HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statistics from nurses ( was Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views )
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:53:05 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <ldb8pvINNcte@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Wrong.  There was a chance of getting aids donating blood because there
>were some cases where the needles used were not properly cleaned or there
		           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
			Needles are reused?  Is that what you are saying?

>could be blood-to-blood contact between the technician and the donor.  Those
>gaps have been closed, so the 0:100,000 is accurate in hospital and red-cross
>environments.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:55:59
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<PA1460008.396.719250598@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: PA1460008@utkvm1.utk.edu's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:49:58 GMT

In article <PA1460008.396.719250598@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA1460008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

> >> Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.
...
>      Bill Clinton has singled out the deficit (with the economy) as an
> example of what "Bush has done to this country."  If he isn't prepared to
> put in writing that he can do better than Bush, why should we think he
> can?

Well no, not "singled out".  Clinton certainly has used the deficit as
an example of what Bush has done wrong, but that's *an* example, not
the entirety of the problem.

I am quite sure that Clinton will do better than Bush (not hard), and
I am even fairly sure that he will do better than Bush at keeping the
deficit under control.  But let's not lose track of the big picture;
balancing the budget is not the only measure of success, and Clinton
rightly refuses to sign a contract that would make sense only if it were.

As I have said earlier, it all depends on your premises.  Perot thinks
that the deficit is the only thing that the President should be
concerned about; Clinton disagrees, and so do I.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: lorenmo@microsoft.com (Loren Moore)
Subject: Re: The Place of the 'second coming' in politics
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:53:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct14.010544.14987@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com wrote:
> 
> Forgive me folks, but this is a Little LONG,
> but it is REQUIRED to address the salient
> features of the point that Judy Raises.
> 
> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> ] 	
> ] 	Has anyone ever considered the REAL thrust behind the 
> ] 	right to life movement coming in at us from the far fundamentalist
> ] 	right?  Could it be that the biblical predictions (they claim,
> ] 	I don't personally read bibles much) of motherhood becoming 
> ] 	valueless just before the "2nd coming" are what abortions 
> ] 	seem to say to them?
> 

LotsOfStuffDeleted....

> 
> Let us first take a Brief Stroll past some of the HORROR SIGNS
> of the 'Late Great Planet Earth' and notice what a couple of
> decades can mean.
> 

Interesting post, albeit, I didn't understand much of it (and no, I don't
want to play with your boy bits too). I did understand the intent, and that's
all that matters, eh?

Remember Hal Lindsey's book: 'The 1980's: Countdown to Armeggedon'? A 
stunning piece of work (cunning stunts?, or stunning cunts?). Anyway, I hear
he has a new book out. I don't know about you, but I'm gonna rush right out
and get it!

daemien
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Theories on Columbus-bashing and Compassion Fascism
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:29:33 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In Denver, a Columbus Day Parade was cancelled after threats by 
Indians and their sympathetic(pathetic?) supporters, who called it a 
celebration of 500 years of racism and genocide.

In Berkeley, CA, Columbus Day is now officially "Indigenous Peoples 
Day".  I guess you would expect this sort of "compassion fascism" 
from a place like Berkeley, but that doesn't make it any less 
obscene.  Note they are no longer Indians, but "indigenous 
peoples".  Maybe we could just call them "Indi-Americans".

While there are many more people who will celebrate Columbus rather 
than protest him, the radicals always seem to get the press.  I'd 
love to hear how many of these protesters are enjoying their life in 
this modern American country.  Of course, if you listen to the 
press, none of us are, but realistically speaking how many of them 
enjoy their dozen+ cable channels, their luxury automobiles, 
ELECTRICITY?  How many of them pay taxes, vote for officials, and 
slurp up government hand-outs?  How many would trade it for a teepee 
on the plains and a life of hugging trees and talking to flowers?
Just another example of the hypocrisy from the radical left!

Any theories on why these people are so intent on revising history 
so as to reflect poorly on the roots of white America?  Will this
solve any of our contemporary problems?  Guilt is, without a doubt, 
a significant factor behind white support for many radical minority 
causes - "White Guilt Syndrome" exists.  I think the answer lies 
somewhere in the ironic parallel between this attempt to damage and 
demean white heritage, while promoting and glorifying the heritage 
of minority groups.  It's unfortunate that many minorities have been 
steadfastly convinced that they cannot rise up until the majority is 
pulled down.
-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt7994a
Internet: gt7994a@prism.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50115 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6399 alt.politics.elections:15510 talk.abortion:41186 alt.sex:32238 alt.politics.clinton:8939 alt.politics.bush:8064 soc.singles:27185 alt.politics.homosexuality:6358 talk.bizarre:33209
From: walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
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: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: 7 Oct 1992 23:27:54 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu


>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>and Really are not the sort of things
>that decent persons with good personal
>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>themselves in/with/towards.


	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
you flood your bedroom.
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot...Get off his back!
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:45:01 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: flick@cwis.unomaha.edu's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:41:48 GMT

In article <flick.719228508@cwis> flick@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Anderson) writes:

> More often than not, the suggestion that Perot did not "answer the question
> ".  Evidently these people are very biased.  Perot does answer the questions
> and supports it with examples.  Now do these examples for some reason or 
> another confuse you?  Make you miss his answer?  Whats the problem?

I suppose it depends on what you think it means to answer a question,
doesn't it?  

Several times (the two ocasions I can remember are health insurance
reform and gun control, but there were others), Perot was asked what
he thought we should do.  He said that there were dozens of good plans
all over Washington, so he would just stop talking about the question,
and implement one of them.

I don't know about you, but the way I look at it, that isn't answering
the question.  Which plan does he want to implement?  The reason there
are dozens of plans is that people don't agree on which ones are good
and which ones are bad, and the reason we have elections is so that we
can choose between candidates with competing visions of what should be
done.  I know what Clinton wants to do about health care, but I don't
know what Perot wants to do.

By the way, I don't deny being biased.  Aren't we all?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:56:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>
>>Jennifer
>
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>being
>
>Spike Burkhardt
>Systems Management VMS/Unix programming
>Internet address - spike@lmsc.lockheed.com
>408-756-4790(w)

"[N]o case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the 
meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment....  [T]he use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally."
					Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) 
					Justice Harry Blackmun


"[T]he essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again
reaffirmed....  Before viability, the State's interests are not strong 
enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substan-
tial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure."


					Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 
					Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

The Bill of Rights applies to people--those who have been born.  It would
be hard to argue otherwise.  A fetus--or really, an embryo, which is what
is involved in most abortions--is a potentiality.  So is an unfertilized
egg.  The woman, however, is quite alive and very much a person.  The law
has chosen--reluctantly, in this current backlash climate--to give her
some power over her body and her life.  Individual choice--that's what the
Constitution is about.  Freedom from government interference.
































Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51763 misc.invest:12604
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.invest
Subject: Re: December Surprise
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:07:12
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM's message of 14 Oct 92 16:18:07 GMT

In article <3766@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

> On CNN's Moneyline a few weeks ago, the guest economist (can't remember
> his name) said that 2000 commercial banks were in trouble, to the
> tune of another $100 billion bailout (taken ``off-budget'' of course!).
> 
> The recent record profits of these banks still aren't enough to offset
> their losses from bad loans.
> 
> No matter who gets elected, your taxes WILL skyrocket, and your standard
> of living WILL go down.

I've heard about this before.  For those of you who don't know:
the S&L bailout was announced shortly after the 1988 election, but
it was in the works considerably before the election.  There's now
another such bailout in the works.

You know, in my more despairing moments, this is what makes me
pessimistic about the future of American democracy.  Everyone in
Washington knows that this bailout is coming, and everyone knows that
it will be annonced as a "surprise" just after the election.  These
facts just aren't secrets; anyone who cares to know them knows them
already.

The horrible fact isn't that we are being manipulated---rather, it is
that the American people has gotten so cynical, so used to being
manipulated, that there is no outrage over a situation like this;
secrecy isn't even necessary any more.  I'm just not sure that a
democracy can survive in the presence of cynicism like this.

It seems to me that this cynicism has gotten far worse in the 12 years
of the Reagan-Bush administrations, and I am hoping---purely on faith,
I'm afraid---that four years of Clinton-Gore can help begin to reverse
it.  If things don't turn out that way, I don't know what can be done.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:05:59 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct12.031111.131@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

ES:I really can't see devoting a lot of energy to rebutting the paranoid white
ES:males on the net who are so desperate to avoid real competition with
ES:females and non-white males that they must cite the results of their
ES:discriminatory past and insist that it somehow proves their superiority
ES:(read: right to exclude others) even though all but white males were
ES:excluded from both formal education and the resources to achieve on their
ES:own.

ES:I doubt that any one of these insecure men would ever bother to read a
ES:biography of someone like Marie Curie (whose sister became a physician at a
ES:time when European women were routinely excluded from higher education).
ES:If they did, they would not recognize the obsticles that were placed in her
ES:path or respect them.  That is why this type of white male is not respected
ES:by others.  Some day they may realize they are creating this experience,
ES:but don't hold your breath for it.  They talk the talk of fair competition,
ES:but they don't walk the walk:  they can't face the effects of their
ES:past discrimination on their successes any more than they can face fair
ES:competetion in their present.

ES:Most of you guys who are so hot on this couldn't last a moment with a
ES:modern woman.  I invite you to step on my turf, a courtroom, sometime.  I
ES:will gladly hand you back your clock--fully cleaned.

ES:I know it's rough to have to compete with the world on an equal basis, but
ES:it's only going to get worse for you guys.  You are dinosaurs.  And you
ES:obviously know it.  Tough luck, guys.  The past is only important if you
ES:live in it, and the more you live in it, the more irrelevent you become.

Talk about your sexist drivel.

Since I am not a lawyer, I have no doubt that you would tear me to pieces 
in a court room.  Would it be alright if I challenged you to a programming
contest.

There are a number of good female programmers at my plant, some are better
than me, some are not.  The same is true for the other male programers.

For you to assign such heinous motives to everyone who disagrees with you
indicates that you are the one in the need of some attitude adjustment.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: More Bombs, less Health
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:00:13 GMT

The Decline of America: More Bombs, less Health

From The Nation, date unknown, but page 592 so only the year matters,
the the year is 1990 or 1989, we can deduce:

  A Kinder, Gentler Health Policy

  If George Bush really wants a kinder and gentler nation he should
  heed a report on Medicare and Medicaid put out by the House Select
  Committee on Aging, which documents the Reagan assault on those two
  programs. Between 1981 and 1987, Medicare funding was cut by $35.9
  billion.

  But the "most telling part" of the Reagan legacy, the report says,
  "is seen in the percentage of America's poor covered by Medicaid as
  it dropped substantially from an already too low 53 percent in 1979
  to closer to 40 percent currently." The administration "should have
  been pushing for Medicaid coverage for 100 percent of poor people,
  not cutting back in already woefully inadequate protection," says
  Representative Edward Roybal, who chairs the committee.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52230 alt.politics.clinton:10818
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Summary: I guess it will be as bad as Carter's reign of malaise
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:10:33 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.130707.19484@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, bwillems@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Balam Willemsen) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.205446.4810@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>>> In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
>>> book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
>>> on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
>>> page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
>>
>>	CNN isn't really correct either.  The page is 403.  What Quayle
>>referred to is the "environmental marshall plan" that Gore proposes.  Since
>>Gore doesn't say how much it would cost, the Reps used today's cost of the
>>actual Marshal Plan: 200 Billion.
> 
> BUZZ! Sorry wrong answer!
> 
> p. 304 (Quayle's page only talks about the "old Marshall plan", and the
> spending that would be equivalent to that expenditure today.)
> 
> p. 403 (Your page is in the INDEX and the words Marshall Plan are
> nowhere to be seen, if you're looking for the index entry for it, it's
> on p. 402!)
> 
> And they talk about trust... 
> Can the American people trust GB/DQ any more than they can BC/AG? 
> 
> Balam
> Now definitely for Clinton/Gore '92

	More evidence that Clinton/Gore fans have no real evidence to stand on. 
Typos influence your vote?

	Amazing, truly amazing.

	When's the next flight out of here?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  Clarifying an Argument
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:56:32 GMT


It has been brought to my attention that my postings
contain a lack of linearity. I will therefore attempt
to rectify this for the AR's in our midsts.

let S denote Sex
let G denote Gestation

It is Alledged to be true that Consent to Sex Implies Consent to Gestate.
Given as we all know that victims of Rape also get Gestational
we can simplify the argument to:

Sex Implies Gestational

NOT Gestational

Therefore, by modes tollendo

NOT SEX

So for all of you NotFood out there....

JUST SAY NO! To SEX!


ciao
drieux

ps: and for the slow readers out there:

'sex is the leading cause of political parties,
we would only wish that they would remember that.'

pps: My MOST DEEPEST apologies that I had not made
blatantly clear that it was not a case of modes ponens.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:58:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct7.040536.28236@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

> Not condoned?!?  The bible cites this scumball as a "rightous" person!
> If the bible can call a man who was willing to give up his virgin
> daughters to a mob, and then take them himself, "rightous", and then
> not condemn the action, it is CERTIANLY condoning it.

Ye do err, not knowing the word of God.
-- 
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,bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: ==> 3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:05:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.023125.18710@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>}I'm less concerned that the people in the Bush ad were all friends
>>}of the campaign (this is a surprise?), but I'm much more curious
>>}as to how the tax increases were calculated.  Is there any factual
>>}basis to the ad?  Or is it lying that is especially blatant by
>>}the Bush campaign?  
>
>They used economic analyses of health care proposals submitted
>to Congress. These "pay or play" plans were used as a model for Clinton's
>vaguer plan. Most of them used a ~3% payroll tax for funding.
>
>Clinton however lives in a magicland where programs cost no money.
>Clinton still won't say where he's getting the money for his plan,
>and won't admit that he will institue a payroll tax like that.
>He claims that savings in the health care budget overall will provide
>the money.
>Sure. That's like saying you can get a car for free, because, heck,
>the high gas mileage will save you a ton of money. Think about it.
>

	So basically they used someone else's plan, assumed all the
people in the ad didn't have employer-provided health insurance, calculated
the numbers, and called the Clinton's tax hike? Sounds like a con job...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc