HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:00:46 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <81597@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.223820.4445@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
...
>child would not have been the one she was asking the question of.  It's 
>impossible to be born at a different time because fate conspired to put exactly
>that combination of DNA together to form that unique person who cannot be 
>replaced or remade no matter how many times you try.  I mean, if we're talking
>fanatasies here, hell!  I'd like for my parents to have been millionaires who
>lived in the nicest neighborhoods, didn't smoke or drink...  No child born
>could have born at any other time and still be the same person.  So the
>question is, "Would you rather never have been born, or be alive now?"
>
>
>+-------------------------+-------------------------+
>|Loud-thundering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
>|                         |Act locally.             |
>|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
>+-------------------------+-------------------------+
>


As for me I think I would perhaps have wanted to be born a little later,
with a slightly different set of DNA. You know a set that gave me a little more
of this ability or that ability etc.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:32:53 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <BvzMI3.556@doppler.ncsc.org> kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore) writes:
: In article <1b4jpgINN33f@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu
: (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
:  >
:  >
:  >Recent Poll results, ordered by number of electoral college votes.
:  >
:  >! == Candidate has lead of 10% or more. 
:  >EV == Electoral College votes for that state (270 votes needed for victory).
:  >
:  >State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot   State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
:  >  AL    9    41     38    13       LA    9    37     36    11
:  >  AZ    8    31     36    17       KY    8    36     41     8
:  >  AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13
:  >  AK    3    35     36    18       ND    3    46!    36     8
:  >
: 
: How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser
: to this guy than the rest of the nation? After watching the debate today,

I think 58-25 is a pretty healthy lead myself.  Perhaps you
think that AK stands for Arkansas and AR stands for Alaska?
Or maybe AL is Alaska and AR is Alabama?  Or...

: I could see why they call him Slick Willy. Everything was a draw on your
: emotions. Perot and Bush were much better at not making me feel like he
: was trying to pull one over on me. That does not even begin to discuss
: what was said. I think Perot clearly came out ahead (though he has nothing
: to lose and everything to gain from the anti-establishment crowd). I would
: put Bush one up on Clinton. Clinton did nothing to shake the "you can't
: trust me" label.

Clinton has spent over a year answering these same questions
over and over again.  It is not surprising that his answers
seemed memorized.  Perot, on the other hand, has the advantage
that everything he is saying is pretty fresh and unrehearsed.
Of course that would be a disadvantage if he was asked some
tough questions, unlike the softballs the panel was tossing to
each of them last night.


-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Re-elect Bush
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:49:34 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.161236.4071@msi.com>, rme@msi.com (Richard M. Emberson) writes:

>> 
>> The Democrats are stupid.
>> 
>> The Republicans are evil.
>> 
>> The Choice is yours.


Ok.  I'll vote for Perot (if I could vote).


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
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
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Organization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:44:50 GMT

In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> 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.
>                                  
>
>
>        


  What does this have to do with Limbaugh?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:05:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <MATT.92Oct12103518@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1bc97oINN91u@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>
>> #3 I think Bush showed that he is a man of character. Nobody can
>> question that he is a decent man.
>
>Really?  I question it; I question it very much, in fact.  Bush said,
>before the campaign, that he would "do whatever it takes" to get
>reelected, and now that the campaign has started, he has demonstrated
>that with stunning clarity.

  Agreed completely.

>What Clinton and Perot said was right: a President should use the
>prestige of his office to take a forceful stand against bigotry and
>divisiveness.  Bush has not met that responsibility; instead he has
>used bigotry and divisiveness as tools for his own political
>advantage.

  Right, and the real irony is that from recent polls these tactics
  may not even be working to "his own political advantage".  The 
  Boston Herald reported Saturday that Clinton's lead in the polls
  has widened as the public has reacted negatively to Bush's clumsy
  attempts to paint Clinton as unpatriotic.  There are many like
  myself who are not Clinton supporters but who were (actively in
  my case) opposed to the Vietnam War.  We saw it as a specifically 
  patriotic act to oppose, speak out, and demonstrate on this topic
  20 years ago.   A patriot is someone who wants what's best for his 
  country; we perceived the war to be a bad thing for the US in many
  ways.  We felt duty bound to speak out.  It's ridiculous to suggest 
  that anti-Americanism was what motivated the vast majority of war
  protesters.  

  There are many people in their 30's and 40's today who protested 
  against the war and who have become solid, successful middle-class
  Republicans in their middle years.   But they still remember the
  honesty and fervor of their youthful opinions and will sympathize
  with Clinton when Bush attacks him in this way.  From recent polls
  this may already be happening.


---peter


  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50243 alt.politics.perot:1911 alt.politics.elections:15599
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:22:36 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <3OCT199215413892@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
>Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
>Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:41:00 GMT

>In article <1992Oct2.235319.4749@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes...
>>In article <1992Oct2.165944.10756@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct1.202926.21348@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>>|> In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>
>>>    To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
>>>

>>There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit; it
>>depends upon how the deficit is funded and what the
>>money is spent on.

>Just a reminder. Every dollar paid in taxes (such as to service the
>debt) is a dollar which is not in the bank (or some other investment)
>making more income for the worker.

>This notion that someone else should be trusted to spend (up to half)
>of our money (and more because of debt) -- is simply a con job.

>>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |

>   |
>-- J --
>   |     Stephen D. Tice
>   |     Arlingotn Texas

Could someone answer for me this question. To whom are we in debt? Is the 
national debt just "funny money" we owe to ourselves, to other nations, 
whom?  To what institutions?  This is a question I never seem to be able
to get a straight answer to.  Not being an economist I must rely on experts
here.  Exactly what is the breakdown of that debt and to whom is it owed? 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:26:25 GMT


In article <Oct.2.08.10.09.1992.28715@romulus.rutgers.edu>, 
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:

> _THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
> don't we?

Well, certainly God is as entitled to his opinions on the subject as
is the next guy, but until and unless he comes up with a more rational
and compelling argument than "Because I say so" there isn't really any
reason I can see to follow his guidelines.

(By the way, if this:

> Meanwhile, the men of the city gather at Lot's door and ask for the
> 2 visitors "so that they might 'know' them" [i.e., perform buggery
> upon them].  Lot then offers his 2 virgin daughters,

is indicative of God's view towards family values, I can see why the
Democrats left the letters "G," "O," and "D" out of their platform. :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52073 alt.rush-limbaugh:7513 alt.politics.bush:9329 alt.politics.clinton:10684 alt.politics.elections:17046 talk.abortion:42840 talk.politics.guns:22189
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An Aside on this Rights Issue
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:05:04 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct14.070720.11338@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

TS:Actually, property rights are given surprisingly strong protection by the
TS:Takings clause of the 5th amendment: "nor shall private propety be taken
TS:for public use without just compensation".  The libertarian legal theorist
TS:Richard Epstein has written an excellent book about this: "Takings: Private
TS:Property and the Power of Eminent Domain."

Actually the 5th used to protect property, until the Supreme Court decided
that the government would run much better without it.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:58:38 GMT

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>I fail to understand why Clinton's actions should be excused because
>of the shortcomings of Nixon and Congres.

There, there it's all right. Mr. Bush is going to lose, however, and
Vietnam will never be used as a divisive issue again. The conservatives
will not be able to spread their hatred for a long, long time. I know it
must come as a great shock and disappointment to see Bush fall so hard so
fast, but it's time to pick up the pieces of your life, and move on... or
be left behind.

----
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
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
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Organization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:42:37 GMT

In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> 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.
>                                  
>
>
>        



  What does this have to do with Bush?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50944 alt.rush-limbaugh:7111 alt.politics.bush:8653 alt.politics.clinton:9746 alt.politics.elections:16128 talk.abortion:41992 alt.sex:32689
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:26:10 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>
>>Jennifer
>
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>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 
>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>being
>
>Spike Burkhardt

	
	Has anyone ever considered the REAL thrust behind the 
	right to life movement coming in at us from the far fundamentalist
	right?  Could it be that the biblical predictions (they claim,
	I don't personally read bibles much) of motherhood becoming 
	valueless just before the "2nd coming" are what abortions 
	seem to say to them? Never mind that abortions have been
	performed as long as anyone knows about.  My opinion is that
	they think be halting abortions they can postpone the 2nd
	coming, you know turn back the clock.  I know this seems like
	a ridiculous supposition, but, then look at these folks --
	can you think of something else?

		Judy
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Nicaragua Series intermission: Some Quotes
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:00:07 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

Nicaragua Series intermission: Some Quotes

"The man whom [the Sandinistas] honor, Sandino, he said he was a
communist." -- Ronald Reagan, in _Time_, March, 1986.

"The commandantes even betrayed the memory of the Nicaraguan rebel
leader Sandino, whose legacy they falsely claim. For the real Sandino,
because he was a genuine nationalist, was opposed to communism." --
Ronald Reagan, June 24, 1986.

[Cited in George Black's book _The Good Neighbor_]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50052 talk.politics.drugs:6652 talk.politics.guns:21827 alt.politics.elections:15480 alt.politics.libertarian:656 alt.politics.marrou:1466
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:46:44 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <BvrLyq.MLG@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:

>    I have no idea where this idea came from but it's very widespread
>    on Usenet and shows the degree of economic ignorance here.   It 
>    should be noted that hust as a democracy cannot function without 
>    a basic understanding of politics and legislation, neither can a 
>    free market economy function without a basic understanding of simple
>    economic concepts.

No, this is exactly the advantage of a free-market over a planned
economy.  It is the planned economy that assumes the planners must have
complete and infallible information (as if this was possible) and some
objective means of determining what consumer needs are (as if this was
possible).  In the free-market, it is unnecessary for the participants to
know "how it works" beyond the fact that it is driven by voluntary
contracts because all they need to know is automatically communicated in
the form of market prices.


>    In *any* enterprise the *customer* is the one who pays the money
>    for whatever product or service is being rendered, in return for
>    that product or service.   The radio listener or TV viewer is
>    not the customer, he is the PRODUCT!   The advertiser is the 
>    is the customer; he pays the station to deliver to him a qualified
>    audience of a certain size.

I wouldn't argue this except to point out that from the point of view of
the viewer it is not unreasonable to consider the programming the
product, and putting up with the commercials the cost.  It is more
reasonable to think of private commercial media as 'middlemen.'

thant
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: MEXICO OPPOSES to 'Cuban "Democracy" Act'
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:24:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <9210062127.AA02171@tba.msi.cornell.edu> by harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator):

> [Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's cuba.activismo]
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
> information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Topic 19        Mexican opposition to Cuba Bill 
> devenson        cuba.activismo   5:37 pm  Oct  4, 1992 
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
>      IN A JOINT STATEMENT, MEXICO'S SIX POLITICAL PARTIES 
> represented in Congress unanimously condemned the Torricelli 
> Bill.  The joint statement emphasized the principles of 
> self-determination and non-interference in the affairs of other 
> countries.  The motion said the Torricelli Bill "is a step away 
> from international law" and "affects third countries," among them 
> Mexico by requiring U.S. subsidies abroad to comply with the 
> embargo.   

But of course they oppose it!  The next thing you know that pesky Cardenas
will be demanding democracy in MEXICO!  The horror.....




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: cable regulation [was bus
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:20:10 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth Fil Feit regarding CABLE REGULATION [WAS BUS on 10-10-92:

FF>What would have been wrong with a simple law allowing local government
FF>from controlling cable rates, the way it used to be before the FCC
FF>decided otherwise.

It turned out to enrich local politicians' bank accounts with well-placed 
bribes;  which meant it cost a fortune in prosecutions when (if) they were 
caught.




---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  Plagarism prohibited.  Derive carefully.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:28:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct13.202115.28324@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.181242.16836@unislc.uucp> das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
>>Gregory R. Travis (greg@saltydog.dpsi.com) wrote:
>
>(stuff about Germany's standard of living deleted).
>
>I agree. Americans keep having the "the Japanese way
>is the best way" concept bashed into our heads,
>when sure, we could be more productive if we worked 70 hours a week until
>we were DEAD.

  You moron:  The Japanese have the longest life-span in the world 
  (having recently passed the Finns and Swedes).

>We would do much better to emulate the Europeans, who are as productive and
>get great benefits as well. My in-laws in Italy--whose economy is in bad
>shape these days--seem to live extremely well, and they aren't particularly
>wealthy. 

  Italy has a different culture.  But are you seriously suggesting we
  should emulate the Europeans when the EC has a 9.5%-and-rising unem-
  ployment rate?


>Just my two cents.

  Two cents just doesn't go as afr as it used to.


---peter



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50079 alt.activism:17253 ca.politics:8514
From: hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:34:08 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>I wonder if the average Clinton fan is so ignorant that he doesn't
>>>know the difference between the CIA and the Secret Service or if Scott
>>>here is special.

>>Well shucks,  I suppose I'm an average Clinton fan and well, shoot,
>>I reckon I wouldn't know the difference between the CIA and Secret
>>Service either.

>Well, in that case it confirms my opinion that Clinton is pandering to
>the ignorant.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people out
>there so the strategy may work.

>The CIA is responsible for gathering intelligence and covert
>operations in foreign countries.  Their domestic activities are
>limited to non-operational stuff like analysis, planning, etc.

ha
ha ha ha
ha ha ha Ha Ha HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

But don't worry, now that the secret service has a TV show (similar to COPS)
we will all know to bow and pray for the well being of these guardians of
democracy.
ha
ha ha
ha ha ha Ha Ha
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 
-Wade 
hines@rafael.ucsf.edu  It just doesn't matter.- Bill Murry