HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: So what is the Down Side?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:10:28 GMT

Bob, I am routing this downwards to talk.politcs.misc
as being a 'safe haven' to discuss generic political
notions of substance.

bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
] In article <1992Oct14.001442.14752@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

bob,

] >maybe you've been out of the country for a few decades or so????
] 
] >So far even WITH grand Mandates from the Masses,
] >what sort of 'Radical New Changes' have we really seen?
] 
] Besides, if no changes are possible and gridlock is
] inevitable, then why vote for one candidate over another?
] If this is your belief, humor me and vote so that all
] both branches of Congress and the executive aren't under
] the same party. I don't particularly care which of the
] three is an opposite & I don't care which opposite it is.
] I think a viable third party would be a *good* thing at
] this point (not to be construed as a Ross endorsement).
] 
] Do not read into this that I am happy with the way things are,
] but I think I'd rather see a potato in the oval office
] sooner than any of the three present candidates.


I presume that your 'general' point is that it is
prudent to have a 'loyal opposition' that can
provide an effective means of protecting the
'minority rights' from being trampled upon by
a rush of "Well the Majority of US are in Favor of it..."

And hence that a creative opposition of forces is
useful in the distribution of power?

I would putforward the argument: 12 years has been enough.

We know that the traditional GOP process will 
attempt to do for Quayle what it did for Bush,
and we would THEN face the 'Xerox Factor' that
Bush was No Reagan, and Dan is No BUSH.

It also follows from this process that one of two
things will occur with a Non_GOP white house:

1. Things will get better and a Miracle will have happened.

2. Things will go the way of Democrat Dominated Legislatures,
{as is the ugly history of Hawaiian State Politics.} and there
will be a more reasoned approach to presenting a Valid GOP
candidate who is NOT married to the 'Relgious Right Loonie Fringe'
and can restore the GOP to its Patriotic, American 
Traditional Family Values. {and then rescue the economy.}

Note if You will that (2.) also allows the GOP to do a 
serious search for a competent Presidential Candidate.

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43083 talk.politics.misc:52514 alt.sex:33196 alt.rush-limbaugh:7655 alt.politics.elections:17361 alt.politics.clinton:11040 alt.politics.bush:9527
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:30:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <9463@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>
>Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of congress.
>
>>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>
>So what.
>
>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>
>Why?  If congress passes a law that says that abortion is murder, then it
>is murder.
>
>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>
>Your definition, not universally accepted.  My copy of Webster's defines
>murder as the killing of a human being.
>
>>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>
>obviously
>
>>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>
>Your definition, not universally accepted.
>Back to Webster's.
>
>child:
>1A: an unborn or recently born person.
--------------
Yeah, but we call them beans when they're still in the ground, and you
wouldn't eat them. Loose uncommon usage does not a truth make.

>>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>>Are you getting it yet?
>Just because you want something, does not make it so.
>Repeating giberish over and over may put you into a trance, but it won't
>make it the truth.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
----------------
And the same holds for you. Just because you want two-thirds of the
American public and 90% world-wide to recognize a fetus as a child,
whether Webster has mixed their two views up to write one definition
or not, will not make it so. And people who are already in a trance
from their gibberish, such as yourself, should seek professional help.
The type of thinking that agrees with you is waning in the world. This
happens because of advancement in human thinking from superstition to
reason. Americans are just a little slower, on average, than most.
Having been founded as a puritan colony it is still thrashing its
death throes. Stomp it! Kill it! It shall not live! Kill this
church-state, America. Humanity requires that we do so. Kill this
superstition, 'right to life'.
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   To remain ignorant enter in your KILL file:  *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060     /From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com/h:j     *
* The REAL God doesn't HAVE to exist! A flame is its own reflection. *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:46:27 GMT

In article <9478@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.
>
>>And by all accepted and legal definitions the fetus is not a person.
>
>This may be true, but it is not an immutable law.  It can and will be
>changed.

True enough.  Why should it be changed?

>For starters, read the Constitution.
>
>I did, I didn't find anything to do with abortion in there.
True, but a cursory examination will reveal a right to privacy.  I think 
that medical procdures on one's uterus should be private, don't you?

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:49:57 GMT

In article <grendel.718921500@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1bckfaINN1sf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>> = (William Crosmun) writes:
>>...lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>>...Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
>>...lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
>>...and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
>>>>What is Clinton going to do differently?
>
>>You know, from where I sit, just about ANYTHING different would be an
>>improvement.
>
>Basically, the idea here is this: we _know_ Bush is corrupt.  We've
>had him and his senile predecessor for twelve years.  Now, Clinton
>may be corrupt as well, but there's always the possibility that he
>isn't.  We vote for him because of that possibility.
Here it is again, lack of an argument and therefore name calling.  Firstly,
we don'T KNOW that The President is corrupt.  In fact many of us don't even
suspect that he is.  Secondly there is no evidence to suggest that former
President Reagan is senile.  What really burns you folks is that Ronald
Reagan was likely the most popular president this century and that he would
likely still be president if not for the 22nd ammendment.  Remember the last
Democratic president was Jimmy Carter and before that LBJ.  Neither of these
two gentlemen were extremely popular.  I keep repeating it but it gets
misconstrued, if liberal ideas and policies are so great, why does Governor
Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?

miscontrued>
>


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42286 talk.politics.guns:22060 alt.conspiracy:11218 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5302 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6750
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:39:51 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:

>I keep repeating it but it gets
>misconstrued, if liberal ideas and policies are so great, why does Governor
>Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?

It doesn't get misconstrued, it gets ignored (for the most part)
because it's such a silly question.

Why does Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?  Two easons
that I can think of:

1)  He is one.

2)  Because he's a politician, and he needs lots of votes to win.

An idea's popularity is not an accurate indicator of its greatness.  

Slavery was popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
Facism was popular (in Germany), but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
Gay bashing is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
Not reading is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
Watching 6 hours of TV/day is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
The second amendment is in disrepute these days, but it's still a great idea.

Catch my drift?



-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Fools, Inc.
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:46:00 GMT

rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes ...
>	So, drieux, why do you post?

Several answers to that from my standpoint.

One might be "Why ask why?", but I hate inane beer commercials and
don't even drink beer, so that one's out.

One might also answer "Why do you care?", but that sounds to hostile.

I'll offer my opinion.

drieux is the court jester, tweaking noses and sensibilities, 
speaking in elaborate metaphors, and generally mixing things up.
Since stagnation is boring, this effect I view to be a generally 
good thing.

And why am I answering your question instead of letting drieux?  
Have you ever known a jester to give a straight answer to the 
question "why do you jest?"

Now I'm going retreat, protecting both my nose and my sensibilities.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:32:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bw0ECs.2DL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.035443.9243@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <BvxKoy.6sq@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
In articles: Simon Booth says:

:What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
:based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
:what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
:be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.

First, what does 'a good relationship' have to do with monogamy,
heterosexuality, or abortion. 

:Now when have I said that sex was evil??  Unless me saying that sex is ok
:between two people in a monogamous relationship is somehow an attack on ll
:sex.  Is their anything in what I said that specifically says to outlaw sex??

Yes, saying that sex is OK betwen two people in a monogamous relationship
is condemning sex. I assume that you don't believe in polyamory and I
somehow doubt that you would consider a monogamous gay couple OK in your
definition of monogamy.

Simon, you are obviously a virgin, and likely to stay that way unless you
meet some woman with self-esteem or intelligence low enought to not mind,
or notice, being treated as an object for use.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:20:14 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>In article <7186@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes

>>Please tell me just where in the B of R a right to life is granted.

>I guess it's nowhere implied.  Nor was it thought of by the framers.  They were
>more concerned with more important things like the right to bear arms and the
>right to assemble.

>Right.

You are completely, 100% wrong if you're implying that this right should
be there. Please remember that the *only* people with rights at this
time were white males, over the age of 21, that were propertied. I think
that this implies that they thought only this subset of humanity had
any rights at all. These rights were expanded to cover a greater segment
of humanity as the years went by, and now, those creepy little pro-lifers
wish to extend it to the point that they take away rights of women.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:41:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Oct7.044434.14387@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>We've got a choice to do *anything*.  Deuteronomy 30:19 is a commandment
>from God to choose life, just like He commanded us not to kill or commit
>adultery or steal or lie.  Yeah, we've got a choice to all these things.
>That doesn't mean I'm pro-choice.  I'm pro-life because I believe choosing
>abortion to be wrong.  

 So don't choose it. That shouldn't be too hard for someone named
"Samuel" to avoid.
>\\================================================================//
>           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
>//================================================================\\
>||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         |\

                                                            MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:05:51 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


P>In article <3907@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
 
P>Dan-
P>  I can't understand why you haven't gotten an "answer" from FFLA people you
P>have asked.  One's position on every other women's issue, eg.pornography and
P>violence against women,  sexual harassment, the 'glass ceiling' in employment, 
P>etc. are left intact regardless of one's belief on the rights of the unborn.  
P>Members of FFLA sincerely believe that the unborn fetus shares equal rights
P>with the rest of society and should be accorded the same protection using the
P>same "force of government" to use your phrase.  They take on all other feminist
P>positions as well as an anti-capital punishment stance which I find wholly
P>consistant.

I think I'm starting to better understand FFLA's position.  They are
feminist in a variety of areas.  It is only in the abortion debate where
they quit being feminist.  I would then argue that their use of the title
Feminist For Life is intentionally deceiving, because it leaves the 
impression that their position on abortion is pro-women.  Also much 
of their literature attempts to also leave that impression.  However,
when push comes to shove, when the fetus's right to life is in conflict
with the woman's right to her body, they are willing to use the force 
of law to take away the woman's right.  As should be clear, this is hardly
a pro-woman position.  

P>FFLA members were jeered at and physically accosted during a recent Take Back
P>The Night rally here in Washington, DC.  This just doesn't make sense to me. 
P>Why do people have to resort to such vilification of others in an attempt to
P>bolster their own position?  While I have sensed frustration coming from FFLA
P>members I have never seen the type of vitriolic posturing that can appear from
P>the "establishment" feminist organizations. 

Your missing a major chunk of the story.  Take Back the Night was a rally in 
protest against rape.  FFLA used this rally to attempt to push their pro-life,
anti-woman agenda.  Take Back the Night is hardly an appropriate forum 
for that.  Many feminist's recognize forced pregnancy as much like rape.
I believe FFLA was acting extremely in-compassionate to use a rally against
rape to push their forced pregnancy agenda.

P>Paul

Dan King
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:57:50 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> = Susan Garvin writes:
>>> = Bill Overpeck writes:

>>>Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
>>>easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?

Hey, a page out of the DJR handbook!

Look, Bill: it's OK to assume people trying to remove rights as "bad
guys".  Possibly you could reference what in the pro-choice position is
"bad" (other then *your* opinion that fetuses should be sanctified at the
expense of all pregnant women's freedom).

>>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
>>
>>When abortion is illegal, women die.

>When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.

Man, what a lousy, and condescending, analogy.  Let's see, they already
kill people and they're illegal.  Hmm.  I see no relevance, and to me,
you look more frantically stretching all the time, Bill. 

Possibly you could simply reply to Sue's statement instead of making up
silly examples, i.e., instead of "pulling a Bush".

>Shall we legalize them, Susan?  

They already are, Bill.  You are aware that nicotine and alcohol kill
(low and high estimates...) between 500,000 and 630,000 Americans every
year?

Did you know that every other illegal drug COMBINED kills ~6200 Americans
per year?  *Not* including marijuana, with zero deaths confirmed EVER,
yet *including* even nasty crack, heroin and Drano?

You tell me, Bill - is our famous War on Drugs even *close* to being
worth the lessening of our liberties and the overly dramatic drek spewing
from our self-righteous public officals?

Do you think maybe your analogy is silly, and trivializes what pregnant
women who don't want a child go through?
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Pro-life NRL symbolism and terminology
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:20:51 GMT

From article by (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>>
>>>     But this is not what really struck me. That was the appropriateness
>>> of the symbol of the NRL movement, or at least their rag. It is a flame
>>> (or leaf) inside two intersecting circles. 
>>
>>I believe you are referring to the ROSE, Ron.   Yes Ron, a red ROSE, the
>>flower Our Lady of Guadeloupe presented to St. (?) in the dead of winter,
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>so is now the symbol of Right To Life.   If anyone understands the plight
>>of women with problem pregnancies, it is this woman, who experienced an
>>unwed teenage pregnancy herself, yet went to term and gave birth to the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>greatest man who ever lived.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Jesus was born in South America?
> 
> Huh?


No.  His mother Mary visitted there.  Just as she has been visiting Yugoslavia
just prior to the war there.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:41:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.141533.18507@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>mg>In article <1992Oct8.183345.20368@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>rb>In article <26157@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>mg>>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> 
>mg>>I don't think you just "cut off" support.  I believe abortion methods
>mg>>require killing first.  I don't think you starve the unborn child from
>mg>>the womb.  I could be wrong about this.
>
>rb>Hey, simple snip of the unbilical cord, and that's it. 
> 
>mg>Why don't they do this more often?
> 
>Would you honestly feel better if abortions were done this way?
>Is the procedure itself really what is bothering you?  Lets assume
>we could do abortions this way, but unfortunately it leads to, oh say
>a 20% increase in the risk of infection and death to the woman.  Would
>that risk be worth it just to give you the Warm Fuzzys over the 
>procedure?
>(I would guess that performing abortions in this way would actually
>lead to a much higher risk to the woman than 20%)
>  

Your right.  No complaints to your guess that snipping the umbilical cord
will pose a much greater risk to the woman.  This debate is like deciding
whether starvation or the firing squad or lethal injection would be the
best method of execution.

>mg>Just remember exactly what abortion does: Abortion is active, forced, or
>mg>induced death.  
> 
>No it is not.  It is the safest way for the woman to have a fetus removed
>from her body.
> 
And certainly a great way to get rid of our fellow humans.  Unfortunately,
abortion is not entirely efficient.  Some of those aborted are alive 
today.
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Logically speaking, Bush must issue an exec order!
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:28:45 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

Just for the sake of argument, let us go along with Bush and his
fellow conservatives on this issue!

If they consider a foetus to have the rights that are due to
an individual, then does not logic assert that they should
be treated as such for tax purposes also. I just heard that
a woman filed a suit against IRS claiming exemption for her
foetus.

If Bush really believes in his stance, he should direct the IRS
to grant exemptions to all pregnant women!

What say you?

satya {Prabhaakr
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity