HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:47:41 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <RJOHNSON.92Aug18104655@conus.shell.com>  rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>    I think it's quite germane.  If, as has been pointed out in a previous post,
>    a parent can not be forced to donate bodily resources to a child even if
>    necessary to save the child's life, then how can you possibly justify
>    forcing the woman to do this for a fetus?  *Even if you believe that the
>    fetus is a person*, you're suggesting removing rights from the woman in
>    order to give the fetus *more* rights than a (born) person has.
>
> [others' quotes snipped]
>
>    I was just trying to determine whether your objection is really to the
>    active destruction of the fetus, or whether you want to *force* the
>    woman to contribute bodily resources in order to keep the fetus alive.
>
>    Note that I'm not claiming that abortion is *not* objectionable.  Just that
>    I find enslaving women a hell of a lot *more* objectionable.  *Even if the
>    fetus were a person*, I would not want to force the woman (who is
>    *unquestionably* a person) to continue a pregnancy against her will.
>
> The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
> support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
> take kidney back?

As you point out, the key word is "continue".  Once the kidney is
donated, there's no ongoing support.  If you want a better analogy,
consider a blood donor where there is a tube connected between the
donor and the recipient.  Can the blood donor unilaterally decide to
stop giving blood?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40804 alt.politics.elections:11042 alt.politics.clinton:2310 alt.politics.bush:2241
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:04:23 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug18.213218.5943@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
]In article <1992Aug18.193051.10298@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
]>If we are interested in investment, it seems that long-term investment
]>is the most likely to be useful and something like the above would
]>encourage lengthy investment over short-term investment.
]
]It's unclear that there's a useful distinction, especially wrt one
]of the most common investments, namely stock.  Suppose Allan and
]I both buy 100 shares of Disney but I sell mine to my sister
]at some point in time.  Why does it make sense to tax me and
]my sister differently than Allan?  Our investment really isn't
]any different.

It depends on your expectations at the time you make the two investment
decisions (buy and sell). If you purchased expecting short term gain,
you are encouraging companies to go for the short term. If you purchase
for long term gain, you are encouraging companies to adopt strategies
that may depress earnings in the short term but increase them in the long term.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:37:36 GMT

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>In article <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>>>>who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>>>>need one.

>>>But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>>>have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>>>positions where abortion does not become an alternative?

>>Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?

>It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place.  

Actually, you need *sperm*, not a man.  There *are* such things as 
artificial insemination and sperm banks.  (Admittedly, it's off topic; one
doesn't visit a sperm bank unless one intends to become pregnant.)

And while, in one context, your statement is true, I fail to see the connection
you're trying to make with it.

>Also, you neglect the fact that there are very active 18, 19, 21, 23 year
>old pro-life women who share the same view as the other pro-lifers.

Then what, pray tell, is this oh-so-wonderful "position" these women have
put themselves in where "abortion does not become an alternative"?  Have they
made themselves wealthy and immune to pregnancy-caused health problems?

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
From: <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 18:00:19 CET
Organization: SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam

In article <1992Aug19.020301.3592@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
(Stupendous Man) says:
>
>In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET>, <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET>
>writes:
>> "I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
>> "I brought peace over the world, now let me bring peace in the USA"
>> "We have changed the world, now let's change the USA".
>>
>> Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
>> the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
>> however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.
>>
>> Someone (Quale?) even said that Bush brought down the Berlin wall.
>> Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
>> in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
>> spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
>> than it is Gorbatsjov)
>
>        Ignoring the rest of you post, but there are millions that love Ronald
>Reagan and feel that he brought and end to the cold war.  And we're talking in
>Eastern Europe and the xUSSR.
>
>        People have his picture on their walls.
>
>        But aside from nationalistic back patting, Reagan did have a strong
>influence on the end of the xUSSR.  Gorby admits it.  Soviet generals admit
>it.
>
>        Bush is indeed a spectator to many things.  One of the benefits to
>serving the term after Reagan.
>
>Brett
 
The first peace talks failed because Gorbatsjov's proposals to
end the cold war were so substantial, that Reagan was not prepared.
 
Here everyone feels that it has been Gorbatsjov who initiated everything
that has to do with the ending of the cold war.  The cold war ended
*in spite of* Reagan with his "Evil Empire" thoughts.
 
Frans.
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug12.004119.9830@bony1.bony.com>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug12094002@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug21.205444.247@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:23:19

In article <1992Aug21.205444.247@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug12094002@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>   >Also, your argument fails in the West Bank, hence the term "Occupied
>   >Territories", whose plurality you failed to notice.
>
>   >>   The term "Occupied Territories" as applied to the West Bank
>   >
>   >and Gaza Strip
>
>   Don't forget the Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem.  And Haifa, and
>   Jaffa, and Tel-Aviv and everything that the PLO considers "Occupied"...

How silly.  The PLO doesn't stand alone in calling the Occupied
Territories occupied.  The UN and the civilized world do as well.

>   >I guess I have to be painfully explicit with you.  Construction of
>   >permanent buildings in occupied land by the occupying forces is
>   >against the Geneva Convention.  Israel is violating international law
>   >in the Occupied Territories by its settlements activities.
>
>   Then let's send in the UN Forces to stop building by Arabs in all
>   Territories that are still in dispute and enforce this ban on building
>   until the disposition of the land in question is complete.  This should
>   be as effective an incentive for Arabs as for Israelis to advance the
>   Piece Process.  (pun intended.)

You obviously don't understand the situation.  The Israelis are the
occupying force, and therefore fall under the provisions of the Geneva
Convention.  The Arabs in the Occupied Territories are the populace,
and are not so governed.

>   >What lies?  That Israeli terrorism exists is not a lie.  
>
>   Only among those who choose to redefine terms like "terrorism" and
>   even history itself.  You are, I am afraid, not alone in this passion.

How can you claim that I redefine "terrorism" when you have not
defined it?

>   >That Israel
>   >occupies territories in violation of UN resolutions is not a lie.
>
>   The UN has not called on Israel to relinquish control of these
>   territories.  It has called on all parties to the dispute to consider
>   transfer of land in exchange for peace.  ...

You have obviously not read and understood UN Resolution 242.  Try again.

>   >That Israel's activities in the Occupied Territories violate
>   >international law is not a lie.
>
>   Only if international law ignores the grossly illegal, immoral and
>   inhumane activities of the Arabs who reside there.  And, of course,
>   ignoring the context is right up your alley...

You also do not understand legal principles.  The illegal, immoral,
and inhumane terrorism of the PLO does not give Israel the right to
violate the Geneva Convention.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: s5ugxk@fnma.COM (Girish Kumtheker)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: s5ugxk@fnma.COM
Organization: Fannie Mae
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:18:31 GMT

In article 4912@rtsg.mot.com, brand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert W. Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.004050.6086@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson) writes:
>>Change, blah, blah, Change, blah, Change..
>>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah, Change.
>>blah, blah, Change, blah, Change, blah.
>>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah.
>
>Close, it's:
>
>Change, blah, blah, Change, blah, Change..
>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah, Change.
>blah, blah, Change, blah, Change, blah.
>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah, Family,
>blah, blah. 


I have it even closer >Change, blah, blah, Change, blah, Change..
>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah, Change.
>blah, blah, Change, blah, Change, blah.

Dan Quayl(e)  with angry eyes saying blah blah blah

Girish

s5ugxk@fnma.com


>
>
>>
>>--
>> ___________________________________________________________________________ 
>>|wats@nyx.cs.du.edu |   "To the extent that it doesn't use mathematics;     |
>>|   Bruce Watson    |                 it is no science."                    |
>
>
>-- 
>Bob Brand


















---
s5ugxk@fnma.com
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Bush Record
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:06:25 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

>>4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during Bush's term.[1]
>>	Bush promised 30 million new jobs.
>
>But he promised them for *two* terms, and this makes his reelection all the
>more attractive. Just imagine, 29 million new jobs in the next four years.

Indeed. Give him a Republican Congress and he might well succeed.

>Matthias

---
Pat
(Proud holder of one of the 19 million jobs created in the Reagan years!)

" You have to understand that this is the typical facile argument of the uni-
lateral pacifist.  It's the equivalent of expecting that once the fire in YOUR
house has been extinguished by the firemen, there will NEVER be OTHER fires and
that all fire departments are now superfluous."
- Christopher Morton
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:33:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.174346.12749@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.  
>
>This statement is not correct.  Abortion is a legal and moral issue.
>
>> 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've never really understood this.  Looking at the athiest belief,
that this is the only life there is, I always figured it would lend itself
more toward pro-life than pro-choice.

>You haven't looked hard at all.  I've only seen you post a few times to 
>talk.abortion.  And I believe I've told you that I am not religious, and 
>I do oppose abortion.  

>> 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.
>
>Such a statement could only come from a pro-choicer who's attempting
>to portray abortion as a religious issue, which it is not.

     It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to seperate religion and politics.
The thing you must remember is that just because something is religious
doesn't mean it's wrong.  If somebody start the Church of Gravity nobody
would claim that Gravity doesn't exist or that the Government can't 
recognize it.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:07:04 GMT

In article <11724@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]# If you made a similiar statement about blacks based on the same
]# evidence I would say you are a racist.  Since you instead
]# made the statement about homosexuals what should I deduce
]# about your thought processes?
]# 
]# dave
]# manley@optilink.com
]
]That I am tired of homosexuals telling lies, repeatedly.

Provide an example of homosexuals telling lies, repeatedly.

(Perhaps some of us are getting sick and tired of watching assholes
slander innocent people, repeatedly.)

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "There is no such thing as a problem 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  seek problems because you need their 
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41178 alt.politics.elections:11228 alt.politics.bush:2453 alt.politics.clinton:2543
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:34:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

In article <clafpq8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>Local news:  the Yolo County (CA) Democratic campaign office has seen Repub-
>licans coming in every day starting this past Tuesday, disgusted with the
>speeches they've heard at their convention, asking what Clinton's plans
>*really* are and re-registering to vote as Democrats.  This is really some-
>thing considering that Yolo County (I've been told) is traditionally Repub-
>lican.

It's so Republican that it is one of the few counties in CA that voted
for Dukakis in 88....

Undergrads in Davis pull this stunt every four years.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 15:18:22 GMT

In article <92Aug14.181213edt.24@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.212745.16974@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>>In <92Aug14.152847edt.98@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> Yuanhui Liu states:
>>|>In <92Aug14.134331edt.118@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> Yuanhui Liu states:
>>|>I'm sure glad I don't live in Canada.
>>|I am sure.  You will miss home dearly for the lack of automatic gunfire  
>>|and police sirens at night.  Moving to Bosnia/Somaila is recommended.   
>>I don't hear the sound of automatic gunfire at night; I do hear pistol
>>shots frequently, which is the sound of people defending themselves
>And why there is no automatic gunfire?  Does this has anything to
>do with the ban on assault weapons?
  There is not automatic gunfire because the federal government imposed heavy
regulation on automatic weapons back in 1936.  New Jersey and California have
banned semiautomatic rifles that look like military assult rifles.  This is
in spite of California Justice Department and Federal Justice Department
studies which show that semiautomatic rifles that look like military rifles
are used in less than .1 of 1% of crimes involving firearms.  Another example
of a `feel-good' law that won't do one bit to protect the citizens.

>>down the streets. Sirens? No sir; it is quite rare to hear a police
>>sirens where I live. "Bosina/Somaila" is an excellent place for Canadians
>>to practice the fine art of being Numero Uno target.
>And our Canadian peacekeepers/red cross workers are so grateful 
>about all that weapons CIA shipped to the somalians decades ago.
    Actually the Yugoslav `militia' units are using Yugoslav federal army
equipment.  Uniforms, rations, fully automatic AKM assult rifles, motors and
heavy artillary.  Most of that was obtained from the ex-Soviet Union.

>>|The Redneckish tone in my original post is only in response
>>|to the pathetic comparison between the National Socialists of Weimar
>>|Republic and the Democrats of USA.  :-)   
>>
>>In Chicago, this comparison is not without merit. In Chicago, our
>>"ONE PARTY" system rolls over basic human rights like a steel roller
>>flattening Mr. Bill. The City Council has passed spray paint bans,
>>bans on peacible assembly, bans on new handguns, bans on assault rifles,
>>bans on magazines holding over twelve rounds. It is part of acceptible
>>police procedure to shoot suspects handcuffed and running away. 

-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet
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: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:34:04 GMT

I have enjoyed the discourse on the consistency of various abortion
positons a great deal.  However, there are other topics that I find
equally interesting and this topic has consumed more of my time than I
ever expected it could.  (I'm sure that I am not the only person who has
been trapped in such a situation.)  I tried to answer every post.  If I
missed someone I am genuinely sorry.  I honestly appreciate all who
wrote to me either privately or publicly.  Most posts were thoughtful,
well written, and without rancor.  It was usually a joy to participate.
Despite this, I must now remove myself from this particular discussion.

The reason I am writing this is because I am sure that many of you will
respond to todays responses.  I will eagerly read them but I will not
respond.  Please don't take it personally.  I simply want to move on to
other topics.  I'm sure that I've had to forego some other great posts
on here just to keep up with this discussion and I'm not a one issue
voter.  I hope you will understand.

Thanks,

Tim
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:18:14 GMT

In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> platforms.

It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.
President Bush supports exceptions for abortion in the cases of 
rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but this news story
might lead one to believe that Bush supports a ban on "all" 
abortions, which is false.  The other interpretation is that Bush 
supports some sort of Constitutional amendment regarding abortion.

Perhaps the story is just poorly written, but I can't believe 
that a prestigious news organization like UPI could make such
an obvious error regarding Bush's stance on abortion.  Certainly
the wording is very misleading.

Through e-mail, Mr. Echeverri has informed me that he got the
story via Clarinet, and I hope he's telling the truth.  Perhaps
he can point to a major newspaper which carried this story, since
I don't receive Clarinet.  If he's not telling the truth, then I 
think UPI might be interested in having a little chat with him. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:01:55 CDT


In article <Aug.13.17.27.41.1992.7501@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <l8l7diINNfvb@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> 
> > I guess it all depends on how "connected" you think that Floyd Brown
> > is to the Bush campaign.......
> 
> I have never met Floyd Brown, but I am acquainted with Brent Bozell
> (who has worked together with Brown on occasion on certain projects).
> I can tell you for a fact that, since they have put together
> independent pieces promoting certain political candidates, they are
> PROHIBITED BY LAW from having ANY contact with either the candidate
> himself or with his official campaign whenever they happen to be
> independently promoting said candidate.

Just like the plumbers were prohibited by law from breaking into
the Democratic National Commitee office...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40151 talk.abortion:32056 alt.politics.bush:1850