HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:15:48 GMT

note followup

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article (Michael Polen):
>> 
>> Considering the chances for a normal miscarriage (abortion by God?  This
>> could start a whole new branch of discussion!) and our abnormally high
>> infant mortality rate, not being aborted isn't exactly safe either?
>
>Abortion is 100% fatal.  Obviously, being born isn't.

Pah.  Nonsense.  Everyone has or will die as a direct consequence of
having been born.  100% fatal.  No known exceptions.

>Anyway:
>According to the book "The Politics of Breastfeeding" by Gabrielle(last name?),
>the world infant mortality rates are directly related to the rates of hospital 
>births in a given country.  [...]

Good idea, breastfeeding.  Also some indicatation that it leads to a
more intelligent child.  Interesting, eh?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51858 alt.activism:17491 alt.rush-limbaugh:7452 or.politics:276
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Keywords: transcript, obfuscation, confusion
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:06:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <Bw2uvr.93J@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  Presumably Ross Perot
>  the politician will do the bidding or Ross Perot the underwriter [ . . . ]

>  I'm not criticizing buying political power, success, or influence
>  per se, I'm just saying that Perot is no different in this respect
>  than, say, the League of Conservation Voters, the Moral Majority
>  or the NRA.

There does seem to be a difference, though.  If R.P.'s impecunious
brother (who is also a politician) gets his money from the
underwriters' PAC it's reasonable to think that the transaction had
something to do with the economic interests of underwriters as
underwriters and that if the brother wants to keep on being a
politician who has enough money to get elected he'd better deliver to
the people who make that possible.  If R.P. himself reaches into his
own pocket and pulls out some money that he earned through his
underwriting business and spends it on his political campaign, there's
much less reason to think that the action is intended to advance his
underwriting business rather than political projects that have nothing
to do wih underwriting.  Integrity is easier to maintain if you're
financially independent.
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"The trouble with the modern world is that
(jk@panix.com)		 stupidity has begun to think."  (Cocteau)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:18:58 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct13.162351.5680@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>>> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>>> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>>> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>>> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>>> hypocrisy?
>
>>	"Now, live on prime time: The Surgery Hour!  Real broadcasts of
>> open-heart surgery, gangrenous limb removal, cancer operations, hemorrhoid
>> removal.."
>>	What, you don't think children need to watch this?  And yet you still
>> think surgery is acceptable?  What are you, some kind of stiking hypocrite?
>
>I said nothing about operations to remove human tissue, I was talking 
>about the tissue itself.  There's nothing upsetting about viewing 
>a heart, a limb, or a piece of cancerous tissue.  If the pro-aborts
>can say that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" just like
>any other human tissue, then they shouldn't have any objections to 
>letting children look at this "clump of cells". 

Cool.  Then, naked people are wholly natural, and dead bodies are just
tissue, and blood is just tissue, then you also think we should show
naked people, car accidents, and burn victims on prime time TV?
And if kids need to know about abortion, surely they need to know how
the baby got there in the first place?  Why not _show_ them (all right
everybody, on your knees and one and two and in and out, keep those
stomach muscles tight!, in and out and one and two, legs UP ladies!, ...)

>> Get it now?  This is another strawman.  Another pointless non-issue.
>No, it's just another example of the hypocrisy demonstrated by 
>the pro-aborts.

Standard Holtsinger sleaze.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:33:00 GMT

In article <14OCT92.21213487@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>>	If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
>>support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
>>because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.
>> 
>
>Excuse me, but isn't "voluntary and avoidable behavior" by the man also 
>involved in this process?  Do you think it is fair to force women to pay for 
>consenting to sex with their health and possibly their lives without insisting 
>on the same consequences for men who consent to sex?
>
>
>                               .... Heather.

	Men are required to pay child support of they get put in jail. I'd
call that paying.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Quayle on Rationing (was Re: GORE/QUAYLE/STOCKDALE: VP debate text (10/13) part 2/2)
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:40:15 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct14.191711.18252@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:

>  BRUNO:  Mr Vice President.
>  QUAYLE:  ...

	[On the dangers of rationing health care...]

>  Remember when we rationed energy in this country?  Waiting lines at
>the gasoline stations.

	He mixed up cause and effect here. The rationing was _because_
of a shortage, to insure that everyone had their fair share.

	I wonder how Quayle would have handled such a shortage. Let
assorted sleazebags rip people off?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 05:27:20 GMT


In a previous article, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) says:
>
>The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
>your life to a condom?  Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
>a rabbit, here, have a condom"?  Isn't the big push toward "safe" sex a
>little like saying if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
>chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  Since the failure rate of
>condoms is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-30%, isn't continuing to
>condone "playing around" about the same as condoning Russian roulette? 
>
>
Again, NO ONE is telling ANYONE to go out and play around.

But it is unrealistic to the point of being genocidal to assume that 
just because we tell people not to fool around, that means they're not
going to.

I don't think that anyone will deny, the only safe sex is either no
sex, or sex only in a monogamous relationship, and even then, you
can never be sure, unless you've been together and faithful to each
other since you were 13 years old.

But we have to be realistic.  Kids are having sex.  They have, they do,
and they will continue to, with no reguard to the constant warnings
about STD's, (especially HIV), and the problem of teen pregnancy.
For thousands of years we've been telling our kids not to have sex, and 
it's done no good.

Ideally, yes, I agree, "safer sex" lessons are not the answer. 
But this is not an ideal world, and I would rather see folks have the
70-85% protection that condoms will supply, if used properly, then
do without and be 100% unprotected.

If you can find ANYONE who condones indiscriminate sex over abstainance
or monogamy for our kids, I would be suprised.  Protecting them by giving
them the information they need, and making protection available in case
they decide to ignor the facts, is not condoning.

It is an attempt to preserve.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52119 alt.politics.clinton:10731
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Some people are AMAZED for different reasons...
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:03:03 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Apparently some people are "amazed" that Quayle's Marshall Plan quote
is being taken seriously.

	Well, it will continue until Al "did not" Gore gives us a different
number.

	Gore does indeed advocate an environmental Marshall Plan.  The only
figure to go on (so far) is 100 billion dollars.

	So, Mr. Gore, just answer the question:

	How much will it cost?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50790 alt.activism:17349 ca.politics:8606
From: hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Keywords: cia, fbi, kill file, fda, dea, bush, nwo, kissinger
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:41:05 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>ha
>>>ha ha ha

>Actually, I think the real scream is the Len and Wade show.

>In particular, Len and Wade should remember that the people I was
>responding to was not talking about covert activities in 
>violation of the law.  They were talking about those nice boys in dark
>suits with hearing aids who are present at presidential campaign
>rallies.

Hey, I can't speak for Len.  I however was just expressing my reaction
to anyone who would let the supposed mandate of the CIA be used as an
arguement for what they actually do - or as it has been put better
before
Jane you ignorant slut.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:32:09 GMT

In article <ld6leqINN1cl@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>|> Paul Smith) writes:
>|> :Melanie Wertz) writes:
>|> :>Your parents are physically abusive.
>|> :>Your father IS the father of your child.
>|> :
>|> :I DON'T CARE WHAT EXCEPTION SITUATIONS YOU COME WITH, YOU (and the STATE) 
>|> :DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE *MY* PARENTAL AUTHORITY. *PERIOD*.
>
>Are you saying that if you beat and rape your daughter, the
>community has no right to step in and protect her?  That
>is wrong. *PERIOD*.

This is a joke, right?

I said nothing of the kind.  Beating and raping my daughter is breaking the
law - and has nothing to do with exercising parental authority.

Actually, I think the *community* has an obligation to step in and protect
children.  Unfortunately we've let the State take over that task and they've
done only a so-so (at best) job of it, and may soon overstep their bounds
when it comes to this abortion-on-demand-even-for-minors garbage.
-Paul
--
---
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52228 alt.politics.clinton:10816
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:32:17 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Oct11.191826.7541@ampex.com> russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) writes:
>
> Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
>> for that reason he has served his country regardless of where he was stationed
>	As a teenager in the early 60s, the only guys I saw rushing
	to get in and "serve this country" were the terminally stupid
	and the nuts.  Everyone else tried to get in the National 
	Guard, school, even the m word (married).
>
>> Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.
>>  
>
	Not in everybody's opinion, or are you God, Steve?

>I wouldn't consider slogging through the rice paddys of beautiful southeast
>aisa as serving my country. certainly not defending it...
>
>	I consider a young man's opposition to "that" war a sign of
	thoughtfulness -- and I think a man who opposed that war as
	strongly as BC did, and went to a lot of trouble to avoid
	it as BC did, will think long and carefully before sending
	anyone else into a war -- any war.  Because he knows you don`t
	have to go out killing people to be a man.

-steve
>a ex-deep-water sailor
>"we rode to work"

		Judy. Congratulations, Steve, ex-deep-water-sailor.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: IRAN-CONTRA-GATE: Did Walsh & Bush make a deal?
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:26:27 GMT

[From PeaceNet's elections.usa]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 286       Did Walsh & Bush make a deal? 
whitejanss      elections.usa   11:25 am  Oct 10, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Christopher White <whitejanss@igc.org>
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Washington Post, as printed in the San Jose Mercury News 
(10/10/92), says that "Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh reached 
an understanding with the White House last summer that any 
additional questioning of President Bush on Iran-Contra matters, 
if needed, would take place after the election, according to 
administration sources." 

The story said that "Walsh's office would not comment Friday on 
the understanding with Bush". 

The story was buried on page 4 of the 5th section of the morning 
	[typical mainstream Free Press.... --HB]
edition of the Mercury news. 

Does anyone have further information about the alleged deal? 

Christopher White 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50783 alt.politics.elections:16039 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6633
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:12:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <92284.043447MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>[Distribution trimmed]
>
>
>Great. Martin L. Adkins, you are a really swell guy who cares about the
>people who work for him.
>
>In fact, I wish there were more employers like you out there. Unfortunately,
>there tends to be rather a lot of employers tending towards the mean and nasty
>end of the scale, who will deny any family leave or even fire anyone who asks
>about it. (After all, in the middle of a recession, there's hundreds of people
>ready to line up for a job, why provide actual benefits when you don't have
>to?) This is why the family leave bill is needed. Get the point?
>
I clearly get your point you, however, seem to have missed mine completely.
Nasty employers will get around any family leave problems.  If you want to
fire someone you can really just create a reason if you are a nasty employer
and as a result the employee would then have to sue and prove that the
employer fired them because they wanted family leave.  As to whether or not
I am a "really swell guy" as much as I'd like to think so I really think that
what I was was a really smart employer that created a team.  Liberals always
forget that people go into business to make money and not to provide jobs.
That is the way it is and the way it should be.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Keywords: transcript, obfuscation, confusion
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:43:14 GMT

In article <Bw1237.5Hy@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> [silly attack deleted]
>
>  Andre Marrou was also put on the ballot in all 50 states
>  by his supporters, but he didn't have enough money to buy
>  a presence before the media or to air 30 minute spots on
>  prime-time TV.   If Perot was not fabulously wealthy he
>  would be a complete unknown, politically speaking.  he has
            ^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Just like Marrou.  I'm glad he has the money.

>  *bought* far more influence than the biggest, meanest,
>  richest lobbyist in Washington.  He wouldn't even be on
>  the ballot in Texas if he weren't a multi-zillionaire. 

It's funny how Peter acridly attacks Perot's ideas to "soak
the rich", and then launches into vicious attacks of Perot 
based on the fact that he IS rich.  

Hmmm...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: The Baggage Vote -- Bill & George Tow Party-Line
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:31:00 GMT

Ain't it a shame....

Try and vote for the Jazz Man, 
or even the Golfing Prezident,

and what you get instead is all 
the Baggage of the Democrat & Republican Party.

It's like marryin' mafia.
"Let me make you an offer..."

-Sdt  ;^)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
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 21:24:52 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

: If the family leave policy were the only difference between the US and
: Germany, you might have a point.  As it is I claim that other advanteges
: they have over us allow them to bear the burden of family leave and
: still compete.  

Such as?

--
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



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50942 alt.rush-limbaugh:7110 alt.politics.bush:8651 alt.politics.clinton:9744 alt.politics.elections:16126
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:55:50 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <21099@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.233532.23381@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>What seems to be missing in all this discussion of Slick is his inability
>to tell the truth, until it's drug out of him.  The discussion of his
>trip to Moscow, his avoiding the draft, his "drug use", all of his
>positions, involve his basic honesty.  It has nothing to do with the
>draft, student demonstrations or anything else.
>

	EXXXCCCUUUSE ME!  Did someone bring up TRUTH?  I thought this
	was a politician you're talking about?  What has that to do with
	truth?

	PS:  All you who accuse Clinton of being dishonest, why don't	
	     you ask Danny boy to come clean about his drug use????
	     Ask George to come clean about the Iraq stuff (Look folks,
	     Georgie porgie used to be head of the CIA, the CIA folks!
	     The job of the CIA is DECEPTION, DECEPTION, DECEPTION)

	PPS:  When was the last time you turned yourself in to the law
	      after noticing you were driving over the speed limit, slid
	      through a stop sign in 2nd, etc., etc.  You'd think
	      all of you are Republican Party Reptiles.  You can't all
	      be one, though.  Some of us have to be the chumps.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.correct,
Subject: MODEL UN NEWSGROUP CREATION
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 15 Oct 1992 16:05:33 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    There is growing support throughout the net for a creation
    of a talk.politics.model-un newsgroup.  I have received
    replies from UNebraska, MIT and Britain and more.  I have
    instructed all to please post to news.groups where a dis-
    cussion is currently taking place.  Rob Reinhart also stated
    that there were people who did not have access to the net
    who were in favor.  Also, I would ask all those in favor
    of the talk.politics.model-un throw their collective
    weight behind Rob's suggestion of talk.politcs.world-gov
    and talk.politcs.world-unity.  Please be sure to post to
    news.groups and spread the word about getting support.
                                     Peace,
                                           Matt in NYC

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on DODGING this question?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:59:08 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
: 
: Will people earning less than $200,000/year see higher or lower taxes under
: a Clinton administration. 

Well, assuming that tax rates remain the same, one would expect to 
pay more in taxes unless the family's income remains the same or
goes down.  Doesn't one want his/her family's income to increase
over time.

: Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on
: equivocating on this crucial question? 

Because the question is stupid and violates common sense?  

: Is Quayle right or not? Will we be
: replacing one tax-and-spend republicrat with another or not?

We?  Singapore's participating in this election?

--
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



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50266 alt.activism:17283 ca.politics:8533