HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:50:14 GMT

From article by joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays):
> I would like to thank Brian Ceccarelli for reminding us that
> throughout history people have been trying to deny women the
> right to choose.  It's important to be aware of this because
> I have seen people on here claim that the fight is over just
> because Clinton has been elected.  There will always be people
> like those Brian has quoted.  We can't relax the fight now. 

I would like to thank Brian Ceccarelli for reminding us that
throughout history people have been killing children and denying
them the right to life.  It's important to be aware of this because
I have seen people on here claim that they will continue fighting
to deny them this right.  There will always be murderous people
like those addressed by the writings Brian has quoted.  We the
defenders of our smallest brothers and sisters will never go away.
We will forever be pricking your consciences.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim Kalb is back and Petie's misattributions live on!
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:47:16 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov12.030316.5387@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
is back!  Hi, Jim: Do you still subscribe to the chastity belt theory
of why abortions should be illegal?  That is, do you still believe
that forcing women to carry pregnancies to terms is justified by their
having engaged in the the dirty deed?

BTW, Jim, be careful about repeating attributions from Petie's posts.
They are frequently wrong:

>In <32349@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>>>BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
>>>>rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape. 
>>>
>>>Well, *there's* another interesting, non-viable interpretation of the law!
>>>A rapist has abrogated his right to live by the act of rape, huh?
>
>>The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be.

I wrote none of the above; so, I have no idea why my name is there.

SJM
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Late-term abortion
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:48:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Nov5.183007.14101@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:
>
>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>> abortions?
>
>I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 

Well then, here's a question for _you_ to answer.

How many viable lives (aka, "women") would have to be terminated
without good cause before you'd permit late-term abortions?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:58:38 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov7.173857.12080@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com
(Ray Fischer):

> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...

>>>>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be
>>>>related to
>>>>sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?
>>>
>>>Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
>>>brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.
>>
>>Perhaps a brain is only necessary to communicate intellect.  Maybe the real
>>thing is in some other part of our body.  Maybe it's nothing to do with our
>>bodies at all.  And maybe intellect has nothing to do with personhood,
>>either.  It's even possible, as a lot of the major world religions seem to
>>believe that personhood has nothing to do with one's physical body at all.
> 
> Maybe so.  And maybe everyone in France really speaks English at home,
> and the Earth really IS flat, and Elvis really IS alive.
> 
> Taking any bets?
> 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer            "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
> ray@netcom.com          than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

So Ray- do you see now why you've been called a "science fundie"?
Stating your position as though it's self-evident doesn't make it
accurate, or even self-evident.  Your zeal is remarkably similar to
that of... well, I get sick of ceaseless labelling, so I won't
indulge, but you can see where this is going.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice CAN justify calling infanticide murder
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov10.192504.8228@nas.nasa.gov>, by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> 
> sm>In article <1992Nov9.075659.778@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> te>From article <19240.2afd3caf@levels.unisa.edu.au>, by 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon):
>  
> te> Once a child is born, anybody can take the responsibility
> 
> sm> And if no one does?
>  
> If you are unwilling to make any sacrifice for this child you feel is
> important what makes you think it is any of your business?

> Dan King

Uh, Dan, it was just a question.  What if no one takes the
responsibility for a newborn person?  That's an interesting
question.  And who said anything about whether I (or anyone else)
is "willing to make any sacrifice"?  What if I'm willing - but unable -
to make the necessary sacrifice?  The child can be killed under these
circumstances, right?  The intriguing aspect of this debate
is the ramifications of the various views of personhood.
Whether it's any of my business or not...  Well, Dan, this is
talk.abortion.  BTW, ask me if I'm willing to make sacrifices
for an unwanted child.  Maybe I'll answer, "What makes you think
it is any of your business?"  And maybe I won't.


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a reason to exist
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:37:47 GMT

In article <lefty-091192131607@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.022830.20646@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug
>Holtsinger) wrote:
>> 
>> If certain moderate pro-choicers didn't exist,
>> what would Keegan do?  Play with himself all day?
>
>Doug, if you've failed to learn anything else from USENET, you should at
>least have learned that not everybody shares your particular predilections.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:15:52 GMT


dod>In article <1992Nov4.220133.16130@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
em>In article <lfg9tgINNssc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
 
em>  [.. Re: Clinton's election as president ..]
em> 
em> I think that I can let go of this battle for now. It has been a long
em> and a hard one, and I'm going to take a well earned vacation. For this
em> reason, I'm going to take leave of this news group. 
 
dod>That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
dod>in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
dod>choices.  
 
I guess I missed your post where you said what other choice you
were trying to take away.  Why don't you repost it and we can 
then decide if we are interested in fighting your pro-control 
agenda there also.
 
dod>Doug Holtsinger
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: DODie provides evidence that *he* lied
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:43:33 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->In article <csh1y=n@rpi.edu> 
->>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>> James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
->>> from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
->>> on abortion. 

->> this statement is not correct. 

->    "that is why i thought it important to point out
->     that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
->     legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
->     third trimester."
->             <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

thank you for proving that you lied DODie.

please, as a personal favor to me, continue to report
that quote. thanks again.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: MARK IRA KAUFMAN CAUGHT LYING (was Re: JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:33:10 GMT

In <1d4lhpINNe00@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   I'm afraid that you are wrong again, Ranger Doug.  If you read
>my question, you will see that I was asking for 'yes' or 'no.'  I
>regard the question NOT DIRECTLY ANSWERED.  Please attempt to get
>some grasp of the English language and its grammer BEFORE calling
>someone a liar.  
>   Now that we've straightened THAT out, would you care to answer
>the question NOW?  The possible answers are yes, no, I'm too much
>of a chickenshit to answer it, and  Kaufman caught lying.  You've
>already used the fourth one, and that didn't work.  And everybody
>is just dying to know which of the other three is the true spirit
>of Doug Holtsinger.

I can spare you further trouble, Mark.  I just saw his answer in the 
post I looked at before this one, and the answer to the following 
capitalized question is: "Almost exactly the same circumstances under which
Elizabeth Bartley and Jammer Jim Miller would."  And, *mirabile
dictu*, even Keith Cochran seems to lean that way, although he waffled,
and Doug nailed him for it.

>   Doug:ARE THERE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH YOU WOULD SUPPORT
>A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE?  If there ARE, then say 'YES.
>                            If there are NOT, then say 'NO.'
>   This grammer thing has been known to cause severe head pain to
>those who are not used to thinking.  So go easy, Ranger Doug.  We
>don't want you to hurt yourself trying to think without a pair of
>training wheels bolted to your skull.

>                            your pal,

>                              -Mark

In a word: YES.
Satisfied?

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Arson Attempt at Robbinsdale Women's Clinic
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:00:38 GMT

There's dirty work afoot, mateys.  It was reported that the Robbinsdale
Women's Clinic had to be shut down for a day because certain individuals
had drilled a hole in the roof and had deposited a quantity of gasoline
into the building.  It is not known whether the guilty party(ies) had
attempted to ignite the gasoline and failed or had simply left the
gasoline as a 'surprise.'  It's lucky that the gasoline wasn't ignited.
The local fire department estimated that it would have exploded with the
force of seven sticks of dynamite, which would certainly have killed the
persons on the roof and showered bystanders with lethal doses of debris.

I hope we won't be seeing any more desperate acts like this.

Btw, my computer is suffering from some rare and exotic malady; we've
had service guys out twice in two days.  If you respond to this or any
of my other ravings, please send me a copy via email.  Thanks.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Suxanne's reasoning abilities (Was: BogieBoy's sensor array)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:20:33 GMT

In <1992Nov3.013018.14080@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <SCOTTS.92Oct30152501@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct29.180419.15148@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>   >   Excuse me, but I do say positive things about women. 
>>   >   Such as Suzanne Forgach. 
>>   >
>>   >Perhaps one of the women should answer.  How would you feel if someone
>>   >walked up to you and said, "Rocker, you're a real Suzanne Forgach."
>>   >Is that a positive thing?
>>
>>   Yes. It is extremely positive. It means:
>>   1) She's got integrity.
>>   2) She's got honesty.
>>
>>Are we talking about the same Suzanne Forgach?
>>
>>   3) She doesn't have a chance of getting AIDS.
>>
>>Like Kimberly Bergalis (sp?)

>Let's not forget "the rest of the story".  Dr. Akers, a homosexual, infected
>Kimberly with HIV because (1)He knew she was a virgin, and (2)She refused
>to go out with him.

>Suxanne said it, and with all that integrity and honesty she's got going
>for her, it's _gotta_ be true, right?

Did Suxanne really say that? Where?  And what does Suzanne have to
say about this? :-)

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: BECKY BELL'S AUTOPSY AND COMMENTARY
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 18:05:39 GMT

In <1992Oct27.182012.20287@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>> I am not a "pro-abort," Doug.

>> I am no more going to believe you for saying this, Chris, than you
>> believe me if I say I have never lied to you or Larry.  (Actually, I
>> think you do believe it, but it would spoil the little games you play
>> against me to publicly admit you believe it.)

>You have posted the lies of others, Nyikos; others meaning Wysong, Willke,
>Nathanson, et al. 

You call them lies, but you have yet to demonstrate that they are lies.

> Many people would say that that is tantamount to lying
>yourself. 

Jim Keegan comes to mind.  Almost anyone else knows that to post something
which one believes to be true is not the same as lying.  Or that to quote
the words of someone is to endorse those words.

> I'm a teensy bit more charitable than they are, believe it or
>don't.

I believe it, even though you are adept at innuendo, like in your
"Many people..." sentence.  I believe you are a teensy bit more
honest [it's not a question of being charitable, you know] than to 
assert that the posting of things which Chris Lyman considers to be 
lies is tantamount to lying. 

A teensy bit, that is. :-)

Peter Nyikos
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:31:04 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <9+m13h@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I'm not defending killing and leaving persons
>> to die; that's the job of the pro-choicers. 

>     I am pro-choice.
>     <1992Oct31.185907.14514@ncsu.edu>

It was a joke, son.  I just wanted to see whether you'd
attack my label.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:49:28 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>> I'm not defending killing and leaving persons
->>> to die; that's the job of the pro-choicers. 

->>     I am pro-choice.
->>     <1992Oct31.185907.14514@ncsu.edu>

->It was a joke

that's what all the newbies say when they're shown to
have contradicted themselves.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:23:12 GMT

In article <1d9ad0INN32u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bx7G3r.2M2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>So you are saying there have been no cases where a judge has told a man 
>>to pay childbirth expenses, when the man is not married to the woman?
>
>Scuse me, please, but Don I think I indicated before that I was neither
>blind nor stupid.  Of course there have been a few occasions where a judge
>told a man he had to pay expenses.  Is that the GENERAL CASE?  No.  Were
>those orders limited to SPECIFIC situations?  Yes.
>
>Is our legal system free of mistakes?  No.
>
>Try again.


I'm trying to learn from your debating style.


So, in other words, these judges were ignorant of the law and
made mistakes?  Or they intentionally went beyond the bounds of law?

Are you claiming that there are no laws that would require 
an unmarried man to pay pregnancy and/or childbirth expenses? 

Unmarried men are not liable, under any law, for any expenses 
except child support after birth?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:27:35 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes ...
>Roe can easily be interpreted as abortion on demand, 
>since continuing a pregnancy against one's will appears
>to (via a recently referenced JAMA study) increase the 
>risk of adverse psychological sequelae.  It's really
>very easy: if abortion services are denied, there are
>implicit mental health risks for the respective woman,
>hence abortion services cannot be denied.  Abortion 
>on demand.

Can't have that!  Far better to let them amoral women SUFFER for being
so trashy as to actually have sex!  No more of these pansy excuses
about pain, suffering, and death.  Make them act like ADULTS.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The eternal pessimist
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:06:22 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov8.223255.24777@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>RU-486 isn't a good idea after the 8th week of pregnancy.
By the converse it IS a good idea at times when surgical abortions
are not. 

>  I think
>it's unwise to stop concentrating on the legal status of abortion and
>focus entirely on RU-486, though I agree RU-486 isn't receiving enough
>attention at the moment.
I don't think I said we stop concentrating on the legal status of
abortion completely, just that doing so to the extent we have
been so far is unlikely to achieve the effect we desire.

>Furthermore, I fear that when widespread availability of RU-486 is
>achieved, there will be an ugly mechanism operating in a lot of
>people's minds:  ``you could have used RU-486 -- now it's too late.''
I think that's a big improvement over "You could have used a rubber--
now it's too late." don't you?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: posting path....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:15:01 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

] In article <1992Nov8.000653.24836@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >>>Article 67640 (141 more):
] >>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!rock!taco!jjprice
] >>>From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
] >>>(SAME) Subject: Re: Right to Choose
] >>>Message-ID: <1992Nov6.195649.11104@ncsu.edu>
] >>>Originator: jjprice@c00081-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
] >>>Lines: 79
] >>>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
] >>>Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
] >>>Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
] >>>References: <1992Oct31.192919.15054@ncsu.edu> <82917@ut-emx.uucp>  <83128@ut-emx.uucp>
] >>>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:56:49 GMT
] >>>
] >>>
] >
] >Can anyone explain to me why, if this is suppose to be
] >coming out of 'ncsu.edu' that there is NO reference to that
] >domain in the 'Path:' line above?
] >
] >has ncsu.edu sorta fallen off the planet?
] 
] Lots of posts from ncsu.edu are like that, drieux. I've been noticing it
] for quite some time. Cancels, especially, seem to come direct from "taco",
] judging from the Path: line, but the Sender: is still news@ncsu.
] 
] So, even if something fishy is going on, it's been going on for a while...
] 
] 								- Kevin

This does NOT make me feel warm and fuzzy.

neither of the sites 'rock' nor 'taco' have published
a 'uucp map entry' and hence can not be referenced
in the 'uuwho' or 'uupath' data.

Likewise, the 'uupath' data for ncsu.edu DOES indicate
that there is a legitimate uucp connection to ncsu.edu
which is likewise NOT referenced.

I would presume that this sort of potential problem
would need to be addressed.

Modifying the 'sender' line is NOT as technically
difficult, IMMHO, as making sure that the injection in 
the stream is placed correctly.

Given also the recent rash of concerns about 'forgeries'
in talk.abortion, as well as other matters, I thought I 
would point out that I personally have some concerns here.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:25:53 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <IeyiqU_00WCqQkrXlr@andrew.cmu.edu> David Allen Markley <dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>You're happy that a minority of people (< 43%) in the United States have
>chosen an incompetent draft-dodging tax and spend extreme liberal?

Well, I'm happier that an even smaller minority voted to keep the anti-
freedom candidate that the Republicans proposed.

However, if Clinton does turn out to be an "extreme liberal", then I'll be
REALLY happy.  My perception is that he's a moderate.  Which at least is
a step up from a conservative.

I don't think Clinton is any more incompetent than Bush was.

"Tax and spend" could easily refer to the Reagan and Bush administrations.

And the draft dodging doesn't bother me a smidgen.  Since I consider the
draft to be an abhorrence, I actually kinda respect the guy for it, if indeed
he *did* dodge the draft.

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

The difference between the radical right and the radical left is that the
radical right is scary and the radical left is silly.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47848 alt.flame:14750