HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 04:15:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.195203.15406@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena) writes:
>Apparently you don't listen to Rush.  In a recession with ~7% unemployment
>the thing we DON'T need is three months of unemployment promised to a
>worker.  This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
>mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
>I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.
>When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
>will only result in greater unemployment.  These bosses know their
>employees well enough to allow "slack" for emergencies.  What good is
>an unemployed worker in paying bills, providing food and welfare for
>her/his family?  If this bill would have passed, it would have required
>"Aid to temporarily unemployed workers who have sick children and who
>don't have to work".  Get real, family values is working for your children/
>spouse.
>

Okay, folks:  this is what came of the Vietnam generation's insistance that
history was "irrelevant" and that it shouldn't be taught comprehensively.
The direct result of the deemphasis of history is Rush Limbaugh and the people 
who find his remarks credible and new.

There is a wonderful biography of Teddy Roosevelt that was just released in
which it talks about his transformation into a reformist after he went to
Albany and confronted the realities of the industrial revolution rather
than the wishful rhetoric of his class.  All the post quoted above is is a
rehash of very ancient statements of the 'noble bond between the worker and
his employer' (where one is truly deserved, of course).  It is no more true
today than it was 100 years ago when we heard it the first time.

If people were required to study history they would recognize this bs for 
what it is. And place American labor issues in context.  Small employers have 
the least amount of slack to cut for their workers.  They aren't going to
be able to be heros or nice guys because their margin is too tight.
There is no reality to Limbaugh's claim at all!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:02:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct12.105727.10446@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
>Mike Polen (mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
>: Tim Miller) writes:
>: |> 
>: |> 	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
>: |> it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
>: |> 
>:  	Heh heh heh.  Man attends meeting in the white house on support 
>: 	to Iraq, can't remember a thing about it.  Anyone ever see 
>: 	"The Manchurian Candidate?"
>
>  	Heh heh heh.  Man is President for eight years, can't remember a
>	thing about it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
>
>Dammit I haven't seen "The Manchurian Candidate!"  I don't get it...


  Heh heh heh.  Man denies having ever seen the movie, says he "doesn't
  get it".   Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"

            

---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Bush is dead meat.
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:39:49 GMT

"Four more beers", they were chanting at the Republican National Convention.
That's about all Bush is going to get.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:38:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1687B9DA5.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <Oct09.003616.54386@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
> 
>>>Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.
>>
>>Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument works.
>>I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off with the
>>hurricanes.
>>
>>By having sex, a woman has "signed" a virtual "consent form" that reads
>>more or less "God forbid we actually concieve, I will carry this child to
>>term, 'less my life is in danger" So on so forth.
>>
>Where in the world is a copy of this "virtual form?"  I have never seen
>one, nor do I recall ever having agreed to its terms.  In computer
>lingo, virtual means "imaginary" or "not really there".  This certainly
>seems to describe your consent form!

Well, yeah.  Another name for it is "Implied contract."
> 
>>When she is raped, she did not consent to carry the child to term, and so can
>>do with it what she wants.
>>
>Then you are saying that the fetus does *not* have an absolute right to
>life? 

Yep.

>In some cases, the woman can decide on an abortion? 

Yep.

>Then you
>are really saying that *you* get to decide under what circumstances she
>gets to make that decision, and in all other cases you will decide for
>you? 

Pretty much, yeah.

>Thank you for stating the right-to-lifers' real argument.

Well, this is A right-to-lifer's real argument.  Er, an argument that can be
used by a right-to-lifer.  You knew what I meant.  Pro-life arguments are as
varied as pro-lifers.  (And don't say "That's not a lot" either!)

>>I know this argument has pokable holes, do me a favor and don't flame me,
>>I just work here.
>>
>I see no reason to flame you.  Your argument is certainly weak, though.
>Would you care to try to close some of the holes you admit to seeing?

Not really.  Most arguments have pokable holes, especially the ones used in 
flamewars.  Besides I'm trying to be vocally neutral on this one.

Big Al.  Who still has flashbacks from the sigh thread.  (a.s.b.)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Minor Complication here...
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:25:30 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct14.232529.20548@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>] From article <grendel.719003246@camelot>, by grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea):
>] > 
>] > You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
>] > wants to reduce troops in Europe.
>] 
>] Hmmmm, I believe LBJ said things like that about troops in Asia,
>] specifically, Viet Nam...
>
>
>Is it Just me, or Are We NOT at War in Euorope
>defending it from the Internal Disruption of
>an Armed Revolutionary Struggle......

Actually, US forces *are* involved in the war in Europe. Brave MAC
pilots are flying in and out of a war zone as we type. One of our
ally's aircraft has been shot down. Air Force personnel are on the
ground in Sarajevo right now. The Serbs are using real bullets.
You may remember Sarajevo from your history classes, it's where
Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated starting World War I. You
remember WWI, the one a *Democrat* got us into.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: An old tempest in a teapot (was Re: Libertarian candidate on Larry King Live)
Followup-To: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:47:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.140527.4775@desire.wright.edu>,
 demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>       I was also bothered by the way the LP committee lock-stepped in behind
>Marrou on his personal problems.  (Mainly, an ex-wife who says he owes her $).

  I would hardly call the arduous seven-hour process they went through
before voting to be "lock-step behind Marrou".  Also, the ex-wife
never made a claim or filed anything against him; after the
allegations were raised BY A THIRD PARTY (more below) she issued a
statement that she was not concerned about the missed payments.

>       When that became public, there was a move to remove him from the
>ticket.  The only reason no one outside the party hears about it is because
>the press ignores the LP for the most part.

  The "movement" was one (count it, one) disgruntled former campaign
worker with an axe to grind, and a lot of additional people who
lock-stepped in behind him with practically no grasp of the facts of
the case.  Which is why the NatCom  reaffirmed Andre as our candidate
after that grueling session.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51271 alt.activism:17419
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:07:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.080833.26250@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
    >>From observation, the objective qualities that seem to make
    >>things happen the best, in both business and science, are
    >>qualities that are often thought of as masculine and as such,
    >>for whatever reasons, not as readily adopted by women.
    >>
    >Ah, perhaps, but what does that have to do with my question?
    >Are you implying female scientists get the shitty end of the
    >stick because they don't readily adopt these objective
    >qualities?

No, I'm STATING that PEOPLE that don't adopt such objectiv measures
don't have the same of success.

For example, "asshole" coworkers and/or bosses. These people are a fact of
life. They will always be among us. Yet, from personal observation,
most men I've worked with deal "better" with "assholes" than most women
I've worked with. My observations show that women take asshole coworkers
much more personally than men -- much to their career detriment.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:45:16 GMT

"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 12-Oct-92 Re: rights and
>responsibili.. by kellmeyer steven l@ux1.c 
>> 2) A fetus is an unviable tissue mass.

>This assertion is false. If fetuses have been know to survive early
>deliveries and botched abortions becoming born children then the fetus
>is viable.

No argument from me.  The pro-aborts think it is true, though, and 
I am demonstrating that the sum total of their premises leads to a 
ludicrous result.  Unless you are in favor of legal abortion but 
believe that a human being exists from the moment of conception?

>> 4) Abortion is NOT murder (see 1 and 2 above for clarification), it is
>>    a medical procedure involving the removal of unwanted tissue that must
>>    be kept safe and legal.

>This is an assertion of your beliefs and/or opinion. I see abortion as
>murder. " a medical procedure ... that must be kept safe and legal" is
>also an opinion. Many people don't want to see murder legalized. (Note:
>I didn't say this was my opinion. I'm just showing that all you've done
>was state assertions.)

Not my opinions.  The opinions of supporters of legal abortion.

>> 5) Abortion must be kept available so that all women have equal choices 
>>     about maintaining a viable economic lifestyle choice.

>Women can have choices without abortion. The postings on the French
>birth control pill (RU485?) show that. Not in this country yet. But
>I have a feeling that it will eventually get through the system here.

>Question. What do you mean by logic errors? Granted if I believe that
>I'm Houdini, that's an error in logic. But just because someone has 

Well, that's an error in self-identification.  I haven't seen the proof
by which you come to the conclusion that you are Houdini, so I have no
way of knowing whether or not an error in logic occurred.

>a different opinion than you because of their moral upbringing doesn't
>mean that there are errors in logic.

Certainly true.  Also irrelevant, since I didn't mention morality at all.

>= John, I'm afraid that the logic of legal abortion makes it QUITE clear that
>= it takes *ONE* to produce a child.  As the pro-aborts are so pleased to

>Question. How is this so?  Maybe in lab experiments they can merge two eggs,
>but that still takes some force outside the mother to make the fertilization
>possible. Without fertilization there will be no child. As far as we know
>now, it takes two to make fertilization happen.

If you believe that a human being exists from the moment of conception,
then two people are necessary to create a human being.  If you believe 
the fetus is an unviable tissue mass, than it takes only one person,
the pregnant woman, to make a human being.  The man merely supplies raw
materials.

>ag

Steve Kellmeyer

-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Famous Republican Draft Dodgers
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:27:45 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.


   *Newt Gingrich - Copped the I-Had-to-Take-Care-of-My-Aging-Grandmother
                    plea. Poor granny.

   *Phil Graham - Copped the ``Essential Industry'' deferment plea. His
                  essential industry was as an economics teacher! Yow!

   *Dick Cheney - Copped the student deferment plea. Played football!

   *Danny Quayle - Hid out in the National Guard. Dad helped get him in!

   It should be noted that all of the above also supported the Vietnam
   war. 

   Let's not hear anything more about Clinton's war record.

Mike
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:26:10 GMT
	<1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>
	<MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu>
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 10:39:00

Matt Austern writes:

   ... if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
   will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
   belief is somewhat different.

   Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
   very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
   (the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
   neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
   commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
   Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
   elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
   party from fragmenting.

What's happening to them is the mirror image of the Democrats 20 years
ago.  As Matt says, it derives from having won some elections; factions
within the party start to put more priority on their particular beliefs
than on making the whole messy coalition win an election.  Clinton's
talent, so far, is in understanding what's possible and what isn't, and
getting enough people to agree on a few beliefs while letting others
ride.  If this historical cycle plays out the way the last one did, wait
16 or 20 years to see victory-hungry Republicans forging a more
legitimate consensus, and defeating spoiled Democrats who have again
broken into factions.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51075 ca.politics:8633 ba.politics:6048 alt.flame:13496
From: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
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
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:14:06 GMT
Reply-To: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct9.174833.3452@wetware.com>, diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>
>] >Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>] >and Really are not the sort of things
>] >that decent persons with good personal
>] >hygeine standards would wish to involve
>] >themselves in/with/towards.
>] 
>] 
>] 	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>] Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>] you flood your bedroom.
>]         
>If sarcasm was posted to the net, would anybody notice?

Only if a tree fell on them, and no one heard it coming.

>
>(Well SOMEONE had to say it)
>
>Diana
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:08:55 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
: >bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
: >in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
: ...
: >Spike Burkhardt
: 
: Where is this states in the Bill of Rights?

The rights to life, liberty, and property are not guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10, Amendment 27, and one other article
that was not, and probably will not be passed).  These rights
are protected in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The problems with invoking the Fourteenth Amendment for the pro-life
argument are:

	1.  Do the unborn qualify as "persons" as far as the Constitution
            is concerned?

	2.  Do the unborns' rights supercede those of the born?  Roe v. 
	    Wade outlawed outlawing abortions because of the Fourth 
	    Amendment, and how it applies to women.  Saying that the
	    rights of the unborn, or even the rights of minors, supercede
	    those of competent adults could be a nasty legal precedent
	    that would open another ugly can of worms.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
In-reply-to: demon@desire.wright.edu's message of 8 Oct 92 14:40:03 EST
Organization: pubs
	ct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk>
	<1992Oct8.144004.4637@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:28:36 CDT

Stupendous Man writes:

   It's just really fun to hear the same people who can't prove that 
   Bush was in Paris say it's still a big issue to state that Clinton 
   being in Moscow is not.
   :)

I'm not sure what your smiley indicates--just kidding?  I hope so.  The
two cases are so far from comparable, it's hard to know where to start.

First, *whether* Clinton went to Moscow has never been in dispute, nor
(in my opinion) does it indicate anything.  *Whether* Bush was in Paris,
on the other hand, *is* in dispute, but would be significant if it
turned out to be true.  (My guess is it isn't, and I don't like "my
side" dealing in red herrings any more than the other side.)

Second, as with all these 1969 allegations, there's a big difference
between what a student did 23 years ago versus what an elected, or
soon-to-be elected, vice president does.  That's why Bush's lack of
candor (and possibly outright wrongdoing) concerning Iran-contra and the
Saddam arms build-up is magnitudes more important than Clinton's (I
admit) inadequate style of discussing his student activities.

Third, as many are pointing out, joining an antiwar demonstration just
wasn't an unusual (or disloyal) thing to do.  There was a serious
dispute about the national policy; lots of very mainstream, even
conservative, people, opposed the war.  And being a tourist in Moscow;
well, if that's a subversive act, lots of people are suspect.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 8 Oct 1992 04:20:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Well I had my fingers crossed...It looks like Perot's first program was
a hit. An independent survey group has called Perot's program a "home run"!
The show was number two in the ratings and something like 16.5 million people
were watching it! Just out of curiosity, how many active voters are there in
the US? I'm just happy that people were watching. I am pretty positive that
anybody who would watch would stand a good chance of being converted. The only
question in my mind was would people have open enough minds to keep the channel
on for a few. I watched my mom (Democrat) as she watched the program and I
noticed that she was hooked after a few minutes of "Don't make me watch this,
Tom." She seems to be giving Perot a good thinking over now.

-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex