HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
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: I hereby declare...
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:29:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <16873CA0E.TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu> TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> 
>And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.

He makes plenty sense.  You just gotta learn to read metaphor is all.
(That, and ThisSortaCrap)

Big Al.  Say, drieux, you wouldn't be part NotFood, would ya?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:17:52 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>    "Will the Gentlemen Please Yield? A Defense of the Constitutionality of
>  State-Imposed Term Limitations" by Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman is no.
>  178 in the Policy Analysis series published by the Cato Institute, an
>  independent public policy research organization in Washington, DC.

How do they deal with the fact that many of the early states had term
limits, but removed them before the Constitution was created, and the
fact that the Framers voted unanimously to not have term limits?

See "Congressional Term Limits:  Unconstitutional By Initiative" in
the April, 1992, issue of the Washington Law Review, for the argument
that congressional term limits can only be imposed via Constituational
amendment.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48294 alt.rush-limbaugh:6057 alt.politics.clinton:7549 alt.politics.elections:14479 talk.abortion:38965 alt.sex:31103 alt.politics.bush:6970
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:52:37 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <8elgV5_00VpdB3bVFc@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:54:29 -0400 
>From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities

>Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and
>responsibili.. Ray Fischer@netcom.com (1034)

>> Note followup change.

>> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>> >     Having sex can result in pregnancy.
>> >
>> >     I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
>> >activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
>> >avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
>> >are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
>> >to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.

>> Fine.  Driving a car can result in injury or death.

>> Are you now going to claim that anyone who's is injured in a car
>> accident should be allowed to die?  Or the people who live in Florida
>> should _not_ get any federal assistance?

>> As has been pointed out, even if sex can be inferred to be a consent
>> to the _possibility_ of pregnancy, in no way can it be considered
>> consent to carrying a child for 9 months and giving birth.

>If Abortion is murder, and if having sex is consenting to the
>possibility of pregnancy, then yes it is consent to carry the child to
>term.

>                                        Tom the non hacker
>                                        Read my lips, No second Term!
>                                        Buchanan in 92!

On this reasoning, when you get married and take an oath to stay together
for life, you are making an impossible or at least unreasonable demand on
someone. Who can make an oath that they will or will not do something FOR
LIFE!  By parity of reasoning then, while you consent to the risk of 
pregnancy, is it not unreasonable to demand carrying the baby to term if
pregnancy occurs?

Is this the argument? 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:16:59 GMT

pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
>issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
>original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
>uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
>very least, not *opposed* to term limits.

Yeah, but after the states had experience with term limits, they got
rid of them, and the framers voted to unanimously to not have them in
the Constitution.  This sure sounds like opposition to me!

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot treating us like idiots
Date: 24 Sep 92 23:30:52 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <lc3pcoINN66a@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> Ross Perot continually states that his "campaign" (good choice of words
> for a non-candidate) is driven from the bottom up.  He says that the troops
> will decide if he re-enters the race.  He says that it is not his decision.
> 
> If I were stupid enough to believe this then I would believe:
> 
> 1.	It was his troops that decided he should drop out earlier.

  Wrong.  He said that was his own decision, which he now believes is a
mistake.

> 2.	He believes there is some chance his "troops" will say he
> 	should stay out, thus the requirment to meet with them.

  Probably not.  I think he's in and wants to work on game plan with the
troops.  Don't delude yourself.)

> 3.	He now believes he has a chance of winning, not throwing
> 	the election into the House of Representatives.

  Check Wed.'s _New York Times_.  There may be another motive.

> 4.	He never planned to get back into the race, but can be
> 	dragged in kicking and screaming.

  Not kicking and screaming, but he may now feels he has no choice.

> 5.	He really believed that when he withdrew that the Democrats
> 	and/or the Republicans would modify their economic proposals
> 	to match his, even though they were undefined at that time.

  That would be a delusion.

> 
> Maybe he can delude himself, but he can't delude me.  This campaign is
> being run just like his company was -- teach people how to make decisions
> you know you will like, then empower them to make decisions.  At least
> at EDS if you didn't like the regimentation, you could leave.  If he
> were to become president, you would have to let the damage go one for
> 4 years.

  Same with Bush and possibly with Clinton.  What's the diff??

							Mike Falkner

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49711 misc.headlines:6510 talk.politics.mideast:20853
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:29:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Oct6.152908.17247
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <BvoJLH.JCE@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.184122.27607@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:

>>I guess one mans pleasure is anothers poison.

>Yes, I find killing, torturing and deporting Arabs pretty heavy poison
>but that seems to be your pleasure.
>
>js

Once again, Jack Schmidling proves that he is incapable of
distinguishing Jews from Israelis.

You promised to leave talk.politics.mideast, Jack.  Please do so.

Adam


Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Quayle and Lawyers
Supersedes: <1992Oct1.150729.14758@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:47:18 GMT

In article <Oct.1.08.38.35.1992.14872@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutger
s.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Ted Frank writes:
>>Kaldis writes:
>>> The claim is not new, nor is the figure original to Quayle.  This is
>>> something that has been bandied about for years -- though there is
>>> certainly quite a bit of controversy about it.
>
>> But the fact is that Quayle continues to repeat the number, long after
>> it's been disproved
>
>Disproven by whom?  When?  Where?  Somehow I missed this.
>
>Actually, what usually happens is that either some lawyer or some
>liberal who is engaged in attempting to establish the liberal agenda
>through the court system will offer alternate figures using a
>different definition of "lawyer" and declare the matter settled (as
>Mr. Frank does here, only he neglects to include the figures).

Well, here's a thought experiment.  Find the original study that says
the US has 70% of the world's lawyers.  (Hint: no such study exists.)

>>> I suppose it must be beyond the mental capacity of morons to deduce
>>> that there is probably an alternate explanation as to how the 70%
>>> figure was arrived at.
>
>> Yes.  It was made up.
>
>How do you know?

First-hand information from the writer of the original speech.  (The
speech-writer didn't make up the number himself, but cited someone
else's use of the 70% figure, which turned out to be fabricated.)

>>> Dan Quayle has managed to get elected to the Senate of the United
>>> States (no trivial task) -- more than once.  What have you
>>> accomplished?
>
>> Well, I've gotten better grades in law school than Dan Quayle did.
>
>So you say.  If you want to prove the point, then please have your
>registrar send me a copy of your transcript (with official seal,
>please) -- and a comparison your grades with the VP's.

Send me a self-addressed stamped envelope to Ted Frank, The University
of Chicago Law School, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.  I'll
even spring for the cost of getting the registrar to seal my transcript.

Of course, it doesn't take much to beat a 2.74 average, so it's hardly
eventful that I did.

>> Now, if only I had a family as rich as his...
>
>However rich Quayle's family might happen to be, he only attended
>public schools.

I'm sure they didn't give him any money for him to run for Senate.
Or have any influence in keeping him out of Vietnam.  Or use their
extensive newspaper empire to endorse his election efforts.  (Or use
their influence to get him into law school to begin with.)
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49587 ca.politics:8457 ba.politics:5884
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
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
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:36:03 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


[does this really belong in that many newsgroups?]

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu writes:
|chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
|>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
|>|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.

|If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
|are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
|protection does not mean they don't face the risk.

Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
to live with injury without medical redress.

People who use birth control are, by their actions,
acknowledging the possibility of conception.  However, also by
their actions, they are clearly NOT consenting to pregnancy.
They are attempting to avoid it, by minimizing the risk.  (To
continue the car analogy, by obeying traffic laws & wearing a
seatbelt.)

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48278 alt.rush-limbaugh:6047 alt.politics.bush:6958 alt.politics.elections:14469 talk.abortion:38950 alt.politics.clinton:7537 talk.religion.misc:17309
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
Subject: So lets Get this Straight
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:05:03 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
] In article <1992Sep24.005021.26871@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
] >Since a fertilized egg can divide into twins up to 6-8 weeks after
] >conception, how many individuals are present at conception?  When does
] >the additional individual appear?  What factor(s) constitute an individual
] >in this context?
] 
] This is an excellent point. If there were any logic in the abortion
] debate every one would agree that a fetus can not be a person at 
] least until after this period.


I wish folks would decide to be HONEST about being
anti_christian, and opposed to the traditional 
christian position that there is no person till birth.

But I guess in these Post_Christian Days that is
far too much to hope for....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:15:55 GMT

In article <Bv9L0C.LJp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>>: 	Making murder illegal is also a form of self-protection.  Banning
>>>: abortion is simply legalizing a set of morals.
>>>
>>>This statement is not correct.
>>	Why not.  You've stated your opinon, now back it up.
>
>	If you hadn't striped the rest of my post, it would be there now!
>Laws are made to protect people - in some cases people that are incapable
>of protecting themselves. Laws about child labor etc are such. Why is
>it that no one is crying that those are "legalizing a set of morals"?
>Simple. It's not. It is protecting a segment of human society that cannot
>protect itself. The same is true of abortion laws. 

	On the article I read, the rest of your post wasn't there, therefore
I just thought you declared that my statement is incorrect and gave no reason.
Get it?
	Also, you equated an anti-abortion law with an anti-murder law, not
	a child labor law.  Please be consistant with you analogy.  But since
	you brough up child labor laws, preventing a young child from working
	themselves to death, doesn't ruin the life of another person, like
	forcing an unwilling mother to carry to term.

>
	Note that the main thrust of my opinion is that unborn children
>deserve civil rights just like anyone else. I try to avoid making moralistic
>statements in this debate in order to avoid exactly the "your morals
>are not someone elses morals" claim. Why was it ok for us to impose our
>morals on the south with the emancipation proclaimation, and the civil
>war? Because a segment of the human population was being denied any
>rights whatsoever. Wherever this occurs, we should be disgusted, and
>work to change it. Abortion is one such case.
>

	Basically, the difference here is that you equate the life of a
	fetus with the life of a post-natal human.  I don't.

>			BBruce
>
>P.S. Would you PLEASE ask one of your friends to show you how to
>     trim unneeded lines from articles before you post again?

I know very well thank you.

-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48991 alt.rush-limbaugh:6334 alt.politics.bush:7426 alt.politics.clinton:8092 alt.politics.elections:14870 talk.abortion:39859 alt.sex:31577
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:22:26 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <5OCT199221402013@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
]staying mum. Clinton was either in Soviet Union in '69, or he wasn't.
]This can't be hard to verify. If not true, the republicans are
]lying in black and white right in the congressional record. 
](Not that it wouldn't be the first time.) But seldom are things
]this cut and dry. Which is it?

He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Organization
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:27:04 GMT

In article <96492@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <12449@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>In the U.S., the vast majority of transmissions of AIDS are by
>>homosexual sex, usually by sodomy.
>
>50 - 60% is a vast majority?



  60% is generally considered a landslide.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Guns
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:55:51 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu
Summary: False

In article <1992Sep25.203633.13006@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

>In article <PA146008.1.717439754@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Ve writes...

[Budding Cascade deleted.]

>>>This political correctness
>>>thing is new to the political spectrum (it personally disgusts me).
>> 
>>     Oh, I see.  Let 'em run wild for a few hundred years, then
>>we can get upset.
>>
>Political <gag> correctness has only been around since (coincidence?)
>the War on Poverty, not "hundreds of years". 

     You defended your statement that censorship was an exclusively 
conservative idea by stating that political correctnesswas new on the scene.

     My rephrase is:  "So what?"

>>>But if you look at this in historical terms, then my statement stands.
>>>It was a bunch of liberals that wrote "freedom of expresion" and "freedom
>>>of the press" into the constitution. It was a bunch of conservatives 
>>>that called themselves tories, and fought for the English.
>> 
>>     It was a bunch of *classical* liberals.  Modern and classical
>>liberalism diverge on a very large number of things.
>> 
>Good point. Now complete that thought. (I'm personally a "classical
>liberal".)

     What we appear to need is a common set of definitions.  When I
refer to liberals, I speak of modern liberals.  When I speak of what
liberals were 200 years ago, I use "classic liberals."

>>     I do like the way you define Conservatism as somebody who defends
>>a current practice you don't like.  That's the interesting things
>>about conservatism.  Today's liberal is tomorrow's
>>conservative.
>> 
>Whoa! These generalizations do not help your point. The Supreme Court is
>conservative (unless you can prove otherwise). I have attributed nothing
>to the Supreme Court that they have not done. The same goes for Bush, Reagan, 
>and several other conservative politicians and judges that have supported
>a reduced right to Habius Corpus. 

     Hell, I can't manage to "prove" that the media is liberal statist
when there's more proof than I know what to do with.

     Besides, I don't argue that the Supreme Court isn't conservative to
a great degree.  As I said before, it is not the conservatism I worry
so much about as the scary tendency of the Supreme Court to makes their
decisions based politics and expansion of state power.  (Something both
ends of the spectrum want, just in different areas.)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49105 alt.activism:17060 soc.culture.latin-america:3714
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: ...more than 200 Contra regulars and 12 commanders have been murdered
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:01:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Oct02.160106.7875
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

In article <1992Oct1.231545.3655@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>best source of information about the Contra's comes from Edgar
>Chamorro.  He was part of the political leadership of the Contra's

There were a number of vocal, high ranking defectors from the   
Sandinistas, too.  Appeal to authority would require that you examine
their claims.

[another poster]
>	...On the contrary [credit went to everyone except the Contras], since
>>Violeta Chamorro was sworn in as president in 1990, more than 200 Contra
>>regulars and 12 top Contra commanders have been murdered by revengeful
>>Sandanistas.  No one has been prosecuted in connection with these murders--not
>>surprising since the Sandanistas still control the army, the police, and much
>>of the judiciary.
>
Other human rights sources in Nicaragua put the figure at "only" 150
or so.  Apparently some of the people implicated in the killings are
top aides to the commander in chief of the army; Humberto Ortega, if
I recall correctly.  

Somehow I don't expect a flurry of outraged postings from MAP.

-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48547 talk.abortion:39335