HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:40:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct11.203721.996@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>In article <eyrdz5v@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.104147.12858@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes ...
>>
>>Or do something faster, easier, cheaper, and no less legal!  Force all men
>>to have vasectomies!  If a rapist can't get a 12-year-old girl pregnant,
>>she doesn't have to be pressured to have/not have an abortion!  Of course,
>>the planet will get *real* peaceful in 80 years or so, but the problem is
>>certainly solved in the short term.
>>
>>
>>Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
>>|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
>>|						-- Will Rogers		|
>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>	Congratulations, Carrie!  At last a realistic solution!!!
>	You know, those vasectomies can be reversed.  If all male
>	children were vasectomized at puberty, and when safely married
>	(and with the little wife's permission, of course) had their
>	vasectomies reversed, we could all rest easy!   
>
>	As a mother of both sons and daughters (all grown up now,
>	thank goodness), I like that idea.  Actually, making them
>	eunochs would be alright with me, though!  I know, I know,
>	I'm a *little* extreme.  
>
>		Judy

God Judy!  I hope you simply forgot the smiley!

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:25:52 GMT

arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
#Danny Keren writes:
 
##I wonder what is happening here. First, ARF (Jack Schmidling)
##suggests boycotting Kosher food, claiming it would be a good
##way to show solidarity with the Palestinians. As posters have
##pointed out, this would be a clearly antisemitic and idiotic
##thing to do
# 
# Just because some "posters pointed out", doesn't mean we all have to agree 
# with them.   My target is supporters of Israel, if they happen to be Jews, 
# that does not make my boycott antisemitic.  If I boycott a Jewish deli 
# because the owner is a child molester, does that make me an antisemite?

So now you finally speak out. Jews support Israel's policy reagrding
the Palestinians, hence they should be punished by boycotting
Kosher food. 

What makes you an antisemite is the above statement and the lumping
of all Jews into one category, plus the fact that you suggest a
Nazi-like method for punishing them. I repeat my suggestion of
a long hunger strike instead. 
 
# I suspect most Palestinians would have little trouble seeing a direct 
# connection between Kosher food and their perceived enemy.

Any more Palestinian supporters out there suggest boycotting Kosher
food?

##And recently, a new interesting development - ARF reduces his
##suggestion to boycotting Coors beer! 
# 
# I should be aplauded for being flexible.  Why not change the strategy if the 
# original idea has flaws?

So it did have flaws? What flaws? Anyway, your flexibility leaves 
a lot to be desired. You simply reduced the magnitude, but not 
the tone, of your evil suggestion. Don't make a lot of difference.

##Someone recently remarked on the net that ARF is in the beer
##producing buisness. Could it be that there is some hidden
##agenda here?
# 
# Well, I am not quite up to Coors volume but my Jewish mom pronounced it 
# Kosher and I need all the help I can get.  It is however, vastly superior 
# beer, in spite of being Kosher.    

"In Spite"??? Does this mean Kosher food is usually bad-tasting?

#Unfortunately, this bloody boycott is knocking the hell out of my business.

Try selling Yarmulkes with "Jack S" printed on the back.  All your many
supporters will undoubtly buy them.

-Danny Keren.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52008 ca.politics:8693 ba.politics:6113
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: health care
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:38:13 GMT
 <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Oct8.183217.8118@nntpserver.chevron.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.183217.8118@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
> In article <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> 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"?  
>>
>>Susan
> 
> It doesn't matter.  13% of the people without health insurance is a lot
> more than the entire population of Canada.  And people complain that
> it's a tradgedy up there when someone can't schedule a vasectomy for a
> couple months.

	But that isn't an issue either.  You see, they can get health care by
going to the nearest hospital, and you and I pay for it.

	The issue of universal health insurance is a non-issue.  If everyone is
gauranteed to have insurance--WHY HAVE INSURANCE AT ALL?

	Instead, just tell people that they can pay the first X% of the bill,
and good ol' Uncle Sam will tax you (and everyone else) for the rest.

	But that won't do any good until you get the customer back in the price
loop.  Right now no one cares if bypass costs $18,000 per doctor, because they
don't pay $200,000, they pay the deductable.  You and I pay the rest.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Clinton question
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:00:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <farenebt.718646924@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>I dunno about you but I'd have SERIOUS questions about
>anyone who turned down a Rhodes Scholarship to the most
>prestigious university in the world so that he could
>kill some soldiers in Vietnam.

Well, first off, given that Clinton apparently spent little time
studying I hardly think he would have missed much.

Secondly, I hardly find it surprising that you would find it difficult
to understand someone who cares enough about his country to fight in
its wars, or, for that matter, someone with enough personal honor that
they would not use their privileged position to avoid fighting in a
war in which the less well-connected were frced to serve.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: msl@hpcvusc (Mark Laventhal )
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:51:33 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
> In article <1992Oct6.092628.1598@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> >Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.
> 
> Term limits imposed by the federal Constitution were voted down. Term
> limits imposed by the states, or by act of Congress, were not discussed
> to my knowledge. That means they are neither constitutionally required
> _nor_ forbidden. The opinions of the framers are relevant _only_ as
> they relate to understanding the COnstitution itself.
> 
> >There's a huge difference between something not being in the
> >Constitution because the Framers actively decided not to put it there,
> >and something not being there because there was never any consideration
> >of putting it there.
> 
> Except for historians, there is no difference: If it isn't in the
> Constitution it does not have the weight of constitutional law.
> The Constitution isn't everything the framers talked about, it's 
> only those things they put into writing.
> 
>                                           Frank Crary
>                                           CU Boulder

What Frank says is technically true, with regard to constitutionality,
but it ignores what can logically be inferred from the lack of any mention
of term limits in the Constitution.  Given that the Framers included such
provisions as the minimum age for various Federal government positions
(25 for the House of Representatives, 30 for the Senate, 35 for President),
it is clear that if limiting terms of office had been considered a good idea,
it would certainly have been included.  So while term limits may or may not
be unconstitutional, they certainly appear to be contrary to the intentions
of the Framers.

On a side note, the limitation of the President to 2 terms (actually 2 full
terms + no more than 1/2 of a partial term) dates from during the Truman
administration, and was a Republican reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's
having been elected 4 times.  Before that, no President had ever served
more than 2 terms, a tradition which George Washington began.  Washington
was popular enough to be elected again, but felt that it was bad for the
country (bordering on monarchy) to have a President serve more than 2 terms.

Mark Laventhal
msl@cv.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,junk
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:53:01 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Recently now, they determined a rape wasn't a rape because the rapist used
>a condom 'at her request'.
[the conclusion deleted]

>Adrienne Regard

Yet another example of how messed up our legal system has gotten!  I suppose if
he held a knife to her throat to force her to have sex and she said "if you're
going to rape me, please at least use a condom" (perhaps because she knows she
has AIDS--we're talking hypothetically here; this probably wasn't the situation
at all) and he (out of the goodness of his heart?) choses to follow her request
(which he could have decided not to do and still raped her) and *then* rapes
her (with a knife to her throat) that it wouldn't "really" be rape?  I would
HOPE NOT!  It's amazing what you can get a jury to go along with when sex and
money are involved.  ;)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:55:23 GMT

In <1992Oct12.195053.13962@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.011232.18564@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <lefty-091092133622@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>>>> an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
>>>> responsibility???
>>>>
>>>> And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.
>>>
>>>Out of choice or necessity?
>>
>>Well, if he'll be able to "force his views on us" in 2005, that would
>>make him 7 or 8 years old in 1992...
>>--
>You're WAY off--I'm 22--one must be 35 to be President, so I'd be eligible
>to run in the November 2008 election.
>Now lets watch all of you panic at that prospect.......
>Simon

What, me panic? No way, I'll probably be looking for a good laugh
about then.

REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Cable Regulation and Constitutionality
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:08:55 GMT


In article <DC4-P=A@engin.umich.edu>, 
jwh@citi.umich.edu (James W. Howe) said:

> The bill included an interesting section on rebroadcast but then
> ruined the notion by requiring cable companies to carry local
> stations (an idea which has been ruled unconstitutional).

Can you cite the case in which this occurred?  I'm not saying that it
didn't happen; rather, I'm genuinely curious as to the arguments made
and the court's reasoning.

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:20:43 GMT

In article <Oct09.005628.56134@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
 
>In article <1687A9093.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>|>
>|> 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.
>
>        My pleasure, sirrah....
>        I start with the assumption that a person has the right to control their
>own body unless they waive that right.
 
Good start!
 
>        I observe that people are responsible for the effects of their behavior
>on others.  When a woman has sex, she knows she might become pregnant.  If, by her
>voluntary action of sex, she causes a child to appear in her womb, she has taken
>a voluntary action and is responsible for the effects of that action on her
>unborn child.
 
I am sorry, but you have made a giant leap here.  Do you know the state
of the woman's mind at the time?  Why do you assume the woman, by
consenting to sex, is agreeing to anything more than sex?  She could
also be consenting to the possibility of an abortion if she becomes
pregnant.
 
>        Rape, by contrast, is involuntary.  No waiver of the right to control her
>own body, and the right remains fully intact.  Instead, it is the rapist who is
>responsible...and if the woman aborts, I would charge the rapist with murder as
>well as rape.
 
This is another leap.  The rapist does not consent to the abortion, nor
is he likely to have any say in the decision.  Besides, you still have
not explained how the fetus absolute right to life has been affected by
the manner of its conception.
 
>        If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
>support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
>because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.
>
Voluntary and avoidable!  These words show that your real purpose is to
punish women for having sex, not in preventing the murder of a child.
If that were your purpose, you would not agree to a rape exception.
 
>Steve
 
Jim McMaster
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton is Just another Scamming Democrat  (was Moscow)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:00:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

And the proof is the $1.5 trillion dollar FY'93 Federal Budget that
congress passed last week.  What have you heard about it?  Nothing right.
That's cause the media is in cahoots with the Democrats and Republicans
and all you get in the news and on the tube is choreographed wrestling.

Fact is fact.

In article <85034@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes...

>I'm a little taken by your "McCarthy-baiting" label.  It's kind of silly to
>complain about hyperbole and name-calling when that has been the admitted
>strategy of Bush's campaign all along.  Bush had no response when Clinton
>pointed out Prescott Bush's role in combatting McCarthy.  I wonder if he
>felt any shame at all.

How can any group of people who's practice is take money from others 
by force, lies, and false promises feel any shame -- when they get 
$1.5 trillion dollars a year worth of practice at scamming?

There is no conscience in the democratic or republican party. None.

Just like there was none in the communist party. Their rhetoric 
is either lie or distraction -- look at the facts: no cuts in spending
and no cuts in borrowing. 

>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-15-92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot...Get off his back!
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:35:54 GMT

From article <flick.719228508@cwis>, by flick@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Anderson):
> I have been watching the discussions here, and I am frankly shocked at the
> comments made by several of you.
> 
> More often than not, the suggestion that Perot did not "answer the question
> ".  Evidently these people are very biased.  Perot does answer the questions
> and supports it with examples.  Now do these examples for some reason or 
> another confuse you?  Make you miss his answer?  Whats the problem?

I was a mild supporter of Perot from his early statements and became a
strong support after reading "United We Stand" during the time that
Perot had dropped out.  On one hand I agree with you that many people
who aren't really interested in what Perot has to say (ie supporters
of Bush, Clinton or some other candidates) are ignoring Perot's ideas 
even when he talks about them.  On the other hand, I think that Perot 
sets himself up for it by making some false assumptions about his
audience.

I can't begin to count the number of times news anchors, "analysts" and
people here on the net have said that Perot doesn't have any real plan
for things that have been specifically spelled out in his book.  Perot
seems to assume that these people will read the book and that that
leaves him free in a forum like the debate to expound on the importance 
of getting things done rather then go into the details of the plan.
Unfortunately, many people assume that if it hasn't been spelled out on 
TV it doesn't exist.

I think Perot might have won the debate last night but unfortunately,
he got too stuck on his speech about gathering all the best plans and 
getting things done rather than going into the details of the plans
that he has proposed himself.  This fueled the impression that he has
no plan even though on most issues he has fairly detail plans (I would
conceed that his health care plan isn't very detailled but I would
also say that health care reform should be approached in stages rather
than throwing a complete plan into place and hoping it works).   

Hopefully Perot will counter this impression somewhat tonight with his
"solutions" infomercial.  The bad news is that I'm afraid Perot's
performance in last night's debate may not have been strong enough to
sustain his climb in the polls and the infomercial will need to
capture a lot of viewers to make up for that.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.libertarian
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:40:48 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

  In article <wood.719012102@jfred> wood@siemens.com. (Jim Wood) writes:
  >kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes, predicting a Bush victory:
  >
  >>This is almost too easy. I base the prediction on the past. The polls will
  >>change dramatically in the last week or two, if you don't believe me, as
  >>Carter in '80. I think Clinton peaked too soon and Perot will be more of a
  >
  >>The bottom line is I maybe wrong about a Bush election (I thing I am right),
  >>but it certainly will not be a landslide as I have read many times on this
  >>news group.

I have to agree.  It would not surprise me in the least bit if Bush won
by a Kennedy-Nixon margin.  The Southern states are not necessarily Clinton's
at all, and I think the Rockies, the midwest, and possibly Texas could
apply as well...I think they are most likely Bush country.

  >You could be right about Bush winning, but I don't see how he can do it
  >at this point -- if the numerous polls are any indication.  Every single
  >Furthermore, Bush's percentage has fallen steadily from 40 and is now closer
  >to 30.
  >It very well could be a Clinton landslide.  My personal guess is that Clinton
  >will win with 45-50 percent, Bush in second with 35-40 percent, and Perot in

Well, I tend to think that 'the masses' may very well say "Heck, I want
change", but when the employed masses that supported Bush in '88 get in
the booth, they'll say, "Heck, I'm still doin' fine and I don't want
to risk it."

I think Clinton has a chance, but not near as much as the Dems/net/polls
indicate.  I also think that Bush has a chance, contrary to the
Dems/net/polls.
-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Kathryn Scholl  -- Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark --
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA  01701, USA
 Internet: uvmark!scholl@merk.com, UUCP: uunet!merk.com!uvmark!scholl