HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:52:40 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Steve Adams) writes:
|> Kelley Miller) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >Theodore A. Kaldis) says:
|> >
|> >>No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
|> >>condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
|> >>daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)
|> >
|> >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.
|> 
|> There was a larger issue at play here...the mob wanted Lot's visitors, and
|> his duty was to protect them at all costs.  As such, he tried to placate
|> the crowd by offering his virgin daughters.  The crowd declined...
|> 
|> As for the daughters having sex with him...they thought that life as they
|> knew is had vanished from the world...and wanted to have children...
|> 
|> Not that any of this is 'right' in our eyes, but from what I understand of
|> the Abrahamic times, the protection of guests was the first priority.
|> Heirs were extremely important, irrespective of their parantage.  Hence the
|> 'handmaidens' who bore children for many of the patriarchs...
|> 
Oh my God (sorry about the possiveness).  Do you mean the bible and the
word of God need to be evaluated with respect to the times?  How do we
know that in these times (today) that our virgin daughters (if there are
any left) are not fair tribute for traveling salesmen in need of a
little gas and a good night's sleep and therapy.

Maybe God thinks abortion is OK today, and just hasn't gotten around
to sending someone to tell us -- after all we aren't expecting day-to
day guidance.  Are we?

News flash.  Today God told Mike Polen that abortion is OK.  Message
delivered by burning bush (not the guy in the white house).  More
on the 11:00PM news.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52525 alt.rush-limbaugh:7663 alt.politics.bush:9535 alt.politics.clinton:11048 alt.politics.elections:17371 talk.abortion:43094 alt.sex:33228
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:42:46 GMT


In a previous article, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) says:

>In article <1992Oct10.081708.24118@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>> 
>> In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:
>} Do you honestly believe Clinton thought it was important to "disclose"
>} a vacation he took 23 years ago?
>
>For me, it is just the opposite.  I believe he thought it was important
>to be covered up.

So, he should have walked in to a news conference and said, "oh, by the way,
I took a vacation to the SU in 1969, for those who didn't know".

Again, why would he think this was important?  He responded, "Yeah, I went 
there."

So what?


>
>} If so, shouldn't Bush "admit" to where
>} he vacationed in the winter of 1969, and if not, why?
>
>Someone else (Stupendous Man?) mentioned something earlier along this
>line -- if George Bush vacationed in Capetown, South Africa at the
>height of apartheid, would that be an important item to "disclose"?

If he had taken that trip as a private citizen, at his own expanse, no,
it wouldn't be important to disclose that, either...

Again, so what?


>--
>David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
>"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
>can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50572 alt.politics.perot:1929 alt.politics.elections:15860
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 18:44:52 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1cJ5025B25AM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> joplin@mcode.amdahl.com (Jerry Joplin) writes:
...
>
>Unfortunately Clinton makes no effort to balance the "present accounts"
>either.  He has no proposal to limit the growth of Entitlements.
>Entitlements currently consume half of all U.S. Govt Expenditures and
>are growing at an alarming rate.  Entitlement expenditures have doubled
>every six years since 1960, and grew 11.8% from 1991 to 1992.
>
>If Clinton is in office 8 years without limiting the growth of Entitlements,
>then expenditures for Entitlements alone will exceed all revenues taken
>in the the Govt.   Do you think this would be acceptable?
>
>Jerry Joplin   Sunnyvale,CA | I do not speak for Amdahl Corporation.
>joplin@mcode.amdahl.com     |  
>Compu$erve: 70441,2627      | All these worlds are yours, except California


I see statements like this all of the time. But it is not very helpful.
It makes me wonder what are the entitlements. Which ones are big and which
ones are growing the most. Does any one have data that breaks down the
entitlements into 5 or 10 subsets of the overall entitlements, showing 
their percentage of the budget and their rate of growth? Or can anyone
point me to such a summary.

The statement about entitlements as an overall package is not very 
helpfull in trying to understand an approach to solve the problem.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:50:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <2757@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.193906.22246@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>:In article <AVFRBB2C@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>:>Your parents are physically abusive.
>:>Your father IS the father of your child.
>:
>:I've been in this discussion on the net before, so I have to jump in...
>:
>:(not shouting, just don't know how to do italics in ascii :-)
>:
>:I DON'T CARE WHAT EXCEPTION SITUATIONS YOU COME WITH, YOU (and the STATE) 
>:DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE *MY* PARENTAL AUTHORITY. *PERIOD*.
>
>I agree that the state should stay out of it but I have a question.
>
>Do you own your children?
>
>I know this could be seen as a nasty, snide question, but that is
>not how is was meant.
>
>Think about it.

Ok. I've thought about it... what is your point?

My children are a gift from God.

They are my *responsibility* until I demonstrate that I cannot handle
that responsibility (which, unfortunately, many parents manage to do).

At that point the *community* should act on the behalf of the children,
but only as a an *ABSOLUTLEY* last resort should parental authority
be undermined.

We must make it clear as a society that we expect parents to take their 
role very seriously.  Unfortunately, people these days expect the State 
to perform the role of parent and solve all of their problems - protect 
and raise our children, (sex) educate them, pay them when they don't work, 
etc - parents (and their kids) aren't getting the message that responsible 
behavior is expected.

Further undermining of parental authority continues this pattern of 
sending the wrong message.

-Paul
--
---
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:56:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct5.200227.16334@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smcguire@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott McGuire) writes:

>As to the media being private:  Yes they are private and can do what they
>want.  Presumably they want to provide what the customers want.  YOU are 
>the customers so call and tell them what you want.


   I have no idea where this idea came from but it's very widespread
   on Usenet and shows the degree of economic ignorance here.   It 
   should be noted that hust as a democracy cannot function without 
   a basic understanding of politics and legislation, neither can a 
   free market economy function without a basic understanding of simple
   economic concepts.

   In *any* enterprise the *customer* is the one who pays the money
   for whatever product or service is being rendered, in return for
   that product or service.   The radio listener or TV viewer is
   not the customer, he is the PRODUCT!   The advertiser is the 
   is the customer; he pays the station to deliver to him a qualified
   audience of a certain size.   

---peter

    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:56:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.162743.12212@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
>>>political and social biases.  

>>But these "old" biases are ones to which the people have formally
>>consented (by ratifying the Constitution or its Amendments.) They
>>are not biases imposed by the whim of nine old, unelected men. 

>Everyone  who ever formally consented (through ratification) is dead.
>Why in the world would anyone today consent to old biases?

Neither the original biases of the framers _nor_ the biases of the
Court really represent those of the people. But unless you like
Jefferson's idea of throwing out the entire Constitution and drafting
a new one, every generation, I don't see an alternative.

>>But the mistakes should be made by the people themselves (by amending the
>>Constitution to reflect modenr, not archaic, biases and stupid ideas), not 
>>by having the Supreme Court impose its biases on the people, without 
>>their consent.

>Aside from the fact that the Court represents the people

They most certainly do not: Would, for example, their interpertation
of the commerce clause (that the federal government may regulate
_anything_ concerning _any_ aspect of commerce and the economy, in
_any_ way) be ratified, if it were proposed as an amendment? I really
doubt it, and since it would not (nor would many other "modern"
interpertations) I'd have to say the biases of the Court do _not_
have the consent of the governed (and as such, are improper).

>...the
>Constitution is *designed* to evolve.  The Constitution is NOT a
>computer program which a robot could follow.  

It is designed to evolve _by_the_amendment_process_. _Not_ by arbitrary
whim of the Supreme Court.

>It is a set of guidelines, 
>often abstract ones deliberately left open to interpretation.

There are quite a number of very sepcific rules in it, to fairly 
characterize it as an abstract set of guidelines. It is much more
accurately described as an absolute code of law, but one which
isn't always specific nor applicable to all issues.

As for John Marshall beign a judicial activist, he lacked one
major characteristic of that group: He didn't ignore constitutional
provisions, trivially dismissing them as irrelevant. He was quite
willing to read whatever he wanted into any ambiguities, but _not_
to alter explicit provisions.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50244 ca.politics:8528 ba.politics:5938
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:40:35 GMT

In article <98451@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct12.171002.4763@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>In article <1992Oct12.031111.131@nntp.uoregon.edu>
    >eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
    >
    >>>Most of you guys who are so hot on this couldn't last a
    >>>moment with a modern woman. I invite you to step on my turf,
    >>>a courtroom, sometime. I will gladly hand you back your
    >>>clock--fully cleaned.
    >>>
    >>Yeah yeah yeah -- your dick is bigger than mine ... oops,
    >>wrong gender. Sorry to have stepped on your
    >>testosterone-lack-insecurity.
    >>
    >Phil, wasn't it you who cried foul when Melinda Shore wasn't
    >"treating you like an adult?"
    >
    >Show some respect for women if you want respect in return.
    >
    >>But you are really sick -- to consider an as as achievement a
    >>job which involves an utterly corrupt coercive mechanism --
    >>the current U.S. legal system.
    >>
    >I've never heard of a female scheister, have you?

I have no respect for any lawyer -- much less one that acts as if a
courtroom is her personal place for playing macho.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
From: dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:29:29 GMT

In article <hines.718493648@cgl.ucsf.edu> hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>>The CIA is responsible for gathering intelligence and covert
>>operations in foreign countries.  Their domestic activities are
>>limited to non-operational stuff like analysis, planning, etc.
>
>ha
>ha ha ha
>ha ha ha Ha Ha HA HA
>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
>But don't worry, now that the secret service has a TV show (similar to COPS)
>we will all know to bow and pray for the well being of these guardians of
>democracy.
>ha
>ha ha
>ha ha ha Ha Ha
>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 
>-Wade 
>hines@rafael.ucsf.edu  It just doesn't matter.- Bill Murry
> 

Indeed.  We all know that CIA agents would NEVER intervene in an election
in the US of A.  We all know that they would never plant electronic
bugging devices in the Democrat's headquarters, or conduct heaven-known
what dirty tricks against the Socialists or the Libertarians or the
Greens.  We all know this because whenever anybody gets caught, we
are assured that they are ex-CIA agents.

Real CIA agents only fix elections in FOREIGN countries.

[Sarcasm alert.  The above does not actually mean what it says.
 Read the history of the Watergate Scandal for more details.]

-dave

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The only lesson of history is that nobody learns the lessons of history. -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49929 misc.headlines:6523 talk.politics.mideast:20887
From: jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:19:24 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

=> >What Mr. Schmidling has failed to explain is why Coors 
=> Beer, or any other kosher product?  How has Coors 
=> contributed to the suffering of the Palestinians?

Maybe they drank some?

-- 
===Jeremy Henderson===jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk=          Vommen
                                             Bladmagen
                                   Loepmagen
                        Naetmagen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: ==> 3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.204755.1383@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
}In article <92285.153100U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
}>          3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
}>
}>From the Chicago Tribune   Sunday, October 11, 1992
}>(First published in the Boston Globe)
} 
}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?  
} 
}(Wouldn't it be a great commercial to show this Canes fellow being
}interviewed saying that the Bushes were lying about how his taxes
}would be raised under Clinton?) 

I think that maybe the only real way they could have calculated this
was by assuming that, under Clinton, these people would make a lot more
money in a year, thereby increasing their total taxes, though not
necessarily their tax percentage. :)

}Side-note: Bush has already broken his Republican convention promise:
}his latest budget calls for $35 billion in new taxes and fees.

Ah, but did he say that he would not raise taxes at all, or only "if
elected", or "after reelection"? He's still working off of his 1988
stuff -- he's under no obligation to start work on his 1992 promises. :) 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50850 alt.rush-limbaugh:7074 alt.politics.bush:8599 alt.politics.clinton:9663 alt.politics.elections:16071
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 11 Oct 92 04:39:08 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Oct10.233532.23381@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>It's a typical conservative statist who ignores the constitution and 
>lets activist judges write their own philosophies into law when it suits 
>their purposes.  :)

Then, why, has the Supreme Court, in particuliar the Warren Court (which is
probably the most liberal court we've ever had) consistantly upheld the
draft?  We've had liberals and conservatives use the draft, and conservative
and liberal courts uphold it, so where's the beef?

>David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
                                ^^^^, I see you were wrong about 1992, How
                                      about the Braves in '92?

>niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
>   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ wrong again, he's 
                                       house hunting in Atlanta.

What seems to be missing in all this discussion of Slick is his inability
to tell the truth, until it's drug out of him.  The discussion of his
trip to Moscow, his avoiding the draft, his "drug use", all of his
positions, involve his basic honesty.  It has nothing to do with the
draft, student demonstrations or anything else.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51189 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6714 alt.politics.clinton:9932 alt.politics.bush:8781
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:43:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Bw0vt3.E6E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>Funny....  If the family leave concept works in Germany, another one
>of the world's economic superpowers, why can't it work in the US?

If the family leave policy were the only difference between the US and
Germany, you might have a point.  As it is I claim that other advanteges
they have over us allow them to bear the burden of family leave and
still compete.  BTW, Germany may be an exporting super power, though this
seems to be changing, by all standard measures the US has a higher 
standard of living.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51461 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6778 alt.politics.elections:16523 talk.abortion:42356 alt.sex:32857 alt.politics.clinton:10159 alt.politics.bush:8960 soc.singles:27616 alt.politics.homosexuality:6429 talk.bizarre:33986
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
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: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:44:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Oct9.212452.21501@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>In article <BD.92Oct9110836@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>Lots of stuff about family leave deleted.>
>>
>>Lots of stuff about some dumbass Rush Limbaugh...
>>--
>Perhaps i'm missing something here.  I've read that 75% of workers aren't
>covered in the proposed family leave bill.

Geez, would you people get a clue!?

The 75%, supposedly is not the _employees_, but 75% of the companies in
the US would not be subject to the law because: 

They have _less_ than 50 employees.

Now, this is the interesting part.

I _seriously doubt_ that if 75% of the companies in the US have less than
50 employees then 75% of the employees in the US are not covered by the 
bill, right?

So, I would say that the 75% of the companies that _don't_ have to 
abide by this rule _won't_ and thus the guy who has less than 50 employees
will STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT SHIT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT!	

now, get back to work. ;)

andy