HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 19:52:45 GMT

<1992Oct9.204843.20175@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:
><1992Oct8.165528.29184@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
...
>>Now then, what does an unborn right to life entail?  What do you mean
>>when you say the unborn have a right to live?
>
>There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>abortion the killing of that child.

You keep making ambiguous statements like this.  *Lots* of things show
brainwave activity - does that make them "children"?  As a matter of
*fact*, the human fetus doesn't begin significant neural activity until
the 22-24 week.  Before this point the nerves do not have enough of a
mylenation sheath to allow for significant nerve impulses. That's why the
fetus will kick and flutter - these are just misfirings of the nervous
system and it indicates the amount of "thinking" that is going on (i.e.
none).

In the future I suggest you reread your posts before sending them and
qualify any ambiguous statements like "It moves so it must be aware" or
"It has brainewaves so it must be a child".


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:30:24 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <Bvzy9p.6GK@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> and won re-election in an even BIGGER landslide. In 1988, Reagan said (in
> effect) "Look, I know Bush was always a liberal, and he called my policies
> 'voodoo economics', but he's seen the light, he's learned the truth." And
> Bush campaigned as a conservative, and won the election. He then proceeded
> to govern like a liberal, got in bed with Foley and "his good friend Danny
> Rostenkowski", agreed to the biggest tax hike in HISTORY, has screwed over
> the conservatives at every opportunity, and has played us for suckers.
> THAT'S why Bush will lose (and I agree, he probably can't pull it out of
> the hat this late). 

NOw this man is creative - I mean get this- Bush is a liberal!! Something
tells me you'd need to be right of Attila the Hun to think that George 
Bush is Liberal - I mean he has all of the classic conservative moves - 
he's a racist, he gives tax breaks to the rich, he bashes gays, he
tries to force his religeous views down your throat, he whines endlessly
about abortion, he insists we're winning the war on drugs - he is classic - 
I would think he'd be the poster child for conservatives.... uh oh - wait
I see it now, I think he supports a woman's right to vote - I see he *is*
a liberal after all....



			gln
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:36:26 GMT


Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.

Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."
I can't just walk away from this.  I have committed myself to this debate
and cannot give up.  That would be wrong.

I have corrected my previous posting that was thought to be a vote for pro-
choice.  I should not have been so vague.
Simon

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7249 alt.politics.elections:16453 talk.politics.misc:51365
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:57:50 GMT
	<1992Oct7.234113.2052@seq.uncwil.edu> <6580@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
	<1992Oct12.083321.25736@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 08:33:21 GMT

rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
|>It *is* rather curious that Clinton would "tour" the Soviet Union AND
|>Czechoslovakia so soon after the '68 repression.

|>Clinton impresses me more and more as a man of principle.   NOT!

You *had* to go thru Prague.  This is from conservative Repub governor
Weld who did the same thing 2 years before Clinton.

I can't believe people are falling for this.  I mean, are we not at
least going to pretend to some sort of rationality?  Have we no
decency, at long last?

I think this whole Vietnam thing backfires on the folx who were too
young for Vietnam but old enough to see _Platoon_ and _Apocalypse
Now_.   The country has long-ago decided that Vietnam was one of the
worst mistakes we've ever made and the younger folx who have not even
a mild memory of WWII think the whole idea of blind loyalty to your
country is absoluely insane.
--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:11:39 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM


Rush Limbaugh:  You are an insensitive, hate-monger.

Making fun of the homeless.  What a man!!
Making fun of native americans.  What a humorist!!
Making fun of people with AIDS.  What a celebrity!!

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of
the problem.  


Jared Dahl

Opinions are mine, not my companies.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:33:06 GMT

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>Rush Limbaugh:  You are an insensitive, hate-monger.

    You should be careful here. Rush would probably consider it flattering 
to be referred to as "insensitive".

>Making fun of the homeless.  What a man!!

    Rush has occasionally made fun of individual homeless persons, and he's 
frequently made fun of "Homeless Advocates". I don't think that he makes 
fun of all homeless people in general, but I can see how you might jump to 
that conclusion. I've found that in order to refute Rush it's necessary to 
listen to him very carefully. It doesn't help to refute something if Rush 
didn't actually say it.

>Making fun of native americans.  What a humorist!!
>Making fun of people with AIDS.  What a celebrity!!

    I don't think I've ever heard Rush make fun of people with AIDS as a 
group; as usual, he concentrates his attention on individuals and leaders 
whose message offends him. He's certainly made fun of ACT UP, and Magic 
Johnson, however I really think that his intent is to attack their policies 
rather than their persons. Too bad his intent sometimes strays from what he 
actually does.

>If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  

    Now there's a unifying, non-divisive slogan for you.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politic
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:19:14 GMT

I too believe that abortion, in most cases, is barbaric.  It is especially
barbaric when used as birth control.  Neither side in this debate is willing
to come to a compromise (if there is one).  I would suggest that a good
compromise would be that life begins with brain activity.  Brain activity is
certainly considered as an indication of the end of life, why not the
beginning?

$0.02


Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:32:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205930.22164@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.062100.26274@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>>	It is wrong to kill an *innocent* life. the death penalty applies
>>to people who have been proven guilty of heinous crimes. as for war, 
>>you would have to look pretty hard to find someone who said war was a
>>good thing in and of itself. It is an action to be only when the 
>>alternative is less attractive.
>
>I think the same things can be said about abortion.  You'd have to look
>pretty hard for someone who thinks abortions should be had for the sake
>of having abortion.  Abortion, too, "is an action to be [taken] only when
>the alternative is less attractive," i.e., when pregnancy is a less
>attractive option.
>
>-Kristy
>-- 
	My point was simply that *if* you believe that a fetus is a human
and deserving of human rights, then it is worthy of protection by the
government, and why this does not apply to the death penalty. Again taking
the *if* position, then the 'less attractive' alternative to abortion doesn't
exactly compare to the magnitude of the 'less attractive' alternative to war.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:04:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>Jennifer, I have a simple question for you.
>
>Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
>pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
>instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
>did so, neither would I!

OK, what's your point?  If my mom aborted me, I wouldn't be here.
So?  Do you mean to imply that somehow, somewhere, there'd be some
lost, wandering "soul" which would be able to conceive of a life
that never was and would be able to regret a lost opportunity?  If
you do, fine, but that's not how I see it.

>That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
>*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
>the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
>yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
>worthless.

So women are breeding machines?  Just think, if people are resources,
we should have some more of them.  All healthy women between 18 and 35
should go to be impregnated at the nearest Resource Creation Center!

Get real, this is similar to the argument that a woman could be
aborting the next Davinci or Einstein.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7336 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6821
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Clinton Lexicon
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:44:27 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Oct9.181739.16130@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>Inspired by a cartoon in Reason Magazine.
>
>What he says.                          What he means.
>
>The rich must pay their fair share.    I'm going to raise taxes.
>We must invest in America.             I'm going to raise taxes a lot.
>I have a plan to revitalize America.   I'm going to raise taxes so high it'll 
>					  make your ears bleed.
>The Republicans are raising that       I haven't figured out a good story
>   issue because they're desperate.       to tell yet.

That's hilarious! 

This is the funniest Clinton joke I've heard yet.


=============================================================================
! "He's very smart and he does his homework. And you ignore him at your
peril." - Ted Koppel, on Rush Limbaugh. 

! "I'm still trying to sort out what I'm permitted to laugh at and
what is not politically acceptable for me to laugh at" - Feminist
Lawyer Gloria Allred, on Rush Limbaugh. 
 
				- Vanity Fair, May 1992 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:12:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.190642.10921@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>>
>>>[Gordon's comments deleted...]
>>>
>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.
>
>I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I'm as PC as they come, and I
>wouldn't DREAM of burning your book. From what I've seen so far, I
>think I'd run out and buy a copy the minute it hit the shelves, and
>I'd try to get all my friends to do the same. I would want it to
>get the widest exposure possible.
>
>I'm already hungry for more! Do you think that maybe you could give
>us a plot summary? I'm especially interesting in finding out whether
>the police had standing orders to attack pro-choice demonstrators,
>or whether they decided to do it on their own.
>
>Your other articles lead me to belive that you're pro-life. Am I
>right in assuming that your novel describes the steps that you
>think we should take in order to make the world a better place
>to live? Just curious.
>
Well, I am most definitely pro-life.  In the above scenario, the police
had standing orders to use whateve force necessary to stop the pro-choice
demonstrators.  Now, I haven't really written much so far, but the basic
storyline is: The future.  Liberalism has run amok in our society, the people
are fed up with this trend and demand a solution to this problem.  The people
find their solution embodied in the ideas promoted by the New Order Party,
who is elected by a landslide on their candidate's promise to stamp out
liberalism once and for all. You're right, to make the world a better place.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:52:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.180859.27388@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.010811.23713@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>Uh, folks, I'm 22, you're way off on my age again!!
>>
>>Simon
>
>Is that in, you know, like... _human years_?
>
>;-)
>Alan

And you think I'm being silly????      Oh- I'm looking fora modem software
package with the right terminal emulation to allow actual editing of postings,
so eventually this problem will be solved.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi (no film at 11 due to lack of interest)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:46:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.151422.1662@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.194614.14480@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.024022.15517@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>Thank you Simon. I always thought you were a fascist. Having you state it
>>>plainly on the net is very honest of you.
>>>
>>So Orwell was then a fascist because he wrote about Big Brother in "1984"??
>>I always thought that "1984" was a criticism of fascism/Nazism.  I'm
>>automatically a Nazi for planning to write about how such a system could
>>come to power under the right circumstances.  You might be getting fact and
>>fiction a tad confused.  I'm not a Nazi, in fact if you have read my previous
>>postings you'll see that one fundamental reason I oppose abortion is its
>>potential for use in Nazi-style eugenics.  I doubt I would last long under a
>>Nazi system.
>
>Umm, I think that the reason why Nadja (and I and perhaps others) think
>you're a fascist is not that you want to right the book that you're
>describing, but that you are giving us the impression that you think
>that the future your creating in your novel is a future you'd like to
>see come true.  So Orwell's "1984" was a criticism of fasism/nazism -
>is your novel a criticism of the police state which crushes all who
>protest unpopular in unpopular causes (your rampant liberalism) or do
>you revel in such a dream of the future.  From you're posts it seems
>the latter.
>
Actually, Imy planned story is a criticism of liberalism by showing the
possibility of unchecked liberal policies might make people angry enough
to vote for a fascist part, not knowing what they really are, but just seeing
them as an alternative.  In this sense my story is also an illustration of
one possible way a fascist system might rise to power.  Not a promotion
of nazism by any means.  And I say again, I am not a fasicst, nazi, or
racist.  I do not envision suc a system being implemented, as I would
be among those on a nazi's hit list.  Like I said, I am showing the dangers
of  extremism breeding extremism.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:08:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>> Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get...
>> Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
>> discuss it.
>>
>> Jennifer
>
>Jennifer, I have a simple question for you.
>
>Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
>pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
>instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
>did so, neither would I!
>
>That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
>*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
>the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
>yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
>worthless.

Yes--perfect!!!  Abortion does indeed cheapen life.

Now don't give me that BS about the death penalty and warfare,
because everyone knows that is totally unrelated.

>
>--------------------------------------------
>William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
>
>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan
Good quote!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Simon



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6995 alt.activism.d:3699 alt.politics.elections:15916 alt.politics.bush:8471 alt.politics.clinton:9470 talk.politics.misc:50637 talk.abortion:41715