HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:19:50 GMT

In article <4eld68a00YV704lVt2@andrew.cmu.edu>
      Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Recently posted by Rini Clarkberg:

>> In article <Bv9LIx.qt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
>> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
>

>This is sort of like a murder - suicide.  The woman had no right to take
>away her baby's life and died while trying.

	And, as a man you have a right to make that decision for her
beforehand and pass judgement on her afterwards?

	Jerk.

			Elf !!!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49182 ca.politics:8377 ba.politics:5807
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:06:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.221656.4554@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In <1992Oct5.191244.19614@ra.msstate.edu> cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)
>>And....to all of you who think the problem with the US is
>>business regulation, I say, I hope you drown in the pollution
>>or are hurt by an end to safety standards that an end to business
>>regulation would cause!!!!!
>>
>>Carolyn Adams-Price
>
>	Libertarians don't want pollution, or lax safety, or anything else like
>that.  It's a common fallacy among statists to believe than anyone who wants
>less government likes pollution, etc.

And, it's a common falacy among (some) libertarians to refer
to holders of contrary opinions as statists, specifically
whim-worshipping statists.  The only group who would be justified
in attaching the opprobrium "statist" to their opponents
would be anarchists; nearly all members of the Libertarian Party
are quick to distinguish themselves from anarchists.

>	However, the Libertarians believe that the individual, and the market,
>are strong enough to keep these things under control.
>
>	As long as government isn't interfering and allowing companies to
>pollute and have unsafe work conditions.

I'm not sure that I read this correctly:  are you saying that the
government should allow companies to pollute and have unsafe
working conditions, or not.  If not, then the LP have come
quite a distance since I left it.
>
>	Which government agency was supposed to inspect that Carolina chicken
>factory?

I heard that is was an agency which had a staff of two people
who were responsible for inspections of thousands of businesses
in North Carolina.  No red tape here!

>
>Brett                                                      


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48775 soc.motss:41228
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: William F. Buckley opposes anti-gay ballot measure
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:25:43 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA27625; Wed, 30 Sep 92 13:28:54 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA11195; Wed, 30 Sep 92 13:28:00 -0700
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (lib403.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB33);id AA17470; Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:27:24 EDT for soc.motss.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB15);id AA09708; Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:25:44 EDT for gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu
X-To: soc.motss.usenet, talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu


Carl Kadie posted elsewhere:

 ELECTION UPDATE (Washington Blade, 9/21/92)

 WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY OPPOSES ANTI-GAY BALLOT MEASURE: Conservative
 columnist William F. Buckley Jr., in a syndicated column published
 today, declares his opposition to a ballot measure in Oregon which
 seeks to change the state constitution to prohibit Gay rights
 protections.

     In a commentary that is certain to startle his fellow
 conservatives, Buckley also comes out in favor of allowing Gays to
 serve in the military.

     Noting that the Oregon initiative would constitutionally
 classify homosexuality as "abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and
 perverse," Buckley states, "Are Oregonians really prepared to ask
 the state to codify all capital sins? If so, why not throw in sloth
 and greed?"

     Buckley states that American conservatives should hold firm to
 the belief that homosexuality is a "violation of an organize moral
 code." But he says conservatives should make "elementary
 concessions" by supporting the rights of Gays to serve in the
 military, sensitive government agencies, and all private
 occupations except the teaching of children in schools.

---
RON BUCKMIRE
The Lyrics Transcription Project: Cocteau Twins Division, section 319
11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48956 ca.politics:8339 ba.politics:5772 soc.motss:41373
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:28:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <12559@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
:
:Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
:(free speech, homosexual sex, drug abuse) isn't the same as
:supporting them.  They have the right to do it -- as unpleasant
:as I find it.

I can't believe he just said that.  Here -- let me replace one
set of words.

"Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
(NAMBLA marching in some parade) isn't the same as
supporting them.  They have the right to do it -- as unpleasant
as some find it."

There's your answer Clayton.  Right out of your mouth and right before 
our eyes, for everyone to see.

The very thing that many have told you again and again, and you have
refused to acknowlege, has been uttered by your very lips.

There.  You understand.  Your crusade is over.  Time to get a life.




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

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49594 talk.bizarre:32842 alt.politics.perot:1863
From: dtiberio@csws20.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:20:33 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <1992Oct5.171308.1465@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <5OCT199211423991@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct5.061252.13341@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes...
>|> >>-- Stephen

>|> >	Stephen Tice - The Nice Pets
>|> >		       Pec This Teen
>|> >		       Steep Hen Tic

>|> Here's another:  He's T-n-Ice, Pet!


>   Boy is this a constructive thread or what?
>
>   Why don't ya'll just take this over to rec.humor or rec.dev.null
>   where you can waste bandwidth with the rest of them.
>
>   Doug

	Doug Walker -   U Walker God!
			Ow, Dark Glue...
			Law Rode Guk
			Luke War God
			Luke Raw Dog

			Ow, u lard keg!


	-Bar Dive Idiot


-- 

 ***** * ****  ***** ****  *  ***    * *   *    ***   ***   Make the Choice!
   *   * *   * *     *   * * *   *   * **  *   *   *     *    Don't Vote!
   *   * ****  ****  ****  * *   *   * * * *    ****    * 
   *   * *   * *     *  *  * *   *   * *  **       *   *      NO NEW SIGS!
   *   * ****  ***** *   * *  ***    * *   *   ****   ****
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49624 alt.politics.perot:1866 alt.politics.elections:15212
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:59:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct5.165241.850@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:

In article <Hp3-g8B@engin.umich.eduJH:, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
In article <1992Oct3.133846.9484@aio.jsc.nasa.govJH:, walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
DW: There are several issues related to the deficit and debt that are rarely
DW: discussed, and yet are very important.  The first is level of debt.
DW: Debt by itself is not a problem, it is the amount of debt relative
DW: to your income that can create a problem.  If you earn $20,000/year,
DW: it would probably be unwise to purchase a $400,000 house.  However,
DW: if you earn $200,000, the mortgage on the $400,000 house isn't so bad.
DW: For the U.S. the important thing is what is the ratio of debt to GNP.

JH:    WRONG!  WRONG!  WRONG!

JH:    GNP is not the governments income.  Governments income comes from
JH:    taxes, tarrifs and the like.  Unless of course you find a 100% tax
JH:    rate acceptable.

Half right.  GNP is not equal to government income, but it is related.
That is the bigger the economy, the more the government can extort from
it without doing excessive damage.

To put it another way, if the economy is twice as big, then the government
can also be twice as big and still do no additional harm.

It is indeed valid to use the debt/GNP ratio to determine whether the
debt is growing faster than the economy (a problem) or if it is
growing slower than the economy (a good thing).

Using this number does not assume that the entire economy belongs to the
government.  These are merely two numbers that are only nominally
related.  The ratio of the two numbers is an economically usefull number.

Lighten up.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:38:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.231059.4394@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.200132.12018@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> 
>> 	It is sometimes maintained that American's roads are
>> completely supported by user fees such as fuel taxes, registration
>> fees, and tolls, and not by any funds from other sources, such income,
>> sales, and property taxes, bond issue proceeds, and other
>> miscellaneous fees. In fact, that is demonstrably false. According to
>> the Federal Highway Administration, $71.2 billion were spent on roads
>> in 1989. Of this, $44.3 billion comes from the aforementioned user
>> fees. The other $26.9 billion comes from the miscellaneous sources
>> mentioned above, and is effectively a subsidy. Thus, America's roads
>> are effectively 38% subsidized.
>...
>	The "other" sources do *not* equate to a subsidy.  How else do you
>propose that a city maintain it's roads other than by a property tax mechanism? 
>Set up toll booths at each driveway? :)  How should townships and
>municipalities pay for roads other than through bond issues?  Attributing a
>claim to the "opposition", then knocking down that claim in an effort to
>support yet another method is a time honored tactic.  But it is still faulty
>logic.

One method used in some states is annual motor vehicle exise taxes,
which are collected and used by municipalities to pay for road
construction and maintenance.


-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: NAMBLA, reality & perceptions
Organization: Bush in 92 ? NOT!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:11:56 GMT

roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
: In <1992Sep25.172241.28380@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
: 
: >OK, let me try once again.  Is it the NAMBLA position that six-year
: >olds can consent to sexual relations, and that these should be legal if
: >they do so consent?
: 
<long posting of Position Papers deleted - go read the article>

In other words, yes.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
"Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job" - Bill Davidsen
From: curmw@dcatla.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: NRA endorsement for Pres??  NOT the Republicrats...
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:03:05 GMT
Organization: Digital Communications Associates, Alpharetta, GA


I recently read in the local newspaper (the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation)
that the Veterans of Foreign Wars has refused to endorse a presidential
candidate.  Has anyone else heard this?  (I don't believe anything that I
read in that fishwrapper...)

Also, does anyone know who the NRA is endorsing for this election?

It will not, of course, be Bill Clinton.

It SHOULD NOT be George "I wouldn't know an assault weapon if someone
shoved it up my ass" Bush.  He is no friend of the 2nd amendment, or
any of the Bill of Rights for that matter.

It SHOULD be Andre Marrou, but I don't know that they have the guts to
go with a 3rd party candidate.

Please email me if you know; I have a hard time keeping up with 200+ posts
a day in this newsgroup.

Rob Waterson
I *am* the NRA.
rob_waterson@pacdata.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Grand Facade: Are (legal) abotions safe?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:26:03 GMT

warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:

>Planned Parenthood has created this facade that legal abortions are
>safe.  

Pro-"life"rs have spread the lie that childbirth is safe.

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:01:23 GMT

I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.
What about making a choice for life??


Simon


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48853 talk.abortion:39720 alt.activism.d:3446
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Can a fetus be innocent or guilty?
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:59:39 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Sep29.231058.27206@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.032630.27507@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>An unborn child is innocent, and deserves a chance to live. A murderer has
>
>An "unborn child" is neither innocent or guilty, as those are terms which
>can only apply to a BORN entity.

If you are going to argue about words, you ought to at least look them up.
Please look up the words "innocent" and "guilty" and you will find nothing
at all about "BORN entit[ies]".  In fact, inanimate objects can be said to
be either innocent or guilty.  My dictionary gives as an example of proper
usage, "innocent tumor".  If a tumor can be innocent, then certainly a
fetus can (especially since so many on the Por-Choice side compare a fetus
to a tumor).

If you look closely at the first definition (at least in my two
dictionaries) you would have to conclude that the fetus is by definition,
innocent.  He* could even be guilty, depending on what you accuse him of,
e.g. most fetuses are guilty of kicking their mothers at some point -- not
a capital offense last time I checked.

* I am using "he" in the proper english sense for he or she.  Some
Pro-Choice people might object to calling a fetus a "he", preferring instead
to call a fetus an "it".  But clearly, whether or not you agree that the
fetus is a human life worth respecting, a fetus is not an "it", as he has
an identifiable sex.  He is not sexually mature, but then neither is a
six-year-old and we don't call them "it".
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48590 alt.rush-limbaugh:6192 alt.politics.bush:7160 alt.politics.elections:14641 talk.abortion:39398 alt.politics.clinton:7775 talk.religion.misc:17410
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: So lets Get this Straight
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:54:13 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Matt I. writes:
|> As a pseudo-Christian (I believe the words of the New Testament, but the Old 
|> makes me...uneasy?), my personal view on the twins controversy is that there
|> are two possibilities:
|>  
|> 1) There were two thee all along, and it was God's plan that the split occur so
|> that twins would be born. 
|> 
|> 2) There was one soul which was capable of splitting into two.  
|> 
|> After all, the soul is the single most incomprehensible 'thing' imaginable (to
|> me, at least).  There may be a differing Catholic view on this, and other       
|> church views which contradict me, but please don't throw them in my face.  I 
|> believe in God, not in the church.
|> 
|> The word of God is written on our hearts, after all.
|> 
As a non-psuedo-Athiest, I believe the soul was delivered by god on the first
day of sunday school attendance.  It is over differenced of opinions such as
these that our forfathers left European countries to form the US.

Since the definition of whether or not abortion is the murder of a person
resides solely in religious belief, it should be neither mandated nor
denied by law or practice.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:24:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(me)
>I would accept no law regulating the private consensual conduct of
>adults.  Straight or gay.  My position is consistent; which is more
>than you can claim.


/(phil)
/You should be informed that some asshole is forging posts under your name then.

Oh, really?  The only posts I have seen with my name on them have been
well-written, thoughtful, and logically air-tight.  Whoever this forger
is, I must send him a thank-you.  He has done me a major service.



(phil)
/This idiot is claiming the "right" to regulate the adult consensual conduct
/of other people, like who they can rent to or hire and stuff like that.

'Tis truly a pity that businesses that operate in the public sphere, and
landlords that do business with the public, don't qualify as
"private affairs" or "adult consensual conduct".



/(phil)
/Pretty amazing the ideas that some jerks have, eh?

Yes.  Even more amazing are the ones who masquerade discrimination
as a form of freedom.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49733 talk.abortion:40783 alt.activism.d:3565
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:26:54 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> Ok folks, read this carefully: I am not promoting some sort of Orwellian
|> "sex police", I am merely asking what's wrong with a little responsibility??
|> 
|> I never knew responsibility was so bad.
|> 
You expect respect when you can't read?  Responsibility is not bad.
Your definition of responsibility and the actions that you decided
demonstrate responsibility are what are under discussion. 

You continue to try to change the argument.  Some of us believe that
having an abortion is a responsible decision under certain
circumstances.  You don't.  Stop asking this meaningless question
about responsibility.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48912 alt.sex:31530
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex ed in schools?
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 1992 10:38:54 -0400 
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 1-Oct-92 Re: Sex ed in schools? by Barry
Shein@ussr.std.com 
> Besides, what about the fathers? There must have been fathers, right?
> Wouldn't it be a little simpler and more humane to everyone involved
> to just try a little harder to hold them more accountable? Like
> especially to the kid?

Part of the problem with the way the welfare system is set up is
it's easier for single women with children to get on. If you're a
family with two parents, it's harder. (Bush's family values.)

ag
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:34:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.113017.4473@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	A solution, if you are interested in charging per mile driven to gauge
>wear and tear, is to add a little more functionality to the current computers
>in cars.  

Could you tell me where I find the computer in my 85 Civic ? 

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Raskin
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:59:06 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <Bvny46.1Go@apollo.hp.com>
goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>In article <97381@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>The doctors said boys and girls alike overwhelmingly said they were abused
>>by heterosexual men ...

>    Boys abused by _heterosexual_ men?

Yes. The gender preference of child molesters has little to do with any
adult-oriented sexual preference they may possess.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections