HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 01:00:10 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Brian Lintz) writes:
|> John Sims) writes:
|> >Brian Lintz) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >>Someone else's morals don't have to be imposed. In fact, that's the
|> >>whole point of original poster: people shouldn't impose their morals
|> >>on anyone else. We live in a society, and the main job of society is
|> >>to protect its members both from outside attack, or from other members.
|> >>(When a society starts to protect you from yourself it is starting to
|> >>become a totalitarian society). In your example, society has the obligation
|> >>to stop you because it is protecting its members. It does not have the
|> >>right to stop two consenting people from having sex because no one
|> >>needs to be protected here. Since the sex is consensual, no one's rights
|> >>are being violated. You are free to follow your own morals, as long as
|> >>you don't violate the rights of others in the society. This simple restriction
|> >>is the price to pay to have your rights protected. Which of your rights
|> >>are being violated when someone is promiscious?
|> >
|> >Golly gee!  That's it!  A man who sleeps around on his wife isn't
|> >committing adultery, he's merely following his own morals!  And as long
|> >as he doesn't contract and then pass along AIDS to his wife, she should
|> >have no complaints, since he was just pursuing pleasure.
|> >
|> >I can see it clearly now, thanks!
|> >John
|> 
|> Well, since we were talking about passing out condoms in schools, I was
|> refering to an unmarried person being promiscious. Adultery is a crime,
|> and rightly so. A married person has basically entered into a legal agreement
|> in which one of the provisions is monogamy. 

I don't remeber monogomy being part of the legal agreement I entered with
my wife.  I remember promising her that I'd be faithful -- and she makes
sure I keep that one.  But I'm not sure it will break a law if I do
something dumb.

|> 						As for someone contracting AIDS
|> and knowingly passing it along to a partner, this could be made a crime,
|> because the person is infringing on his/her partner's rights by deliberatly
|> giving her/him a fatal disease. Now let me ask my question again and I'll
|> modify it slightly so as not to confuse the issue: assuming there are no
|> std's involved, which of your rights are being violated when an unmarried
|> person is promiscious?
|> 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jacksonk@hyades.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Jesus wins lottery!
Organization: Bible Thumping Radical Right
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:30:23 GMT

	UPI

	(HOUSTON) -- The Texas Lottery produced its first hometown
	winner yesterday when a Houston man walked away with the big
	money in the weekly drawing. Jesus Almaguer of Houston chose
				     ^^^^^
	the right door to win one-million dollars. The 40-year old
	Almaguer was immediately surrounded by dozens of relatives and
	hometown well-wishers after the drawing held in the grand foyer
	of the Gus Wortham Theater Center in downtown Houston.

I thought I saw him on the floor of the Republican National Convention!

;^)
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: School choice: comments and questions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:41:24 GMT
Keywords: School choice, comments, questions, Bush, Clinton, politics,

YOu know, I really don't understand why so many people attack this 
school voucher idea.  I simply don't see why school vouchers that can
be used for either parochial or non-parochial schools are somehow a 
violation of church-state seperation.

After all, most of us on the net have received vouchers for school choice.

We called them "Pell Grants" or "SEOGs" or some equally inane thing.

They are given to students attending state universities, private universities,
religiously affiliated universities, and four-year liberal arts colleges, not
to mention some technical schools.

No one complains about that.  In fact, everyone is clamoring for MORE vouchers
to be handed out by the government.  No one demands that these vouchers be
limited to $1,000 or that they be given only to students who choose state
run schools.  

Why are vouchers for colleges and universities great, while vouchers for 
grade schools and high schools are evil?  Why is it a violation of church-
state separation to give vouchers to parochial school students, while it's
perfectly acceptable to give them to Notre Dame students?  Why don't boards
of education run universities?  Why aren't university professors required to
be certified teachers?  What is so magical about senior year in high school
that suddenly makes all further organized instruction radically different?

The answer, of course, is that there isn't any difference.  A Pell Grant
to a senior in high school choosing to attend Notre Dame is no more or
less reprehensible than an educational voucher to a grade school student
about to attend a religiously-affiliated high school, or a child about to
attend a parochial grade school.  The money for the last two is generated
out of taxpayer's property tax, not their income tax (as Pell grant money
is), but I fail to see why the liquidity of the asset being taxed affects
it's use in re schooling.  The whole argument is specious.

Steve Kellmeyer
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:44:04 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	While we are on the subject of abstinence, do those who
recommend it as the _only_ legitimate form of sex (if no sex can be
called sex) wish to practice what they preach. That is, have they
stopped having sex with their spouses? If they haven't, then by their
own teachings, they needlessly endanger themselves and their spouses.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:30:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.221319.2770@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
> Is there a Republican out there willing to defend the appointment
>of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court? He is the judicial 
>equivalent of dragging drunks to the polls on election day, to
>the point of physically helping them pull the lever. He is 
>additionally a slap in the face to African-Americans, by 
>condescenscion. Are conservatives proud of the law he makes?
>Did he ask a question this term? I would be embarrassed to have
>this man defending my ideology.

Is there a Democrat out there willing to defend the "borking" of
Supreme Court nominees?  Robert Bork was an exceptionally qualified,
though conservative nominee, and the left attacked him with
McCarthyite tactics.  So instead of getting exceptionally qualified
conservative nominees, the Republicans have been putting up
nominees who it is impossible to bork, but who are less qualified.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jdhebert@mtu.edu (JEFFREY D. HEBERT)
Subject: Re: Gridlockers
Keywords: parties
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:57:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.125907.6342@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> If all of Bush's problems are to be laid at the feet of the DCGC (Democrat
> controlled Gridlocked Congress), I have one simple question.
> 
> Assume that the Democrats control Congress again after this election.  (NOTE: 
> I'm not saying that's good or bad--play along with me or don't play, please).  
> WHAT THE HECK DOES BUSH DO THEN?
> 
> Can the rift that exists between Bush and the Dems in Congress (created by both
> sides) be easily repaired?  Would either side even try?  My guess is that we
> would have at least four more years of the inactivity we currently have.
>
****************************************************************************** 
* This partisan sniping, by the way, is just one more reason that I think we *
* would all be better off if political parties never existed.                *
******************************************************************************

AMEN to that.

A little competition is good, but a lot of incompetent competition only results
in GRIDLOCKS.

"A house divided against itsself cannot stand" and all that...


Me   (Jeff Hebert)			You may think you are unique,
jdhebert@chem9.chem.mtu.edu		But I am the only ME!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: The President
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:47:34 GMT


 If this group is only to be sly winks and chuckles about the
Bush Administration it will not be very interesting or important.
I would be interested in hearing considered opinions from
Republicans. I cannot believe that thoughtful Republicans and
conservatives, will stand by and watch the highjacking of the
Republican Party by the religious right and the debasement of
the Presidency by lies and innuendo.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3035 talk.politics.misc:42113 alt.politics.clinton:3104 alt.politics.elections:11646
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 26 Aug 1992 20:53:40 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Jude G Federspiel) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> In article <BtJL2I.K4z@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Aug25.131123.24352@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
|> |> >  We should encourage the kids to refrain from the dangerous behavior.
|> |> 
|> |>   Again, ---> HOW? <---.   And I mean "how" that actually works 
|> |>   most of the time.   Condoms have a certain failure rate but they
|> |>   work most of the time.   Everything I've read, heard, or witnessed
|> |>   with my own eyes suggests that even the best parental guidance has
|> |>   a higher failure rate than condoms.  
|> |> 
|> 
|> I'll tell you.  It's so simple it's almost funny.  You start when the child is
|> very young.  You teach the child sex before marraige is wrong, dangerous, and
|> can have catastrophic consequences.  You show them (eventually we'll get a 
|> generation that can do this) by example that a loving married couple has just
|> as much sexual fun as an unmarried pair.  You teach them that although sexual
|> urges can be pretty strong during teens and pre-marital years, it's just
|> another thing you have to wait out.  Too few Americans have the discipline to
|> do this.  Kids just have to be taught it's not wrong to take a stand, to differ
|> from the crowd.  (a lot of teen sex is the result of peer pressure to be
|> sexually active).  Voila!
|> 
|> Anyone who doesn't believe this is true just doesn't want to admit it because
|> it's obviously not an _easy_ thing to do, and people have become too
|> accustomed to promiscuousness (?) -- people won't like saying they have to
|> give up something they like in order to solve a problem.  Instead, they
|> say, "lets hand out condoms so they can have the best of both worlds:  health
|> and baby-free sex."  That's fine.  But it's blood on their hands every time 
|> someone is impregnated or infected with some sexually communcated disease because 
|> of condom failure.
|> 
Well now you have shown us how one very concerned, liberated, and
involved parent might solve the problem for one (or a few children).  The
issue is not how to deal with that children.  We are concerned about the
millions of children who have not had any help in understanding why and
why not.

It also does not address the children of those who don't necessarily agree
that sexual urges are something you "have to wait out" till marriage.
Not everyone lives in such a family with your beliefs.  Some of us
don't want to.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lies
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 09:28:53 GMT


 A thoughtful believer would consider what the mixing of church
and state results in. Take for example, Denmark which has a
state church. Attendance approaches zero. Your church and mine
require protection *from* the state. I hope you don't get your wish.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3352 alt.politics.clinton:3379
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: woody allen
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:53:26 GMT
Organization: i represent myself

In article <1992Aug28.165751.25296@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.132735.3504@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
> >In article <26AUG199223341067@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
> >> 
> >> Like any other american, woody allen is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
> >> 
> >only if you're a bleeding heart LIBERAL.
                                           ^
                                           :)

> >
> No, In America people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty - that's
> one of the central tenets of our governmental doctrine - it has nothing to do
> with liberal of conservative.  Of course individuals can hold whatever
> opinion they like about someone.  In the case of Woody Allen, I'd just as soon
> adhere to innocent until proven guilty.  You see, I don't have any direct
> knowledge of his character or the character of his family members.  It's
> perfectly plausible that they are lying about him - it wouldn't be the first
> time something like that has happened.  On the other hand, it's plausible that
> he is guilty and they are telling the truth; it's also plausible that the
> truth is somewhere in between what the two sides are saying.
> 
>      - Dave Borden
>        borden@m5.harvard.edu

ooh, aah, stun us with ivy league clear thinking. ;)   (HEY, LIGHTEN UP)
sorry man, i forget the :) for the sake of the humor impaired.
look up there, i inserted it.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:20:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: plague-ether.berkeley.edu

One president?

I meant one PARTICULAR president whose name I didn't really want
to explicitly spell out.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Michigan remarks
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:28:18 GMT

In article <kedcv5200Uh7A6zKQs@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>While I sympathize with the people of Michigan, especially the
>autoworkers, something Bush said has immensely troubled me.  Bush is
>vehemently against Clinton's plan to make it mandatory for engines to be
>more fuel-efficient in a few years.  Bush claims that this will have a
>negative effect on jobs, and that he would fight against any such moves.
> It seems ironic to me that the president of the nation that has been
>such a producer of ideas that bettered the quality of life is now
>fighting against standards (that could be implemented yesterday if not
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for politics) that represent the natural process of achievement. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


  Is this true?  I really don't know much about this and the
politics have only served to confuse me further.  What would it
take to get our cars to an average 40 mpg.  I've heard it said
that we would have to adjust to smaller cars, but then I've heard
that disputed.

  If it is true that this could be implemented yesterday, why
hasn't the car industry done it?  It seems to me that a more
fuel efficient car would sell better.  Why must the government
step in?   Why would it cost jobs?  Wouldn't a more fuel-efficient
car sell better and create more jobs?  Is it really that expensive
to build a more fuel-efficient car?  Why hasn't competition given
us more fuel-efficient cars?  Is it because Americans just don't
care about fuel-efficiency? (Certainly our inability to adjust after
the first oil shock in the 70s would indicate this is/was true to
some extent.)


  A lot of questions.  I hope someone has the answers. :-)



Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:36:45 GMT

In article <mjenkins.715300197@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
|> I've never understood why people think condoms should be available in
|> washrooms and from school nurses etc. under the guise of "people may
|> be too embarassed to go buy them in a drugstore."
|> 
|> Lets get this straight: a teenager is apparently too embarassed to buy
|> a condom in a drugstore, but not too embarassed to get naked in front
|> of a girl/boy he/she probably just met, and have sex together?
|> 
|> If you're too "embarassed" to buy the condom, you should be more
|> embarassed to have sex.

oops, you missed the key operative word :  * SHOULD * . too bad this is *not* the
way things are really happening ... if it were, the problem wouldn't be here. So
it would seem that we have a choice: 

1) be ignorant of what is really going on (which you seem to have chosen) ,

or

2) admit its what is really going on, and propose a solution to deal with it.
(note that this does not always mean distribution of condoms, although that would
seem like reasonable option in most cases...)

  ==================================================================
  Stephen A. Blythe                |    RPI
  Dept. of Computer Science        |  "where Hell has finally
  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |      thawed out ..."
  blythes@sirius.cs.rpi.edu        |
  ==================================================================

 My views do not necessarily reflect those of the bozos surrounding me.

				"NO MORE
			       BU__ SH__"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:12:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug25.134252.12999@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
]In article <1992Aug23.163220.3332@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>In article <1992Aug22.140136.22032@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
]>]
]>](1) It offends my sense of intellect to see people believe in alleged
]>]facts for which there is and can be no proof.  I want to take these
]>]people by the lapels and shake them and shout "Are you fucking crazy!
]>]How can you _believe_ this stuff?"  Stupidity bugs me.
]>
]>Is this or is this not intolerance?
]
]In your own words, John, so f**king what?  Why must we tolerate stupidity? 
]There are degrees of intolerance, too.  It's one thing to *want* to knock
]some sensibility into people, and another entirely to try it, or dismiss them
]as unworthy of contempt.
This is so amazingly arrogant as to require no further comment.

]>I'm sure that a lot of Christians [feel] the same way as you. Why not look
]>at the good side of their (presumed) delusion: for the most part they attach
]>it to communitarian values which make them good citizens.
]
]I don't know that Starr dismisses their benignities.  I suspect he objects
]those aspects of their Christianity that are *not* benign, like burning
]witches, conducting crusades, converting "heathens", and generally dumping on
]anyone that doesn't share their beliefs.

As has been mentioned before, Christians do no burn witches or conduct
crusades. ALL religions, including atheism, convert "heathens." Most
(but not all) Christians don't dump on those that don't share their
beliefs.

]>]Perhaps John Moore can understand this: some of us Americans don't
]>]like being told that we have to do what somebody else tells us to do
]>]just because he's got a big stick to hit us with if we disobey him.
]>
]>Yeah. Neither do I. So f**king what, Bill?
]
]I think his point is that "God" is the guy with the big stick, and that
]Christianity offends him because it requires its believers to delegate their
]will to "Him" and refrain from critical examination of its tenets.

Look, if he believes in God, he can resent what he is told. If he doesn't
believe, then what is his beef? I don't think it is the religion he
is reacting to, it is the behavior of a few of its adherents.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush