HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:26:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug20.021035.12178@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
> I write:
>>
>>But doesn't this imply that the unborn, can, indeed, be human life
>>before the development of the CNS?  Since we are unsure, and things
>>are legalized, aren't we playing around with human life?
>>
>>Besides, how do you define the development of the CNS?  It seems like 
>>it goes from conception --> development of CNS == Human life.  All of a
>>sudden, a human life suddenly becomes human by virtue of the few magic 
>>cells which suddenly appear (or rather, those cells created by the DNA.
>>The entire human is defined already at conception.)
>>
>>Once again, we have to analyze what abortion is.  One of the things
>>abortion does is to terminate a process (the process is the growth
>>of a human being).  That process may, in actuality, be a human being.
>
>The are several processes and decisions preceeding conception.  The biological
>development of the parents.  Decisions about having sex, about using
>contraceptives, about moving to Wisconsin, about deciding to talk to a girl
>in the cafeteria.  Conception is just on of many processes leading to the
>development of a unique human being.  

In a way, true.  But the process of getting the sperm and the egg together
is a willful act directed by the human will.  They may come together, or
they may not.  

But once they do come together, however, you cannot "will" the unborn
to life.  Nature will take its course.  Its destiny is to live on earth
like any human in this earth.  

True, some tragic things might happen like a miscarriage or so, but in 
order to kill this unborn human, most of the time, we have to "will" it.
We have to willfully say we want that human life aborted.  

So conception is not JUST a process leading up to a human being.  It is
the main beginnings of a human life.

>And deciding whether or not to "have
>an abortion" just after conception is simply one of several decisions which
>are made for that unique human life to come into being.  A meaningful human
>life eventuates when cognition develops, whenever that is.  To end the
>life subsequent to that is tragic.  

It is tragic, but how do you tolerate it?

[stuff deleted]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:50:57 GMT

da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
b > Brett (Stupendous Man)

b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
b > do not automatically translate into more money.

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

  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:08:13 GMT
 <1992Aug13.023553.20420@cs.tulane.edu> <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!

	Bye, Judy.
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: NAMBLA
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:43:36 GMT
Organization: Systems Development Corporation

Clayton Cramer's obsession with NAMBLA reminds me of a joke the was printed
years ago in the Nation Lampoon:

For love - a woman
For sex - a boy
But for sheer ecstasy - a melon

Seriously, NAMBLA is wierd, but one can find equal wierdness in straight 
personal ads.  How about the shaved 35 year olds masquerading as prepubescents 
in every other XXX movie?

Norm
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39469 talk.politics.theory:3656 alt.politics.elections:10492 alt.politics.marrou:763 alt.politics.bush:1449
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 11 Aug 92 21:13:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <1992Aug6.013932.29133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
>
>	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!

What is a bureaucrat?  Principal? Vice-Principal?  Planners, school
board staff?  Personnel director? Payroll manager?

>	Since they don't contribute directly to children's education,
>the large majority of them can be kicked out with no loss of
>efficiency. Computerization will also help in making a lot of
>bureaucrats unnecessary.

Running a government agency is not the same a running a buisness but
there are many things that are the same. What you are saying is like 
fire everyone at Microsoft who isn't a programmer since they don't
contribute to making software.

-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40370 ca.politics:6911 ba.politics:4636
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:07:49 GMT
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <11806@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Go read it, and tell me that
> homosexuals don't connect homosexuality with NAMBLA.

Actually, what I connect with NAMBLA is you, you lying
pig.

I've been out of the closet for nearly two decades, and I
don't personally know anyone who supports sex between children
and adults.  I've never seen anyone, anywhere, say that they
support nonconsensual sex between children and adults.  I,
like most people I know, believe that true consensuality is not
possible between children and adults.  Any 'support' I've seen
for NAMBLA has not been for NAMBLA per se, but of the right
to free association (Phool Ronzone's sacred cow) and the right
to free speech.  If and when it can be shown that NAMBLA or
its members have done anything even slightly illegal I fully
support nailing them to the wall and nailing them hard, but
until then I have every intention of leaving them alone.

You're a liar, and your agenda is transparent.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: 19064@chopin.udel.edu (Liang-Wen Chang)
Subject: A party looking for enemies.
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:40:57 GMT

All I heard in Republican Convention is exclusive, a party of exclusion.

They are not promoting family values, they are definding enemies.

When Bush run out of USSR to be an external enemy, he is trying to
define internal enemies: 

1. Using religion to separate people's belief.
2. Using family values as an issue to promote families against families.

If Bush can not deal with congress, let someone (either republican
or democrat) who can to be president.  If Bush said democrats
controlled congress makes him fail, then with a republican congress
will not make him a successful president either.  The analogy is same
as Bush talk about quota for minority.  If Bush wants minority
fights from ground zero without quota, Bush himself should also
fight from ground zero to overcome congress.  

I would like to see president changed first, then change congress.
I thought American spirit is  "I can do it", not "if you give me
advantage, then I can do it".
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39918 talk.politics.guns:19330
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy,talk.bizarre
Subject: GOP spawn PinkoRedKommieWelfareStatePlot
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:21:59 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}
] Would the re-election of Bush/Quayle so that late-night talk show
] hosts have a continuous supply of material be Welfare for Stand-Up
] Comics?

I knew IT! I knew IT!!!!

There was some sort of SubversivePinkoPlot
lurking beneath the profussion of LateNightTalkShows....

We Tried To warn YOU what would Happen if Johnny Carson Retired!!!!

But DID YOU LISTEN TO US!!!!!

Now its: "Take a Kommie To Bed Night in the USA!"


ciao
drieux


Brought to you as a Public Service from the wonderful folks at:

ThereAreKommiesUnderTheBed Inc.

And Your Local PBS Stations.....




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39748 alt.politics.clinton:1951 alt.politics.bush:1603
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:31:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <19282@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
- In article <1992Aug12.191134.20956@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
- } ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
- } >  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
- } >  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
- } >  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
- } >  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
- } >  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
- } >  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 
- } 
- } Both Clinton AND Bush have that as part of their health care reforms.
- } They BOTH want Congress to pass laws limiting liability for
- } malpractice.  See today's (12 August) New York Times, front page
- } article.  It's actually a nice and concise summary of where the two
- } differ (and where they don't).
- 
- Hmmm.  In Clinton's "National Economic Strategy for America", under health
- care reform he mentions things like "take on the insurance companies, the
- drug companies, and the health care bureaucracies", but nowhere does he say
- anything about tort reform.
- --
- David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
- "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
- can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville

On alt.politics.clinton, someone posted a speach Clinton gave recently
(to "Southern Leadership Conference?  Something like that). Anyway,
one paragraph speaks to David's objection:

| There are all kinds of other things we need to do to reduce medical
| liability costs, have alternative dispute resolution mechanisms,
| give doctors some accepted practice guidelines all across the
| country that will raise the presumption that they perform properly,
| if they follow those practice guidelines.

The phrase "alternative dispute resolution mechanisms" sounds to me
like what David Olson was saying was lacking. I haven't read anything
more specific than this, but clearly Clinton is thinking about it.

At the beginning of this thread, Ernie Corley claims that Clinton is
against tort reforms of any kind. I think the above quote refutes
that claim.
						- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40402 talk.abortion:32299 alt.politics.bush:1984
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:45:09 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>Just to let you know I am pro-life after eight weeks and believe
>in this for non-religious reasons.  I believe the pro-life stance
>meaning the belief that life has intrinsic value of its own, even
>in the womb (human life at that), is logically consistent and 
>DOES NOT require a religious theology.

It does if you're going to make sense, and protecting a fetus AFTER EIGHT
WEEKS makes less sense, especially with no explanation, then even a
religious looney shrieking about protection at conception.

Blatant assertions, Orr, are not standalone arguments.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:39:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BtADMt.DB5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>
>>> 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?
>>                                                
>
>    Because eventually you have to pay. 


   With all due (??) respect to Ronald Reagan, three things must
   be noted:

   1.  It takes two to pass a budget -- Congress and Reagan were
       co-conspirators in this.

   2.  The voters loved it -- they loved Ronnie, they reelected 95% of
       the Congressional incumbents and they really loved all those 
       pork barrel projects.  They scream bloody murder if anyone tries
       to cut anything and everytime there's a problem they cry "why
       doesn't the government DO something about it? (but don't raise my
       taxes)".

   3.  US corporate and personal debt are at astronomical levels --
       it's *total hypocrisy* for someone with a wallet full of 
       cedit cards with outstanding balances and car loans up 
       the gazoo, etc,  or CEO's of companies with millions in
       outstanding bank debt or floating huge corporate bonds,
       or attempting LBO's of other companies, to whine about
       government debt.  " . . . cast out the beam in your eye,"
       etc.

   I'm not saying the deficit isn't a problem, just that it's  
   as American as Mom and Apple pie and Ronnie, bless him, isn't
   to blame for it, the voters are.


---peter
  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:03:53 GMT

In article <26538@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>In article <BswBy6.ECK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug12.220315.1424@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> >
>|> >	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>|> >abortion?
>|> >
>|> >	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
>|> >what is???
>|> 
>|> Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
>|> is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
>|> a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
>|> a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
>|> would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>|> 
>|> Tim
>
>OK Tim. Go ahead. Open the hornets nest. Let the abortion flame wars begin.
>Since you brought it up, explain to me why I should consider a 1 month old
>lump of cells with no brain and no heart as if it were alive. Also explain
>how, if say, your beliefs about life and my beliefs about life differ, why
>both of us should be ruled by yours. JESUS this debate is *tiresome!*
>							- Lee Campbell


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40679 alt.politics.elections:10982 alt.politics.clinton:2261 alt.politics.bush:2177
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:33:09 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Thirty million new jobs?  Where, in the 10 million new fast-junk-food-joints?


	Bye, Judy.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40947 sci.econ:6975
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:49:09 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Roy Johnson) writes:
>> = (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>>   Granted, but this seems unduly harsh for those cases in which birth
>>   control fails.  Even if a method has a 95% success rate, the odds
>>   are that it will fail 40% of the time every 10 years.

>You'd think they'd take the possibility of failure into account.

(Keerist.  Another mental midget "explaining" his compassion and
understanding of women.)

They do take it into account.  And if they get pregnant, they can choose
an abortion, or not.

>>  The individual,
>>   even by taking responsiblity in using birth control (the distribution
>>   of which is opposed by the Republicans),

>That's news to me.  Or do you mean *funding* distribution of birth
>control (about which I've seen nothing either)?

Did you just crawl out of the sewer today?  It's not Elizabeth's job to
update the news for you, clown.  Read the Republican platform, for
example.

Sheesh.

>>   is not necessarily in control of her fate.

>Who is ever 100% in control of their fate?  You pay your nickel, you take
>your chances.

Do you puritannical women enslavers have a central office?  I've never
seen so many people with zombie-like narrow, petty minds.  What a drag
life you must live.  I've always wondered if the main catalyst to
fanaticism is triggered by intense religious belief, or some other intense
feeling caused by sexual repression or calamity.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40721 talk.abortion:32548 alt.politics.bush:2205
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:54:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <syfywn-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>>In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>
>>>>But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>>>>have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>>>>positions where abortion does not become an alternative?
>>>
>>>Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?
>
>>It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place.  If men
>>don't participate, then women can't have abortions because they are
>>not pregnant, right?
>
>My most sincere apologies, I had no idea that there were so many men
>out there having abortions.
>
>                          -rocker

The initial question involved putting PEOPLE (read: Men and Women) in
situations where abortion does not become an alternative.  Since conceiving
a child is a joint act between a man and a woman, then men are capable of
NOT getting a woman pregnant.  No pregancies, no abortion.

So men, indeed, can help put women in positions where abortion does not
become an alternative.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39482 talk.abortion:31573 alt.politics.bush:1457
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: OOPS
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:30:47 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver

Subject says it all.  I apologize for the extra posting on Bush's stance
on his family.  I received the original posts on alt.fan.dan-quayle, and
didn't notice the cross-posting.  When my post didn't show up on a.f.dq,
I assumed my poster had barfed or something.  

John

-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:46:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug16.041709.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>
>>Surely life is a continuum. 
>
>Please explain in detail.

The egss have been living in the mother since before she was born.  They were
derived from cellular division within the grandmother's egg following
fertilization by the grandfather's sperm.  Both the egg and sperm were alive
prior to fertilization.
>
>> Are the egg and sperm cell not both alive prior
>>to conception?  
>
(This paragraph sums it up) 
>However, after conception, the father's traits and the mother's traits
>are meshed into a new set of genetic code.  A totally new set of DNA is
>created completely UNIQUE from the mother.  Once the abortion takes place,
>the DNA combination is EXTREMELY unlikely to come up again.  

OK.  So you are not actually saying that life begins at conception but that
a UNIQUE human life begins at conception.  If any form of birth control is
practised, including abstinance, a unique human being is denied the chance
of life.  However, if every potential human life came to fruition, the species
would soon be extinct from starvation.  The fertilized ovum is an actual,
rather than potential, human life.  Hence, abortion is the least desirable
form of birth control.  But any form of right is legal rather than scientific.
It is really a matter of where you draw the line in order to balance respect
for human life with the realities of available resources.  I agree with
Reagan and Bush that abortion is a national tragedy.  However it may be a
necessary evil if better methods are not used to control population growth
and to eliminate poverty and starvation.  Such methods might include: more
environmentally-sound policies, universal health coverage to encourage people
to move off welfare and more emphasis on education.  Such methods would
probably be more effective in reducing the abortion rate then would
anti-abortion legislation.  And these methods represent the Democratic rather
than the Republican platform.
>
>Even if you disagree with people like me that life begins at conception,
>when can we consider the unborn to be humans?  

They are always human, but rights are not scientific.  They are legal and
possibly religious.

Peter Lauren.


>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>Do they share a common soul?
>
>Once again, you mention soul.  I don't think pro-lifers even use a soul
>as a means of persuasion.  Somewhere in people, if they are not clouded
>by too much emotion, personal gain, etc., there is a general sensibility
>about life.  Perhaps we have to teach people about the birth process rather
>than teaching them about how to have sex without "getting caught."
>
>