HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex
Subject: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:02:40 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>And there are laws against prostitution. 

And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
that did not exist when such laws were enacted.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40057 talk.abortion:32009 alt.politics.bush:1785
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 01:00:49 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <BsxzqI.2Lv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>                                                          The death
>penalty and war both require society to make judgments about whose right
>to life takes precedence NOT whether the right to life takes precedence.
>Without the right to life there are no other rights.  It is fundamental.
>That IS (or should be) why we go to war (to defend our (or others) right
>to life) and that is why we have the death penalty (to protect the right
>to life of our citizenry).  Consistent and cohesive arguments can be
>made in opposition to the death penalty and war this, again, is because
>of the difficulty involved when two equal rights juxtapose each other.
>
>Tim

Really? You should read a little history, Tim. Some examples:

What is more important?

1) The right to life of an Indian or the right to Property of a
European-American?

2) The right to life of an accused witch or the religion of a
fanatic?

3) The right to life of a horse thief or the right to property of a
horse's owner?

4) The right to life of Northern troops or the right to own
slaves?

5) The right to life of the British Army or the "Inalienable
Rights" of the American Colonists?

Jerry Reno (pro-death) glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil reno@cps.msu.edu
Support the death penalty and mandatory abortions!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmeredit@ferris.cray.com (James Meredith)
Subject: Re: Newest Quayle Quote!
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:27:03 CDT

>
>NYT today:
>
>_AIDS Speech Brings Hush to Crowd_, p. A21
>
>"Many of the delegates at the first seemd not to be listening.  They
>could be seen chatting and wandering about the floor.  But as she went
>on, the room gradually feel to attention.  By the middle of her speech
>almost everyone was staring up at the podium, quiet and with grave
>expressions.
>
>"There were exceptions.  A television camera caught Vice President Dan
>Quayle, standing in his box in the rear of the hall, glad-handing a
>beaming Arnold Schwarzenegger."
>
>
>--
>But this is.
>
Once again a sound bite taken out of context.  "The room" NEVER fell to
attention until the Quayle and Bush speeches on Thursday night.  I was
about 6 feet from Quayle during the speech and a very large number were
visiting and "glad-handing" during the speech.  The liberal media continue
to skew the facts of the convention to meet thier own agenda.


These opinions are my own.

-- 
=============== I speak for myself only, not for my employer ================
      James Meredith  (jmeredit@cray.com)     
      Cray Research, Inc.                     
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39654 talk.abortion:31683 alt.politics.bush:1549
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:03:36 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>abortion?

>	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
>what is???

***sarcasm mode on***

The government has been interfering with my rights for years.

I want to take good old Betsy down to the Mall and get in some target
practice, beats the heck out of deer.

Some sniveling liberal garbage about "right to life", geeze, what about
my rights.

***sarcasm mode off***

>/Loren
-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40300 ca.politics:6891 ba.politics:4610
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:12:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <NELSON.92Aug15221854@cheetah.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
> In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#    There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
#    yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
#    Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
#    homosexuality.  To say that you subscribe to either religion,
#    while engaging in homosexuality, is rather like claiming to be
#    a Marxist, while capitalizing a company.
# 
# There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
# yet wear blended fabrics.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
# Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
# blended fabrics.  To say that you subscribe to either religion,

Christianity has no such prohibitions.  You clearly don't know
much about the subject.  I would suggest that you read some of
Paul's letters, and you'll understand why the Levitical code is
not binding on Christians.

# --russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu# I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40260 talk.politics.theory:3703 alt.politics.elections:10740 alt.politics.marrou:812 alt.politics.bush:1899
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner)
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:29:52 EST

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> |> >lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> |> >
> |> >	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
> |> >
> |> >	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!
> |> 
> |> I agree 100%
> |> 
> |> US Public schools have FAR more administrators than
> |> private/independent schools. But US public schools do a much
> |> worse job of educating America's kids.
> |> 
> |> We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student,
> |> yet their students are far more educated than ours.
> |> 
> |> On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in
> |> math/science.
> |> 
> |> Its time do do something - I support school choice.
> |> 
> Interesting.  The Japanese don't agree with you.

the type of school system has nothing to do with it. overall
(i know there are exceptions, i am one) students do well
because of parental involvement. our students would be best
in the world too if parents spent hours learning the lessons and
doing the homework alongside the children.

public schools here have brushed parents off. in some areas it's
even outright antagonism. it gets worse when issues of religion
and "indoctrination" are considered.

parents who care enough to send their kids private schools are just
more involved. IMHO, a voucher system would be a great way to
empower parents & get them back into the system. public schools
now have no real incentive to change except for some decree from
Washington. maybe some competition can change that.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`     "Stark raving sane." -- Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead     `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com> <11715@optilink.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:41:16 GMT

In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug10.201246.2874@BofA.com> dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman) writes:
># #|# Because subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic are about 80%
># #|# of the population, and homosexuals are at MOST 3-6%?
># #
># #Methinks you overestimated the number of Judeo-Christians.
># #Who do you include in the count?
># 
>#   Methinks the original poster also fails to appreciate how
>#   amorphous a concept "Judeo-Christian" is.   If he thinks
>#   being gay and subscribing to Judeo-Christian culture are 
>#   mutually exclusive then he hasn't studied fuzzy set theory.
># 
># ---peter
>
>There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
>yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
>Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
>homosexuality.

In that case, don't forget to revise your estimates of J-C ethics subscribers
to exclude all people who believe in horoscopes and/or reincarnation and/or had
extramarital affairs.

>To say that you subscribe to either religion,
>while engaging in homosexuality, is rather like claiming to be
>a Marxist, while capitalizing a company.

So Friedrich Engels was no Marxist ?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39191 talk.abortion:31407
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Bush and Abortion (was Another good reason to vote for Bush)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:59:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

The platform committee specifically refused to allow ammendments to
the platform to insert these exceptions.  I didn't hear Bush
protesting.  Is he just out of touch with hs platform committee, or is
he letting the right wing of his own party run roughshod over his own
convictions? 

--Scott
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Phil Graham Draft Status
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:04:27 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <l956e9INN9gg@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> I heard on the news last night that when asked why he didn't serve
> in the military, Phil said he had "more important things to do to
> help the American people."
> 
> In the 60's it was considered rational to try to get a deferrment.
> Those that did were neither heros or traitors.  Today, however,
> a Republican draft avoider is a partriot and a Democrateic
> draft avoider is un-American.

You mean like Pat "I couldn't serve in the military because of
my bad knee, but now I'm an avid jogger" Buchanan, Pat "I was
on my way to Korea but the orders were changed so I stayed in 
Japan, but my dad the Senator had nothing to do with it" Robertson,
or Dan "National Guarde" Quayle?


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:43:52 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Patrick Sugent, I see merit in your position that the economic problems in
this country are due in large part to the "changing times."  Problem is,
though, that our Republication leaders haven't noticed.  They're still trying
to cling to the 50's when the US had little competition.  That's a MAJOR
reason we need to change our leadership NOW!  Come on - this is the 20th,
almost the 21st, century. Let's find some leaders who can deal with that.


"I'm don't want to change the world; I'm just trying to live in it." 
				(Molly Goldberg, 50's sitcom character)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,houston.general,tx.general,alt.politics.bush
From: mulcihy@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (David Mulcihy 283-4279)
Subject: Re: Ad Hoc Committee to Protest the Republican National Convention
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:35:28 GMT

Nigel Allen writes:

>    * Unity march denouncing 12 years of Republican abuse will "greet" 
> GOP in Houston Sunday, Aug. 16, at 3 p.m. 
> 
>    * Protestors will gather in economically oppressed neighborhood 
> and march into River Oaks, local symbol of Republican privilege. 
 
>    * Photo opportunities include: giant puppets & posters, planting
> of enlarged photos of homeless in front of mansion of chairman of the
> convention host committee.

The Houston Host Committee is not affliated with the Republican Party.
It is a volunteer organization which tries to bring conventions into
Houston. Planting pictures of homeless people in some persons lawn just
because they are on the Houston Host Committee is a misdirected effort.


David Mulcihy
mulcihy@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40931 talk.abortion:32741 alt.politics.bush:2325
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:41:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug19093856@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> >I can say, in principle, that the fetus should be protected in the middle
> >and later stages of pregnancy (or after the development of the CNS).  But, if
> >my wife found, in the second trimester of pregnancy, that the fetus was
> >seriously abnormal,  we would be faced with a very painful and difficult
> >decision.  And, quite frankly, I don't know how we would act.  It is one
> >thing to talk about such things and another to actually live through such
> >circumstances.
>
>What if, for example, the child seemed normal in the womb, but when born,
>got tangled in the umbilical cord and suffered some brain damage?  Would
>you then be faced with a difficult decision of whether to put it out of
>your misery?

Yes, you are faced with the difficult decision of whether to cease life
support or feeding (in the case of severe damage) or whether to relinquish
custody to the state (i.e. put it out of your misery).

What was your point?

>
> >It seems ironic that the republicans are the party which
> >opposes abortion but is also the party which is least inclined to help the
> >mother (parents) or the child.  To them, the only issue seems to be cutting
> >taxes, particularly for the wealthy.
>
>Abortion is chosen less frequently by those who are on welfare anyway,
>according to what I've read.  If someone has actual figures to back
>this up or to refute it, It would be helpful: if we could find out the
>demographics of abortion recipients, we could find out whose right to
>choose we're primarily discussing.

Well, I don't have any figures, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps
since medi-cal does not cover abortion but does cover childbirth that 
abortion is not an available option for poor women to choose much of the 
time?
>
>Being a Republican myself, I think that the issue is trying to spend
>money responsibly.  The welfare system needs some work.  Taxes need to
>be reduced, but there are certainly other areas that could give back
>greater returns, and I think they are being sought out.

Well, I agree here.  I think it is much more responsible to fund 
abortions for women who want them then to fund welfare and orphanages for
born children whose parents can't or won't raise them.


Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Stoopendous Strategies
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.162918.3444@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

|>> Very well. But then You have to offer a viable strategy and a viable
|>> military perspective. If You go in now, You'll still be there in ten years.
|>
|>	That's where we differ.  I don't think we will be there in ten years. 
|>Not even in ten months.

Compared to the Balkans, Vietnam was simple. Each side has modern
weaponry and is skilled in Guerilla warfare. They have been training
their soldiers in it since Tito.


|>> You will invite a unification of the Serbian cause and the obliteration
|>> of the Serbian opposition, which still is Your best bet to check the
|>> supplies to the partisans and the army. You invite a totally hazy
|>imbroglio.
|>> You invite getting into the crossfire of different groups loyal to
|>different
|>> warlords.
|>
|>	The Serbs are not united in the war effort.  There have been large
|>anti-war demonstrations.  Units moving into Serbia are more likely to
|>be met
|>with parades than snipers.

Shear wishful thinking, no people greets an invading army with parades
after they have blown half of it up. The Serbian opposition will
disappear overnight the minute anyone starts bombing Serbia.


|>> |>	Somalia?  Have they asked for our help yet?  Send them help, but 
|>> |>better to move them to where the food is.  Or help them grow their own.  
|>> 
|>> Oh, yes, indeed, they did. But You see, that conflict and that misery isn't
|>> as assidously televised as the Yugoslavian civil war. That aside,
|>since when
|>> did a USAian humanitarian need any invitation to offer help, hmmm?
|>
|>	(I'll pass on that one :)
|>> 
|>> And it would tax even the incredible USAian resourcefulness to grow
|>food for 
|>> a couple of a million people in a span of two weeks. And moving them
|>where
|>> there is food, what do You have in mind? Kansas? Whyoming?
|>
|>	Sure, why not?  The industrial nations could absorb much of the
|>population.  Meanwhile, teach Somalians about birth control and get
|>the
|>Israelis to teach them how to farm in the desert.

The Somalis know about growing food, the problem is how to grow food
with a drought and a civil war. Of the two problems the major one is the
civil war.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Fetal tissue research (was Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:02:02 GMT

In article <2317@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:

> Did you happen to catch"60 Mintues" Sunday? A great story about a pro-life
> minister whose unborn baby was diagnosed as having a genetic defect that 
> could be cured w/ a fetal tissue transplant. Of course the current 
> administration will not allow any government funds to do this with. 

That is not correct.  The Bush adminstration SUPPORTS funding of 
fetal tissue research, so long as the fetal remains are not obtained 
from elective abortions.  The remains from spontaneous abortions and 
ectopic pregnancies may be used in federally-funded research. The 
Bush administration feels that using fetal remains from elective 
abortions might encourage abortions. 

> The story went on to explain that *NO* woman thinking of having an 
> abortion is ever approached about donating fetal tissue intil after 
> the final decision has been made.(~50% said no!)

There is legislation pending in Congress that would require abortionists
to approach women about donating fetal tissue after they have already 
decided to obtain an abortion.  The problem with this legislation is
that pregnant women will know that they will be able to donate the fetal 
remains before they reach an abortion decision. That has the potential 
to ease their possible misgivings about obtaining an abortion, thus 
helping to encourage abortions that might not otherwise occur. 

> After some investigation 60 Min. finds out the real policy of the 
> administration is that while aborted fetal tissue cannot be used on 
> other humans it is perfectly ok to take the same tissue and transplant 
> it into *RATS*. 

No, that's not correct.  Official policy is that the Federal government 
does not fund fetal tissue research using the remains from elective
abortions.  

> Anyone who doubts this post *PLEASE* write to 60 Min. 
> and get a transcript.

I know it's wrong.  The fact that you had to include this disclaimer
indicates to me that you know it's wrong too.


>Stan Knight


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Organization: The Lab Rats
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:40:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

}referring to the current government moves to regulate/ban the use or
}distribution of encryption hardware and software that's "too good,"
}please bear in mind that the people behind that particular crusade
}are, for the most part, the hard-line "law and order" types that tend
}to congregate more at the right/Republican end of the political
}spectrum than at the left/Democratic end.)

several such bills have been introduced by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) a 
hard-line "law and order" type who's out to show the world that democrats
can be more fascist than republicans.

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40851 alt.politics.elections:11071 alt.politics.clinton:2337 alt.politics.bush:2271
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Ron Echeverri concocts a lie about Bush's abortion stance
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:44:35 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  <1992Aug15.234054.15482@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.172234.3074@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsing
> >In article <1992Aug14.161857.39397@watson.ibm.com>
> >margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >> I think you should apologize for accusing Ron of trying to pull a Doug.
> >
> >I think Mr. Echeverri should apologize for deceiving the net about
> >President Bush's stance on abortion.
>
> In short, he pulled a Pat Roby/Humphrey.

Wrong, as usual, Chaney.  Mr. Echeverri correctly quoted the article, and
Mr. Holtsinger has already apologized for the false accusation.  It's
very stupid for you to jump in and start talking about deception in
regards to news articles, after your racist remarks which you claimed
to have derived from a NY Times article, which claim proved to be untrue.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)