HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rxz1011@usl.edu (Zamora Rodrigo)
Subject: Liberal
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:42:59 GMT



The labels that we have been throwing about are defunct.  The traditional
meanings of the words liberal and conservative have been lost in political
dribble aimed at the middle class.  Perhaps I fail to understand what your
definitions of the word liberal is.  Regardless, I do not want to get into
a long-winded discussion about something which is quite meaningless.
Actions speak louder than any label.  However, I would like to say that, to
me, a liberal has always meant a progressive,  a person willing to take a
stance regardless of how unpopular that decision might be.  I know of only
a few names which fit that definition.  I know this sounds like idealistic
rhetoric on my part but such people have and do exist.
     I noticed that during the Democratic Convention that a video on Robert
Kennedy was played.  I suppose that this was to appease the more left of
center constituents and to make Clinton look like a man of the people.
However, Robert Kennedy was a true liberal, not the type of man who would
fit into Clinton's "new Democratic party".  I am not naive enough to think
that there is very much difference between the Democratic and Republican
parties, but at some point in time there was at least a slight one.  I
suppose that is why Robert Kennedy was killed, because he stood for
something beyond the status quo that in recent years most people have
apathetic to.
     There is no way in hell that Bill Clinton can be described by my
definition of liberal.  Here we have a man who was against the Iraq war,
but as soon as he saw that people were buying the phony propaganda he was
for it.  A man who is basically against labor unions and a man that
let the environment in his state go as soon as he saw that he might have
to battle business.
     REGARDLESS HE IS THE ONLY OPTION, and I will not write anything else
negative about him until he wins.

--
________________________________________________________________________________Rodrigo Zamora                                                  zam@usl.edu
	"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but
tomfoolery.  But this tomfoolery having passed through a very expensive
machine, is somehow ennobled, and no one dares criticize it."
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
From: treptojg@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Justin G Treptow)
Subject: echoes the realm of silince
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:49:36 GMT


        +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
        |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
        |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
        |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
        |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
        |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage
        |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.
        V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V




1192   9200   198   44%    27    39.1     0%  0.01   0.4%  alt.overlords


gee we are awefully quiet!

jimbobjoejamesjohnzechial III chief bounty hunter and trailblazer

****************************************************************************
gee wuzn't tommorrow beautiful

I can't wait for yesterday!
From: csteffen@hotspur.gac.edu (Craig P Steffen)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Pres. Race
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:48:21 GMT

The following sums up my feeling on the situation:

I believe that electing George Bush the president of the United States in  
1988 was the correct thing to do.  He has diplomatic and political skills  
that was sorely needed when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq.  Within hours of  
that attack, he got on the horn and scraped together a coalition among  
countries that really didn't trust each other.  More importantly, he  
convince Israel to not immediatly counter-attack the "Scud" missile  
attacks.  Had that happened, we would have been, in the space of a week,  
in the middle of a war that would have involved a good third of the worlds  
military forces.  If Michiel Dukakis (sorry about the spelling) had been  
president, that second scenario probably would have happened.  I think  
that we owe that to Mr. Bush.

HOWEVER...just as important as the above situation, is the economic one in  
this country.  And George has not done a whole lot about it.  This is, in  
my limited understanding of the situation, partially, but certainly not  
all, his fault.  The "Republican" way of thinking has gotten us in some  
pretty deep fecal material.  So...

This has gotten a bit long winded, so I will make my point.  There is a  
balance in everything.  The running of a nation is no exception.  If the  
goverment were just "Republican", then we would end up as a milataristic,  
extremely powerful, but heavily classed nation.  If the "Democrats" were  
in power, the government would end up a buerocratically watterlogged  
organization that would never get anything done for anyone.  What we need  
is something in between.  The balance has swung much too far to the  
conservative side.  

Don't get me wrong.  I am a staunch Republican, and I consider most of the  
major Democratic cantidates self-serving two-faced weenies.  But I do  
think that what we need is a nice, liberal Democrat to shake up the  
system.  It has become too sedimented with people who want nothing more  
than personal gain.  There have been some great presidents that were  
Democrats.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example.  I don't think that  
Bill Clinton is even close to being equal to Mr. Roosevelt, but I think  
that we need him to bring about some changes.

Enough said.

Craig Steffen
Wielder of the Grand Unification Theory
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.034127.1562@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.044746.23826@advtech.uswest.com>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.222733.3174@coopsol.com>
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>>It's technically incorrect - men are not subject to pregnancy, and only a
>>>pregnancy is *aborted*.
>
>>Technically incorrect?  No, it's not.  We just have different definitions
>>of the word.
>
>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a Merriam-Webster --
>
>abortion    1:  the expulsion of a nonviable fetus: as  a: spontaneous
>expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of festation -
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^

Boy, I'd much rather assume this was a typo than a Freudian slip...  ;-)


>compare MISCARRIAGE  b: induced abortion    2: MONSTROSITY    3  a: arrest
>of development (as of a part or process_ resulting in imperfection   b: a
>result of such arrest.
>
>Guess whose definition is correct?

1 (involving woman/fetus)? 2 (involving all observers or parties)?
3a (fetus only)?  3b (dead fetus; results on man/woman/fetus)? 

I'm trying to guess...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: mens notification
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:47:19 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	writes

->This is utterly and fantastically despicable.  Let this be
->engraved in stone as the very very best argument AGAINST
->spousal/paternal notification I have ever seen>.

Why? the statment that one is going to kill someone else is often used
in a very figuritive maner. when i state that i am going to kill my 
brother i meen that i am mad enufe to clober the little dip. 

->If she doesn't show proper respect, kill her, huh?
see above^
->If she doesn't bow to your every reproductive whim,but instead 
->demonstrates a will of her own, kill her, huh?
he never says anything of the such he doesn't even say that she has no tell
him befor the act.
->If she doesn't let you run her body as if you owned it, kill he, huh?
he doesn't say this eather. he is not even asking for her to ask him 
about. he doesn't request the equil say that he should have much less
request control of her body, or any uther aspet of her life. he is
merely saying that she should tell him upfrount about what is going on
or else forgit about it completly. she would have to be a rather crule
person to wate a year and then mention that she had gotten pregnit by him
and then aborted. 


ELF-KIN	equil rights all around!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Men's health risks - due to children? (Observations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:32:02 GMT

In article <25061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>Note follow-up.

I'll followup only to alt.abortion.inequity, because it was 
posted there and my response is appropriate there.


>In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>> Gordon Storga
...
>>>If your
>>>religion requires that you must legalize involuntary servitude for women
>>>I suggest you find a nice middle-east or south american country to live
>>>out your fantasies.
>
>>|-()  Another big laugh!  So many pro-choicers use this totally lame
>>accusation in the attempt to defend abortion.  As if any semi-intelligent
>>person couldn't tell the difference between disallowing abortion (removing
>>only ONE choice) and 'involuntary servitude for women'!
>
>You must not be semi-intelligent. Just exactly what would you call what
>you are proposing, if not involuntary servitude? The woman does not
>want to provide care for the fetus inside her, yet you insist she must,
>against her will. This is involuntary servitude, as she is providing
>a service against her will. All your waffling will not change this definition,
>as it is correct in the context of the English language.


Finally, an admission (I would hope) that child support is
involuntary servitude!  Thus (flame deleted):

                                    Just exactly what would you call what
 you are proposing, if not involuntary servitude? The   man does not
 want to provide care for the child outside him, yet you insist  he must,
 against his will. This is involuntary servitude, as  he is providing
 a service against his will. All your waffling will not change this definition,
 as it is correct in the context of the English language.


Perhaps the requirement of involuntary servitude (and stresses therefrom)
resulting directly from abortion decisions justifies the man's interest 
and right to make choices?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:10:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep07.191948.639041@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>	DO MEN HAVE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?
>	by Dave Gross
>
>The courts will be happy to take a
>chunk out of his paycheck every month, and add a little retroactive support in
>for those few months he didn't realize he was the family breadwinner.

 I did not think that the any courts had the authority to award retroactive
 child support. I know for a fact that they cannot in Colorado (I will cite
 the case if someone insists but I dont have it here with me right now).
 Does someone know for sure a state in which this can be done?

-kelvin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: abortion
From: spitzer@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:55:27 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

	I disagree.  I think that the man is equally involved in the abortion 
with the woman.  The abortion should be a joint decision.  Since both 
the man and the woman conceived the "child," both should have a say 
in the matter.  In the aspect of health reasons, true the man has no 
risks in the case of an abortion, but he does have to go through the 
possible pain with his mate.  I am, in fact sitting here at the terminal 
today wearing ring my "Certified Pro-Choice," tee-shirt. 
What is your experience in showing your opinion and beliefs on 
abortion? Myself, I have participated in two or three rallies.  
Marched, listened, Protested.
My sister calls me a "Flaming Liberal," which I assume she does 
because I am the most Liberal one in the family, possibly that she 
knows.  My beliefs on every topic are as Liberal as they come.  I am 
Pro-Choice, Peace loving, Democratic, and other factors of the same 
nature.  I am what you might call a Hippie of the 90's.  Only 
difference is I have short hair and I don't do drugs. 






































Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:34:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.041253.23469@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.054347.18076@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>I don't know if this clue fairy wand is strong enough....

>Surprise!  It wasn't a clue fairy wand. . . 

Obviously not a strong enough wand.

>>Get a clue, John Stevens.  Here's one: abortion is the removal of a
>>z/e/f from one's body.

>Get a clue yourself.  You have a huge set of blinders on.  Here's
>your clue:  Abortion is the killing of a mothers AND fathers
>unborn child.

I don't think it's a child by standard English usage until birth, but
that's irrelevant to the point I was responding to, which you have
deleted.  Abortion is the removal of a z/e/f slash your and someone
else's unborn child slash theCuteFuzzyWarmUnbornFetus from one's body.
Therefore, the only way a man could get an abortion would be if he
previously had a z/e/f implanted in his body.

This in no way means that men aren't affected by abortions because
they don't "get" abortions, or that aborted z/e/fs aren't affect by
abortions because they don't "get" abortions.  It simply means that
the only people who "get" abortions are pregnant women.

-- 
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.
From: icsip193@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: QUESTION about abortion
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:15:35 GMT
Reply-To: icsip193@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University

No.  They cannot.  Why else do you think we have such a problem with abortion
protests that we do?  If the government could say for sure that it was morally
wrong to have an abortion, then the legislation would go through to make it
illegal.  Since they can't, they have to consider the issue from every possible
angle to try and find an argument against it.  Myself, I think murder should be
a good enough reason.  ABORTION STOPS A BEATING HEART 5,000 TIMES A DAY!
From: bc151@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Fisler)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: List for the Discussion of the Presidential Campaign
Date: 12 Sep 1992 07:29:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



There is now on Bitnet a list for the discussion of the '92
presidential campaign. Discussion is unmoderated and focusses
primarily on important, current campaign issues, though, like the
campaign itself, some discussion occasionally degrades to
spurious non-issues. Threads sometimes lead into critical
analyses of political history, the media, and campaign
strategies. Many members of this list post exerpts from books,
magazines, journals, newspapers, television reportage, and
academic studies as well as the full text of position papers and
speeches given by the candidates. A meaningful number of list
members understand the inherent union of theory and praxis and,
given the nature of the discussions, the flame level is very
tolerably and surprisingly low. If all you've heard and read thus
far hasn't parted the sea of sound bites, if you're looking for
information and analysis of current issues or have something to
give or express yourself, this may be a viable group to join.

To subscribe, send to: LISTSERV@MARIST (from a Bitnet address)
or LISTSERV@MARIST.BITNET (from and Internet address) the
message: SUB CLINTON <your first name> <your last name>


	Internet:	bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu
	Bitnet: 	bc151%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
	Audio:		Ken Fisler
From: farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:54:58 EDT

From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)

>In article <1992Sep08.051249.41378@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep7.185405.21784@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep3.191051.13478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com write
>>> >In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John St
>>> ># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
>>> ># have babies without the kindness of a man.
>>> >
>>> >You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
>>> >I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>>
>>> Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
>>> at all?
>>> Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?
>>
>>Do you believe that if a man rapes a woman and a child results, that the
>>man performed an act of kindness?
>
>This is pure, vintage MARGOLIS.  As any body can see, I made no reference
>to rape at all.

John, let me spell this out to you so that you can understand it.
You said that "NO woman can have babies without the kindness of a man".
That means that not any women, none whatsoever, not even one woman at any
time in the history of planet earth, has ever had a baby without the 
kindness of a man.

What Larry Margolis and other people were attempting to point out to you
is that it IS known to happen that some women get pregnant as a result
of rape and give birth nine months later to the corresponding baby.
These would be examples of women having babies without the kindness
of a man.  (well maybe there was a polite male obstetrician involved? :-) 

So when you say "I made no reference to rape at all" you are speaking 
disingenuously.  You made a sweeping statement about all births of
the human race.  Since some births result from pregnancies
due to rape,  you made implicit reference to rape even if you didn't
say the R-word.

-- Margie
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:3630 alt.child-support:3092 talk.abortion:35633
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,talk.abortion
Subject: amusing Facts of Life meet the day to day....
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:46:19 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] In article <Bu60ov.Int@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >In article <1992Sep5.222638.17658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] >
] >Maybe New York is different, but in Pennsylvania, if you're a CompSci PhD
] >with a $100,000/year job, and you take a job in McD's earning you 
] >$20,000/year, then the judge will impute to you a salary of $100,000/year
] >and calculate your support payments accordingly.  "Voluntary" decrease in
] >income is not grounds for reducing support.  And, when support can be as
] >much as 40-50% gross, you are +not+ going to cover even support alone on a 
] >McD's job.
] 
] Somehow, this doesn't sound right.  Could somebody [else] who lives in PA verify
] it for me (I have a hard enough time finding legal stuff for Colorado).


Welcome to the 'working week' - to quote elvis costello.....

I hate to depress you Keith....

In the glorious struggle to win the war against 'Dead Beat Dads'
this is becoming a popular mechanism in many states.

{ much of this is derived from interpretations of various
federally mandated 'family protection acts.' - I will leave
the various states to point out how their state has effectively
negotiated these things.... In Hawaii it was the case that 
the matter of 'child support' is no longer even negotiable, and
everyone puts out the cavet: "well, you can always go about 
sending your check to the Child Support Enforcement Agency, and
then after they have sent their check to the Custodial Parent,
said person mails it, or a portion of it, back to the NonCustodial Parent." 
[ note - few if any of these persons will of course say this 
'on the reord' ] }

Oh the Joys of Federally Mandated Programs TO Help folks...

But then again, we have also seen many a Judge decry the
fact that they just can not live on merely $80k per annum....


ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A response to the late, great Dr. Strychnine
Date: 15 Sep 1992 10:55:11 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep11.035226.23317@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Just as I cannot change your mind.  What can I do to persuade you to believe
>that sharing control of a person's reproductive system IS morally correct?

Simple, let us vote on the net about what you should do with yours.

What, don't want to "share" anymore?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.031055.27775@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep07.191948.639041@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>	DO MEN HAVE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?
>>	by Dave Gross
>>
>>The courts will be happy to take a
>>chunk out of his paycheck every month, and add a little retroactive support in
>>for those few months he didn't realize he was the family breadwinner.
>
> I did not think that the any courts had the authority to award retroactive
> child support. I know for a fact that they cannot in Colorado (I will cite
> the case if someone insists but I dont have it here with me right now).
> Does someone know for sure a state in which this can be done?
>
>-kelvin

A man I work with came to me about a year ago and asked for my help.  It
seems his brother had recently (at that time) received an unexpected
visitor at his doorstep.  The unexpected visitor was a woman, whom he
had not seen for several years, with a court order demanding that he pay
$16,000 in back child support and start making regular payments.  It
seems this woman had a child and she was claiming that he was the
father.  He only had sex with this woman a few times and was never even
told that she was pregnant.

All I could do was refer him to fathers' rights groups in his state to
get help in finding an attorney.  I never followed through to find out
what the results of the case were - so I don't know whether or not he
"was" the father of the child or whether he had to pay the back child
support.  But she did have a court order.

The man was in Florida.  

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM