HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:45:27 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>>> I don't know of many people who are comfortable with the idea
>>> of abortion after fetal viability.

>> 1.  Fetal viability is closer to the third trimester.
>> 2.  Perhaps you've heard of something called Roe v. Wade?

> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the
> term of pregnancy.  The Supreme Court ruled that the states may
> prohibit abortion during the third trimester except when the 
> abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's "health" or life, 
> but they gave "health" a very broad definition, including emotional 
> and psychological health.  Thus women can obtain abortions
> throughout the term of pregnancy for practically any reason.

Be original, Doug.  You tried pushing this lie last summer.  Lots of
people did their homework and refuted you.  I see that Susan has
already posted the relevant passage in RvW.

Btw, I remember asking you what the hell you meant by 'abortion-on-
demand.'  Don't you remember me suggesting the possiblity that some
women are unhappy about getting abortions?  Aren't you insinuating
that all women who get abortions really _want_ abortions?

Doug, you are a sexist for believing that all women who _get_
abortions _want_ abortions.
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:07:17 GMT

In article <5OCT199221402013@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen
Tice) writes:

|>In article <1992Oct6.003817.15753@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM
|>writes...
|>>In article <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen
|>Tice)               writes...

|>>>alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
|>> 
|>>To avoid dying in a war that was without cause, I support him
|>>even more.
|>
|>Going to Oxford is very like going to Canada. Protesting the war
|>by going to Moscow is very like Jane Fonda in Hanoi. I don't
|>like it, but I can live with it. 
|>
|>I have a problem beyond this, which has to do with how effective
|>the soviets were in recruiting people. This is where my concern 
|>is. (Kim Philby and company, considered)

Ah trying to claim that Clinton is a Russian KGB agent eh?

This is like the crap that came up in the British Gutter Press in which
conversations between the British Labour leaders and Russian Ambassadors were
portrayed as being subversive. Fact is that it is protocol for diplomats to meet
politicans from all parties in their host nation (this is their job) and report
back what their opinions to their leaders (which is also their job). When a
diplomat has got nothing important out of a politician he writes back "Wishes
were expressed that relations between our countries should improve", in the case
of an aly it would be "continue to remain warm and cordial" or whatever.

As a matter of fact Philby etc were at CAMBRIDGE, not Oxford and as you know
there is little else to do in the fens, especialy as at the time all the Women
were fenced in at Girton.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Abortion (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:24:21 GMT

Here's a clue for all of you:  most of the people you'd so fervently like
to impress and/or control don't want anything to do with your pro-life or
pro-choice movements.  Your shrill arguments and hysteria leave many many
people cold.

I don't think anybody I've ever known, whether pro-life or pro-choice or 
somewhere in the middle, ever felt that abortion was a cool idea.  And anyone
who's had one or been the male partner of someone having abortion can tell
you it is not fun.  Not convenient, not pleasant, not painless, not easy.
The issue is not whether abortion is a good thing.  It isn't.  The issue is
whether we know enough about it to say that it's really murder, or really
ending a pregnancy.  And we can't know that, scientifically or in any truly
objective manner.  It's a philosophical question, a spiritual question.

I'm willing to bet that most Americans find abortion a queasy subject,
with no easy understanding of right and wrong, no certainty that it is
or is not murder of unborn children, but just a vague feeling of unease
that it might be.

But--and this is the crucial point-- that unease doesn't translate into
a certainty that abortion is clearly wrong for all people, the way that
we think of murder.  So people hedge their convictions, by saying...
"except in the case or rape or incest..."   "unless the life of the mother
is in danger..."  or by saying "I wouldn't have one, but..."

For people in this group, abortion is off-limits as a personal option in
the case of unwanted pregnancy, but they are still not willing to extend
that personal feeling into a general law for everyone else to follow.  If
you fall into this group, as I do, you find nothing of value in the whole
abortion debate as it's currently framed.  Pro-choicers just come off as
hysterical people waving coat-hangers (really repulsive image).  Pro-
lifers just seem like religious zealots hoping for social control (and
vaguely, some kind of punishment for fornicators--i.e. pregnancy).  You
all may be surprised to hear this, but a huge part of our population
thinks abortion is both undesirable and necessarily legal.

My $.02

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:09:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <28SEP199211030871@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...
>
>>  (STEPHEN TICE) discusses Original Sin:
>
>>>|...The people who are responsible for this mess are the ones
>>>|who year after year have been calling for bigger government
>>>|and porkbarrel spending (definitely not me).   Those are the
>>>|people who should pay...
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes they should pay directly. Indirectly, you (and I) are also
>>>responsible as well -- we willingly paid taxes which fed the hog.
>>>
>>>You'll say you had no choice since the law forcibly requires
>>>contribution. Fact is, you chose to live in a way that fed the
>>>power system
>> 
>>  What the F**K are you talking about?!  Thake you Thorazine and
>>  go sit in the corner!
>
>So how about the issue? You've paid taxes willingly. You sign the 
>witholding forms or pay the tax check, or the property tax, or 
>the sales tax. It's you who supplies the life blood of the system. 
>
>Let me make this easy.
>
>If a gun is held to your head with the demand that you kill someone
>else or die yourself -- are you any less responsible for murdering
>someone else?

  I say "yes".   And most US courts agree that acts committed under
  duress do not have the same legal significance.



>>  Well, you're the expert -- I'm not going to argue with Stephen 
>>  Tice on the subject of madness.
>
>So discuss the issue of moral responsibility instead.

  No, moral isues are a religious topic -- purely subjective,
  culturally variable, and not subject to objective closure.
  Let's stick to objective facts:  you want more of my money 
  and I say you can't have it.


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad (Pat Buchanan)
From: wtsimmons@ualr.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:31:17 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock

In article <pu8oeio@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep15.205700.1900@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP writes:
> |Rush takes the most extreme liberals and sheds light on the mindset
> |that could possibly accept that kind of hogwash.  
> 
> By this reasoning, criticism of white supremacists is valid
> criticism of all conversatives-- since that's the conservative
> mindset that could possibly accept that kind of hogwash.  Pat
> Buchanan is a raving bigot-- therefore all Republicans are!  The
> GOP could go KKK at any second.  How easy my political decisions
> are now that I've understood political thinking... the Andrew
> Ford way!

Just curious ... what has Pat Buchanan said that indicates he is a
"raving bigot"?  Do, please use direct quotes or as close as possible,
because I have heard him many times and NEVER heard him say anything
that would indicate he is a bigot.

Cheers,
Toby
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: Americans believe Anita Hill
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:15:54 GMT

The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?

James L. Heilman
_________________
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:42:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.155519.13881@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM () writes:
>The point about "very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion"
>was very well said Andrea.  In the 70's I can remember planned parenthood
>trying to sell the point that Pro-Choice was simply an educational matter
>about trying to avoid conception via the pill, IUD's... not about abortion.
>What Pro-Choice is practicing now is "Limited Choice" without full discloser
>of all the choices.

You know I try to stay out of these aboration debates. I really do. It's
because opinions on aborations are like assholes and fingerprints. Every
body has their own and they're all just a little bit different. Unless
you get your opinons from someone else. But when I see false-ness posted I
just *gotta* point it out. If you are really interested in the "very real 
physical and emotional risks of abortion" then I suggest that you read 
C. Everett Coop's study on it. Since I'm sure most of you won't take the time 
to do so let me give you a quick history. In the latter days of Reagan's last 
term some of his advisors came to him saying that if they could get medical 
evidence that aboration was physically and/or emotionally damageing to woman 
then they would have probably be able to get aboration banned. Ronny went to 
his Surgeon General and said "Do the study." But the whole thing back fired. 
The study concluded that 1)Physical damage of a legal aboration was a small 
fraction of damage done to a woman carrying to term.  2) There was "virtually 
no detectable long term emotional damage" in womem who have had aborations. 
Don't take my word on this---instead go down to your local library and find out
for yourself. Still amazes me that some will scream about how aborations are 
physically and emotionally harming women and even more amazeing is that so many
will just take the word of someone else because it "fits" into what they want 
to believe. Tell me Mr/s. Lockheed what do you base your "Limited Choice" 
statement on? It has always been the policy of Planned Parenthood to disclose 
all choices. If you want to talk about not giving full discloser of all choices
then you have to talk about the current adminstrations policies. You are
entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to try to influence
others by using opinions disguised as facts. BTW Planned Parenthood is still
about better eduaction---that's how they try to stop the need for aborations.

Stan Knight
|Perfection would be free legal aborations and no one would ever want one|
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48920 talk.politics.theory:4406 sci.med:18264
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,sci.med
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:10:15 GMT
 <1686AADCF.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> <1992Sep23.215611.5980@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep30.214235.15591@midway.uchicago.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,sci.med
Distribution: world
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Sep30.214235.15591@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.215611.5980@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>>and by the way, quit with the homophobic accusations. AIDS will most 
>>certainly spread throughout the heterosexual community the same way. 
> 
> It most certainly will not, or else it would have already.
> 
> Men are seventeen times more "efficient" at transmitting HIV than
> women.  Heterosexuals would have to be more than four times as promiscuous
> as homosexuals before the spread would even begin to approach that
> in the homosexual population.  

	Ever heard of the African AIDS epidemic (more like pandemic, 
currently)?
	-Allen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: More Democratic Campaign Songs
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:43:38 GMT

In article <25224@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>In talk.politics.misc, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>                       Every budget proposal
>>presented by the President has been *increased* in the House under
>>both Democrat and Republican administrations.
>
>    Bull.  For the last 12 years most budgets have left congress with 
>smaller deficits than the president has proposed.  Not by much, I'll
>agree, but when they go back to the White house for signature the deficits
>ARE usualy smaller.  Reagan and Bush have no credibility in blaming 
>the deficits on Congress, and by implication the Democrats.
>    The last balanced Budget occured when a Democrat was in the White
>house. Think about it.

Double Bull (sorry, that's as nasty as I get).

The mandatory spending, which is untouchable by the Executive, amounts to
roughly 70 percent of the annual budget.  This includes the debt payment
and all the economic rights the democrats have defined for (some of) us.
The remaining 28 to 30 percent is what the President has to work with 
and I would suspect that if you check several years in succession you
will find that the reason the Congress returns smaller budgets is due
to items such as defense.

If you really want to establish a number representing responsibility for
the budget then consider this one.  The President has 1/6th responsibility
in that this number represents the difference between a simple majority
and a veto override in the Congress.

Say, when was that last balanced budget?  I'm not sure I was even born yet.

Regards,

Mike Best
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Extent of Antigay Discrimination in CA Was (Re: UPI: Wilson signs gay employment rights bill)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:23:55 GMT

In article <1ae2elINNlq4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >>This is really about suppressing free speech.
    >>
    >How did you derive this conclusion given the premises you
    >submitted. Free Speech is an area of great ambiguity. IMHO no
    >one, lesser than a god who controls everything, is allowed to
    >tell anyone else that they are evil or wrong or immoral...
    >they may as a function of rights state their discontent with
    >a situation or dislike of situation via channels and language
    >that do not degrade.

I believe that you are sincere about the above paragrapgh. I find it
morally horrible -- on the par of listening to a NAZI speech.

You are NOT a god, and you may believe as you like, just as a NAZI
may believe as they like, BUT I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO TELL ANYONE
ELSE THAT THEY ARE EVIL, WRONG, AND IMMORAL.

You, if you truly hold these beliefs, are either a young and ignorant
student at one of our higher institutions of intellectual
butchery, or you are evil, wrong, immoral, AND arrogant.

In other words, take your Politically Correct fascist little ideas
and ....


Jawohl mein Commanddant -- in order to be diverse und tolerant,
ve must suppress all non-Aryan, OOPSS, I mean non-Politically Ideas.
(boot heel click and stiff arm salute, or is that Earth shoes and
peace sign ...)


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ADELAIDE NEWSPAPER ABUSED
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:41:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <5746.3248.uupcb@factory.com> michael.polymenakos@factory.com (Michael Polymenakos) writes:

>> which appeared as if this was Macedonia." 'Ellinika Nea' then uses
>> the phrase, "palouki pou sas kriazeten", which literally means "a
>> pole up your anus".

> If you don't know how to read Greek, do not try to translate it, ok?
> Or even to transliterate it for that matter, because the results are
> sad.  The phrase literally means "You need a marker", a pole used to
> delimit property.  It's translation would be "You need to stop
> fantasizing".

I read it, literally, as "a pole that you [pl.] need", but this
word-for-word translation utterly fails to convey the true meaning of
the phrase.  ("Palouki", btw, refers to a short pole, or a stake.  I
have often heard it used colloquially to refer to, for one example, a
cigar, particularly when the speaker is annoyed at the presence of one
with a "palouki sto stoma" -- a cigar in his mouth.)  Moreover, the
phrasing above is a nonstandard form which is used to convey emphasis.
"You need a pole" would normally be "Hriazo'ste palouki", but when
phrased in the form as above, a more correct English translation
(ignoring any special idiomatic meaning) would probably be: "Boy, do
you ever need a marker!"

I am not especially familiar with Greek idiomatic phrases or their
origin.  If I had heard the above phrase, I too would have been
inclined to think that it meant "you need a stick up your ass".  But
it would certainly have struck me as a very unusual epithet.  I must
thus defer to Michael Polymenakos, who, I assume, is, unlike me, a
native speaker of Greek -- and thus much more knowledgeable about the
contemporary meaning and usage of the phrase in question.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSS PEROT!
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:09:54 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep30.205940.6129@cbnews.cb.att.com>, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
> From article <1992Sep30.192607.20868@dscomsf.desy.de>, by hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
>> 
>> I'm not American, I object to Perots demand for Europe and Asia to pay $200
>> billion a year tribute to pay for US overspending.
> 
> You can always send the troops home and take care of it yourselves.  

  And consider the further savings with the cuts to the military that would
take place then.

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:32:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.013321.414@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the
> term of pregnancy...

This same old lie.  Time and again Doug repeats this lie in the
hope that, by repeating it often enough, it will be accepted as
truth.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:50:02 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <2OCT92.13392908@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:
>In a previous article, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) wrote:
>>This Associated Press report should be of interest:
>> 
>>DENVER (AP)---A child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a
>>family member than a homosexual, a new study shows.
>
>Well, obviously a homosexual cannot be a family member.
>

This is incorrect- gay people have and come from families, therefore they
are 'family members'.  I have friends who are gay and have childern.  In
fact some of the best and most well balanced childern I have seen.

In time I believe that the definition of family will be honored according to
the wide scope that it can cover.  In the world today, families can be defined
as 'people who live and construct together their home'.

The world today is one of rapid change which includes the alteration or discontinuation
of traditions.  Traditions have there place, but if they become a burden or an 
instrument of oppresion then we need to think about their value, and adjust accordingly.

Analysing and understanding new ideas and ways of life is essential to our survival.

>       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
>"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
>prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
>Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:42:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <exukjb.263.717710157@exu.ericsson.se>  exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.140350.17545@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A L
> >varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> >> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
> >>> But you made a very obvious faux pas: some forms of contraception have to
> >>> be deployed after the underwear comes off.  I pointed that out in a part tha
> >>> you deleted.  And, you implied that the couple consents to pregnancy when
> >>> they consent to sex.
>
> >> A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
> >> consent to sex.
>
> >If a couple is using contraception, that indicates that they are explicitly
> >NOT consenting to pregnancy.
>
> The statement is not "consent to pregnancy" but consent "to the possibility
> of pregnancy".  In other words, they consent to take the risk.

But since they didn't consent to pregnancy, they certainly didn't consent
to *remain* pregnant should that possibility occur.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49083 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6210 alt.politics.bush:7483 alt.politics.elections:14917 talk.abortion:40000 alt.politics.clinton:8146