HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
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: 9 Oct 92 21:25:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1687A9093.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> 
>>        BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions.
>>Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
>>children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
>>INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).

Sigh! Has everyone gotten so stupidly moralistic that they have forgotten
why incest is deplored? Incest produces genetically inferior people, I
have know some children who were the result of incest and they were
not exactly ones you would want to see growing up to reproduce. I
imagine that a brother could love his sister - most do, but not
physically. However, even should that be the case it is for purely
genetic reasons that they not produce offspring.

>>
>>Steve
> 
>Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
>truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
>rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
>crime.
> 
>Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.
> 
>Jim McMaster
 REB
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Good Boy, George. But Why Did It Take You TWO YEARS?!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:27:45 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.053244.11317@nuscc.nus.sg>, 
ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) said:

> Well, George Bush has admitted that his tax deal with the Democrats
> in Congress was a mistake; that it caused the recession and the
> unemployment.

Hmmm.  A bit of small but, I think, important nitpicking: Bush can and
did admit that it was a mistake, since "mistake" is generally a
subjective term.  But he can only _assert_ that the tax deal caused
the recession and the unemployment; he cannot admit it, just as he
cannot "admit" that the big bang theory of the universe is correct and
the steady state theory is wrong.

> Now, he has given notice that Darman and Brady, the principle White
> House architects of that deal, will be joining their fellow
> Americans in the unemployment line.

Has he?  So far, all I've heard is that Baker, presumably at Bush's
behest, has asked that everyone on Bush's staff submit pro forma
letters of resignation, effective the day after the election.  Many
people have _interpreted_ this to mean that Bush plans a major
housecleaning if he wins the election, and the Bush people have done
nothing to dampen that impression, but the fact remains that as far as
I know Bush still hasn't actually come out _said_ anything specific.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: health care
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:38:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) wrties:
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>> This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>> care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
>> to pay for th[text deleted]

> Can anyone document the statement that "87% of Americans have
> comprehensive health care plans"?  

I had heard on CBS News that 30% of _working_ Americans are not covered
by health insurance.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
      "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
       Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:23:23 GMT

goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>In article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>>In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
>>book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
>>on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
>>page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
>>
>    Gore did call for an enviromental Marshall plan in his book.
>    The Republicans say the M. plan cost $100B in today's money,
>    therefore...

The question is: Was Gore refering specifically to the amt of
$ the Marshall Plan cost or the general idea of what the Marshall
Plan did to/for Europe?
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON/GORE FOR PRESIDENT		DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50631 alt.rush-limbaugh:6993 alt.politics.bush:8463 alt.politics.clinton:9450 alt.politics.elections:15909 talk.abortion:41704 alt.sex:32478
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
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: 9 Oct 1992 15:07:19 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists. 


(let me, let me)

Oh?  Is it?  Can you show us where?

Adrienne Regard
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Keywords: Candidates excluded from debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:39:54 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct16.201611.20865@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:

>I read in a news article this morning that Andre Marrou declined to show up
>in person to the minor party candidates debate last night with the reason that
>he didn't want to share the stage with a bunch of fringe candidates. 

>Make of that what you will, but it seems as though there are more than two
>classes of candidates...

>JZ

I think I can understand where Andre is comming from.  He was supposed to
debate one person acting as a fill in for a candidate currently in jail
for credit card fraud, and another person who believes that Socialism is
the way to solve our economic problems.  Even mentioning the three
in the same breath takes a bit away from Andre's credibility.  Besides,
Marrou was not throwing the debate and refusing to invite them, the debate
still went on without his presence.





-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Mandela praises China's government
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:40:16 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

I got this jewel out of the Oct. 7 issue of the Atlanta Journal and
Constitution.


Nelson Mandela drew an icy and puzzled silence at Beijing University this
week with his public praise of China as an "inspiration to democracy and 
freedom of expression".

The 76-year old leader of the African National Congress has been feted by
Chinese leaders for the last three days.  His official visit is to thank
Beijing for sustaining the ANC's anti-apartheid struggle for years with
cash and goods.  

Many of those watching Mr. Mandela receive the an honorary doctorate saw
their student comrades shot down or beaten at Tiananmen Square in June
1989 after demonstrating for more freedom and democracy.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51236 alt.politics.elections:16347
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:38:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Oct12.212458.5626@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:

>kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:

>>Wrong, Bush will get it this year, VERY, VERY close and then Kemp in '96.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Please post the data that you base your prediction on [of a close Bush 
>victory]! Does this mean that all those polls are wrong? Do all of those
>who are polled lie (actually, do both rep's and dem's lie)? I can understand
>a 4 % difference but in many states the difference is 10 % (very much
>above a sample error).

I too think Bush will (unfortunately) win.  If you demand poll numbers to
back that up, forget it.  Elections aren't decided by polls, they're
decided by the ballot box.  Remember '48?  However, I wouldn't mind being
wrong on this one.

   ---Andrew
[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:02:37 GMT

In article <1asrkdINNh9f@agate.berkeley.edu> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes:
>were the "Framers" really omnipotent? :)

No, but the Constitution is a written code of law. To read into it
whatever one wants, would be equivilent to throwing away the whole
thing. Wherever possible, it should eb interperted to mean what it
was written to mean (e.g. what the framers intended the provision 
in question to mean.) This helps remove modern political bias, etc..
 
                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Dictionaries
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:03:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.071602.19664@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>In article <lcnsptINNrcv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
>     falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>In article <lefty-290992185354@lefty.apple.com>
>>     lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>Look up the word "credulous" and see what it means.
>
>>Try looking it up yourself; it's not *in* the dictionary.
>
>From: The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed.,
>      Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press
>
>/credulous/ <<"kredjUl@s>> adj. 
>1. too ready to believe; gullible.
>2. (of behaviour) showing such gullibility.
>
>/credulity/ <<krI"dju:lItI>> n. /credulously/ adv. /credulousness/ n. 
>L credulus f. credere believe

I heard that "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Statistics from nurses ( was Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views )
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:05:58 GMT


In a previous article, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:

>In <ldb8pvINNcte@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>
>MP:Wrong.  There was a chance of getting aids donating blood because there
>MP:were some cases where the needles used were not properly cleaned or there
>MP:could be blood-to-blood contact between the technician and the donor.  Those
>MP:gaps have been closed, so the 0:100,000 is accurate in hospital and red-cross
>MP:environments.
>
>I thought the needles were thrown away after one use.
>

They are, and have been as long as I've been giving blood (18 years).



>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50509 alt.politics.clinton:9340
From: koenig@convex.com (Mark Koenig)
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:55:30 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.

kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore) writes:

>(Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
> >
> >Recent Poll results, ordered by number of electoral college votes.
> >
> >! == Candidate has lead of 10% or more. 
> >EV == Electoral College votes for that state (270 votes needed for victory).
> >
> >State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot   State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
>
> >  AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13

>How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser
>to this guy than the rest of the nation? 

Hummmm, I read this slightly different.  Seems to me that the people of
Arkansas would like Clinton elected.  I visited there a few weeks back
and if you talk to a few people you get the impression that they would like
him to win only so he will stop screwing with local taxes and regulations.

Still undecided, but leaning....
Mark
--
Mark Koenig, Optimization Specialist
Convex Computer Corporation         koenig@convex.com
P.O. Box 833851  M.S. SAL           Phone: (214) 497-4298
Richardson, Texas  75083-3851       FAX:   (214) 497-4550
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52323 alt.society.civil-liberty:6292
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Waffling
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:59:21 GMT

In article <farenebt.719173771@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>The Republicans have accused Clinton and Gore of changing their
>minds on many occassions, waffling, they call it. 
>
>While those "waffles" may be true of Clinton/Gore, they are
>nothing more than hypocritical coming from the President.
>
>---Bush was for abortion rights during his 1980 primary run.
>---Bush called Reaganomics, "voodoo economics" and then 
>   endorsed it while vp and now prez.
>---"Read my lips"

---Bush claimed he wasn't "in the loop" on the arms for hostages.

---Bush WILL claim he knew nothing about the investigation of Clinton.


>
>I'm sure people can add to my list.
>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
>CLARKSON '95			 	   
>A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>===========================================================================
>CLINTON/GORE FOR PRESIDENT		DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)
>
>
>



*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
From: ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:05:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bw0nJ2.Bt4@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.153028.7899@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>> (After all, we must keep in mind that Bush is the man who actually
>> said, in public, that it is wrong to demonstrate against your country
>> when your country's at war.  The mind boggles.)

>    Yes, those were his exact words.

Actually, I think that Bush is right--it is wrong (morally/patriotically)
to demonstrate against your *country* when it's at war.  However, the
distinction not being made is that Clinton did NOT demonstrate against
his country, just against the (then) current government and its policies.
There is a BIG difference, and I think Clinton made a mistake in not
forcefully pointing that out.  [To me, the country is the people, and
the ideals, and infrastructure, and the Constitution, and--but you get
the idea; the government is just one small part.]

On the other hand, I think Bush is absolutely incapable of understanding
the difference.

Bob
-- 
                                                                  _
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."                 Nipetlahuini.
Robert Neinast (ran@cblpo.att.com)
AT&T-Bell Labs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 13 Oct 1992 20:40:41 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>
>> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>> independent of who is President and what he does.
>
>Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
>will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
>belief is somewhat different.
>
>Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
>very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
>(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
>neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
>commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
>Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
>elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
>party from fragmenting.
>--
>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
>(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!


Maybe this will lead to a third party assuming the role of a major party.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: BRAVE BILL's excellent (commie) Vacation-from-Viet-Nam...
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:22:56 GMT


In article <7OCT199219375006@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) said:

> Was Brave-Bill a closet commie sympathizer when he took his "trip"
> to Oxford and beyond?
>
> Who were his fellow-travellers, or did he take a few weeks in Russia
> and Eastern Europe all-on-his-own? In the dead of winter?!
>
> Are there chums or comrades from that time who can tell us how he
> spent those frigid blizzard cold nights? And just what were the
> weather reports during his jaunt behind the curtain? And who else
> was out on the cold with him? ....Have they come in?

Ye gods.  I haven't heard rantings like this since Wally George went
off the air.  What's next -- "I have here a list of fifty-seven
Communist agents in Bill Clinton's campaign staff"?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: the bible Says it, you just don't like it.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:31:44 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

] In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] > trivia question here teddy dearest....
] 
] > but does this not also mean that giving
] > up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
] > construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...
] 
] No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
] condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
] daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)


thank you for clarifying your position on SwissCheeseTheology.


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton