HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:24:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <Bv5L0y.6sr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

>: The State "owns" (for want of a better word really) the individual
>: because it is the State that dictates the individual's rights.  
>
>I'm still not quite fond of the terminology, but I agree with the
>point.  Would an equivalent statement be:

>	The State exercises control over the individual because the
>	State has the authority to officially recognize or to officially
>	not recognize the individual's rights.

That is, unless the citizens revolt against such crimes.  Do you consider
that among individual citizens that some are criminals and some are not?
Of course you can determine this by observing their behavior, right?  Why
then can you not discriminate between criminal governments and good governments?
Regarding the issues of what rights are, to say that governments define what
rights are is like saying that criminals determine whether a certain behavior
is criminal or not.  The behavior is or is not criminal regardless of whether
the criminals do wrong.

>Granted, it is a watered down version, but I think it is more or less
>equivalent.

Indeed, and it suffers from the same problems.

>My disagreement with the original wording comes from my own beliefs and
>ideals.  I believe that each person is an independent individual, and
>that all people have inalienable rights.  The problem comes when the
>State has a different view.  The State cannot truly own a person, but
>they can act as if they do.

Your comments do not seem consistent with this view.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep29.142155.6850@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

|> My statement is just that.  A
|> statement.  With one of those little conditional phrases that John
|> Haugh seems to have so much trouble with, 'more necessary' -- in other
|> words, relatively speaking, people require cars more in the United
|> States in order to function within our society than people require
|> cars in, say, Zaire, in order to function within that society.
|> 
|> Now, what is your problem with that statement?

Well, as this is the first time you've made that statement, I'm not
sure why you would expect me to respond to it before you made it.

"Cars are more necessary in the United States".  Fine.  If I want to
go to school at the University of Texas, and I also want to live in
Zaire, then I could claim that a Concorde Jet is more necessary.  So
what?  Necessary is in the eye of the beholder.  I was responding to a
person who was complaining that it takes him 90 minutes to get to 
school and two hours to get home, and I just asked a simple question: 
Why don't you move closer to school?  You have a chip on your shoulder
a mile wide, Fred.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Clinton on 24-Hour Waiting Period
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:47:26 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     Something from the October 1992 Reader's Digest (page 63):
>
>READER'S DIGEST: Do you favor legislation like the Pennsylvania
>statute that requires a 24-hour waiting period to have an
>abortion and parental consent for minors?
>
>CLINTON: I favor parental notice but not a parental consent
>requirement.  I have no problem with a 24-hour waiting period,
>as long as it is not an undue burden on low-income people
>who travel long distances in states where abortions are
>performed only in one or two places.
>
>I thought Clinton was against the 24-hour waiting period (in
>theory, of course) based on his reaction to the Supreme
>Court decision for that statute.  Has this always been his
>position?  Just wondering...
>
>     C. Perttunen

From _Putting People First_, p. 170:

      - Oppose any federal attempt to limit access to abortion 
        through mandatory waiting periods or parental or spousal
        consent requirements; support state efforts to require some
        form of adult counseling or consultation for underage girls
        who choose to have an abortion -- as long as workable and
        effective judicial bypass provisions are attached to such laws.

So he seems to make a distinction between federal and state efforts.
---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:02:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.215009.10231@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep18.215048.9567@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> ">In article <1992Sep15.180936.6562@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> ">>Conservatives think that liberals are wrong.
> ">>Liberals think that conservatives are stupid.
> ">>
> "
> "Or, ...
> "
> "Liberals have terrible ideas,
> "Conservatives have no ideas at all.
> "
> "
> or....
> Conservative are cold-hearted and dangerous
> Liberals may  raise taxes, but we'll have a truly "kinder and gentler nation"
> to live in
> 
> I prefer the latter.
> 
Ahem, me thinks you're missing a little something here.  Liberals 
want to increase spending on entitlements (then raise taxes to 
pay for it).  When you start giving more, more folks start 
taking.  This is how slums grow, people get into a little trouble
and turn to welfare: next thing they know, they're stuck because 
they have to earn less to start a new job than welfare pays.
Pretty soon they're living in a slum and are stuck on welfare.

Ever notice where most of the violent crimes occur? (Hint: slums).

Increased welfare will not make this a kinder and gentler nation:
"work or starve" will have people working so hard to make a living
that they'll not have time to committ crimes -- that will make
it a kinder and gentler nation -- as well as revive the economy
and pay off the national debt.




-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: 20 reasons TO VOTE REPUBLICAN (not)
Summary: yeah, right
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:16:34 GMT

Twenty reasons to vote Republican this year...

1) Republcans have been in the White House for twelve years. Four more 
should send people rioting in the streets, which makes for cool television.
2) This time, why not the *greater* of two evils?
3) America's been on top too long...time for Germany or Japan to take over.
4) Maybe "Family Values" means more of those McDonald's deals where kids
eat for free.
5) Unemployment is bad enough in the US; if Bush isn't elected, then he'll
be unemployed too, and we need LESS people on the lines, not more.
6) Do we really want poor Kennebunkport to have to suffer from Bush living 
there year round?
7) Dan Quayle has almost no power as VP, which is exactly as we want him.
8) A thousand points of light will magically appear in the sky
9) We didn't kick out Hussein; why should we kick out the other dictator?
10) Even though I can't believe anything that Bush says, I'm voting for him 
because he says that Clinton will raise my taxes (-Pfeifer)
11) Tipper Gore
12) Bush was nice enough to sell me this cool bridge in New York City
at a cut rate.
13) The State of Indiana is doing very well. Why screw things up by sending
Quayle back there?
14) Drug War very profitable for drug dealers who hike their prices up
500%. Also is very profitable for the underground gun market, since dealers
have a demand for armaments.
15) New World Order, lacking substance, sounds really neat...almost like
a Pepsi commercial.
16) Our kids are learning too much Math, Science, English and History in
our schools. If this keeps up, they might actually start thinking. Since
it is unAmerican to think, it would be best to teach Religion and Phys Ed
instead.
17) We need more wars to cut down on our excess population.
18) I played a Heavy Metal record backwards and it says to vote for Bush
19) God told me to (-Some nut who preaches here a lot)
20) It's easier to make fun of Bush than to make fun of Clinton.

Lost Boy 

email reaponses to:
smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7827 alt.politics.bush:7199 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4722
From: unrzc7@daphne.rrze.uni-erlangen.de (THOMAS LUBANSKI)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:08:15 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum Erlangen

In article <92273.205511JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:55:11 EDT
>From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...

>In article <1992Sep29.173521.27759@ncsu.edu>, mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN
>HARPER MULLIS) says about D.Q. criticism:
>>
>> I guess since the national guard served in every war since its creation
>> it does not deserve to be considered military.
>>  One wont find the guard any different than the army.
>> When the guard came home from Saudi the veterans that fought in Nam
>> (who were with the guard) marched alongside.
>>
>Great.  This wasn't the case in Vietnam.  The guard was a well-known dodge
>and that's how D.Q. used it.  He as much as admitted it.  When asked why,
>if no influence was necessary, did he ask for his parents help in getting
>into the Guard, he said:  "I do - I do - I do what any normal person would
>do at that age.  You call home to mother and father and say, 'I'd like to
>get in the National Guard.'"  And, when asked by reporters why, despite his
>vociferous support for the Vietnam War, he joined the Guard to avoid the
>draft, he said, "I did not know in 1969 that I would be in this room today."

>> When a persons draft number came up they had the option to
>> join the service of their choice. Some went to the navy, some the guard,
>> and others the army. once you joined you had no idea if you were
>> going to war or not because some units did and some units did not.
>> 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

>See, Adam Hochschild's article, "Me and Quayle at War:  C'mon, Dan, Our Tours
>of 'Duty' Were Safe, Cozy and Worthless" in the Washington Post (about
>[surprise] four years ago, if memory serves) in which he compares the Guard
>and Reserves to the Civil War system whereby a privileged youngster could
>buy a man for a few hundred dollars to take his place in the draft.

>> Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.

>You'll never make that Double Jeopardy round at this rate!

>Hope this helps!  And, why are you cross-posting to ALT.SEX?

>Jeff Luck                *My Opinions are Mine, but Facts are Facts*
>CES Systems Office
>Penn State University        "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
>JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU              -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988

"What would Janna say about it?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:47:10 GMT


In article <BvCvwp.CMs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
>> Once again Mr. Wganer has shown his true intellectual colors.  I am against
>> abortion myself, sir, and find people like you a tremendous liability to my    
>> cause.  I wish your type would think before they talk.  Then again, fascists
>> have never been good at making friends.
>> 
>> Matt I.


This coming from a guy who subscribes to Christianity, history's greatest
example of organised crime.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: CSPAN Schedule?
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:20:07 GMT

Does anyone know how to find out C-SPAN's schedule from
day to day. They will occasionally post a schedule for part
of that day, but it doesn't seem to be at any consistent
time of day. Is there a number to call for schedule info. 
I would call my cable company, but in the past they have been 
such a band of idiots, they probably don't know what C-SPAN 
is. I thought this group may be able to help me with this. 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tdwood@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Troy D Wood)
Subject: Fun with numbers: Poll Results
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:27:04 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:53:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.105048.7267@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I suggest that all pro-abortion people start by aborting their own
>children, all of them.  Then, when they have found the joy of it
>they can tell the rest of the world and the rest of the world
>can voluntarily join them.
>
>			J. Wagner
>
>P.S. Happy extinction, suckers
>

Too bad your folks were pro-life...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a02.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:27:56 GMT


In article <Bvn248.GAp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
>> Oddly enough, I agree with the statement that a nation cannot hold together if
>> it is extremely diverse culturally.  Well, it may not be impossible, and I'm
>> sure someone will provide me with some historical example to the contrary.  At
>> yhe very least, however, cultural diversity acts as a destabilizer.  Of course,
>> that's just fine in my book.  I like culture, and I don't want to see it
>> repressed.  I, on the other hand, cannot help but loathe what America has done
>> to the rest of the world (excepting Great Britain, France, and a few others.
>> So if multiculturalism brings us down, so be it.  By the way, I am neither 
>> a Dem or a Rep, nor a Perot-vian.  Please do not attribute my attitudes to 
>> their groups,  They and I just never get along.  I'm a rationalist, you see.


The best example of a multi-cultural country that is till holding 
together is South Africa.

Also, the United States has done more good for the world than any
other nation in all of history.  Nobody should dare blame the U.S.
for anything that has happened to the world since it is ultimately
the U.S. that fixes everything.

Culture is fine so long as people retain their allegiance to the
nation that protects them.  Calling oneself an "African American"
(for example) is wrong since the allegiance is to Africa, not
America.  "American African" would be illogical.   Clearly, the
only legal terminology needed is "American"


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:41:06 GMT

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>FACT:  FOUR OUT OF FOUR budgets that Bush submitted were larger than
>the previous year's budget.

FACT: There is no Federal law requiring a balanced budget.


>FACT:  Clinton as Gov. had 12 out of 12 *balanced* budgets.

FACT: Most states have either a state law or constitutional clause
requiring a balanced budget.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: _Decline of America Series_
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:31:54 GMT


Readers of alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush:

Is running, two posts per day, in alt.politics.elections (as well as
elsewhere).

--Harel Barzilai

--

Co-founder, Co-moderator, misc.activism.progressive (MAP)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7846 alt.politics.bush:7219 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6088
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:53:15 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Sep24.054510.12653@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.102423.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>"
>[*MY* essay on Bush's gulf war motivation]
>(Netiquette Point:
>please attribute it to me, rather than deleting the "so and so writes:" line)
>" 
>"Before stupid comments like this are made, one should get a good grasp on
>"reality!!!!!!
>"
>
>I have a perfect grasp on reality. I'm not afraid to SPEAK the truth. 
>You disagree? Then disprove it.
>
>"Also remember Clinton says he supported the war and Gore actually voted
>"to send troops. You better vote for Perot!!!!
>"
>
>Clinton also criticized our roles before and after the war. Even if he
>disagreed with some points, it would be political death to talk about
>it. Remember, I am not criticizing the need for us to send troops to
>protect S.A, just the way it was done on Jan 17, 1991. 

I cannot believe that you are willing to give Bill Clinton carte blanche to
lie to the American people for political gain.  What exactly is your problem
with the gulf war then, since it certainly resulted in political gain (if not
for very long.)?

>
>"Ken
>
>Palmer


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
 to regulate or  subsidize it, and  there are always those  in Congress
 eager to take  over more power  and control.  But it  is impossible to
 get something for  nothing.  The government  produces no goods, so  it
 can hand out  favors to some  people only by taking  the earnings  and
 property of others first."

                       From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992

===============================================================================
From: cayley@plains.NoDak.edu (Michele Cayley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: good pr
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:00:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7463 talk.politics.misc:48189 alt.rush-limbaugh:6000 alt.politics.bush:6904 alt.politics.elections:14418
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:34:46 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <1992Sep26.030726.20605@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.134020.16348@news.uiowa.edu> bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:

>>Someone once asked me for an unbiased, 2 sentence description on the 
>>difference between liberal and conservative as used in today's political
>>context.  Just in case anyone wants, or cares, to know, here is what I
>>told them:

>>Liberalism stands for collective rights and collective responsibilities.
>>Conservatism stands for individual rights and individual responsibilities.

Actually, I think that the liberal and conservative coalitions are not 
especially idealogically consistent, but I think that the essence of the
difference is (or at least would be, if they were consistent and honest)
that liberalism (actually, socialism) is based on the moral premise of 
altruism and conservatism (actually, capitalism) is based on the moral
premise of egoism.  One confusing element is that there are a bunch of
"conservatives" who are alrtuists who just happen to think that capitalism
is the best way of doing more for the less fortunate (which it is).  These
religious conservatives really OUGHT to be liberals if they were consistent,
but they are in the conservative camp anyway.

>It does well for traditional conservatives, but I believe the religious
>right is for collective rights and responsibilities but with different
>content than "liberals."  

True enough.

>Also, on social issues related to personal
>freedom amd expression, liberals are very individualistic.  Gets a little
>complicated...

Actually not.  They are VERY collectivistic!  Look at the PC movement!  The
difference is that most liberals don't consider ideas and morality to be
very important and therefore they don't seek to regulate it as strenuously.
they are more interested in ruling the "crude material" factors of human life.
Unfortunately, the religious right (as opposed to most of the rest of the 
right) thinks that since morality is the important factor to be manipulated
"for the good of society", they seek to manipulate those things.

The ideal choice would be for the choice to strictly be either for government
control of private affairs or against it.  Unfortunately, there is no political
party which fits that bill.  Your are left with a mixed bad of government
intervention in either party.  Maybe in a few years...

--Brian
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7972 tx.politics:5773