HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Moral Premises--    was Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:28:18 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Oct5.190605.323@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>
>"Thou shalt not kill" -- another moral premise. Can I prove it? Nope.
>Can I judge other people on whether or not they accept this premise?
>You bet I can. I do. And I'd wager, so do you.
>
>Some "cultures" have other premises -- such as "some races are better
>than other and can enslave the less better races". We judge those too.
>
>And we still can't "prove" the rightness or wrongness of the moral
>premises. But we can observe the effects of accepting either of those
>two premises and the liklihood we'd be better off on a system that chose
>one of the other.


Hear hear!  I knew that somewhere inside Ronzone there was a reasonable
man.  

Now, compare the quite reasonable things which you have just said to
Rand's concept of an absolute form of ethics based on "man qua man,"
a totally theoretical model of homo sapiens which is taken as an
a priori truth, not even subject to empirical verification. 

Night and day.  

Instead of holding that things like property and FOA are absolutes
according to this untestable preconception of human nature, we must show that
these concepts have empirical justification--that they result in positive
ends, as judged by certain values which we share with others.

There aint nuttin' else to hang onto, except Randian or other
religious dogma.


--Al Date
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Oct.7.08.05.10.1992.24891@romulus.rutgers.edu> 
	<1992Oct7.163524.24131@s1.gov>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:35:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.163524.24131@s1.gov> 
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <Oct.7.08.05.10.1992.24891@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@
romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.041819.16526@s1.gov> 
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>@  Well, my favorite part of the Bible is Psalm 137.
>>Yes, what of it?  What special insight do you have of it?
>	That it teaches that it is OK to kill the babies of one's
>enemies. (Oh, no! Baby killing!)

Just OK? That's a bit of an understatement.

KJV:Psalms137:9:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones.

Yet another fine example of Christian family values. But, hardly earth
shattering in comparison to the smoking gun of Christianity, Luke14:26.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:17:40 GMT

In article <BvrLyq.MLG@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   In *any* enterprise the *customer* is the one who pays the money
>   for whatever product or service is being rendered, in return for
>   that product or service.   The radio listener or TV viewer is
>   not the customer, he is the PRODUCT!   The advertiser is the 
>   is the customer; he pays the station to deliver to him a qualified
>   audience of a certain size.   
>
That only works from one perspective.  Another perspective is that the 
viewer is the customer, and the news/program is the product.  Still, you are 
right in that the advertizer is the one who pays the bills, and the ultimate 
consumer of "product," whatever it is.  So note the sponsers of the Evening 
Propaganda with Dan Rather and write them, telling them why you are NOT 
buying THIER products.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 3
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:33:43 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1atg0oINN96p@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>|In some states, CA (I think), it is considered murder if an assailant (sp?)
>|hurts a pregnant mother and consequently kills the unborn child.  Does not
>|that seem like a double standard when you consider abortion is not a crime?

>It's an assault on me if you rip out my tonsils without my 
>permission.  It's ordinary surgery if I hire a doctor to do 
>it with my permission.   You could also try thinking about it
>in terms of property rights.

This might be relevant if the assaulter were to be charged with murdering
your tonsils.

I've not seen the California statute but I have heard of it.  Under my 
understanding.  Causing the death of a fetus is feticide.  And under
certain circumstances is considered murder.  That is, the assaulter wil
be charged with murder in a court of law.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:31:21
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<JOT.92Oct7231016@teak09.cray.com> <1992Oct8.104551.10253@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp's message of 8 Oct 92 15:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.104551.10253@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:

> The issue is whether or not you understand basic thoughts like
> "tourism" and "sight-seeing."  I'll go out on a limb but I'm 
> willing to bet that Bill didn't go around moscow praising their
> system of government...

Indeed.  Did you see in today's paper that George Bush, personally,
raised this idiotic "issue" on a TV talk show?  He must really be
getting desperate now.

Bush said that Clinton should "come clean" about being on a tour that
happened to stop in Moscow; I'm really curious what he thinks that
"coming clean" means in this case.  I'm sure that when Clinton got
back home to Arkansas he showed his family and friends slides of his
Christmas vacation; is that what Bush wants, for Clinton to have some
kind of nationwide slideshow?  ("This is me, in front of St. Basil's
Cathedral,...")

P.S., did you know that Robert A. Heinlein was also once a tourist in
the Soviet Union?  How many folks out there think this proves that
Heinlein was a KGB agent, or a commie-sympathizer, or whatever it is
that we're supposed to believe about Clinton?
--
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!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50135 alt.politics.elections:15527 talk.abortion:41205 alt.sex:32248 alt.folklore.urban:25104 alt.religion.kibology:4142
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Dictionaries
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:35:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I heard that "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary.

And you believed them?

Big Al.  Off to check out the pigs flying  over his backyard.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:48:00 GMT

lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes...
>

>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>

>>cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>>>

>>>John [VietNam Vet] Moore writes:
>>>

>>> 
>>>   To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>>>   Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>>>   "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>>>   and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>>>   least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>>>   reprehensible and offensive.
>>
>>John I agree, it sucks.  While other young men were fighting and dying 
>>in Viet Nam -- Bill Clinton took a "vacation" around the Soviet Union. 

>...you have no reason to suggest that we were not sincere in our desire 
>to end the suffering of those doing the fighting.

You?? 

Bill-Clinton is being offered up as a leader. Where is the evidence?
He didn't lead on the battlefield, and now I'm being told he didn't lead
in the peace-movement. So where is the evidence to back up Brave-Bill's
dedication to the cause he supposedly felt strongly about? 

>>While others such as Sam Johnson and Jim Stockdale were rotting in POW
>>camps -- BRAVE BILL CLINTON was (at least) on a merry Christmas tour in 
>>the heart of communism. At most, BRAVE BILL was planning out his presi-
>>dential career 20 years later as a fellow-traveler in the communist 
>>enlightenment, and the ultimate mole.
> 
>This is slanderous garbage.....

No. The possibility exists, as stated, somewhere between a vacation and
gravest danger to national security. I don't like the whole range, and I 
see no compelling reason to ignore the extreme case -- having been trained 
to be sensitive to such matters. 

Moreover, there is nothing in all this that presents Brave-Bill Clinton 
as a leader. He avoided the draft then -- played a minor roll in the
protest (if his supporters are to be believed) -- and is avoiding the
question of foreign influence now. He also is avoiding dealing with the 
Federal Debt.

There is a clear pattern of avoidance in Brave-Bill Clinton's character.

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-10-92
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:56:39 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <70989@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
>In article <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>
>>If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are too
>>many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.
>
>No, what I think he is referring to is that after the general election
>and before the next session of congress, the electors of the electoral
>college meet to cast their votes.  The electors are not bound to follow
>the will of the people who elected them.  Perot could tell the
>elector who pledged to support him to vote instead for Bush or Clinton.
>In that case, if his transfered votes plus the votes that the other 
>candidate had create a majority, congress cannot do anything about it.
>Also, when the house votes for President, each state votes as one
>person, eg California=Ohio=New Jersy=Alaska.  Then, if the Republicans
>get a slim majority in a majority of states, they could cause Bush to
>win the Presidency again.

In some states, Georgia for example, Electors are bound by law to vote
for the candidate under whose banner they ran. So Perot could tell his
Electors to vote for Clinton or Bush, but they'd go to jail if they
did. Some Perotistas might risk jail to follow Fearless Leader's
dictates, but I doubt many would.

As for the House, the chances of the Republicans gaining a majority,
however slight, in the House is zero. The state delegations are not
bound by the popular vote in their states.


Gary
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:25:14 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 152431MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>In article <67648@cup.portal.com>, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) says:
>
>>Judging from Clinton's toadying of "War on Drugs" neo-stalinism, he has
>>been listening to the nuts in Bush's party too.
>
>Eh, be fair, anyone who advocates legalization is committing political suicide.
>Clinton is too much of a politician (and I don't mean that in the negative
>sense of the word; see the recent Time article on Abraham Lincoln for an
>interesting perspective on "politicians") to do that.

You are, IMHO, absolutely right.  Any politician advocating drug decriminalization
would be committing political suicide.  But that does not mean that Clinton was
being a hypocrite.  I believe that he was quite sincere in his opposition.  Perhaps
he really does believe that his brother is alive today because possession was
criminal.  After all, why is decriminalization considered political suicide? 
Because the vast majority of Americans oppose it.  The popular belief seems to
be that decriminalization would lead to more widespread addiction.  Just because
Clinton is a very polished politician, you shouldn't assume that everything he
says is contrived.  Maybe he just happens to believe something that is politically
popular.    

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51682 misc.headlines:6610 talk.politics.mideast:21096
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:08:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct14.120800.17554
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct13.143749.7999@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes: [About David Duke]
># 
># They attacked him like sharks at a feeding frenzy.  They 
># could not mention his name without playing that scratchy old 
># film of him, as an 18 year old student with a swastica, 
># protesting the Vietnam war.
>
>HA-HA-HA. That's a good one, Arfie. Duke was dressed in complete Nazi
>gear, and was carrying a big sign saying
>
>            *************************
>            *                       *
>            * GAS THE CHICAGO SEVEN *
>            *                       *
>            *************************
>
>Perhaps someone can better elaborate on who the "Chicago seven" were...
>anyway, it was a group of political radiacals, that Duke didn't seem
>to like. Old habits never die. He could say "kill the Chicago seven"
>or somthin' like that, I guess...

The Chicago Seven (actually eight; Bobby Seale was forcibly removed
from the courtroom and so is not usually included) were the defendants
at a conspiracy trial in Chicago based on actions surrounding the 1968
political convention there. They included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin,
John Dellinger, and assorted other radicals of various groups; mostly
Yippies but the occasional SDS member, IIbelieve. The trial was turned
into a circus, with the entirety of "Alice's Restaurant" being sung in
the courtroom and transcribed onto the record, and Seale became one of
the symbols of the black freedom movement in the courtroom drawings of him
blindfolded, gagged, and in chains because he wouldn't stop mouthing off
to the judge. Aside from the fact that the entire group of them were not
exactly into strict law and order, Seale's presence and courage were prob-
ably why Duke was so outraged at them.

>-Danny Keren.

	-Nora


-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50926 bit.listserv.politics:15529
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 15:30:59 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: ==> 3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


          3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN


From the Chicago Tribune   Sunday, October 11, 1992
(First published in the Boston Globe)

WASHINGTON--To Sig Rogich, President Bush's top advertising adviser,
his campaign ad charging that Bill Clinton will raise taxes
by more than $1,000 apiece on average Americans is extraordinarily
effective because it shows "real people . . . it stands the test of
integrity."

The five people in the ad are real, but several of them also have
ties to officials in the Bush campaign.

Two of the five, Julie and Gary Schwartz, described as "sales
representatives," are the sister and brother-in-law of Scott Jensen,
a Bush campaign official.  A third, Wyman Winston, is a friend of
Jensen, the executive director of Bush's Wisconsin campaign.
Winston could not be reached for comment.

The fourth person in the ad, John Canes, described as a "steamfitter,"
came by a circuitous route:  He once did plumbing work at the home
of the Republican fundraiser Mark Block, who asked him to appear
in the ad.  Canes, in an interview, said he did not know how the
campaign figured his taxes would go up by $1,088 under Clinton and
said he would like an explanation.

"I can't explain it," Canes said when asked about the conflict
between the Bush campaign's assertion and Clinton's pitch that he
would raise taxes only on those earning more than $150,000.  Canes
earns much less, he said.

Clinton has said the ad is "bogus" and that he would actually
cut taxes on the sort of middle-income people depicted.

"I don't know how they came up with this, I have to be honest with
you," Canes said.  Asked if the campaign had explained it, he said,
"Not thoroughly, like you would expect it to be."  He said a campaign
official had talked to him for "two or three minutes" before
the filming.

The fifth person in the ad, Lori Huntoon, a scientist, said in an
interview that she had confidence in the accuracy of the ad.  She
said she could not explain how the campaign came up with the estimate
that her taxes would go up $2,072 under Clinton but said she
believes Clinton would raise taxes.  She is a volunteer in the
Bush campaign.

When a campaign spokeswoman, Alixe Glenn, was asked if any of the
people were connected to the campaign, she said "No."  Asked about
the two relatives of a Bush campaign official, she said that that does
not qualify as a campaign connection because "they are not on our
payroll."

Privately, however, some officials in the Bush campaign said it was a
mistake to allow people connected in any way to campaign officials
to be in the commercial.
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 7 Oct 1992 04:52:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   I just got down watching Perot's first half hour program on TV and all I
can say is WOW! Setting politics aside, have you EVER in your life seen a
candidate hit you with clear and precise facts like this? It was like being
splashed with cold water. What a very refreshing, informing, non-bashing
"commerical" this was! I was once a Republican. I can see the point of the
Democrats concerning the average worker (but I don't trust/like Clinton). I
guess I side with the moral values of the Republicans and the concerns for the
middle class of the Democrats. What I'm saying is that I do like certain parts
of both, but NEITHER party has anything but fluff to show for an organized plan
and a clear understanding of the problems this country faces. Ross Perot, on
the other hand, is honest enough to show us the true problems and the hard
fixes it is going to take. Please, I beg you all to throw down your silly little
labels and pick a president based on ideas, not "Well....uh...I'm a Democrat so
I got'a vote for Clinton..." WHY? Please remember that both groups do not own
our nation. There is nothing in our laws concerning democracy that even mention
"Republican" or "Democrat". What it does mention is "the people" and this
movement is democracy in the truest since of the word. Don't "spoil" the country
by voting for the same lame men's clubs.

 I can't see how anybody, Republican or Democrat, could possibly not be
impressed by this first segment. What makes it even more impressive is that
Ross spent an entire half hour just to show us the problems first. His next
segment will go on to tell us how we might go about fixing them. He gave us
more facts in 30 minutes than either party has in years. We can take our
country back! Vote for Ross Perot!
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: The Cat's Meow: or how I learned to stop voting and love the party
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:42:48 GMT



|	For those unfamiliar with Ohio/Cleveland, this region rivals the old
|Chicago-machine for political machinations.  Let's just say you can't get
|elected unless you are a Democrat, and can't stay elected without paying of
|certain people....

Hah! We _ARE_ the most corrupt, and we ain't go no stinkin' rivals... :-)

There's this black woman here at work who told us of how she went to
the polling booth [Chicago uses the punch card system.] in a black
neighborhood and did a double take at the polling machine. You see, the
Democratic Party had thoughtfully included a piece of plastic that 
prevented the voters from voting for the _WRONG_ candidate.

Chicago, where modern semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s and FN-FALs
are banned, new handguns cannot be registered, where spray paint cans
are outlawed, where public assembly is prohibited [Oh, them dog gone
GANG MEMBERS could congregate.], where apartments in Chicago Housing
Authority buildings are periodically searched by police, enforced by
metal detectors on the outside of the building...

Chicago, where the black voters vote straight Democratic tickets, no
matter how many times they're screwed. Chicago, where the so-called
"ethnics" vote a straight Democratic Party ticket no matter how much
taxes are raised by their elected officials. Chicago sales tax is
8 and 3/4%!!!

Chicago, home of the "Dumb Shits," and that ain't whislin' Dixie...
-------

"Has anyone recalled that she called guilt-ridden liberal Hyde Park
a 'little South Africa?' That was when she led the campaign of Ray
Ewall, an African-American, against white liberal Barbara Flynn Currie
in a primary race, arguing that the 26th District, because it was
77% black, should be represented only by an African-American (Currie
is obediently pro-Braun now). That same black nationalist thinking
would be inconvenient now that she's running for the U.S. Senate in
a state noticably white. But nobody dares ask."

				-- Thomas F. Roeser, Crain's Chicago
				   Business, Aug. 31, 1992, p. 13, on
				   IL Democratic Senatorial Candidate
				   Carol Moseley Braun.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex