan's sneer said "I know what's right and you 
cringing weak-livered liberals don't."  However, behind his sneer, you knew 
that it was just show business and he was really an okay guy.  However, 
behind Bush's sneer is something else again.
   So go to the polls and give this guy something to sneer about while he's 
writing his memoirs (tentative title, "I blame it on the press," or "You don'
t knwo the real me").  Bye George.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10495 talk.politics.misc:51844
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AIDS in Arkansas: Clinton Doing Better than Bush
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:15:11 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.153246.14546@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
> From sci.med.aids:
> 
> In article <1992Oct13.131557.20203@cs.ucla.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes:
>>HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report
>>Friday July 24, 1992     
>>
>>Suggested Citation: 
>>Centers for Disease Control. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, July, 1992 
>>
>>Table 1.   AIDS cases and annual incidence rates per 100,000 population,
>>  by state, reported July 1990 through June 1991, July 1991 
>>  through June 1992; and cumulative totals, by state and age group, 
>>  through June 1992 
>>
>>                                           July 1990-             July 1991-
>>                                           June 1991              June 1992 
>>STATE OF RESIDENCE                         No.  Rate              No.  Rate 
>>
>>Arkansas                                   219   9.3              200   8.5 
>>
>>U.S. TOTAL                              41,255  16.4           45,610  18.0 

	With a straight face you present this?  How about Arkansas compared to,
say, Wyoming.  Comparing a rural state to the entire US is silly.

	(Yes, Ted, I realize you only forwarded it. :)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 9 Oct 1992 15:20:13 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ==> Clinton Willy Brandt Statement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 For Immediate Release:
 October 09, 1992

 Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
 On the Death of Willy Brandt

      All Americans are deeply saddened by the death of former German
 Chancellor Willy Brandt.  Champion of Berlin's freedom, champion of
 peace, and champion of strong ties between our two peoples, Willy
 Brandt served not only the people of Germany but also the cause of
 humankind.

      He stood beside President Kennedy when he proclaimed that we
 were all Berliners.  None of us will ever forget the extraordinary
 evening in November 1989 when the Berlin Wall finally crumbled.  And
 none of us will ever forget the accomplishments of this extraordinary
 man who helped make that day possible.  He will long be remembered as
 a leader who changed the course of history.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Randall Terry and the Death of the Republican Party
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:32:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.164104.14152@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> michaell@snake16.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee) writes:

>Ah well....they'll learn with the landslide coming in two and a half weeks....

Out of curiosity, if it isn't a landslide, what will you have learned?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------192 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:36:03 GMT

In article <1bclidINNes7@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
|>
|>Perhaps he's flip-flopping because this approach has backfired on him.
|>Now on to the more important issue, why does it matter WHERE you protest?
|>George Bush sure wasn't saying "I just think it's wrong" when Chinese
|>students here in the US were protesting the massacre in Tienanmen square.

I think he spoke through his actions by putting China on list with
MFN status for trading.  He lies and only admits it when he has no 
other way out of the situation.  Now thats what I call saying you
made a mistake.


|>
|>Allan
|>-- 
|>Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
|>aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
|>aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
|>For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
                                      
--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton