HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America   (deliverance)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:11:00 GMT

{ Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver"), 28 Sep. }
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) sez...
|

|>So discuss the issue of moral responsibility instead.
| 
|  No, moral issues are a religious topic -- purely subjective,
|  culturally variable, and not subject to objective closure.
|  Let's stick to objective facts:  you want more of my money 
|  and I say you can't have it.

Ok then. Lets stick to objective fact.

1. Your wrong in your guess about what I want.
   I want less spending and less government.

2. The way to achieve that is to move away from
   centralized control, which now is democrat
   and republican. That means overcoming their
   lock on the voting process, the electoral
   process, and the media.

3. The libertarians have settled for a slow 
   sure approach which is fine, and which is
   why they'll get my vote for local and
   congressional offices -- by in large.

4. The unbridled growth of government debt
   in the mean time must be reversed, and
   there is no better lever to do that
   than through a president who will check
   the power of congress to spend -- in the 
   short term.

5. The system of checks and balances has
   broken down -- evidenced by a $1.5 T
   dollar budget, which neither the Democrats
   or Republicans can defend. (There is 
   no gridlock -- they do all they can
   to get more money -- clearly evident
   from the voting records.)

6. The way to fix the system is to bring
   in new blood. At the state & local 
   level. And the congressional, court,
   and executive level. People who know 
   what it's like to be on the "bled
   dry" end of taxes. And keep bringing
   in new blood because often, 'cause
   a centralized governing system corrupts
   almost anyone exposed.

So your efforts Peter, to bash the UWSA Folks and Perot,
show your true colors and make all your rhetoric meaningless.
In effect, you'd give us another status-quo president this
time, likely George Bush considering the options, and your
own self-concern -- my estimation. I think your a closet 
republican -- so you're the one after our money.

If you think my comment unfair, consider your own actions.

Objective commentary?

|---peter
 
-- Stephen  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49144 ca.politics:8368 ba.politics:5798
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: So lets Get this Straight
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:01:14 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Ken Arromdee writes:
>Nadja Adolf writes:
>>Especially since the Roman Catholics decided that the soul enters at
>>conception. I'd like to know how souls split since they aren't alleged
>>to be matter - or maybe the African belief that one of a multiple birth is a 
>>person and the others are devils is valid?
>
>I think the standard answer is that God, being omniscient, knows ahead of
>time that the egg will split, and puts 2 souls in it in advance.  (Of course,
>this raises the question of whether or not God sees that a fetus is going to
>be aborted and puts _zero_ souls in it ahead of time....)

The Church's position on fetal life has changed a bit. Miscarriages were
not baptized at one time etc. I'm trying to make sense of its current position
which simply seems to me to be that since we don't know when life begins, 
err on the side of inclusion. A not unreasonable position. Conception seems 
to be the earliest defineable moment. The fact that reasonable, decent
people disagree does not imply that the Church should not pursue a
campaign to have its ethical positions codified into law. It may not
be the wisest choice -- but it is coherent and serious and grounded 
in respect for life. Good Catholic politicians have long had to 
wrangle with the political complexities of the issue: Catholic women
get abortions, women got abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, the Church
has  a history of living side-by-side with other morally dubious
laws etc. I wish that some solution could appear which would gather 
a consensus on stricter limits to bring the moral weight of society
to bear to both convince women to carry difficult pregnancies to term
and to create social conditions which would make raising a child less
difficult. The number of abortions is not the only measure of the
failings of society: the number of orphans, foster children, and
neglected children is also a measure.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48975 soc.motss:41386 ca.politics:8344 ba.politics:5777
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RUN Ross RUN
Date: 2 Oct 1992 12:04:28 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>>>waiting for stratocaster....

>>Nice of you to remember me.

>How can we forget! :-)

Oh.  I'm touched.

Really.  ;-)

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
	    "I've got it!  Let's do 'The Wiz' ... white!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
    <20714@plains.NoDak.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:47:29 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Brad Green writes:
>
>Did you catch CNN today?  Seems Wall Street is finally looking at the
>possibility of Clinton winning, and stocks are dropping?  How can that
>be, if all these CEO's and Wall Street folks support him?
>
Stocks are dropping for technical reasons: can you say "poor P/E ratios"?
can you say overvalued stock price to asset ratios? can you say "low dividends"?
I knew that you could.

The market is currently around 3200-3300. Tradional margins for these
technical standards would put the market at around 2100-2200. 

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:39:57 GMT

(Followups set to talk.abortion)

In article <Bv9LIx.qt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>Once a woman has consented to the possibility of pregnancy, and a child
>is conceived, that child has the same rights that anyone else does.

This is known on talk.abortion as "Truth by Blatant Assertion."  I
don't recollect seeing any proof of this; do you care to try *proving*
that mindless humans have rights instead of asserting it?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48502 alt.rush-limbaugh:6149 alt.politics.bush:7098 alt.politics.clinton:7705 alt.politics.elections:14596 talk.abortion:39278 alt.sex:31269
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR

In article <mlbruce.717738296@husc8>, mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew
Bruce) writes:

|>	Do you truly see no difference between joining a National Guard unit
|>in which positions were open (contrary to dominant-media-culture
|>misinformation, the Indiana Guard was not at 100% capacity when Quayle
joined)

It has been shown many times that the ONLY openings available in the
Indiana National Guard were kept for people with political ties.
Little Danny's father used his ties so his son could play golf instead
of going to war. A war that Danny claims to have supported (as long
as somebody else has to fight it). So you're right, Danny was not
anti-war, he was just a coward with connections.

|>, and using obsequious letters, relatives' clout and illegal activity
to avoid
|>military service entirely, EVEN THOUGH ONE ALREADY WAS TO BE SERVED A DRAFT
|>NOTICE? What Quayle did may not have been Patriotic enough for you, but what
|>Bill Clinton did was illegal and flat out WRONG. There is but one
Draft Dodger

Where do you get this "illegal" crap. Bill Clinton opposed the war, 
a position that most people have finally come to agree with, and
did what was LEGALLY available to him to avoid serving in a bad
cause.

|>in this Presidential race, and who it is should be manifestly clear.
|>
                                                         
The choice in this race is very clear. We have George Bush who
thinks sending kids to die every time he screws up (like he did 
with his boys Hussein and Noriega) is a good way to convince
people he's not a wimp. And we have Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar
who can tell a good cause from a bad one. Of course in Clinton's
case we also get somebody that seems to know how the country should
be run, instead of Bush who has shown, in no uncertain terms, that 
he doesn't have a clue. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 23:29:24 GMT

In article <lcos5eINN35d@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>|> Michael Polen) writes:
>
>|> >Let me try another example.  Someone sneaks into Frank O's bedreoom
>|> >and implants a 2 month old fetus into his wife's womb.  Would removal of
>|> >that fetus be an immoral killing of a person?

>|> What you are actually describing, michael, is my wife being raped.  Thank you
>|> very much for painting _that_ mental for me this Friday morning, especially
>|> as I will be away on business next week and my wife be alone in a house with
>|> crappy locks in a foreign country where xenophobia is on the rise.
 
>|> But I will talk to you anyway, if only to slap some sense into you.
>|> Did my wife consent to this?
>|> No?
>|> Then her right to bodily autonomy should obtain.
>|> She may keep it if she cares to, not if she doesn't.

But she did consent to it. She chose to remain in a house with locks the
she knew were ineffective in a country where xenophobia is on the rise.
She could have moved to Alaska or had better locks.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:15:13 GMT

In article <Sep.29.08.50.26.1992.16235@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <01GPBHNCY37K0012Y4@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>
>It looks to me that Ross is a god-like figure to you -- he can do
>absolutely no wrong.  It doesn't matter _WHAT_ he does -- or how
>inconsistent it is with his previous statements -- you're going to
>rationalize it and portray it in a manner so as to minimize whatever
>negative effect it might have on your god.
>
>It is impossible to have a rational discussion with one who has
>compromised his rationality in order to achieve what he perceives to
>be a "higher" goal.  I say you're an idiot not as a flame, but because
>that is exactly how you are behaving.  Please let me know when you put
>your mind back in gear.

It is equally impossible to have a rational discussion with one who
has nothing of value to add.  I need merely quote the above, an
all-to-typical example of the inimitable Kaldis style, to demonstrate
the truth of this statement.

I guess were I to search for a virtue in Kaldis' posts, it would
be his consistency in this regard.

Dave
From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: perot: if he runs, i
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:00:29 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

>  Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc

    Subject: Perot: Quitter or Strategist!  Wake Up!


PH>One thing is certain. There is no place in politics for a quitter with a thin
PH>skin. His approach to foreign policy is quite easy to predict. First he would
PH>demand the tribute, then on failing to get it start a trade war. This would
PH>destroy the US ecconomy, a situation that tin pot demagogues such as Perot
PH>traditionaly solve by starting a small war.


I'm very tired of this kind of mindless and contrived argument from
those at home and abroad about Perot's ability to survive in political
terms.  Every time Perot has made the motions to get into the
campaign....

A: The national and international establishment pee purple because
this guy, by the very threat of entering the race challenges the
status quo.

B: I have no interest in what the personal ideologies may be of the
name callers.  The behavior, however, is of the same type that
represented McCarthy and McCarran of the past and Duke and Buchannon
of the present.

C: Again he alone is forcing a discussion of issues.  That's new and
different.

D: Perot is NOT a demagogue.  He had nothing to do with the various
military engagements we got into or did he influence other nationals
to go along with our folly.

-lois
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10184  Watch the polls change now that Perot is back!
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.082458.25098@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>I'll lay odds that the founding fathers were opposed to child molestation.
>But, for some strange reason, there is no prohibition in the Constitution
>on such or similar practices. It follows, according to Farenellian logic,
>that laws against child molestation are pattently unconstitutional on their
>face.

Voting not to do something isn't the same thing as not voting to do something.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48805 alt.politics.perot:1725 alt.politics.elections:14774
From: loose@quake.sylmar.ca.us (loose_connection)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton/Gore bumperstickers
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:41:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA

they look just like the posters people wave on T.V. (at uncle george ;-))
send $1 + SASE to Joe Rossi P.O. Box 1063 Sierra Madre CA 91025 :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:26:28 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>
>I'll lay odds that the founding fathers were opposed to child molestation.
>But, for some strange reason, there is no prohibition in the Constitution
>on such or similar practices. It follows, according to Farenellian logic,
>that laws against child molestation are pattently unconstitutional on their
>face.

Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.
Do you have any evidence that the Framers considered placing a child
molestation clause in the Constitution?  If not, then your posting makes
no sense.  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.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.med
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.011015.19697@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.214235.15591@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>> Men are seventeen times more "efficient" at transmitting HIV than
>> women.  Heterosexuals would have to be more than four times as promiscuous
>> as homosexuals before the spread would even begin to approach that
>> in the homosexual population.  
>
>	Ever heard of the African AIDS epidemic (more like pandemic, 
>currently)?

The situation in Africa is of very little relevance to that in the United
States.  Genital ulcers ease the spread of HIV, and are much more prevalent
in Africa than here.  Much of the spread of AIDS in Africa is from nonhygenic
medical facilities reusing syringes.

AIDS is the US will never reach the level of problem of that in Africa 
(where more people die of starvation and the like than AIDS, anyway.)
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:58:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211949.6099@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu
(Greg Lyon) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> >		FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT PEROT TO SHUT UP...
> >
> >    You want $500bn deficits??
> >    You want an $8-10tr debt??
> >    How far do you want this to go before someone has to step in??
> >
> >    Perot, by his "ill thought-out" plans, is the only realistic choice to get
> >the economy on track.  Although Clinton's plans are good, he'll deficit this
> >country into oblivion with his infrastructures.  And we all know about Bush.
> >
> >    You may not like him, but when you get right down to it, he may be the only
> >true choice for change you have.  With a Dem. total win in November imminent,
> >just remember what Clinton is asking for, because he'll get it with no problem. 
> >
> >						Mike Falkner
> >
> 
>    I will admit that many of Perot's economic ideas make sense and are
> needed to solve the problems that we have with the deficits and debt.
> 
>    The problem I have with Ross Perot is not with his ideas, it is with him
> the man.  This country cannot afford to have as a President :
> 
> 	- a person who dropped out of the Presidential race because he
> 		didn't think he could win.
> 	- a person who has an ego the size of the state he is from.
> 	- a person who as a business man got rich from government contracts,
> 		individualized tax breaks and the like.
> 	- a person who cannot identify with people unlike himself 
> 		(eg. his "you people" comments in July).
> 
>    I'm sure there are more points which could be added to this list, and I
> invite others to contribute.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
Add to this list the fact that Perot is

- a person with a history of crushing anyone who dares to oppose him. 
There's a reason why the police force is afraid to give his daughter a
speeding ticket!

- a person who favors the erosion of privacy rights.  (When asked if his
stance on such issues was in violation of the constitution, he replied, "We
can fix the dang constitution!"  Scary...)

- a businessman who utterly crushes his labor force, including enforcing a
rule that any employee who quits must pay his company $2,000.  (Only
challeneged in two states, surprisingly enough.)

Well, my computer center shift is over.  Gotta run!  Please, keep adding to
this
list!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49589 ca.politics:8460
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:24:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BvK8x3.vu@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <12588@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I wouldn't march with a drug addict, or a Nazi, or any of a number
# #of other characters whose rights I support.
# 
# I don't march with NAMBLA any more than I march with the Log Cabin
# Club.
# 
# I march in gay pride parades.  That these groups march in those
# parades as well is unfortunate.
# 
# ____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because

If guys with swastika armbands had been allowed on the floor of the
Republican Convention, would it have been "unfortunate"?  Or evidence
of sympathy and tolerance for Naziism?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:02:21 GMT

and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>And lets not flower up what Dandy Dan did with a bunch of
>>Bullshit - the PUKE was a Draft Dodger with Nice Pull...
>
>, and using obsequious letters, relatives' clout and illegal activity to avoid
>military service entirely, EVEN THOUGH ONE ALREADY WAS TO BE SERVED A DRAFT
>NOTICE? 

i was about to agree with you, then i realized you weren't talking
about dan quayle.

bill clinton entered the draft, and drew number 331.  the technical term
is ''lucky son of a bitch.''

>Bill Clinton did was illegal and flat out WRONG. There is but one Draft Dodger
>in this Presidential race, and who it is should be manifestly clear.

yes, shame on him for not rushing to his draft office and saying to them
''no, no, i want to go overseas /today/ and die for a war i don't believe
in.  please trade this 331 in for a 7.  thank you.''

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...so, take 2. you know what 2 is, right?" "2 is 2." "So the limit of 2, as x
goes to 0, is 2." "because 2 is 2, and continues to be 2. 2 never stops being
2." "so, as x goes to 0, or x goes to infinity, or x goes to trenton for all i
care, the limit of 2 is 2."     --Bob Bieri and a TA, explaining why lim 2 = 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x->0 ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d