HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:52:15 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|> >>It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place.  If men
|> >>don't participate, then women can't have abortions because they are
|> >>not pregnant, right?
|> >
|> >My most sincere apologies, I had no idea that there were so many men
|> >out there having abortions.
|> >
|> >                          -rocker
|> 
|> The initial question involved putting PEOPLE (read: Men and Women) in
|> situations where abortion does not become an alternative.  Since conceiving
|> a child is a joint act between a man and a woman, then men are capable of
|> NOT getting a woman pregnant.  No pregancies, no abortion.
|> 
|> So men, indeed, can help put women in positions where abortion does not
|> become an alternative.

So we are left with the following alternatives:

1	The only purpose of sex is reproduction.

2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 

3.	Sex is a sin, for which the penalty is pregnancy.  Sure puts an
	interesting slant on the wonderfulness of parenting and the meaning
	of "family values."

If this is your agenda, we can certainly shorten the discussion.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:11:11 GMT

>|>	Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman
>
>His ecconomics prize is not from the institute that Nobel set up, it is a
>separate, entirely bogus enterprise set up to honour right wing looney tunes.

It is true that the economics prize is new.  I don't see how you can
call it a bogus enterprise, though.

It sure has honored lots of 'right wing looney tunes', though.  
Like Kenneth Arrow, Paul Samuelson, etc. etc.

That was sarcasm, of course.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

--Jimbo

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:32:07 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Aug19.231517.24771@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.224610.9047@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virg
> >In article <1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley
> >>
> >>But one question I pose to you is this: When can you say a "fertilized
> >>ovum" becomes human?  At what point can you say this person becomes human?
> >>
> >It is always human, in the same way as my hair is human.  But, prior to the
> >development of the CNS, it has no sense of identity.  As you have pointed out,
> >it is distinguishable from its mother on the basis of its DNA structure.  So,
> >shortly after conception, you are talking about protecting DNA molecules
> >because they are unique.  I am not an authority on embriotic development and
> >can, therefore, not say when a persona, or psyche, develops.  That is why
> >abortion is such a difficult issue.
>
> I hope I am not assuming but: Do you support laws (as one of the means
> of preventing some types of abortion, not the only) which protects the
> unborn after the development of the CNS?

Neuroscientists place the minimal time for personhood at 28 weeks (7 months).
Given that the only abortions occurring in this country after that point are
to save the life of the woman, and I think that the woman is the more
important of the two, I feel that any laws regarding this are unnecessary.
I am opposed to unnecessary laws.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41043 alt.politics.clinton:2460 alt.politics.bush:2373 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4730
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: faxes and other terror tactics
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:53:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug21.074228.373@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>
>How many netters out there realize that the term "Nazi" is short
>for "National Socialist"? Just a tidbit.
>

I do, and this is exactly what has beent he theme behind my postings:
Bill Clinton is espousing Nationalistic policies and Socialistic policies
Furthermore he is out to disarm the American Public one law at a time
at the same time he is trying to establish his equivalent of the S.S.
(his so called National Police Corps).

This guy is talking out of both sides of his mouth, is a liar as has bee
acknowledged on the net by his louyal supporters, and is proposing very 
dangerous policies that threaten our freedom and our economic future.

He must be defeated and will be

(the gap is narrowing in the polls too btw!)

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40788 talk.politics.theory:3748 alt.politics.elections:11033 alt.politics.marrou:848 alt.politics.bush:2235
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:34:56 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <19AUG199219210604@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>, secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph Clark) writes:
|> In article <l92jteINNf5n@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes...
|> > [long discussion about public vs private schools deleted]
|> >
|> >I have no disagreement that the public schools system needs to be
|> >severly improved.  I do not believe that a voucher system will
|> >cause that to happen.  If a voucher system were put in place
|> >*AS PART OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM PROGRAM* I would consider it.
|> >But I will not allow any part of the funds I pay (with no more
|> >children in public schools) to be used to avoid fixing
|> >the problem by satisfying a few children.
|> > 
|> >This consideration would does not include, however, in diverting
|> >any funds to a school financially tied to any religious
|> >organization (note that I said financially, not philosophically). 
|> >It seems to me that this would allow education to become a
|> >fund raising opportunity, which would be public funding support
|> >for religion.
|> 
|> Every church-related school I have ever seen is *subsidized* by its
|> congregation. The idea of raising money through operating a church
|> school is preposterous.
|> 
|> Ralph

Not if we are going to give them income through vouchers.  This will
end the subsidy requirement.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39352 ca.politics:6727 ba.politics:4465
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:31:05 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11726@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
>shun child molesters?

This question in and of itself is offensive.  It is like asking "When are
italian americans going to start shunning organized crime." 



FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:57:07 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>do not automatically translate into more money.
>>
>>Brett                                                      
>
>Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>economic growth led to the highest deficits

This is myth.  And (sadly) what the Democrats seem to repeat again and again.

" Putting theory to one side for a moment, were the Reagan tax cuts a good
idea? More specifically, could the country afford them? By 1985, at a revenue
cost of $33 billion, economic output was between 2 and 3 percent higher
than it would have been without the tax cut. That extra growth stands
for millions of new jobs and a higher standard of living. ...
By the standards of government programs this one would have to be judged
a bargain."

" The great deficit increase of the 1980s was overwhlemingly the result
of higher spending, not lower taxes. .... spending was responsible
for at least three quarters of the increase in the deficit."

- Lawrence Lindsay, "The Growth Experiment"

The tax cuts did affect revenues, by causing inflation to drop
faster than it otherwise would have.

---
Pat
P.S.

>For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
>tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.

- Highway traportation bill, 1987, for start (cost: about $80 billion I think).
- Numerous others
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39758 alt.politics.clinton:1954 alt.politics.bush:1608 talk.politics.guns:19298
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Better off?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:36:10 GMT

Some mildly amusing notes from the September/October _Mother Jones_:

Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?

National Debt: +$1,477,000,000,000  up 57%
Budget Deficit: +$244,500,000,000 up 157%
Americans unemployed for 6 months or longer: +1,127,000 up 133%
Mean annual income of the wealthiest 5 percent of US familes: +$7,286
	up 5%
Mean annual income of the poorest one-fifth: -$54 down 0.5%
Hourly earnings for blue-collar workers: -$1 down 10%
Number of millionaires: +28,100 up 81%
Americans without health insurance: +4,600,000 up 15%
Families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children: +944,000
	up 25%
Median monthly payment to those families: -$49.26 down 12%
Children living in poverty: +500,000 up 4%
Violent crimes: +95,278 up 21%
Americans in prison: +177,122 up 28%
Americans on death row: +464 up 22%


There's also the cover article, entitled "Family Value$", on
George's three sons.  Haven't gotten to that one yet.


--
But this is.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush the hypocrite
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:40:33 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
-Bush's acceptance speech:
-
->   That will especially help small businesses.  They create
->Two-thirds of the new jobs in America.  But my opponent's plan for
->small business is clear, present--and dangerous.  Besides new income
->taxes, his plan will lead to a new payroll tax to pay for a government
->takeover of health care, and another new tax to pay for training.
-                                                         ^^^^^^^^
-  And not 5 minutes later....
-
->   Here's what I'm fighting for...
->   --Job training.
-
-Huh?

James, thanks for printing the text. However, please note he's fighting
for job training, not TAXES TO PAY FOR job-training.

-- 
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	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:02:32 GMT

In article <l92khoINNf5n@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.012831.21559@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>|> In article <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>|> >wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>|> >
>|> >>I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>|> >>are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>|> >>born.
>|> >
>|> >I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>|> >who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>|> >need one.
>|> >
>|> 
>|> But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>|> have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>|> positions where abortion does not become an alternative?
>
>It doesn't require IQ, wit, or even common sense to follow a narrow
>dogma to the letter.

Is this another insinuation that the pro-life position is based only
on religion?

*sigh*

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug4.212007.634@bony1.bony.com>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug5223819@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug12.004119.9830@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:40:02

In article <1992Aug12.004119.9830@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug5223819@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>   >Excuse me, but the rest of the world calls them the Occupied
>   >Territories.  I didn't make up the term.  Israel has not annexed the
>   >West Bank or Gaza Strip.
>
>   This is another old one.  The term "Occupied Territory" was only
>   applied to the West Bank some time after 1967.  Until then it was
>   commonly know as "Jordan".  That few countries recognized this annexation
>   didn't seem to bother anyone.  In fact, there was an Organization
>   dedicated to the Liberation of Palestine (called the PLO, not
>   surprisingly) that fought ISRAEL for the Liberation of it's land in
>   those days and not Jordan.

This is also another old one.  You try to justify Israel's occupation
of the West Bank by Jordan's occupation.  Consider the West Bank
Palestinians who have been wronged twice, and the second time around
you think it's ok.  This is your old tactic of justifying one wrong
with another.  Sorry, Jake.

Also, your argument fails in the West Bank, hence the term "Occupied
Territories", whose plurality you failed to notice.

>   The term "Occupied Territories" as applied to the West Bank

and Gaza Strip

>   has been
>   and still is prejudicial against Israel.  It would be much more fair
>   to call it "Disputed Territory".

Occupied they are and occupied they will remain until they are annexed
or made autonomous.

>   >Yes, of course.  Outside the Occupied Territories.  Construction of
>   >permanent buildings in occupied land is against the Geneva Convention.
>
>   If this is true, then the Arabs who have been living there would have
>   had a much worse time. ...

I guess I have to be painfully explicit with you.  Construction of
permanent buildings in occupied land by the occupying forces is
against the Geneva Convention.  Israel is violating international law
in the Occupied Territories by its settlements activities.

>   >It also throws impediments to the implementation of UN resolution 242
>   >and the Camp David accords.
>
>   So do Arab settlements in disputed territory.  Or is it that
>   concessions only have to be made by Jews, not by Arabs.

>   >... As for your ad hominem attacks, those just show a bankruptcy of ideas
>   >and arguments.

>   No, they show that you repeat lies maliciously and continuously.
>   Or would you say that you have just 'mis-spoken' again?

What lies?  That Israeli terrorism exists is not a lie.  That Israel
occupies territories in violation of UN resolutions is not a lie.
That Israel's activities in the Occupied Territories violate
international law is not a lie.  The lie exists in your obfuscatory
denial of these facts.

--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:30:21 GMT

In article <jon.713917134@lindy.Stanford.EDU> jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>
>          [...] 
>
>>I know that when one makes at least one set of reasonable answers to
>>the above questions, Gordon's assertion is simply false: real median
>>yearly pretax household income is bigger than in 1972, according to the
>>latest numbers from the Census Bureau. (You can look this up in a
>>half-decent library, and I have.)
>
>
>   So have I, and according to Table 721 of the 1991 Statistical
>Abstract of the United States, "Money Income of Households," the median
>annual U.S. household income in constant 1989 dollars rose between 1970
>and 1989 from 27,913 to 28,908 -- a whopping 3.5 percent increase in
>just two decades!  Whoopee!
>

Does this book have an 'income per worker' chart for the period in
question? I think much of this debate has to do with individual income,
not household income.

>
>Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
>Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU 


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40581 talk.abortion:32420 alt.politics.bush:2120
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:36:54 GMT
	<BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <16efd4INNkes@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
	<l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com>
Organization: Houston, TX

In article <l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
   |> Tim Buckley) writes:
   |> >>OK, Tim:
   |> >>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
   |> >>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
   |> >
   |> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
   |> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
   |> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
   |> 
   So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
   to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
   etc.

Did you snip out the "all" between "over" and "other", or did he in fact
not say "all other rights" as you seem to imply?

--
Roy Johnson, Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
and "So I guess even a sex change couldn't solve all his problems."
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39344 ca.politics:6725
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Jeff Dauber's posting on NAMBLA
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:14:29 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>In article <11709@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>It's an important distinction.  For quite a while, I would be told,
>>"Homosexuals oppose child molestation."  When I tried to pin them
>>down to, "Should adults have sex with children?" the responses 
>>quickly turned into, "That's not molestation!"

>You are attacking my choice of terms, not the content.

>I am against sex with pre-pubescent children in any situation (as is almost
>every other homosexual I know).

>I am not against consensual sex with adolescents.

>I think there is a difference.

Nice, reasoned answer.  Consent between the parties is the answer.  Same
for certain ridiculous laws in Georgia, etc...

>Is that clear enough for you clayton?

No, because he can't think...that's clear at this point.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40252 talk.abortion:32161 alt.politics.bush:1891
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:43:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <16845147EE.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
> In article <Bt08HD.DrB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> 
> >
> >In article <16h4a9INNoqa@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)writes:
> >>
> >>How can you tell?  Frankly, I think you are making this up.  I don't think
> >>liberty and happiness are contingent on a right to life.   I don't think that
> >>'most' people believe in this heirarchical notion of rights, or we'd wouldn't
> >>have blood shortages regularly at blood banks.  Nor would we be having people
> >>dying of failed kidneys, lungs, hearts, etc., since 'spare' parts come up
> >>all the time, but aren't donated.
> >
> >Well I thought I had made this clear.  Let's try again.  Can you have
> >happiness without life?   Can you have liberty without life?  Can you
> >have life without liberty or happiness.
> 
>      Consider the ramifications and abuses possible with this reasoning.
> Imagine the abuses possible from a government which is "just trying to
> protect your right to life."  If your right to life is more important than,
> say, your freedom of speech, couldn't the government decide to restrict you
> from saying anything that might anger somebody else and thereby jepeardize
> your life?

There's a far more direct and specific comparison and example of
the results of such a notion of a right to life.  If the right
to life is greater than the right to bodily autonomy, or the
right to decide for yourself what uses your body will be put to,
the government is within it's rights to compel people to donate
organs for transplant, to work in hospitals to save people
who are ill, to donate tissue for research, and so on.

Come to think of it, it would also have the right to compel
you to reproduce even if you didn't want to have children.

I find the notion of sacrificing my liberty with
regard to how I use my own body in order to save the life
of others simply a step on the road to tyranny.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Subject: The NIMBY and his LULU
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 02:22:16 GMT


LULU dear, it's been a year,
     since I protested your
     existence.
NIMBY love, you are a dove,
     and complaints galore
     comprise your love.
But LULU dear, please decline
     to disappear for good
     'ere I'll pine...
Since that event
     would prevent
     another hundred letters to the president.

NIMBY = not in my backyard'er    LULU = locally unwanted land use
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush