HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.162454.17273@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>> [responsibilities analogies deleted]
>
>What "parental responsibilities" does a pregnant woman have?  Why?  And,
>tell me why any woman who's just given birth can abdicate any and all
>possible "parental responsibilities" but a woman who hasn't yet given birtn
>can't?  Why is that?  It would seem to me that some people believe that
>just because a woman is pregnant, she "has" to "fulfill" something, and
>the not-any-more-pregnant woman has absolutely nothing to "fulfill".
>
>Requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy just because YOU SAY SO is STUPID.
>You aren't the pregnant woman. YOU HAVE NO SAY.

We all have a say in how our society is to function, those are the rules.
I do not think that you are an anarchist.  I understand your feelings about
the right to your own body as well as the parasite (someone else's descr.)
but you do not also feel that Pee Wee Herman has the right to do with his
body as he sees fit do you?  

Most of your post is pretty cold stuff.  I've been following the anti-arguments
and it seems to me that the question you all are dodging is that of taking
responsibility for your actions.  This is actually extrapolatable to many
liberal positions - it's not my fault that I {got AIDS, got pregnant, haven't
got a job, etc.}  Pragmatically I think that abortion is acceptable within
certain limits by most of America.  I do not think that I have the obligation
to pay for it though, people should have the responsibility for their actions.

I wonder if unnatural selection is at work here.  I mean, if liberals freely
excersize the right to abortion then maybe there are fewer being born :)

Oh yeah, I forgot that the children of conservatives have no choice but to
go to public indoctrination, er..., schools where a certain amount of 
contamination occurs and some liberals are created :::)


What this country needs is a good 5 cent abortion pill,

Mike Best

RU486?  
"Yes, I'm for 86" -99
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:52:15 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>
>> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>> independent of who is President and what he does.
>
>Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
>will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
>belief is somewhat different.
>
>Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
>very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
>(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
>neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
>commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
>Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
>elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
>party from fragmenting.

i am very excited by this. after bush loses, i would love for
those more informed on the workings of the Republican Party to keep
us informed of how this may unfold.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50341 talk.religion.misc:17871
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:41:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <ld95v8INNmcq@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
>> weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.

> This argument sure carries a lot of weight with those of us that don't
> believe in Judgement Day.

Judgement Day is a disjoint event from your faith (or lack thereof) in
it.

> How about letting me take my own risks, make my own mistakes, and pay
> my own price on Judgement Day.

This will happen in any event without any help from me.

> Your continued attempts to legislate conformance to your definition of
> what might happen on such a day if it even comes to pass is
> unsupportable, unwarented [sic], and based on an unprovable premise.

What attempt to legislate?

> Don't forget.  This country survived almost 200 years before the
> words "for God" got pieced into the pledge of allegiance.

Due in no small part to the fact that God was then a much larger part
of our culture than He is now.

> The  founders didn't think God should be part of our government,

This is false (and probably exactly the opposite of what many of the
founders believed).

> and they came to this continent to get away from countries that forced
> following a state mandated religion.

Yes, exactly.  What the founders opposed was state-mandated religion,
not God.  What we essentially have now is [illegally] state-mandated
secular humanism (a religion in itself) fueled by the rabid anti-
Christian bigotry which runs rampant in the liberal-dominated
educational and political establishments.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism,alt.drugs
From: gag65@cas.org ()
Subject: Libertarian Candidate Andre Marrou on Larry King 10/12
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:40:29 GMT

This has already been posted to the alt.politics.libertarian and
alt.politics.marrou groups, but for those interested in hearing the Libertarian
Candidate for president, Andre Marrou, he will be on CNN's Larry King show
tonight (10/12) at 9:00. Eastern.  He will probably be on during the second half
of the show.

Marrou will no doubt be talking about being the only one of the four candidates
on the ballot in all 50 states who was not invited to the debates.  He will also
most likely discuss Libertarian solutions to current problems and the differences
between his ideas and those of the other three candidates.

--Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:05:49 GMT

In article <Bw0q0t.ELI@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.105727.10446@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
>>Mike Polen (mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
>>: Tim Miller) writes:
>>: |> 
>>: |> 	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
>>: |> it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
>>: |> 
>>:  	Heh heh heh.  Man attends meeting in the white house on support 
>>: 	to Iraq, can't remember a thing about it.  Anyone ever see 
>>: 	"The Manchurian Candidate?"
>>
>>  	Heh heh heh.  Man is President for eight years, can't remember a
>>	thing about it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
>>
>>Dammit I haven't seen "The Manchurian Candidate!"  I don't get it...
>
>
>  Heh heh heh.  Man denies having ever seen the movie, says he "doesn't
>  get it".   Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"

Heh heh heh.  Man goes on talk shows, starts speaking in homilies,
and next thing you know he's a presidential contender.
Anyone ever see "Being There?"

Where was Bill? 

Pat
		Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,or.politics
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:27:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

: >  Andre Marrou was also put on the ballot in all 50 states
: >  by his supporters, but he didn't have enough money to buy
: >  a presence before the media or to air 30 minute spots on
: >  prime-time TV.
: Yeah, and Marrou is a loser. He should just give it up.

What's the matter?  Are you another one of those folks who thinks
that candidates who are willing to speak out against the established
norms in Washington shouldn't be permitted to run against the
"big-league" candidates who either came straight from the party 
mold or bought their way into the campaign?

Perhaps George Washington should have given up in the Revolutionary
War because there was no way he could defeat the British Army.
Perhaps the British should have given up in WWII after Dunkirk.
Perhaps scientists in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries should have 
just given up because they had almost no chance to speak out against
Roman Church.

It's the people who continue to argue for what is right, even
though they had almost no chance of "winning" who move mankind
on towards better things.  I have to respect Marrou: I may not
like all of what he says, but at least he has the gumpshun to
continue to campaign and talk about what he sees as the issues, 
even though he has almost no chance of winning.  I have more
respect for him than people who can't make up their minds whether
or not they are going to run for President, politicians whose
opinions change with the polls, and candidates who would rather
sling mud than talk about the issues and their plans to solve
the nation's problems. 

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:40:18 GMT


>radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe) writes:
>: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>: : Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
>: : truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
>: : rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
>: : crime.
>: : Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.
>: 
>: It is very simple.  Sex is sinful, unless done within the confines
>: of marriage for the purpose of procreation. 
>
  I don't get this.  Assuming that I accept that an abortion is murder
  then how can one condone the commital of the sin of murder because the
  sin of rape was committed?  If you set up a scale of sin where one sin
  permits the commital of another this world will be full of people trying
  to get even for perceived sins against them.  Either abortion is murder
  in *all* cases or it isn't.  Pro-lifers who attempt to suggest o/wise 
  are the worst kind of hypocrites IMO.  I believe abortion ought to be
  legal and unrestricted up until viability.  Nothing hypocritical about
  that.

  


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50762 alt.activism:17341 misc.headlines:6573 sci.econ:8058
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: <None>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:57:00 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <9210080446.AA24008@poly.math.cornell.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>     "WASHINGTON-- 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes
>     now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left
>     in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.

	The study is bogus.  Shall we repost the figures yet again?  Posting
this N+1 times will not make it come true.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50272 ca.politics:8535 ba.politics:5942
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:48:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct4.203257.29830@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Man is nothing without property. If you do not have the right to your
>own body (not being sold into slavery for example)

Man can exist without individually owned property (beyond his own body)
as long as he can overcome his possessiveness.

As for one's own body being one's property, that is absolute.

Which is why an argument could be made that what one does in private
should not matter in public.
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Burning the flag is OK
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:10:36 GMT


(I've added misc.legal to this thread, mostly in order to increase the
chance that if I'm wrong somebody knowledgeable about Supreme Court
procedure will correct me.)

In article <1992Oct14.065543.20900@u.washington.edu>, 
tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) said:

> > Summary of today's supreme court decision: Laws that ban the
> > burning of the American Flag are unconstitutional. [Kevin McEntee]
>
> What decision?  The impression I got from the news reports was that
> they decided not to hear the case.  There's a big difference between
> a decision upholding a lower court decision, and the Court deciding
> not to hear the case.  This distinction seems to be lost on the
> press, however.

There's still some noteworthy significance here, though.  Both of the
Supreme Court's flag-burning decisions of a few years ago were sharply
-- some might say bitterly -- split, 5-4.  By ancient tradition, the
Supreme Court will hear a case if at least four of the Justices want
to, and will decline to hear it if less than four want to.  Assuming
that this was the algorithm they used this time, the fact that they
declined to hear the case means that there are now less than four
Justices on the Court who feel strongly enough about the issue that
they want another shot at it (or, in Thomas' case, a first shot at
it), at least not with the Court's perpetually heavy caseload.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:47:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.165610.21738@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.083157.24428@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

 [Lots of blather deleted]

>]>Well, I don't particularly like Dornan's style, but he did NOT say that
>]>Clinton participated in treasonous activities, he said it was likely
>]>that Clinton met the KGB there. Now, it was impossible to travel there
>]>at that time without meeting the KGB, since all Intourist people reported
>]>to the KGB, so he is technically correct. I doubt that Clinton conspired
>]>with the KGB there.... as I said before, he was probably just one of the
>]>thousands of americans unwittingly used by them. Their term was "useful
>]>fool."

>]Used HOW?

>]gain, you're convicting strictly on the basis of "probably" or "possibly"
>]or "maybe".

>Used as an anti-war protestor. If you don't think anti-war protesters
>furthered the soviet cause, you don't really understand the geopolitics
>of the era. I don't think that Clinton conspired with the KGB. If I did,
>I would be much more forceful on that issue.

Not likely.  Actually, I think pro-Vietnam war people furthered the
soviet cause.  You couldn't think up a policy that could possibly hurt
the US more -- to get involved in an unwinnable war which could drag on
for years and years, hurting the economy while not actually accomplishing 
anything, thereby distracting us from real problems.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50409 alt.politics.clinton:9180
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The American Public Are Being Fools (Clinton)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 14:09:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Let me first say that I'm still hoping that Perot will go up in the polls
once part II is shown tonight and people start opening their eyes to some
real answers to this mess.

 I watched the second debate last night. Everytime Clinton spoke I got the
impression that he was holding things back. He just has this "plastic", fake,
typical political look to him. You get the impression that you are talking to
a car salesman. I was also sickend by his constant bad acting, dramatic (like
a bad soap opera) style. It is obvious to me now that this man will say or do
anything it takes to win votes. He is all talk in my view, and he is willing
to promise the world to everybody in order to get their votes. Listen, we can't
ALL have gifts handed to us from the government and not expect to feel the
pinch sooner or later. Sure, some people will feel great about all this free
stuff he starts handing over to us, but what happens when the bill for all
this comes due? The hard facts show that he can't get the kind of money he is
talking about from just the rich. Besides, while I'm all for the rich paying
more taxes, you live in dreamland if you think we can erase our debt by putting
the hit on the rich. It just won't work. We need MUTUAL sacrifice if we want
to see results. What Clinton is doing is using the average person's despise
for the rich to try to win votes. I'm below middle class, but I realize that
cure all our problems by simply making the rich pay more taxes. All I can say
is that I'm shocked by the American people's foolishness. Can nobody see
through this man for what he really is? He is simply a career politician who
is trying to get in office. He'll use your money to buy your vote, and when
that bill comes to a few years down the road we will have nobody to blame but
ourselves. Believe me, I did try to like this man. I sat there and said "listen
to his message...try to believe in his message", but I kept hearing this voice
in my head say "He's a fake...He's a fake...he'll hit you with any load of
crap it takes to win your vote." Can you imagine how a Democratic congress and
this guy together will blow our money? If Ross doesn't win, all I see is a
bigger government, more spending, and something very much like a socialized
nation.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50909 alt.politics.clinton:9715
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 11 Oct 1992 18:56:58 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct11.030032.4690@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

Businesses had about 100 years of Industrialized America to generate
safety watchdog groups before OSHA, i.e. before the government stepped
in.

I dared you to name five such groups and you wrote instead

>	dANDY, PCs are a recent invention (say, since mid-70s).  Can you name
>five useful personal computers from before that date?

I can name reasons why there were no PC's in the 1960s. What (NEW)
excuse will you come up with for the failure of the pre-OSHA free market
to create watchdog groups? And why will this excuse not hold if
Libertarianism was somehow adopted tomorrow?

I said that Libertarian theory is at odds with known historical fact.
Your "example" does nothing to refute that.

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.023151.18526@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>>>Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>>>>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>>>
>>>I'll lay odds that the founding fathers were opposed to child molestation.
>>>But, for some strange reason, there is no prohibition in the Constitution
>>>on such or similar practices. It follows, according to Farenellian logic,
>>>that laws against child molestation are pattently unconstitutional on their
>>>face.
>>
>>Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.
>>Do you have any evidence that the Framers considered placing a child
>>molestation clause in the Constitution?  If not, then your posting makes
>>no sense.  There's a huge difference between something not being in the
>>Constitution because the Framers actively decided not to put it there,
>>and something not being there because there was never any consideration
>>of putting it there.
>
>As pointed out, ad nauseum, they might have rejected the inclusion of such
>a limitation for any number of reasons including that they considered them
>unnecessary or that they wished to leave the matter to the states (where
>it is currently being resolved) or, more likely, they just didn't consider it
>appropriate or a good idea. To infer they they considered it somehow contrary
>to other provisions in the Constitution is an incredible leap of logic.
>
>To continue the analogy, if someone had proposed a prohibition on child
>molestation and it was voted down, unanimously because everyone considered it
>to be a state, and not a national issue (as it is), then this would have
>make such laws unconstitutional?

     I believe you're missing a point.  Child molestation laws are not dealt
with in the Constitution, but eligibility to Congress is.  What requirements 
a Congressmen must meet are set out in the Constitution.  Term limitations
would add another criteria ("has not served more than two/three/four 
previous terms"), and you can't do that without amending the Constitution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc