HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:12:21 GMT

In article <12520@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
The usual.  Follow-ups redirected to talk.politics.misc.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48485 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6035 alt.politics.bush:7088 alt.politics.elections:14586 talk.abortion:39233 alt.sex:31257 alt.politics.clinton:7692
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:35:51 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <1992Sep28.133908.1374@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> In article <4eld68a00YV704lVt2@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >Recently posted by Rini Clarkberg:
> >> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
> >> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
> >> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
> >> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
> >
> >This is sort of like a murder - suicide.  The woman had no right to take
> >away her baby's life and died while trying.
> 
> Remember folks, it's always important to BLAME THE VICTIM!
> 
> It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of BTV all over.
> 
> Tom
> P.S.  I'm being sarcastic.  I had the same reaction to page 310.


Simple questions to shut up a right to lifer

"How many hungry kids have you fed today?"

Welfare doesn't count.
Charitable donations don't count.
Volunteering your time doesn't count.

How many homeless kids have you taken into your home?
(I can ask this with impunity -- I've had two in my home this year.)

[The answer is invariably zero.]

After you've clothed, fed, and educated all the unwanted children
who are already born, maybe I'll listen to your arguments for forcing 
more of them to be born.  Meanwhile, try helping those who are here 
before crying about those who never make it here.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:15:23 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Oct3.182725.18627@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>	of Jews.
>
>I doubt that the Palestinians would be too keen on Arfie. People who wear pillow
>cases on their heads are often not to keen on "arabs" either.


You just pointed to the fundamental problem they and Arabs have solving
this problem.  They do not understand or appreciate the power of the 
howling savages in the media and on networks like this.  If you are
implying that I belong to the KKK based on what you have read hear, you
are another victim.  The Arabs think they can simply stick to their guns
and eventually the truth and justice will prevail. All you have to do is
look at what the Chutzpasazis are doing to Bush and note that it all
began with his new conference trashing AIPAC to understand the futilitt
of being nice.
1
>|>The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  What Mr. Schmidling
>|>fails to realize is that his boycott will be judged by its effects and
>|>accomplishments, not his good intentions.
>|>
>|>What Mr. Schmidling has failed to explain is why Coors Beer, or any
>|>other kosher product?  How has Coors contributed to the suffering of
>|>the Palestinians?
>
>Some of them drank it.

TOUCHE!!!!!!

That's funny as hell.  I was thinking of offering my World's Greatest Beer
to any Muslims or Jews who can certify that they will really suffer from
the boycott.  My mother came over the other night and said "looks Kosher
to me."   I won't put a little "M" on it so I can sneak it through the
boycott.

js
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (PANDAMAN)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Date:  6 Oct 1992 14:01 EST  

In article <1992Oct2.202020.679@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes...

>Coming soon on NBC ...
> 
>"The Death & Murder Hour" and "XXX Film Review"
> 
>No more need to speculate what goes on in back alleys and bedrooms, now you
>Can See For Yourself!  Educuate your kids (and yourself!) about all the 
>latest techniques of sex (and murder)!

This has already been on TV in various degrees of detail.

>See a woman bleed to death in agony!

How about the film clip showing the NVA soldier being executed with a 
single pistol shot to the temple?  Hey, we had to understand the reality 
and brutality of war. This was shown on the evening news years ago. Not to 
mention all the newsclips showing murder victims lying in pools of blood.

>See threesomes having sex!  See a teenager blow his brains out!  Seee useful 
>sex positions demonstrated for you in the privacy of your own home.

Again, this stuff is already there, and the level of detail will only 
continue to get worse.

>Gather the kids around the TV, folks, and join together as we show you all
>about the beginnings AND endings of life!

Whenever I complain about the graphic violence and sex shown on TV, I'm 
usually told, "Freedom of speech, Baby", and "If you don't like it, change 
the channel".

Well, for once, it gives this conservative heart great pleasure to throw it 
back at all my liberal friends.  If you don't like the abortion ads, change 
the channel.  Freedom of speech, baby!  



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the 
>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>     the last few days.
>
	I would add that he's also the winner of the most
kill file additions for bad poetry or 'artistic endeavor.'


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:12:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(phil)
/Oh, so then all those nasty old stupid businesses that refused to do
/business with South Africa -- they were wrong. 

No; they made a choice based upon varying forces.  What does this 
have to do with what we are talking about?




/(phil)
/I see. 

I doubt that you see much of anything, but pray continue . . .



(phil)
/And, and why not sell stuff to Iraq. Just because you and all the officers of the company
/dislike ole' Saddam, well, hell, nows not the time to let personal
/prejudices get in the way of business, nosirrreeee ...

Which side are you arguing, Phil?  Do you even know?




    >/(cramer) /Employers and landlords have consciences also,
    >
    >Having a conscience and running a business BASED upon
    >conscience are two entirely, worlds-apart, DIFFERENT things.
    >Everyone in the world has a conscience. But Boeing is not an
    >"organization for conscience"; the Red Cross is.

/(phil)
/I don't think you understand any of what you are talking about. 

Of course I do, Phil.  If I didn't, I wouldn't be running circles around you 
right now.




(phil)
/Clayton
/is talking about the possesion of a moral attribute know as conscience, not
/the nature of an organization itself.

Yes. 

But the exemption which permits a religious organization to discriminate 
against a nonbeliever is based upon the organization being an organization of 
conscience.  Not upon the individual *possession* of a conscience.  Hence, 
Clayton's point is not relevant.  

By sleight-of-hand, Clayton is trying to state that the possession of 
a conscience entitles him to discriminate as though he were an organization
of conscience.  It does not.

Put another way:
There are tax exemptions for religious organizations.  Clayton says that 
he possesses a religion also; therefore he believes that he is deserving 
of a tax exemption.  He is not.   

A person's belief of conscience can be exercised only where such exercise
does not conflict with another person's rights.  What your "conscience"
tells you does not matter if those actions will result in the breach of
another person's liberties.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48832 alt.rush-limbaugh:6297 alt.politics.bush:7343 alt.politics.clinton:7987 alt.politics.elections:14787 talk.abortion:39693 alt.sex:31490
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:56:26 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep30.213437.24921@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >Why does no one ever talk about UnBornGrandParents?

I told you, 'Cause if your granddaddy ain't born, chances are you ain't too.

>]  Perhaps because there is a major difference between seperately-existing
>] eggs and sperm, and already-conceived human...

Not really.  They're both humans.  Just monoploid and diploid forms.  Personally
I think the monoploids know something we don't.

>So some Potential Humans do not Live up to your
>Personal Standard Of PotentialPersonHood Or What?

Some real humans don't live up to my standard of PotentialPersonHood.
>
>I say that Killing off a Sperm is the Brutal
>Cold Blooded Murder of an UnBornGrandParent
>who Might have grown up to save the world
>from the Threat of International Kommunism!!!!!
>
Er, drieux?  International Kommunism is dead, dude.  Well, mostly.  You mean
the HeteroSexuality DeathKult, right?

>AS Long as People Like you are allowed to DEHUMANIZE
>any Potential Persons, WHO IS SAFE!!!!!!
>
Not me.

PotetnialBigAl.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48953 alt.rush-limbaugh:6322 alt.politics.bush:7400 alt.politics.elections:14851 talk.abortion:39808 alt.politics.clinton:8059 talk.religion.misc:17523
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Recovering Old Slogans....
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:15:32 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Idbil Fubar) writes:
] 
] WHINEWHINEWHINE...Not every one is anti-christian...just NOT-christian.
] Be a little open minded yourself. (not that I enter this debate too much)


does the slogan:

"If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the Problem."

Married to:

"If you are not for us, You are Against Us."

bring anything to mind?

ciao
drieux

ps: not that I would directly recommend that You be Burned At the Stake
for reasons of State Security or anything.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:57:57 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <Oct.2.06.40.37.1992.28512@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>> It is good of you to admit to your deliberate decision to be
>> illogical.
>
>Sir, I make no such admission.

Not intentionally, I suppose.



--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:55:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.203408.23563@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <090n2m-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>For me, it is very upsetting to an attempt to grab the shield of horror
>>from the Jews, who have been subject to horrors that homosexuals
>>have rarely seen en masse and place it onto a group of people that
>>are disliked for what they accurately are. (Accuracy being relative
>>in this day of mass media).
>
>Why, Phool, you moron.  As usual, you have absolutely no
>idea what you're talking about.
>
>A number of Holocaust survivors are active in Parents and
>Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and have gone on national
>television stating unequivocally that the current anti-gay
>sentiment in this country directly parallels what they
>experienced as Jews in Germany in the 1930s.
>
>So how does it feel to be likened to a Nazi by someone
>who survived the death camps?  It's people like you that
>they're talking about, you know.



One does not make a statistics. 
One survivor from the Holocaust said that, and maybe one survivor from the
Holocaust might say the opposite. So?
The word Nazi is used in many ways by too many people to make it look like
a crime to think so many things.

I do not think that you can compare the GLB problem in this country to the
Jews in Nazi Germany, or even to the Blacks in the USA.

This is the same as with the anti-sodomy law in Nicaragua. The first thing
Gays did was to say that that is the same as what the Nazis did. 
Might be a good tactic to gain attention, but it does not make it true.

AAP

>--
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48482 alt.rush-limbaugh:6136 alt.politics.clinton:7690 alt.politics.elections:14582 talk.abortion:39226 alt.sex:31254 alt.politics.bush:7086
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
[*please* restrict the newsgroups, okay?  Let me know which
  one you're reading from, and I'll subscribe.]

ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
|Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and
|responsibili.. C.J. Silverio@eno.wpd.sg (1508)
|> Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
|> to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
|> a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
|> automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
|> to live with injury without medical redress.

|But, if there is no medical redress, then you will have to live with the
|consequences.  If abortion is murder, then there is no medical redress
|to pregnancy except to carry it to term.  Therefore, a couple having sex
|would consent to having a child if the contraceptives failed.

It isn't clear to me that they've consented to anything other
than sex.  Maybe you should ask each individual couple what
they've consented to, instead of prescribing for them.

|> People who use birth control are, by their actions,
|> acknowledging the possibility of conception.  However, also by
|> their actions, they are clearly NOT consenting to pregnancy.
|> They are attempting to avoid it, by minimizing the risk.  (To
|> continue the car analogy, by obeying traffic laws & wearing a
|> seatbelt.)

|But even with seat belts and air bags, you could still end up dead or
|crippled.  You just lower the probability.  You are still accepting some
|risk, whether you like to think about it or not.

Yes, and so what?  I said as much in the first paragraph quoted
above.  Which part didn't you understand?  

Let me make my point again:
Accepting that risk of <bad thing> exists does NOT mean accepting 
the results should <bad thing> actually happen.  People take
risks they consider acceptable several times a day-- when
crossing the street, driving a car, getting into an airplane,
having sex.  They often take steps to minimize risk-- crossing
with the light, wearing seatbelts, wearing condoms.  And, should
an accident happen, they will seek ways to eliminate the effects.

If you think the key issue is whether abortion is murder or not,
I suggest you leave this fruitless line of argument and talk
about your issue.  

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen
From: berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: For Whom Should We Vote?
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:32:11 GMT
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

Maybe finding the answers to these questions will help:

1)  How much of the national debt is your share?

2)  How much of the national debt is reserved for our children?

3)  How big of a debt do we want?  How did we get it?  Why?

4)  Whom do we owe it to?

5)  What do they do with the interest we pay them?

6)  How much interest do we pay each year?  Can we repay the debt and interest?

7)  Have we sold ourselves into bondage with debt and interest?

8)  What is wrong with our balance of payments?  Can we keep buying more than
we sell?  Can we long endure this way?  Can we run a private business this way?
How many bad checks can you write and get away with it?

9)  What do you know about the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve
Promissary Notes we use for money?

10) Do you know the Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by banks?

11) Do you know the Federal Reserve has never had a government public audit?

12) Do you know the currency issued by the Federal Reserve is unlawful under
the Constitution of the United States?

13) How does the Federal Reserve create money?  By book entry?  Out of thin
air?

14) What do you know about the Constitution?  What is the First Article?  The
Second?  The Third?  How many Articles are there?  How many amendments?

15) Does the Constitution grant the people rights or do "We the people" specify
and limit therein the powers of government.

16) Do you hear any candidates for political office talking about restoring the
Constitution?  If so, who are they?

17) Does the Constitution require public officials to take an oath to uphold
it?

18) If they take an oath to uphold it, why aren't they doing it?

19) Why should those of us who did not create the savings and loan crisis have
to pay for it through taxes?

20) Why should we have to pay any bills we do not owe through taxes?

21) Who gave the government the right to tax from us our labor, property, and
money to pay for services we do not want or owe?

22) Can government give us anything it does not take from someone?  Maybe us?

VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND MEN WHO UPHOLD IT.

VOTE GRITZ FOR RIGHTS IN '92.

--
Glenn A. Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Utah State University

"We've got one more hill to take... Capitol Hill!" - Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49575 talk.politics.drugs:6603 talk.politics.guns:21712 alt.politics.elections:15184 alt.politics.libertarian:545 alt.politics.marrou:1428
From: brady@castor (Andre Marrou)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:51:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia

In article <BvnMy7.90C@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  How many national polls have shown any L.P. support above the 
>>  margin of error?
>
>Haven't seen on any national polls, maybe he's doing well and we
>don't know it.  "Other" is usually pretty high.


I recently read somewhere ( *maybe* the LP News??? ) that when
those who choose "Other" are asked who "Other" is, half of them
give Marrou as a response.

>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu   Had enough? Vote Libertarian!
--------------------------------Marrou/Lord '92------------------------------

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu   Had enough? Vote Libertarian!
--------------------------------Marrou/Lord '92------------------------------
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: George Herbert Walker Bush, the "Environmental President"
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:27:27 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu

Remember when George Bush promised that he would be the "environmental
President"?  I suppose it's OK if you don't remember; he probably
doesn't, either.  Nowadays he doesn't talk so much about being an
environmentalist; instead, he spends his time criticizing
"environmental extremists."

Today, at any rate, Bush did us all a service: he finally made it
clear just what an "environmental extremist" is.  It turns out to be
someone who opposes strip mining in National Parks.

(And no, I'm not exaggerating.  The Bush administration really did
approve a regulation today which would permit strip mining in National
Forests and National Parks.)

--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou