HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:28:49 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <BvIJB2.AD7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1aic5hINN3f8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>
[deleted stuff] 

>  Sorry, you're wrong too.  You will have a hard time coming up with any
>  kind of defensible proof of "intrinsic rights", as opposed to rights
>  merely granted or defined by social consensus.
>

Yes I do agree with your point on a philosophical level.  But I could pose a
question as; Do you feel that you have the 'inherent' right to be free
of mental/physical persecution?  And i would think your response would be
yes.  We must look at the concept of 'inherent' rights a general consensus
of individuals perceptions as you indicated above.

Again I agree that it is a difficult to define the situation about the
scope and origin of individual rights.

It was my mistake not to make my position or definition of 'inherent' clearer.
>
>---peter
>
>
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:03:47 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep25.000057.1624@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.203950.17153@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>> By leaving the fangless boogeyman in power, the
>>>>Bush State Dept continues to have a lever in Arab affairs.
>>>    Funny, you're the first person I have ever heard referring to Saddam 
>>>Hussein as "fangless". I guess that his surviving forces must be just a 
>>>bunch of boy scouts and old ladies, rather than remnants of the Republican 
>>>Guard units that we heard so much about during the "Woah", right?
>>As we saw in the war, the Republican Guard was impressive only in contrast
>>to the other conscript units of the Iraqi military. In comparison to US
>>and allied forces, they were merely target practice.
>
>I seem to recall that beforehand people were saying that Saddam's troops
>were so dangerous that we had hundreds of thousands of body bags for the US
>casualties that would result.  In fact, I believe that most of the people who
>promoted this idea are likely to now be on the side which says that Saddam
>Hussein and his troops are incompetent.

Your memory is short and selective. The body bag story *did* circulate,
among those opposed to the War, and in the sensationalist media. Of course 
the military *didn't* have hundreds of thousands of body bags ready. That's 
because they knew they weren't going to engage the Iraqis with human wave 
assualts against fortified positions. They knew, from tests on Soviet
equipment captured by Israel, that Soviet client armor was no match at
all for ours. They knew, from the Bakka Valley Turkey Shoot, that Soviet
client aircraft were no match for ours. The only real uncertainty was 
the morale of the Iraqi troops, whether they would break and run or
provide a suicidal defense. So they planned a bombing campaign and a
Hail Mary end run that would break the morale of *any* army. And of
course it all worked as planned.

Gary
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49714 misc.legal:18150 alt.politics.usa.misc:93
From: mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitutio
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:28:57 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

:pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
:>George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
:>issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
:>original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
:>uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
:>very least, not *opposed* to term limits.
 
So, why aren't they in the constitution today?
 
:Yeah, but after the states had experience with term limits, they got
:rid of them, and the framers voted to unanimously to not have them in
:the Constitution.  This sure sounds like opposition to me!
 
Opposition justly deserved.  It is well known that once you 
have your fingers in the mud, things can be stirred.  The 
opposition to Bush, including many former republicans, fail to 
realize this fact.  
 
Support for precisely the opposite [of term limits] exists in the 
constitution.  Supreme Court Justices come to mind.  However, 
the one office in which term limits is justified (Chief 
Executive), is it implemented.  Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson, and 
last but not least, Madison; have shown this [term limits] to be 
A Good Thing.
 
On a slightly different, yet inescapable path, we are soon to 
vote in the next president.  A president who *must* clean up 
this charade.  A president who knows what it takes to get 
something done.  
 
Does Perot have this?  I think not.
 
Does Clinton have this?  I think not.
 
Does Bush have this?  My calculations show that he's got four
years on anyone else.
 
It takes time to pick up the sticks which holds the strings to 
the marionette, which is our Congress.  If Bush drops them, 
someone else has to pick them up.  
 
:--Tim Smith
 
Matt Staben
 
 
Tip O'Neil - (Of all the presidents I have known, Reagan was 
the worst.  But, he would have made a hell of a king.)
 

mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
 
- A warning to anyone, still in command...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49444 ca.politics:8428 ba.politics:5852
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: The failure of thinking Re: Another Typical Posting From Soc.Motss
Keywords: Answers
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:18:55 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <12585@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <3#_py2q.allyn@netcom.com>, allyn@netcom.com (allyn) writes:
># 
>#                             The Fettish
>
>There's only one t in "fetish."

It is obvious that even Dan Quayle is not a perfect speller.
>

>#    in  clear  plastic.  I get some sexual arousal in this. I have
>#    had this fettish since I was about 6 years old. At that  time,
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why am I not surprised that you are also a homosexual?  Lots of
>kids go through that stage also, but outgrow it.
>

This is poor excuse for any kind of reasoning process. You are projecting
what you think is a cause-effect relationship.  I could well give you
many cases of fetishism, which is being done by heterosexuals.

It is probably time that you grow out of being critical of what you
do not understand.

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

Stephen Hauskins
UCSC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  3 Oct 92 04:58:33 GMT

	I find you attitude John to the Vietnam extremely interesting.  Only
in America is this seemingly belief in the "rightness" of the decision to
go to war in Vietnam.  Despite your defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese
people, the evidence of the lying that your leaders used, the masssive
destruction visited upon the Vietnamese and the shenagins which your government
got up to in that country, you still beleive in the basic "rightness" of
waging war in Vietnam.
	No where else in the world, even in the countries which were involved
the closest in that war has this attitude continued.  I wonder why?  Could it
be just as Germany under Hitler between the wars was unable to accept its
defeat in 1918 as being anything else but a betrayal, could it be that the
American right cannot concieve that the Vietnam war could well have been
what it is viewed everywhere else in the world: a gigantic mistake?



--
Brian Ross____________________________________________________________________
	"If this is the revolution, why are the drinks so fucking expensive?"
		- unsigned Graphitto, Paris, 1968
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:31:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct5.90044.27209@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes...
>Michael R Linksvayer writes:
>>
>>To:    All Libertarians and anyone else who wants to see the media
>>       cover the Marrou/Lord Campaign.
>>
> 
>This should give you all either heart or a peptic ulcer...a couple of
>days ago, in an editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader which discussed
>the rights of Ross Perot to be in on the Presidential debates, they
>said that the 3rd party candidate which fit the criteria to be in
>on the debates was Marrou. If the media down here is "hep" to your
>campaign then you can be sure the other, big-league media heavies
>have made a conscious decision to ignore you. Just so you know the
>inertia that you face.

The libertarians are all over talk-radio. Ignoring them is like ignoring
the debt, and the new $1.5 trillion dollar federal budget.

More evidence of media collusion in the political process.

-- Stephen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48337 talk.abortion:39011
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:30:33 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> Adrienne Regard) responded to a number of O'D comments:
|> 
|> Thanks for the ad hominem - I feel priviliged - but what worries me is not what 
|> anybody gets up to in their bedroom, but what they get up to in abortion clinics.  
|> 
|> There now.  The end of the article. I responded every point she made, except
|> the personal remarks.  And I didn't make a single personal remark about her.  
|> Sometimes I amaze myself!  If only I had the same willpower when it came to
|> cigarettes....
|> 
If only you had the same will power when it came to other peoples definitions
of life and religious principles.  By the way, we don't care if you smoke.  You
have the right to commit suicide if that is your choice, although it is hard
to see how this could fit into your morality paradigm.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dial 1-800-HITLER2?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:33:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <farenebt.717778967@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>
>>A tally is being made of the calls that come in.
>
>>So if you want Ross to declare his candidacy 
>>call 1-800-925-1300. 
>
>My roommate suggested that this number be changed to
>1-800-HITLER2. 
>
>He doesn't necesarily think that Perot is similiar
>in his motives but rather in some other ways (please read the whole
>thing before you flame).
>
>I wonder what percentage of people ACTUALLY know what he believes.
>
>When Hitler took power, Germany was economically in trouble. He offered
>economic solutions and, most of all, a scapegoat. Hitler's scapegoats was
>Jews. Germans, looking for a better way of life, follow him blindly. He
>does deliver on his economic promise; Hitler effected the most quick
>and substantial economic turnaround ever. They went from shambles in 1933
>to a world power in 1938.
...
>H Ross Perot can help us get out of trouble. He can offer solutions
>and a better way of life. he's even found us a scapegoat in the current
>political system: politicians and the two-party system. He told us exactly
>what we wanted us to hear. He's making us feel like WE ar choosing the
>path of his political career (even though he didn't consult us when
>he dropped out in the first place). He's doing us such a wonderful service
>by offering himslef for presidency even though he said he REALLY doesn't
>want to be our learder. And to top it all off, he is ALLOWING us to follow
>him blindly like sheep to a slaughter. Do you see any parallels between
>H Ross Perot and a certain Germna leader from 1933-45?
...

    No, but should the US economy enter a period of prolonged decline and
    high unemployment, all bets are off.  Imagine "Buchanan Brigades"
    led by Col.Gritz taking the country back "block by block" by
    "force rooted in justice"...  Bill of Gritz?  NOT!

    I am not a supporter of Ross Perot, but I do not view him as a danger
    to the constitution.  The danger is goverment spending rising faster
    than the GNP, the budget deficit allowing our politicians to buy
    votes now, and let us all pay later and, most of all, the ignorant
    voters who pay 200B anually in interest on the national debt, yet
    are convinced that it will be their kids, not them, paying it off.
    That is, if they have kids, otherwise it will be other people's kids.
    Few seem to realize that the kids might choose to default on the debt...
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:17:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.174833.3537@sequent.com> jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:
>
>On a slight tangent, there was an interesting article on Perot in the
>Oregonian (yes, that bastion of journalism) that went in to some details
>of Perots' highly successful business dealings. One of them smacks of
>hypocrisy. This was one about how he successfully lobbied for the FAA to
>approve the building of an airport in Texas. It just happened to be close to
>some 17,000 acres of Perot owned land. Strange that once approval was 
>granted, the saleable value of the land doubled? 
>
>If this article is correct, then isn't this surely an prime example of
>the special interests that HRP complains about, the same ones that control
>the Government? In this, some $200 million of Federal money was invested
>in the project, adding further to national debt.
>
>Can anyone explain this somewhat extraordinary set of contradictions?
>
	Politics?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Sit down and shut up [your mind]
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:30:00 GMT

In article <CB.92Sep30103402@tamarack13.timbuk>, 
cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...

>I never could figure why people were so negative about Clinton.  Is it
>only because he had an affair?  Or what?  What I see (and have seen all
>along) is a bright, energetic guy who wants to solve problems.  (Oh, and
>he's a politician who wants to be president; somehow I think we can
>expect that of people running for president.)  What am I failing to see?

That no matter who the candidate of the status-quo-parties are,
to get to be their candidate, you have to be a party-puppet.

-- Stephen  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Idbil Fubar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: So lets Get this Straight
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:02:44 GMT
Organization: UB

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.200503.18310@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>] In article <1992Sep24.005021.26871@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:

>>] This is an excellent point. If there were any logic in the abortion
>>] debate every one would agree that a fetus can not be a person at 
>>] least until after this period.

Logic?  Muahahahahahaha!  Don't be foolish...this is relegion...logic
doesn't come in to play here.

>>I wish folks would decide to be HONEST about being
>>anti_christian, and opposed to the traditional 
>>christian position that there is no person till birth.
>>But I guess in these Post_Christian Days that is
>>far too much to hope for....

WHINEWHINEWHINE...Not every one is anti-christian...just NOT-christian.
Be a little open minded yourself. (not that I enter this debate too much)
>Especially since the Roman Catholics decided that the soul enters at
>conception. I'd like to know how souls split since they aren't alleged
>to be matter - or maybe the African belief that one of a multiple birth is a 
>person and the others are devils is valid?

Hmmm...Perhaps that would explain my evil twin??? :) :) :) :)
(Feeling paranoid as if the walls are closing in.
 Bloodstains on my hands and I don't know where I've been (DM))

Couldn't resist.

Idbil Fubar
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: omaha@milton.u.washington.edu (Omaha Sternberg)
Subject: Re: A question I have always wanted to ask
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:19:53 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Why does no one ever talk about UnBornGrandParents?

	What the hell is an UnBornGrandParent?!

>Does that 'answer' your question,
>or should I be a little more vague.

	Be a little more vague. Your exactness doesn't cut it.

						Omaha
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 01 Oct 92 00:09 PDT
Subject: Latest Campaign Feeds
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600023:000:2260
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Oct  1 00:09:00 1992


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: Latest Campaign Feeds

/* Written 11:14 pm  Sep 30, 1992 by jlohrmann in cdp:elections.usa */
/* ---------- "The Latest, Best Campaign Feed" ---------- */

Due to modified circumstances the latest and best feed of information
direct from political campaigns appears to be through the following
source:

-------- Forwarded Message --------

   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).


Tom Grundner
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Voice: 216-368-2733  Fax: 216-368-5436
e.mail: tmg@nptn.org




Distribution:
  John C. Mallery >internet:jcma@reagan.ai.mit.edu
  >Eric Loeb >INTERNET:loeb@psyche.mit.edu
  Bert Smith >INTERNET:bowler@Athena.MIT.EDU
  >Jeff Lohrmann >INTERNET:jlohrmann@igc.apc.org




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:18:13 GMT

In article <BvAxJn.980@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>
>   A few words about this business of "sharing the pain".  We 
>   don't need to have tax increases to "share the pain".  Any
>   serious attempt to cut the deficit will results in LOTS and
>   LOTS of pain everywhere for the simple reason it will require 
>   taking massive amounts of capital out of the economy for no 
>   other purpose than to pay the deficit.   (this money was borrowed
>   in the first place so in that respect it shouldn't have been 
>   there in the first place)
>
>   Consider that the gap is about $350 billion in an ~ $5 trillion
>   economy, i.e., a nontrivial portion of the total economy.
>

[rest of article deleted]

>---peter


Without wanting to sound like a Reaganite, I would like to suggest
that the only way to reduce the deficit at all, let alone without
causing the kind of trauma you envision, is through economic growth,
together with either an outright freeze on Federal spending, or a
cap on any proposed increase, such that Federal spending cannot grow
faster than the economy as a whole.

Easier said than done, of course, but we can start by gradually
shifting dollars out of the defense budget, both back into the
private sector, and into a few carefully-chosen Federal projects
directed toward infrastructure repair and improvement. Since we
have only so many dollars to go around, we have to direct them
to the most productive uses, and history has shown that private-
sector non-defense jobs have the biggest 'multiplier' effect, so
this is what we should cultivate and encourage.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: Bert Smith <bj893@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR GEORGE BUSH!
X-Xxdate: Sun, 27 Sep 92 03:40:51 GMT
Organization: Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:47:24 GMT

In article <96915@bu.edu> Dances With Babes, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu writes:
>Just wanted everyone in Mass to know that the Prez is gonna be at 
>Faneuil Hall Friday at around 4pm.  Remember, Slick Willie was here last
>week and unfortunately he got a decent crowd, so if you're gonna vote for
>Bush drop by..........

I'm sure we can expect a photo op where supporters are bused in, and
passes are required.  Bush will have to bring the troops in from afar,
given his level of support in the Commonwealth.  Bill didn't need to
exclude anyone from his speech, the crowd was genuinely excited to be
there.  Best of all, no metal detectors were required.

The "decent" crowd was 45,000 people shoehorned into a VERY small area. 
I thought it was pretty damn impressive.  I want to go on Friday and ask
George about Iran-Contra.  But I expect my sign to be torn up by some
Secret Service guy.  (What about Freedom of Speech?)

-bert
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48029 alt.rush-limbaugh:5915 alt.politics.bush:6773 alt.politics.clinton:7317 alt.politics.elections:14331 talk.abortion:38675 alt.sex:30914