HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:15:49 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Recently posted by Rini Clarkberg:
>>> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>>> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>>> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>>> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.

>> This is sort of like a murder - suicide.  The woman had no right to take
>> away her baby's life and died while trying.

Tom Limoncelli wrote:
TL> Remember folks, it's always important to BLAME THE VICTIM!

> She is only the victim of her own choice to irresponsibly have sex when
> she was not willing to bear the potential consequences.  If she really
> didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it.

Question for you, Erik: what do you suppose made this woman desperate
enough to risk her life to not be pregnant?
 
TL> It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of BTV all over.

> It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of people denying responsibility
> for their own actions all over.

What actions has Tom taken that he's now denying responsibility for?

Elf Sternberg wrote:
ES> And, as a man you have a right to make that decision for her
ES> beforehand and pass judgement on her afterwards?

> I have no problem with condemning something that is wrong.

I'm sure you will agree, then, that whatever factors led this women to
risk her life not to be pregnant should be condemned as wrong.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 04:15:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
-gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:
->	Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
->	women too.  Give it up.
-
-This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
-abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
-women, but this is just to make them look like anti-choice is the voice
-of women.  This kind of "information control" is called "spin".  They
-know what they're doing.

Well that's some spin you're putting on! Even in light of the polls and
statements that most women are not in favor of abortion (which doesn't
necessarily mean they're all pro-life), you'll still say that there is
... uhm-uhm ... some "pro-life conspiracy" that makes sure the people
quoted in newspapers and seen in protests and arrested are women while
the men sit in some smoked-filled strategy-room smirking how it seems
like the pro-life movement is dominated with women?

-The real "issue behind the issue" of abortion is the woman's access to
-employment(*).  If you talk one-on-one with Randal Terry 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.  Notice that he never
-lets his wife talk to the press.
-(*) foot note this to a friend of mine that knows Randal Terry.

Huh? Are you saying that all pro-lifers feel this way about women? 

-The anti-choice movement is anti-woman.  That's why we must work
-against it.  I do.  You should to.

Okay, I respectfully step aside for all female pro-lifers out there to
point your flame-throwers and incendiary weapons...

-- 
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: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: PRIORITIES: Human Greed over Human Need
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:00:07 GMT

The Decline of America: PRIORITIES: Human Greed over Human Need

        At the large end of the scale, Bush again proposes a capital
gains cut--a budgetary luxury that could cost up to $70 billion over
ten years in order to give those with incomes of more than $200,000 a
year an average tax cut of $15,000. And in it's budget documents OMB
estimates that we will lose another 28.6 billion in FY 1992 (and
equivalent amounts in future years) because we continue to forgive the
taxes owed on inherited capital gains. This is enough money to wipe
out poverty among children in the U.S.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sources for information cited here include the 1989 Report of
the Coalition of Mayors and The State of America's Children
(1991), published by the Children's Defense Fund.

From "Suffer the Little Children" by Anne Marie Palmer, Lone Star
Socialist.  The Lone Star Socialist is published by the Socialist
Party of Texas and they can be reached at P.O. Box 2640, Austin, TX
78768.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: CNN welfare story
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:59:18 GMT

In article <CB.92Oct2145359@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>
>Last night CNN did a story on a new welfare law in Michigan,
>incorporating typical reforms: work requirements, no additional support
>for more kids, etc.  As a real-life illustration for the story, CNN
>interviewed two women who will be affected by this--a mother and grown
>daughter.  What struck me right away was that these folks seemed to be
>living quite nicely.  Then the daughter, roughly in her 20s, complained
>at some length about the new law, remarking that she doesn't want just
>any old job paying ordinary pay--she wants a job with really good pay,
>or else (she seemed to imply) she'd just as soon stay on welfare.  Her
>words and the depiction of their comfortable apartment aroused my
>immediate ire.  I later wondered if CNN had deliberately used this case
>to argue against welfare (but I'm not implying there was something
>underhanded about doing this--just editorial discretion).  Did anyone
>else see this segment and react similarly?


Welfare is in the ire of the beholder.

I have heard, more than once, arguments by defenders of welfare that it is
somehow socially preferable that people be on welfare than to hold low-
paying, undignified jobs such a flipping burgers or, worse, picking
strawberries in the fields. So while you have native Americans sitting at
home on welfare 'cause the "can't get a job" you have thousands of Mexicans
streaming accross the border...to get a job!

Indeed, in may areas of the US (most notably the northestern cities) you can
actually make better pay on welfare than at a minimum  wage job while,
overall, when you factor in the moonlighting that many on welfare engage in,
there is no economic incentive, whatsoever, for them to get off welfare; it
simply would mean a pay significant cut for them.

If you think that this is a failure of the welfare system, then you don't
understand the welfare system. This is what the welfare system was designed
to accomplish. How could a politician better insure his constitent support?
All the better if those paying the bills can be duped into believeing that
they are "doing some good".

I suspect that the people at CNN really thought they were presenting a sob
story and that many of those voting for Clinton this year were crying 
crocodile tears.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:01:52 GMT

In article <mlbruce.717738296@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>]
>>] The inconsistency I find even better is the Republican attack on Hillary
>>] Clinton for advocating that children should have legal rights over their
>>] parents.  This is in exact opposition to giving fetuses legal rights over
>>] the person carrying them.
>
>>Ah, lets start with trying to put your assertion into context:

[... much deleted...]

>	Do you truly see no difference between joining a National Guard unit
>in which positions were open (contrary to dominant-media-culture
>misinformation, the Indiana Guard was not at 100% capacity when Quayle joined)
>, and using obsequious letters, relatives' clout and illegal activity to avoid

Hmmm...
 lets see...that particular guard unit (a headquarters unit) was NOT
100% full (TRUE!) but it had a waiting list of several hundred people 
and Danny boy was moved to the front of this waiting list so that he
could get into the unit...Something is strange here...first of all, if
the guard unit operated on a first come, first served basis (as was
required by law) and they were NOT 100% full then WHY WAS THERE A
WAITING LIST ????? and WHAT gave Dan Quayle the right to move to
the front of the waiting list???? sounds like some illegal activity
to me...(BTW: this info is from Danny boy's own admission)

>military service entirely, EVEN THOUGH ONE ALREADY WAS TO BE SERVED A DRAFT
>NOTICE? What Quayle did may not have been Patriotic enough for you, but what
>Bill Clinton did was illegal and flat out WRONG. There is but one Draft Dodger
>in this Presidential race, and who it is should be manifestly clear.
>

Excuse me, could you perhaps tell me what exactly what law was broken?
Perhaps Clinton should not have been allowed to go to Oxford?
Also, both Quayle and Clinton managed to avoid serving in a capacity
that would have taken them to Vietnam...


John
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:31:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Since when is it Perot's responsibility to watch and make sure he isn't
going to harm the election percentages??? The democrats and the republicans
do not own the voters. It is an insult to democracy to state that Perot
should drop out because Bush/Clinton may lose votes because of it. If anybody
should drop out it should be Bush or Clinton, because they are taking votes
away from Perot. See how that logic works? Who the hell cares what the
statistics say.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49538 ca.politics:8441 ba.politics:5868
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:42:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informed Consent

In article <12594@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (BIFF!!!!1) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.195932.6777@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>
>>You make me ashamed to be straight.
>
>#HEYYYY!!!1 RIGTHEOUS DUUUUUDE DICCCCCKY:
>
>IF YOUR ASSHAMED 2 B STRAIT WHY NOT BECOMED A H0M0SECTU"ALL?!!!>?
>
>IT"S YOU"RE CHOICE--SEE DANO FER MORE INFOOOOOO!!
>
>I HERE THERE RECUTEING TOOO!!!!
>
>THANKS FOR INCLEUDING YER NAME & TWO >SIGS!! WE WERN~T SHURE OWH U WHER
>
>>
>>-- richard
>>
>>=====
>>-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
>>         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
>>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
>>-- 
>>=====
>>-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
>>         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
>>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
>
>R THESE KLIEN FLASKS SUM SORT OF JEWISH RICHUALL THING??!  WHER CAN I BY ONE???
>I"VE NEVER SEEN ONE> IS THIS PART OF SOME TRILATERAL COMMISSISPIRACY THING?!??!
>MAYBE I SHOULD EMAIL BOO"COO"VLAAS ABOUT THIS!  NAW> WHAT AM I THINKING??!
>HE SHURLY ALREADY KNOWS!!!!!!1p
>
>**88*************************8888888
>**I"M NOT BIFF AND BIIIFS NOT ME!!!*
>**********************88888888888888
>
>225z224zBIFF DOES"NT HAVE TAPE ON HIS GLASS"S CAUSE HE DONT" WEER GLASES!!11
>
>
>---
>I"MNOTBIIIFFFFF@WHY>B>STRAIT.GOV

You and I .. or I should say "I" had a bit of a row over one of
your postings there BIFFO! Perhaps I was wrong about you too.
Maybe we can trade files.    
You'd be doing us all a big favor if you posted anything on the
Committee that you might have?! 

Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: YIA[1]: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:41:41 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

] In  <1992Sep29.004053.1155@u.washington.edu>  skaven@milton.u.washington.edu (William Gilliland) writes:
] >
] > I want you to to look up that big long word that Ellen very discretely
] > slipped in just before her .sig file.  It, and the context of her post,
] > reveal that she is being sarcastic (SAR-kah-stick) and has a far firmer
] > grasp on the conversation than you realized.
] 
] You have a firm grasp on something, but it's not the conversation...
] 
] > Since Ellen's post (and a damn funny one that) flew over your head
] 
] This is rich.  Richly ironic, that is.

They get younger and Younger every year.....

If Sex implies consent to gestation,
then a potential gestational event is obligatory....

It is what they call a 'class identifier'....

Thus either the implication is not as strong 
as some would wish.... or there is some
other denotational system to establish
that an event is 'sex' .....

I shall defer the technical bits to others
who feel more at liberty to specify things...



ciao
drieux

[1] YIA: Youth in America - as in 

"what is wrong with the Youth in America!"



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Original Meaning of 'Liberal'
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 21:07:19 EDT

Lately on this newsgroup there has been a bit of a row with regard to the 
meaning of the term 'liberal'.
The original political tradition named by that term has it's origin 
primarily in the writings of John Locke. It was the primary influence on 
the american revolution. It took it
's economics from the ant-mercantilist writer Adam Smith and it's later 
concepts of international trade and relations were embodiend in the 
"Manchester" school.  it was opposed to the 'ancien regime' of the 
royalist church/state and it's French supporters sat on the 'Left wing' of 
the French Assembly (the original meaning of the term).
How'liberal' and 'left wing' became associated with socialistic policies 
is frankly obscure to me, it is well to note that modern 'conservatism, is 
just as statist as it's left wing counterpart. In america the term for the 
original free-market tradition is 'classical liberal' or increasingly 
'libertarian'.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Campaign Info of D/R Party in Library... (was Publicity)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:21:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <01GPHGZH2Y7K001HTY@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:

>{ ref: talk.politics.misc, Re: Perot's publicity, 1 Oct }

+>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)...
+>|
+> 
+>|	Most thinking people might just try to contact the political
+~>|party or the campaign in search of such materials.  

+>No Lance. "Thinking people" will examine the record before the promises.

	So whats your point here?  One of the perot-bots continues the
myth that Perot's book is somehow unique and that such "information"
is not available from the other parties and candidates.  
	I said that such information is freely available if you bother
to ask.  As to its truth or believablity, I'm not saying.  I dont
read or believe anything blindly myself.

	But at the same time, I think that anyone who goes around with
this stupid belief that Ross Perot is some sort of demi-god of honesty
whose political views are always 100% true and honest is terribly naive
if not just plain stupid.



+>And the Democrat/Republican record is clear: $4 trillion dollars of
+>debt, and a $1.5 trillion dollar budget being enacted now. (SuperCollider
+>funding passed into law today at $1/2 billion for this fiscal year -- 
+>more new spending heaped on top of debt.)

	So the solution is to adopt Ross Perot's "central planning" 
(the code word is industrial policy) for the parts of the economy that
the government does not yet dominate.

+>The common political stance of the gop & dems is how to squeeze money 
+>out of the rest of US, our kids, their kids, and the rest of the 
+>world. The record is clear -- greed and oppression -- and easily found
+>in any library. 

	I suggest you go to the library and look of the Record of one
Ross Perot who has dervied no small part of his wealth from government
spending, who has made a career out of self-promotion.  If you wish
to talk about greed and oppression, I suggest you talk to former EDS
employees.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.bush
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:36:08 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
	<1a7mr3INNle@fido.asd.sgi.com>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and
responsibili.. C.J. Silverio@eno.wpd.sg (1508)


> [does this really belong in that many newsgroups?]

> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu writes:
> |chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> |>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> |>|A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
> |>|consent to sex.

> |>If a couple is using contraception, that indicates that they are
> explicitly NOT
> |>consenting to pregnancy.

> |If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
> |are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
> |protection does not mean they don't face the risk.

> Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
> to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
> a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
> automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
> to live with injury without medical redress.

But, if there is no medical redress, then you will have to live with the
consequences.  If abortion is murder, then there is no medical redress
to pregnancy except to carry it to term.  Therefore, a couple having sex
> would consent to having a child if the contraceptives failed.

> People who use birth control are, by their actions,
> acknowledging the possibility of conception.  However, also by
> their actions, they are clearly NOT consenting to pregnancy.
> They are attempting to avoid it, by minimizing the risk.  (To
> continue the car analogy, by obeying traffic laws & wearing a
> seatbelt.)

But even with seat belts and air bags, you could still end up dead or
crippled.  You just lower the probability.  You are still accepting some
risk, whether you like to think about it or not.
> ---
> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
> "Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
> extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
> misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
> worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen


					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: perot's media schedule....
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:24:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172404.7530@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>His book "UNITED WE STAND" continued another week of being #1
>on the NY Times Bestseller list for paperbacks.

Just a note.  This doesn't mean that people are reading the book and
agreeing, it might mean that they're just curious.

Also, the NYT Bestseller List is not based on book sales.  Instead, it
is based on number of books SHIPPED.  That is, is is based on (1) what
purchasing managers think is going to sell, (2) what publishers are
pushing this week.

Therefore, if a publisher wants to make a book seem like it's selling,
they just have to ship tons of books "on consignment".

Proof?  A friend of mine just got a book contract and was guaranteed a
place on the list for at least 2 weeks.

Critical thinkingly,
Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:46:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Sep.29.08.50.26.1992.16235@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>

>It is impossible to have a rational discussion with one who has
>compromised his rationality in order to achieve what he perceives to
>be a "higher" goal.  I say you're an idiot not as a flame, but because
>that is exactly how you are behaving.  Please let me know when you put
>your mind back in gear.

Flail-on brother. If you must attack someone, 
I can't think of a more harmless way to do it than here.

||  Theodore A. Kaldis
||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu

   |
-- J --
   |     Stephen D. Tice
   |     Arlington Texas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton