HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: No it ain't
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:44:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.220157.29636@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
>>There is forcing (fascism), then there is voting. 
>
>So appointing and using Supreme Court Justices is "fascism"?  I'll bet
>you didn't say that when it was firmly "liberal".  heh.

Personally, it makes more sense to have the public vote on the justices. But
America is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic.

It is not your postition to bet anything I may or may not have said on that
issue. It is irrelevant.

>>Let's vote on it. I am all for it.
>
>Me too.  You'd lose in a big way.  Just consult with the "feminist" 
>movement.


We shall see. 

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: proposal and request for comment.
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:38:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>>The term 'parasite'
>>fits a fetus amazingly well, since its presence is not symbiotic.

>Actually, the fetus DOES do something for the woman but not immediatly.
>It carries her genes into another generation so they will, theoretically,
>survive her demise.  

This is completely irrelevant to the parasite discussion. The woman
does not benefit personally in any way. Society/humankind however, does.
(A little introspection before you spout, please)

>This brings up an interesting point.  Are seeds and fruits parasitic 
>to the parent plant?

No....fruit is part of the plant. Seeds are part of the plant. This
is like asking are sperm parasites, or eggs.

>Are children who breast feed (assume no other available processed foods)
>parasitic?  How about marsupials in the pouch?

These questions are a little trickier, and we need to define parasite
exactly.

parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in
another organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host
organism. - Webster's II

In this sense, the child is not, while the marsupials, as I understand
their reproductive cycle are, until they are ready to come out. A baby
can be put aside, the marsupial, at least in the inital stages of development
in the pouch cannot.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A Small Dose of The Real
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:26:54 GMT

rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:


>True to a previous promise I made (via email), I have done some preliminary 
>research on American attitudes on abortion.  Both Pro-choice and Pro-life 
>advocates have argued that "America is on their side".  In fact, they are both 
>right and both wrong.  The following data are taken from the General Social 
>Survey; data were selected from 1982, 1987 ad 1988 because they were the 
>easiest to disagregate, and they show a good time spread.

>Q: Should abortion be legal if?
>a) There is a chance of serious baby defect?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  236       263       744
>No   92        94        200

>b) The woman's health is in danger?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  281       283       836
>No   53        45        106

>c) The woman is pregnant by rape?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  234       246       749
>No   97        84        175

>d) The woman wants it for any reason?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  87        129       338
>No   237       207       598

>e) The woman is married and wants no more children?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  111       125       379
>No   216       206       570

>f) The family has a low income and can't afford more children?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  120       142       395
>No   212       195       546

>g) The woman is not married and does not want to marry the man?
>     1982      1987      1988
>Yes  100       109       367
>No   232       226       565


>Note that there is a clear majority FOR abortion on the first three,and a clear
>majority AGAINST on the last four.  Make of this what you will.

>Methodological point:  PLEASE do not convert these numbers into percentages.  I
>have left out Don't Know and N/A answers for ease of presentation (they were 
>below 25 in all cases anyway, so they don't skew the basic directions).  Since 
>you don't know total N, you can't do %'s.

>These are presented in the hopes that they may contribute (in whatever way) to 
>the discussion, and for the clarification of all who had held unsubstantiated 
>beliefs on the state of public opinion.

>--Bill

Thanks for the effort Bill.

Proves my point.  The only areas where "Choice" wins is on the
issues that comprise the tiniest portions of actual abortion 
(ie. birth defect, etc.).  America is "Pro-Life".

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: The Constitution
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 01:18:37 GMT



The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

Now the real question is:

are these 3 words in this order because they sound real SPIFFY together
or is that the order of priority???

Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
guaranteed?

just a thought

"Show me a worthwile cause to embrace and I'll show you a lost cause." - me

It applies to all "isms."

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:24:12 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <bjpjm0b.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The Supreme Court has already ruled that civil forfeiture is
>constitutional. I propose another amendment that specifically abolishes
>the practice.
>-- 

I dont think so.  Citations, please.

--Al Date
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3407 talk.politics.misc:17996 talk.politics.drugs:2874
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:23:28 GMT
	<1992Apr13.174349.7684@gordian.com>
	<1992Apr13.231015.1013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


Jim Mason:
   > |> [...]  Of late, we see an increasing number of so-called
   > |> 'celebrities' convicted of minor crimes being sentenced to
   > |> creating pro-"War-on-Drugs" TV spots.  [...]

Michael Thomas:
   >    I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one who has been viewing
   > this ugly spectacle with great unease...
   >    I think that the essence of the argument is whether the government
   > should have the ability to give out non traditional forms of punishment
   > when a person is convicted of a crime. [...]

Jim Mason:
	   I think this sort of question forms-up as "What should the
	   goverment allow to be exchanged in return for a shorter prison
	   sentence or lower fine ?". Once upon a time, it was legal for
	   convicts to offer themselves for medical experimentation. [...]
       It is like when the Inquisition forced all those
	   Jews to 'renounce' their religion and affirm their obediance to
	   the christian church (and Pope) and its doctrines. [...]

What is this "non-traditional punishment" euphemism?  There are
penalties, including execution (gak!), prison terms, fines, and (very
occasionally) restitution, for criminal conviction.  I suppose other
penalties could be chosen, but anything beyond what is prescribed by
statute would seem to be contrary to the limitations on governmental
power asserted in the Constitution, including the forbidding of ex
post facto laws.  To substitute penalties (not the same as deciding
whether to require the minimum or the maximum prescribed penalty) at
the discretion of the court would seem a simple case of judicial
corruption!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3247 misc.legal:8872 talk.politics.drugs:2706
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: The Founders and Private Property
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:45:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

(I am reposting this since I forgot to credit the last quote)

Many who participate in this group like to quote the various Founders
about the virtue of minimalist government.  The quote about government
which governs the least, governs the best comes to mind.  These atitudes
didn't come from an examination of European government of the day, however.
It came from an examintation of Native American societies, most specifically
the Iroquois League.  And with this study, they also came to admire the
Indian atitude towards private property.  Some quotes:

	All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow,
	his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely
	necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of
	public Convention.  Hence, the public has the rights of
	regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property,
	and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it.  All the
	property that is necessary to man is his natural Right, which
	none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous
	to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their
	Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.

	Benjamin Franklin

	
	While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind
	of property is derived from Nature at all . . . it is considered
	by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no
	one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land
	. . . [which] . . . is the property for the moment of him who
	occupies it, but when he relinquishes that occupation, the
	property goes with it.  Stable ownership is the gift of social
	law, and is given late in the progress of society.

	Thomas Jefferson


	Whenerver ther is, in any country, uncultivated lands and
	unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property
	have been so extended as to violate natural right.

	Thomas Jefferson


	Private property . . . is a Creature of Society, and is subject
	to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall
	require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore
	to the public Exingencies are not to be considered a Benefit on
	the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of
	Honor and Power, but as Return of an Obligation previously
	received, or as payment for a just Debt.

	Benjamin Franklin 
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Bush Addicted to Invasions of Foreign Countries
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:49:57 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Keywords: Costa Rica, secret U.S. military operations

In article <1992Apr16.183629.28146@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>In <kgzjd_m.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>
>>The militarisation of Costa Rica shows that Bush is getting ready to
>>conduct another STORM operation on one or more South American
>>Countries.
>
>$10 on Peru.  Bet cancelled if STORM operation doesn't happen.
>Any takers? :-)

Too rich for my blood.  $.10 on Haiti, must collect in person.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3493 alt.drugs:7746 talk.politics.drugs:2974
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Bush Addicted to Invasions of Foreign Countries
Keywords: Costa Rica, secret U.S. military operations
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:56:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.kgzjd_m.feustel
Distribution: na
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The militarisation of Costa Rica shows that Bush is getting ready to
conduct another STORM operation on one or more South American
Countries.

I think Bush is addicted to Warfare. 

-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
Republicans believe in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
 	   - carrots for the rich and sticks for the poor -
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Ministry of Truth at work in USA (Re: Hempless history ..)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:57:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.114827.13139@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>A repost from alt.conspiracy.
>
>From: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
>Subject: Re: Hempless history - Can you help me?
>Message-ID: <1992Apr10.184354.25527@sco.COM>
>Date: 10 Apr 92 18:43:54 GMT
>
>In article <15930004@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> jeffw@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck) writes:
>>A good reference for your project might be "the emporer's new clothes"
>>by Jack somebody. It is slanted pro-legalization, but has oodles of
>>sources and copies of old news articles. Even give you a place to buy
>>the old war film "Hemp for Victory" (not kidding!).
>
>There is an interesting story outlined in this book about that movie.
>I can't remember how to spell Jack's last name, something like Herrah.

_The Emporer Wears No Clothes_ by Jack Herer.  It's an _ok_ source, although
there are better.  I would recommend _The Case for Drug Legalization_ by
Richard Lawrence Miller (I think it was.)

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3462 misc.legal:9287 talk.politics.drugs:2938
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:17:42 GMT
	<1992Apr3.230003.2822@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
	<1992Apr6.023035.21080@news.cs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Apr10.013543.28669@Cadence.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.013543.28669@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

   But who can I vote for that both has a chance of winning AND will support
   ending selective drug prohibition?

Though I don't think that a limited amount of selective drug
prohibition is a bad idea (I'm really not sure), I sympathize with
your plight because it's becoming the plight of many of us, many who
are being convinced to vote for an "electable" candidate.  Don't you
realize that you may well be having more effect if your vote adds to
the decent showing of an "unelectable"?  (Especially by making that
candidate or party more electable the next time.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Americans LIKE Being Victims of Big Business!
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 03:24:48 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

If 1/10th of the people who spend their time on TV talk shows talking
about how they were victimized by (fill in the blank) went after
revenge instead, there would only be 1/100th as many of those stories
to be told.


-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
George Bush believes in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
       - give carrots to the rich and stick it to the poor -
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Originator: jkogan@eff.org
Keywords: McCleskey v. Kemp; equal protection
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.055544.20525@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>[...]
>equal protection limits the state's exercise of peremptories.
>it is impermissible for the prosecutor to use his peremptories
>to exclude blacks from the jury just because they're black.
>
>of course, showing racial bias in the use of peremptories is nontrivial
>and in practice i don;t really know how well equal protection works
>in preventing racially motivated peremptories.
>
Of course, under McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the defendant has the burden
of proving that the prosecutor (who allegedly excluded potential jurors
from a petit jury, based on race) was acting with discriminatory purpose in 
the defendant's case....

Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not EFF's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.  Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27!   |  the Bar, and they'll be wisdom. 

-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.  Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27!   |  I pass the Bar, and I'll tell you the truth. 
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:30:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr6.023035.21080
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:


>	I'd be surprised if he were anti-WoD.  He's stated that to further
>the goal of gun control searches/seizures at random are OK.  (I think. .
>.don't quote me on this. :-)
>-- 

Right you are -- H. Ross is a consumate drug warrior.  I caught
the last part of a C-SPAN interview, conducted by Brian Lamb, of
a guy named Tom Mason.  Mason wrote a book a couple of years
back called "Perot: An Unauthorized Biography."  According to 
Mason, Perot was approached by Bill Clements, then Republican
Governor of Texas, to chair a task force to come up with a 
way of dealing with the "drug problem."  Mason used this
episode to illustrate how Perot could pursue disasterous
policies if he was convinced he was right.  Perot's task force
called for stiffer sentences and manditory minimums.  The
result, according to Mason, is that the Texas prison population
exploded, there is now a multi-billion dollar bond issue for
building more prisons, and the "drug problem" is, if anything,
even worse than it was before.

As we in this group know, the problems caused by prohibition
are used by government to justify government's acquiring more
power.  Perot may well be the new face of American fascism:
the totalitarian man-on-horseback as populist.  The evidence
is that Perot is paternalistic in his dealings with his
employees in both the best and worst senses of the word.  He
looks after the needs of workers but also would fire them
if they committed adultry.

My guess is that Perot will self-destruct when newspeople
start to ask him tough questions.  But, there is always the
chance that they'll give him a pass, just like they did
with Ronnie Reagan.  If that happens, all bets are off.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
From: grotter@pilot.njin.net (Ephraim Rotter)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: INFO ON DEATH PENELTY NEEDED!
Keywords: please email!
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:30:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



I would be very greatful if someone could give me a state-by-state
breakdown of any and all death penelty related issues (i.e. murder
rate, types of death penelty used, if there is a death penelty, etc
etc...)

thanks in advance!

--Eph
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Taxation of electronic transmissions
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:06:11 GMT

Though this might be a place for this discussion:

In article 11276@mindlink.bc.ca, Rick_McCormack@mindlink.bc.ca (Rick McCormack) writes:
>
>In British Columbia, a Canadian province on the west coast (Pacific Ocean-side)
>the government sees FAX as a "handy source of revenue" (quotes are mine!). In
>the latest budget for the province, the government has started charging sales
>tax on FAX transmissions. Obviously, this tax must be collected by the
>telephone company, who inadvertently become tax collectors thru their
>accounting process.
>
It would seem that it is acceptable to charge a tax on fax transmissions if a company
is charging someone to do the transmission for them, but this would be a simple sales
tax.
Otherwise, it would make sense to just read the document over the phone to someone,
unless there are graphics in the document.

I believe there has been some effort on behalf of the United States government to
try to tax electronic data transfers of any kind (i.e. modem use, etc.).  This has been
met with great resistance and they have not YET been successful.

---
Keith Freedman
Los Alamos National Laboratory
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: Bush Addicted to Invasions of Foreign Countries
Keywords: Costa Rica, secret U.S. military operations
Organization: New York University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:26:15 GMT

frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:

>In <kgzjd_m.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>The militarisation of Costa Rica shows that Bush is getting ready to
>>conduct another STORM operation on one or more South American Countries.

So where do I find the evidence for this buildup?


>$10 on Peru.  Bet cancelled if STORM operation doesn't happen.
>Any takers? :-)

Tempting.  I'll take Cuba.


david
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs