HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:42:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <oijdl0s@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <11743@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >It's a start.  But I understand that a lot of signs were carried
> >as well decrying "yellow journalism" against NAMBLA.  It sounds
> >like the community is still quite divided about child molestation.
> 
> The reason people are railing against "yellow journalism" is because it
> reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals as child molesters.  It is not
> because they support NAMBLAs goals.
> 
> FWA

The KRON special reports gave lots of airtime to Supervisor Roberta
Achtenberg, claiming that the gay community didn't support NAMBLA.
They also showed that gay bookstores all over the Castro carried
NAMBLA's bulletin, which features pictures (legal, at least) of
prepubescent boys.  Yes, all those gay bookstores are carrying the
NAMBLA bulletin because they strongly disapprove of NAMBLA.  Right.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
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: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:19:23 GMT

In article <Bt07FC.ABD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.121734.13578@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>
>>That one is contingent on the other does not at all prove that
>>the one must be subservient to the other.
>>
>>Rights in the United States are not at all based on what most of
>>us in society hold.
>
>I disagree with this statement.  Majority rule is the basis of any
>democratic republic.  The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the
>rights that the majority agree to are fairly distributed.  But the
>rights exist because of majority opinion.

Nope.  A democratic republic is not solely based on Majority Rule.  If
it were, then we would have tyranny of the majority.  We'll have mobocracy.

More accurately, I believe a democratic republic is based on the fine
line and balance between Majority Rule and Minority Rights.  Thomas Jefferson
hints a little bit in the Declaration of Independence, mentioning an
individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, vs.
the consent of the governed and things of that nature.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39196 alt.activism:14702 misc.headlines:5550
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:31:10 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Keywords: internal affairs vs. external affairs
Summary: One of my favorite quotes from the Noamster

    "Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of Kuwait
    added little to it, ..." --The Noamster

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:58:21 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug14.000854.2525@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>Well, I believe Human life begins at age 7.  At this age, people 
>start to know the difference between right and wrong.  Anything which
>does not know the difference between right and wrong cannot be a human.
>Human life begins exactly seven years after birth.
>
>Okay, if those are my beliefs, and my beliefs differ from yours,
>how can you say your views of life be ruled by your view?  Blobs of
>cells up to seven years after birth are not human.  I can do anything
>I want with those things including burn them, cut off their limbs, 
>throw them like baseballs, etc.  Why care when they aren't humans?

Fetuses in the first trimester in particular are not viable outside
of the mother.  I would guess a seven-year-old is viable.



--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.163839.34421@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> In  <1992Aug18.122649.25649@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > There is a distinct
> > possibility, which I will not debate, that we do need higher
> > taxes in this country in order to reduce or eliminate the federal
> > deficit and manipulate the economy for the ultimate purpose
> > of expanding that economy (and if the boot-lickers in Wasington
> > into alternative energy), but you won't catch too many
> > politicians saying that because the folks who vote won't stand
> > for it.
> 
> So you mean they say things like, "Read my lips - no new taxes" and then
> after being elected turn around and raise taxes?  Well, hopefully people
> who vote won't stand for it a second time.
> 
That's exactly what politicians do.  It isn't necessarily wrong to
raise taxes.  The fact is that the United States needs to lower
the federal deficit and reinvest in job training and research and
development.  But if a politician says that, he hasn't a chance
of accomplishing it because he won't be elected.  The thing is,
I can't stand a politician who shamelessly panders, as Bush
did with his lip-reading rhetoric, when it is a promise he
cannot or will not keep.

Dear me.  I must be off my rocker.  Here I go hoping that a
politician running for high political office will display
integrity and character.  Whatever was I thinking?


Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40403 talk.abortion:32300 alt.politics.bush:1985
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:26:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (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.

Do tell!

And it was George Carlin who put it best when he noted that those women
who are against abortion are those you wouldn't want to fuck anyway.

(See what happens when you begin quoting comedians?)
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:46:27 GMT

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

> By the way, I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  I saw
> someone bleeding from an illegal abortion once.  Bush says he would 'pick
> her up, dust her off, and get (his grand daughter) back into the race' of
> life.

> It takes a lot more than 'dusting someone off' when someone has had an 
> illegal abortion to put them back together even physically.

> Sometimes, very often when abortion is illegal, they are not around to get
> back in life at all.  Bush ought to know that, too.

Amen and preach it sister!  Some time ago in talk.abortion, I read a 
harrowing narrative by a woman who had given herself an abortion with
a sterilized knitting needle.  She described the pain as 'excruciating,'
and said that she bled for days.  Her reason?  Her father had stated that 
he would kill any daughter of his who became pregnant before marriage
and she had every reason to believe him.  I wish I'd saved the article;
it's very worthwhile reading.

I wish even more that, before they glibly spout their fetus worship, pro-
forced-birthers would take the time to reflect on what circumstances would
cause a woman to risk her life in order not to be pregnant.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40783 talk.politics.theory:3747 alt.politics.elections:11031 alt.politics.marrou:847 alt.politics.bush:2234 misc.education:3170
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:25:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <JTURNER.92Aug13062537@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.014137.1076@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:

>>   Er, the development of new technologies *is* part of "the market".

>	Sure.  It's amazing how much comes out of government funded
>research and how little out of private R&D.  What's more amazing is
>how quickly libertarians forget or ignore this.

Far too much comes out of government funded, and even worse, government
directed research.  This process started during WWII, and has unfortunately
grown to the extent that other sources have greatly dried up.  I believe that
we have reached the point that our research now is less than what it would
have been if the government had kept out.

Before WWII, the research universities, together with private foundations,
funded basic research, and industry cooperated, both by directly funding,
and by assisting university and foundation research.  Both polio vaccines
were funded privately.  American universities essentially entered the
research activity about 115 years ago, and by 60 years ago, the US was
probably in 4th place, and American research was respected throughout
the world.

But now, in the areas which the government funds, there is little research
being done without being explicitly so funded.  This does mean direction
and stifling of creativity.  We have achieved the scenario about which
Szilard wrote, and the government is effectively hindering research.

Libertarians are not going to dismantle this overnight if they get in power,
but a return to research being done "because it is there" can only come if
it is not directed by bureaucrats and Congresscritters.


-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40062 talk.abortion:32011 alt.politics.bush:1789
From: glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:58:20 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Aug16.221932.1772@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.174653.21783@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.041709.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>
>But pro-life people are not offering anti-abortion legislation as the
>SOLE means of reducing abortion rate (optimistically, reducing it to
>virtually zero).  There are many attempts to try to foster an atmosphere
>which makes choosing life a beautiful thing.  There are many attempts
>to eliminate the underlying causes of abortion.  Many pro-life people
>try to also create a situation where abortion cannot be an option
>simply because people become responsible enough with the beautiful life
>giving power of sex.  Abortions cannot be performed if our children
>don't get pregnant out of wedlock in the first place.

You seem to forget that *adults* get abortions sometimes. Even
(horror) *married couples*. Case in point: Hypothetical situation,
based on my current situation.

:I've been married for almost two years now. I am a college
student, 21 years old. Legally adult in every way except that I
can't run for President and I can't rent a car. My wife is two
years older than myself, also a college student.

I just was given a FOAD (the last three letters stand for "Off And Die")
from the place where I have been working on co-op for the last
two years, and am facing unemployment when I graduate in December.

Now: Suppose our preferred method of contraception fails. Should
we keep the child? We can barely feed ourselves. The government
won't help us; as college students we are in "voluntary impoverishment".
We can't go to our parents--my mother just lost her job, as did
my father-in-law. (Incidentally, we are not in a recession)
I'll not put a child up for adoption when there are so many
waiting now--and being turned down because so many adoptors
want a perfect white child. (We're white, but I'll not have MY
child raised by racists)

I am perfectly willing to raise a child once I have a job; but
why should I have to pay for an accident at this point?

Anyway; neither my wife nor myself are irresponsible teenagers.
But there are situations where we MIGHT decide to have an
abortion. Do not over generalize.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:54:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>	Sure.  It's amazing how much comes out of government funded
>research and how little out of private R&D.  What's more amazing is
>how quickly libertarians forget or ignore this.

I believe you have this wrong.  Given that every company has an R&D
department.

Government may do more of the pure research end.  That is projects that
might not pay off for 15 to 20 years, if ever.  I wonder how government
expenditures compare to what Bell Labs and IBM spend.

I am not aware of any work being done by the government of the
development side of the equation.

>					--Jeff Turner
-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39751 ca.politics:6785 ba.politics:4513
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:01:07 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>Who appointed the US the Global Policeman?  

Granted, no one has.  But does that mean we ignore the horror?  Does the US
ignore the atrocities because the US isn't a global policeman?

>Why shouldn't the EC address the issue first?  

They should.  But must the US standby simply because the EC haven't acted
and allow what is beginning to appear to be genocide?

>There is nothing inherent to the security of the USA
>by getting bogged down in a centuries-long inter-tribal dispute in the
>Balkans.  If there were, why not extend that globally to all such
>disputes?  

Ignoring what appears to be a distant event because one does not see
the connection is not always the correct course of action.  Perhaps we
should extend US force into any area where genocide appears to be going
on, but only with proper qualifications.

>And if we did, what gives us the right to intervene in the
>affairs of other sovereign states?

What gives the US the right to intervene?  Probably nothing.  If the
security of the US is not endangered, then why should the US join a
UN force in eliminating the horrors of war atrocities or upholding the
right of the Red Cross to inspect prisoner of war camps?  Perhaps nothing.
Perhaps duty?  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Ron Echeverri concocts a lie about Bush's abortion stance
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:45:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <l8o79jINN6mi@nunki.usc.edu>  rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
> Thanks for asking Doug for an apology, Larry, but i don't think Hell is about
> to freeze over yet.

You're right - after all, it would be the honest thing to do, and *nobody*
expects honesty from Dear Old Doug.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: I demand
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:42:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.224243.468@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> []
> I demand that all Optilink employees actively declaim [...]

Why not everyone on the net? Why does being employed at the same
location make them any more responsible for Cramer? Can I hold all of
Cornell responsible for anything you say?

I don't have much respect for Clayton, but I have even less for this
sort of collective guilt trip / thought police action. Clayton is
responsible for what he says - not anyone else. 

> we'll have no option [...]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll do my _own_ thinking. I'll judge people on
their own words and actions, not whether they grovel appropriately at
your electronic feet.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39582 talk.abortion:31634 alt.politics.bush:1506
From: rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 23:07:04 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug13.181814.24794@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.
>President Bush supports exceptions for abortion in the cases of 
>rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but this news story
>might lead one to believe that Bush supports a ban on "all" 
>abortions, which is false.  The other interpretation is that Bush 
>supports some sort of Constitutional amendment regarding abortion.

Whether he does or does not, it is clear what his party's position is.  And
he is adhering to it.  Therefore, if Bush actually supports choice in some
cases, that means is a hypocritical, two-faced, lying bastard.  If he actually
believes in his party's position, then he is a conservative candidate who
wants to deny more than half of the USA's population the right of choice.
I doubt i will vote for him in either case.

>Through e-mail, Mr. Echeverri has informed me that he got the
>story via Clarinet, and I hope he's telling the truth.  Perhaps
>he can point to a major newspaper which carried this story, since
>I don't receive Clarinet.  If he's not telling the truth, then I 
>think UPI might be interested in having a little chat with him. 

Since most major newspapers get their stories from UPI (among other newswires)
you may have to look a little harder, Mr. Holtsinger.  Just to add to my
credibility, today we discussed about this in my Political Science class.
We usually do not discuss "concoctions" of mine in class.

5150
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:19:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> !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.
|> Well, if nature (since I guess I can't say God or Allah or
|> whatever) had a purpose in sex, that's generally what it is.
|> 
|> !2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 
|> As our religious and social standards have it, only in marriage is there
|> the committment to deal with rearing children. As unmarried teenagers
|> may not be able to handle rearing children, sex should be reserved for
|> marriage.
|> 
|> !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."
|> Well, premarital sex is a sin (at least in my Southern Baptist church).
|> Adultery certainly is.
|> Sex itself is a gift that is shared between two people that love each
|> other, according to my pastor.
|> 	This does seem very interesting that the statement asserts that
|> pregnancy is a punishment, or a disease. That explains a few things:
|> abortion is the only "remedy" that can cure the "afflicted."

Thank you Emil, for explaining that all of your opinions about sex, family,
and abortion are based in your southern baptist religion.  How about
letting some of the rest of us live by the opinions of our religions?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40965 alt.politics.bush:2344
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:32:15 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug18.195426.20499@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>>spending.  

>The democrats probably couldn't do much worse!

True. They already have done worse.

They've done tremendous damage in their pathetic misrule
in the House and Senate.

Stopping Bush's economic growth plans, starting with Senate majority
leader Mitchell's repudiation of Bush's proposed tax cut in 1989,
easily cost our economy several hundred thousand jobs and deepened the
recession.

Their refusal to pass Bush's economic growth package this Spring, at
a time when America was truly in need, added insult to
injury.

No, it can't get much worse, when you have over 250 Democrats in the House,
and a Democrat-controlled Senate.

That's why we should vote the Democrats out of the House and Senate.
---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections