HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 1992 15:39:10 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Tim Buckley) writes:
|> Adrienne Regard) writes:
|> >
|> >How can you tell?  Frankly, I think you are making this up.  I don't think
|> >liberty and happiness are contingent on a right to life.   I don't think that
|> >'most' people believe in this heirarchical notion of rights, or we'd wouldn't
|> >have blood shortages regularly at blood banks.  Nor would we be having people
|> >dying of failed kidneys, lungs, hearts, etc., since 'spare' parts come up
|> >all the time, but aren't donated.
|> 
|> Well I thought I had made this clear.  Let's try again.  Can you have
|> happiness without life?   Can you have liberty without life?  Can you
|> have life without liberty or happiness.  Adrienne, if you don't think
|> that this society has a hierarchy of rights how do you explain the
|> differences in penalties for murder vis a vis violation of a human's
|> civil rights?
|>  
How can you have life without food or medical care.  If this is the
basis for the pro-life stance, how can the pro-life candidate not be
the biggest proponent in the country for medical care for all, food
subsidies for the poor, etc.

Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.  I have yet
to hear from one pro-lifer who is an athiest or who suggests his/her
belief in right-to-life is not based in religious teachings.

I have asked.  So far the only response I've received from a pro-lifer
stated that it was impossible to separate religious and political
opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:20:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.223221.32852@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <Bt3EtF.Ct2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>
>> No, Larry, you can't be charged in the cases you give examples of but
>> you certainly can be charged with negligence (even the negligent
>> treatment of animals) depending on the circumstances.  For example, when
>> parents refuse to provide food for their children they can be (and
>> sometimes are) guilty of neglect.
>
>Are there any cases in which a person can be charged for refusing to
>provide bodily resources (e.g., blood, bone marrow, organs) to another?
>Even if it's a parent/child relationship?

"The courts have long held that parents cannot be compelled to take
actions to benefit their children's health.  In two key cases, the
courts refused to force a father to donate a kidney to his dying child
and declined even to make parents move to a new climate to aid their
ailing child.  'To compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of
his body would change every concept and principle upon which our
society is founded,' the judge wrote in one such decision.  'To do so,
would defeate the sanctity of the individual.'" (Susan Faludi,
_Backlash_, p.432.  She cites Johnsen's "Creation of Fetal Rights,"
pp.615-7.

>
>If the woman decides to withold her bodily resources, and has the fetus
>detached before viability, so its death is inevitable, but does *not*
>have the fetus killed (i.e., it's allowed to expire on its own), would
>you then have no objection to this type of abortion?
>

Isn't this essentially how RU-486 works?  The uterus becomes
inhospitable to the fetus?  Also, I believe IUDs cause the fertilized
egg not to "stick", though there are some nasty side effects for such
devices.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:44:00 GMT

In article <c#9mfkp.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu(Doug Holtsinger):
>>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>>spending.  
>
>Omigod!  If that happened we might have a recession and the budget deficit
>could end up being the worst we've ever had!!  We might end up with riots
>in the streets and a mass exodus of american businesses to foriegn soil!!
>
>Oh, you mean that's already happening?  Then what are you worried about?

That things could be worse....

The election isn't between Bush and someone "better", it is between
Bush and Clinton.  Surely there's an argument for Clinton other than
"anyone but Bush".

We can do worse than Bush.  How does Clinton stack up?

Re: biz leaving.  Does anyone remember the Smoot-Hawley tariffs?  Jobs
will move to where the work can be done most efficiently.  We can
artificially increase the price of imported goods, but that can't have
a major effect other than to hurt both us and "them" economically.

Murder-suicide is "fair"; is that what they mean by "fair trade"?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:31:08 GMT

In article <11720@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>You really are dense, aren't you?  It's because homosexuals insist
>on using the government to tell consenting adults what to do in
>private that so many people are pissed.  When homosexuals stop trying
>to force themselves onto straight people in private, we can talk
>about this.  In the meantime, homosexuals need to get the government
>out of straight people's lives.

As far as I understand what you've written, there is no public sphere.
So, every time I walk into a 7-11, for example, I'm entering someone's
private domain and I can be kicked out because I have on an ACT UP
t-shirt, or because I drive a Japanese-made car, or because I have a
hillbilly accent.  Now, I happen to think that my mere, mannerly
presence in the 7-11 to buy a diet coke is not forcing myself on
straight people in private.  I think I have a certain right, if I'm
not threatening, to buy my diet coke in peace.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:17:39 GMT

In article <36875@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>,
rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:
>Has Herschensohn actually said he wants *more* defense spending?  As I
>understand it, he just wants to keep the levels the same.  He opposes
>the radical cuts proposed by the more "dovish" Dems.

Herschensohn was quoated at least once during the primaries as
saying that we pe4haps needed more defense spending.  He seems to
have backed off this position somwhat but his does not support
dense cuts despite the virtual dismantling of the "eveil empire"
which was used to justify the original buildup of the defense
budget.

>Most of Herschensohn's views are compatible with the suburban voters
>he's counting on to put him over the top, particularly Orange and San
>Diego Counties, as well as the Inland Empire.  This is how he won the
>primary, and this is how he hopes to win the general election.  I
>consider Herschensohn the second-best candidate of all the Republicans
>running (for either seat) in the primary.  Media-unknown Bill Allen
>(eek!  another black conservative) was tops.

Even in conservative Orange county 80% of voters are pro-choice.  As
someone who is adamantly anti-choice, Bruce has already lost many
Republican votes that are unlikely to be made up for by Democrats
crossing rank.  The best he can hope for is that enough Democrats
will so be bummed out by Boxer's spending record that they too will
simply not vote.  I haven't been able to tell from the reporting on
the polls so far if some Republicans have actually switched to Boxer
as well but she is way ahead in the polls one way or another.  Of
course, they haven't included me in any of the polls yet.

I still consider myself to be the only rational choice for people
who are both pro-choice and fiscally sane.  In talking to people
around the state during my campaign I am convinced that if people
actually had an absolutely equal chance to hear from all three of us
that they would choose me to represent them.  But since I don't
expect to raise anything near the amount of money that they will and
it is thus difficult to get the media to report on my campaign, most
voters will not get that chance unless individual citizens get
active on my behalf.

We need money and people who are willing to distribute campaign
material, if only to their friends and family.  Please call us at
1-800-89-4-JUNE to help in either regard.

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40768 talk.politics.theory:3745 soc.culture.usa:6692 alt.conspiracy:10158
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:03:57 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
| >Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
| >back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
| >and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
| >American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
| >actions and relationships.  This proposal is clearly akin to 
| >the fascist, Communist, and Nazi programs of subordinating
| >culture to political -- governmental -- control, and of
| >eliminating free expression. . . .  Or are there
| >defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his
| >statement otherwise?

sechrest@z.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
| I think that Pat Buchanan is a jerk, but this is just stupid.
| 
| Consider the call of women (feminists) to ``take back the night.''
| By ``take'' do they mean the use of force?  Does this mean that
| their ``proposal'' is akin to the army enforced curfews of Fascist
| coups?

I know what the feminists mean by "take": get out on the
streets, and reinstitute civil society by your simple
presence.  Their means are at once plain and legitimate.

What I have asked is what Buchanan means by "take."  He
can't mean the normal workings of our cultural life,
because that has produced the culture we have and is
likely to go on doing more of the same.  So what _does_
he mean?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:21:38 GMT

In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
>>is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
>>a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
>>a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
>>would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>
>
>OK, Tim:
>
>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
>
>I don't believe women have rights merely because fetuses don't.  I believe
>that women have rights because women are born human beings, who are capa-
>ble of exercising their rights.
>
>What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
>
>Adrienne Regard
>
>(I just want to hear Tim say it, that's all....)
>

Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
human being.

The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
that the fetus is NOT a human being.  If one accepts THIS assumption
then the woman's right takes precedence and again no inconsistency is
found.  The point is that there is no inconsistency in either argument.
It simply comes down to which assumption about the fetus you are willing
to accept.

Tim
 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40398 misc.legal:16116
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Speaking of the death penalty...
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:44:47 GMT
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI

In article <64203@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>The various death penalty debates that surface from time to time on Usenet
>usually end up involving an argument over the value or lack thereof of the
>death penalty as a deterrent.
>
>One thing I've never seen discussed is its value as persuasion.  For example,
>if you have a group of people commit a crime, the threat of the death penalty
>can be powerful persuasion to convince one of them to testify against the
>others.
>
>Based on cases in "True Detective" and "Master Detective" and "Front Page
>Detective" (look, I was out of town for a couple of weeks, and was willing
>to read _anything_!), it seems that even though the death penalty in the
>abstract might be useless against a criminal before the crime, once that
>criminal is caught and is facing a concrete example of it, it is quite
>persuasive.
>
>Does anyone have information on how useful the death penalty is as a
>bargaining tool for prosecutors?
>

Well, I'm not providing any hard evidence.  But, I'd daresay that the threat
of a death penalty provides a strong motivation for a criminal who has no 
useful testimony to simply make something up for bargaining purposes.

Similarly, it provides a strong motive for a criminal who has committed a
capital crime to kill any potential witnesses to the crime.  Someone can
only be executed once.

I seem to recall that kidnapping was at one time a capital offense.  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39508 ca.politics:6752 ba.politics:4486
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:32:52 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <675m43g.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Get real, read your history.

You are the one that needs to do some reading.

Do you know where the pink triangle came from?  They were the symbols
that homosexuals had to wear in the camps.  Are you aware that homosexuals
were the bottom of the prison hierarchy?

Do you know what happened to these people when they were released
from the camps?  They were harassed by their "saviors" since they felt
that these people were rightfully imprisoned.  And then, in a typical
revisionist fashion, mentions of homosexuality were dropped.  It took
a lot of research to find out more about the lives of these people.

If you are interested in learning, which I suspect you are not, I can
recommend some interesting books.



FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:30:31 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> In alt.politics.bush, MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu (Melissa Brown) writes:

>>> Is it just me, or does all this talk about family values smack of
>>> McCarthyism?  The political climate is scarey.

>> I read an interesting editorial piece in the paper today.   It asserted
>> that 'family values' is a code word for the issue of women's role in
>> today's society.

>> Hmmmmm.

> Well I can't speak for the 
> KneeJerkBleedingHeartWimpLiberalStooges
> that have been in the white house for the last 12 years,
> but when Good People talk about restoring our GodGiven
> WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues we sure do NOT mean
> anything like McCarthyism....

Young man, how dare you insinuate that "Clean for Gene" has anything
to do with "Tail Gunner Joe!"

[--standard lemon-harangue pie deleted--]

> Yup, Restore: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
> and everything will be Right with the USA,
> and General Motors will be the Number One 
> car Maker in the World again...

What will become of us when General Mommy's total assets are
larger than the Catholic Church's???

> We'll be able to Leave it to Beaver,
> as Father Knows Best.

> ciao
> drieux

> ps: an their Restore Our God Given Rights
> to concubines....

Isn't it kind of dangerous leaving this around where the
CatWoman can see it???

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39633 talk.abortion:31671 alt.politics.bush:1540
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:27:13 GMT
 <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Aug13.213828.9337@m2xenix.psg.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:


>Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?
Yes...in order to send your child to public schools you need certain sets
of vaccinations; you are required to provide some minimum level of clothing,
food, shelter, etc.  You are constrained from any 'outrageuos' behavior
against your child, etc.  While these things may make perfect sense, they
are 'forcing' people to do certain things.

>Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?
Not to my knowledge.

>Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?
Yes....it's often called child abuse and people are punished for it.

>Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?
Not at this point...

>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
In my opinion, yes, they could, but I don't think it will happen.  It would
take the cooperation of the Supreme Court.

>Can the Federal Gov't allow State Gov'ts to infringe upon Constitutional
>rights?
Sure, with the cooperation of the Supreme Court...Ask Cliff Johnson over in
misc.legal about this....he's having a running battle with the State of
California and the Feds over the state denying him his Constitutional
Rights...

>Can the Gov't selectively enforce Laws?
Absolutely.  Think speeding, for example.

>How do you force the Executive to do its duty, to protect and uphold the
>Constitution?
Difficult to do.  He can ignore the Supreme Court.  He can ignore
Congressional Orders.  He can't ignore an impeachment, though.  In the end,
you'd have to impeach him for not doing his job...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Personal debt (was Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:12:40 GMT

In article <BtAqq6.8KH@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <92Aug20.134342edt.136@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>
>>Any reasonably sane and educated American would understand:
>> 1) There has been, and is, a recession *throughout* North America.
>
>     Most recessions are characterized by massive debt-reductions but
>     corporate and personal debt in the US have only declined a few
>     percent and government debt has not declined at all.

Most of what Peter Nelson says is accurate, but
I have to dissent here. There has been much hoopla about debt problems,
but corporate and private debt is *not* at unusual levels, from what I
have read.

I think that the decline of housing values in many parts of the country
has had a major impact on consumers sense of wealth.
They have responded by tightening their belts and cutting their debt load.
The latest Forbes, for example, shows consumer installment debt falling
consistently over the last year.

With the drastically lower interest rates, the debt burden
has become much less for business and individuals.

>     There has never in any postwar recession been a fiasco like the 
>     current California budget nonsense.  These and similar budget
>     problems in major cities, other states, and at the federal (US)
>     level are more damaging to the economy than past recessions because 
>     government is a bigger part of the economy.  

It is proof of the dangers of unfunded mandates on states, and unfunded
state mandates on local Governments. These Governmental units don't have
the flexibility they should have to get through the current fiscal
problems.

>   Obviously where you stand depends on where you sit, but I'm no kid
>   and I've been through a few downturns in my day, and I don't recall
>   seeing so many long-term gloomy projections in any previous recession.

The press was quite negative in '82 and '83.  Don't we get
these "end of the world" scenarios all the time?

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc