HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:01:50 GMT

In article <5818@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> Paraphrase from Bush from last night's Larry King on CNN:
> 	There are states in this country that require parental approval
> if their child wants to get his/her ears pierced. Yet we can't even tell
> parents when their child is going to have an abortion. Something's
> wrong.
> 
> 
Allright, I'm sick of hearing this ridiculous argument in favor of parental
consent laws.  It goes something like this:  since parents are responsible
for their children, they are responsible for protecting them from physical
danger.  Therefore, they should be allowed to prevent their children from
having abortions.

The fact is, abortion is MUCH less dangerous than actually bringing a baby
to term.  So, using the above line of reasoning, one could argue that
parents should be allowed to FORCE their children to have abortions in the
interest of their physical safety...

For those of you that consider parental consent laws to be appropriate,
consider the following scenarios:

Your parents will disown you if they find out your pregnant.
You would rather risk a back alley abortion than risk telling your parents.
You would rather commit suicide than risk telling your parents.
Your parents are physically abusive.
Your father IS the father of your child.

Many of the biggest opponents of parental consent laws are parents of now
dead teenagers who had illegal abortions or committed suicide...

--Melanie

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: GOP Cowardice at Penn State and Elsewhere
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:56:22 GMT

In article <Sep.30.09.10.01.1992.1339@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <92268.142017TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>> More on the violation of civil liberties at Penn State by Bush
>> supporters...
>
>While the violation of civil liberties here at Rutgers four years ago
>by Dukakis supporters at a Dukakis rally on the Rutgers campus was
>somehow overlooked.  Instead, those of us who vociferously complained
>about it were assailed as "brown shirts".
 
   Please stop beating a dead horse again and again. We are not voting for
Dukakis and this forum is not called alt.politics.dukakis. You made your 
point that this kind of behavior is not unique to GOP by bringing up the
Dukakis rally in Rutgers many many many many weeks ago *-). Even if it's
a crime, the statue limitation will soon apply. And that doesn't justify 
what the GOP did in Penn State last week either.

  Dukakis lost, don't you think you should feel satisfied with that ?
Take that as justice and don't be bitter no more, okay ?  Bush will 
lose too, that will make you even more satisfied, won't it ? If you have
such strong feelings about the issue that you can't even put it away when
we are trying to elect someone else (rather than Dukakis), vote against 
Bush, the guy who caused the same kind of unfair situation, okay ? 
 
  Son, this time Bush is not running against Dukakis. Sorry to let you know
that.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6825 alt.politics.clinton:7368 alt.politics.elections:14359
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton / Quayle's anti-Vietnam efforts
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:09:49 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep26.171550.431@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Sep25.124828.7581@eskimo.celestial.com> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:
>]In article <1992Sep22.054848.15859@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]> he [Bush] was president, he left the running of his wars to the professionals,
>]> and it showed. 
>]
>]Did he now? I respect Bush for the coalition he helped maintain but I'm 
>]terribly skeptical about the above statement. Seems to me that Gen. 
>]Schwartzkopf (sp?) had some pretty critical words about 'hawks in the
>]white house' running the war.
>
>I haven't read his book. However, I did watch his full interview last night
>with Barbara Walters, and Schwartzkopf seemed VERY pleased with the way
>Washington treated him throughout the war. He could not have been
>more positive if he were wearing a Bush in '92 hat!

(1) Read Newsweek, Sept. 28, 1992, p. 68.  "a close reading of his memoir
reveals that Schwarzkopf spent much of his time in the desert vexed by
political meddling.  He shows, again and again, that civilian leadership
was never clear on what it wanted to accomplish.  ...it is clear that he
believes that the military accomplished less than it might have.

"Schwarzkopf's complaints are forcefully echoed by the British commander,
Gen. Sir Peter De La Billiere, whose memoirs were just published...  De La
Billiere is critical of Schwarzkopf's "autocratic" style and intimidating
temper.  But he praises his "steadfastness" in the face of what he clearly
saw as "political meddling and muddling from Washington."  American
politicians, De La Billiere muses, "feel they have a right to tell the
generals how to run their campaigns."

Examples of White House micro management are cited in the article and found
in the exerpt from the book.

(2)  Our boy Norm hates Clinton, and would kiss Bush on the lips if it
would keep Clinton out of the White House.  I suppose that means something
but not that Bush was a saint during the war.  At one point, the general
insists the best thing they could do is turn the TV off in the White House.

eyes
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jjs@sei.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Stewart)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:49:00 GMT

More properly, I agree that THEY ALL show wear.  However, I do not find that
to be sufficient evidence of failing health.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Democrats & Hippocracy
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:45:09 GMT

>>us, while riding a golf cart, on our war out. Nothing had indicated that we
>                                      ^^^^^
>  
>    Why would one of you get struck ?
> 
>       (a) The cop was one of the gang who lost his job after the Rodney king
>           beating
>       (b) You were as WARing as you usually are. 
Sorry guy, that's called a mistake. That happends when you don't have a
spelling checker and you are typing fast to keep up. Change "war" to "way". How
the fuck does one "war" out? Couldn't you figure that one out? Now your whole
arguement is pointless.
Here endith the lesson
		--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard ARCH Conservative)  
   
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: cable tv
Organization: i represent myself
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:30:48 GMT

congress and senate are getting pretty ridiculous.
the 119 page bill ... (source of info; Houston Post)

it requires the FCC to
1) establish reasonable rates for
   a) basic service
   b) converter boxes
   c) remote controls
2) set minimum customer service standards
3) determine if other rates are too high

additionally it
4) lets consumers buy pay-per-view and premium channels
   with only basic service (i thought this was standard anyway)
5) gives local TV stations the power to charge cable companies
   for rebroadcasting their signals.

i'll grant that item 5 is debatable. there are good arguments 
both for and against this.
items 1-4 should NOT be controlled by government, these are
issues that work themselves out by consumers/competition. 
the only thing any regulation might have business doing is
guaranteeing the market be open to competition so each 
individual can select the service provider in their home. 
even this is debatable.

we have no right to good tv service. we have no right to 
good tv. we have no right to tv. if you don't want the 
particular cable company that your area provides to service 
your home, no one makes you pay for it. if you don't like 
what's on, turn it off.

chalk up one more for over regulation. blame the democrats?
i don't know how the representatives outside Texas voted, 
but Clinton is for the bill, Bush vetoed it. i think the 
libertarian stand should be obvious.
(in TX reps, all republicans and 2 democrats supported veto,
R senator supported veto, D senator voted override)

thanks big brother.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: More republican Cowardice at Penn State
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:24:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.203459.5908@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>When Clinton had a rally in Denver a few weeks ago, it was at lunchtime
>and workers from nearby offices could just walk right up and watch and
>listen.  No tickets.  No fences.  Afterwards, he waded right into the
>crowd to shake hands.  I am not aware that politically acceptable people
>were brought in from other parts of the state for this rally.

Same for the rally in Bryant Park in NYC last week.  A lunch time
crowd from the local office buildings gathered, no litmus tests of
political affiliation, no homeless people told to beat it.  The only
people who might be considered "bussed in to support the rally" were
the volunteers from the NY office setting up tables to register voters
and hand out literature.


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Angry Prejudice  (was: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.))
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 14:57:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.102026.25470@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>There remarks of a new pro-life (sic) poster are at the end of this
>article.  It runs long, but 

[
  ... flames RTLs for unmitigated hypocrisy ... 
]

>What do you RTLs have to say now?  Are you going to explain this guy away?
>agree with him?  justify him?
>
>The net gets to see now:  what are you going to do?
>

[... repeat of an entire article, including a right-to-lifers 
     grossly insensitive remarks about Eileen's sister's story 
   deleted  ... ]

Eileen, your sister's story is sad and it is touching.  Nothing justifies
what these people have done to your sister, nothing.  And if this had
happened to my sister, I don't doubt that I would feel and react as you have
done.  Please accept my condolences and apologies, although I myself have
done nothing to harm your sister.

In the same way, I will not trouble you with a defence of the person who
followed up with those grossly insensitive remarks.  And if you care to flame
him for his insensitivity, I will hold your coat while you do so.

But no matter how wronged you or your sister have been Eileen, this does
still does NOT give you the right to:

	a)  Attempt to make an association between those RTLs who 
            hurt your sister and myself.

        b)  Shove an entire article in my face twice.

Some RTLs have hurt your sister grievously, however _I_ did not go near your
sister, nor anyone elses, and I even have an alibi.

What you are now engaged in is nothing but angry prejudice.  And even though
it is understandable prejudice, it is nevertheless the same sort of blind
prejudice that says "every Irishman is an IRA terrorist".   And quite
frankly, though I fully understand why you might come to think such, when you
say in essence that "Frank O'Dwyer belongs to the gang that hurt my sister.",
even though you don't use my name, can you see why I might take offence at
that?  You have no right to say such things about me in public, and you
should also trim your articles.
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:01:19 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct3.202343.15285@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.000155.25694@PacBell.COM>, rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
]> BTW, it was perfectly legal and commonplace for Americans, of
]> all political persuasions, to travel to the USSR in the 60s.
]
]Back in the 60's, I don't recall Americans of any persuasion flocking
]to Moscow in great numbers. (What the heck *for*, supercold winters,
]cheap vodka, and maybe perhaps a few snapshots of all those 
]residents standing in line for a chance to buy just about 
]anything?).  The only Americans who would have had any incentive
]to go to the SU then were the appeasement peace-freakie types.

Back in the '60s, you couldn't even get into the Soviet Union except
by invitation, and invitations were only issued when the Soviets felt
that the visits would benefit the Soviet Union in their long range war
against America.

]> And Moscow had and has no monopoly on irresponsible arms-
]> trafficking.
]> 
]Yeah, well at that time they were sure as heck trafficking a 
]lot of arms to their North Viet compadres to kill and maim
]American servicemen who were there.  But maybe you'd like to
]claim Bill and the PeaceFreak Happy-Band Travellers still
]really "supported the boys", anyway, eh?  

If it is true that Bill Clinton was in Moscow with the peacenicks,
why aren't we reading this in the newspaper or seeing it in the news?
Either it isn't true, or the media is being far more biased than
normal this year. To me, this is an important issue. I wouldn't vote
for Jane Fonda for dogcatcher, and if Bill Clinton went to Moscow
for the peaceniks, he fits right in there with Jane.

]It serves a hell of a purpose to keep it in mind for the future.
]Especially since Clinton's the one so hep on starting in (the
]former) Yugoslavia with air power.  Is that a disaster anyone
]proposes we can *win* ??

Notice how the press has failed to bring that up? People like Schwartzkopf
point out that it would be stupid, but they get almost no press, because
Super-Bill said it. And to think that they call REAGAN the "teflon"
candidate!

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:05:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
protests during his college days.

    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.

     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
British citizenship.

     Is this the individual the American people should send to
The White House?

     Rep. Bob Dornan should be addressing the house again this
weekend.  I urge those concerned about what I have briefly outlined
here to call:

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

(202) 224-3121

     Your can either ask for Rep. Dornan's office or staff, or attempt
to reach your own.  This information must be presented to the American
public, and the events which occurred there must be researched and
addressed by Bill Clinton.


-- 
---------------------------------
     David De Trolio
---------------------------------
(detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:02:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.204501.4095@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>The real "issue behind the issue" of abortion is the woman's access to
>>employment(*).  If you talk one-on-one with Terry Randal you'll find that
>>he couldn't care less about killing fetuses, etc.  He HONESTLY believes
>>that a woman's place is in the home and that if women have access to
>>safe, legal, birth control OR abortion that it will be easier for them
>>to be a part of the workforce.  His anti-choice goals are just a
>>vehicle to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
>>
>>That's why we must work against this BS.  I do.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>(*) foot note this to a friend of mine that knows Terry Randal.

In article <1992Sep28.204125.27105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Oh, of course I trust your friend.  But I am Terry Randal's brother-in-law,  
>and he told me he doesn't believe anything of the sort.
>
>Ted

Boy, for two people who claim to know him, you'd think they'd know his name
is Randall Terry, not Terry Randal.  {:^)

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6849 alt.politics.clinton:7400 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4651
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:04:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Taken from an article by tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli).
%jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
%>Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
%>for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
%>just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
%>the coward here, not Clinton.  

Question is, did Danny think entering the National Guard was the right
thing to do?

%       Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
%          one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
What about Perot?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:04:42 GMT

detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:


>     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
>live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
>protests during his college days.

Consider the source.  Dornan is perhaps best known for physically
assaulting another member of the House on the House floor by lunging
at him and trying to strangle him, an act for which Dornan was officially
censured by the House.  He's a right-wing nut who spends his nights looking
for communists under his bed -- and everything he says should be taken in
that context.
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7920 alt.politics.clinton:8723
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:36:09 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <amvdpyw@Unify.Com>, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
> Considering that the rules of English spelling and punctuation violated above
> are taught before the 8th grade, one is irresistably drawn to the conclusion
> that vsg001 is envious of his antagonist's grasp of the English language, as
> the latter has shown a markedly greater familiarity with it than the former.
As if I would let this go. Pardon me miss pristine bitch from the deep recesses
of liberalism's buttocks. Could you come down from your pedestal of arrogance,
the view was not impressive anyway, and kindly remove the long, splintered 2X4
from out of your ass. Yes, I do misspell words, everyone on the fucking net
does, but you see quibbledick, people try to look past them, as some people's
VAX does not have spelling checkers. And it because of morons like yourself
that cause people like me to become infuriated when typing. Listen Caroline,
this is a disscussion board, not a spelling contest, if you can't handle the
issues, then leave, start your own group (alt.fan.spelling ?) do whatever you
like, but when you are on the political boards, try to keep with the topic. And
if you are so keen on impressing everyone, what's your major? Education? Women
Studies? Envioronment? At the very least I must thank-you for carefully
following my posts, now, do you understand them?
--
Here endith the Lesson
--
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:56:04 GMT

I don't think a man who was never confronted with the dilemma
of an unjust war and an unjust selective service system is
really qualified to be president.
From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Daniel West)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Draft constitutionality
Date: 1 Oct 1992 04:43:18 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


Interesting proposal, that Selective Service be abolished.

Of course, it doesn't need to be abolished.

It's illegal to begin with and, as a result, is not binding. 

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude," the 13th amendment says,
and a draft certainly qualifies as involuntary service.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush