HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:45:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Sep24.015639.28562@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

-I have yet to see anyone on the pro-abort side say word one about adoption.  I
-tend to believe that sex needs a deterent, and pregnancy seems to be a good
-one to me.  

Huh?????? You believe sex need a deterent? It's pure nonsense.
Besides, I guess people who are sterile suffer all the bad
consequences of having no deterent for sex....

-But if you must take the risk and you do get pregnant,  why not
-give the baby up for adoption?  

Because people son't necessarily want to go through the painful,
socially comitting and costly process of pregnancy and birth. Besides,
there are a lot of babies that need foster homes out there. Thousands
and thousands. The only problem is that they arent't white.

-Thousands of couples are on waiting lists all
-over the country to adopt babies.  Why won't pro-aborts consider it?

See above.

-Because they want the easy way out.  To use their PC terminology, carrying the
-"parasitic oppression" to term just gets in the way of their social life.  You
-know, think of how rough these people must have it for a few months.  Things 
-like responsible eating habits and other things restrictive on one's wild     
-social life.  It just isn't the liberal thing to do to think of someone besides
-one's self.

Hey, listen. Of course people don't want to voluntarily undergo
extreme experiences that they don't like. You don't get it. Lots of
peple think that fetuses are not people. So they don't see who else
they should think about. It's my case for example. I don't think
fetuses are human beings, and lots of people share my belief. And we
don't want to have a group of people impose their views on me/us.

-So we aren't likely to see adoption mentioned.  Fine.  My aunt and uncle have
-been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.  Surely
-they can wait a little longer while the pro-aborts continue to take the easy
-way out.

Just curious..what race was the kid?

-The ball's in your court.
-
-
--- 
-Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
-Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  you probably won't get another one. 
-I don't claim them, they don't	|  
-claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Benjamin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48835 soc.motss:41286 ca.politics:8321 ba.politics:5756
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:07:11 GMT

In <1992Sep30.140424.2749@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:

>Yes, I would agree that most people who engage in sexual activity know
>this, and if they're interested in avoiding conception, they use birth
>control.  They are still risking pregnancy.  HOWEVER, if that contraception
>fails, THERE IS A RELATIVELY SAFE, LEGAL (for the moment) ALTERNATIVE.

	Abortion is certainly not safe for the unborn child involved.


			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:52:43 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <lcos5eINN35d@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>|> Michael Polen) writes:
>
>|> >Let me try another example.  Someone sneaks into Frank O's bedreoom
>|> >and implants a 2 month old fetus into his wife's womb.  Would removal of
>|> >that fetus be an immoral killing of a person?
>|> 

<<< Argument about abortion deleted>>>

Many of these abortion threads have lost whatever relevence they ever had
in the political conferences.  I can't find anything in the ones currently
under discussion that relate to Bush or Clinton's position on this issue.

I'd appreciate it if future posters would delete the Bush and Clinton
conferences from posts unless it relates to a particular point in the
debate.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:05:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct4.202646.29434@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <BvIJB2.AD7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>    >Yeah, yeah. Ronzone made this same claim on
>    >talk.politics.theory a few months ago and then disappeared
>    >into the woodwork when asked to make some sort of sense of
>    >his Randroid droolings. (and yes I *have* read all of Rand's
>    >writings on ethics, and a weaker set of claims I have seldom
>    >seen)
>
>Well, first of all I don't post to t.p.m. Cross postings I reply to may
>send some stuff there, but otherwise I don't play there.
>
>Secondly, if all this "Randroid drooling" is so "weak", why, then, it should
>be extremely easy for you to post your refutations.

  Look, take some courses in logic.  The onus is on the person making
  the *positive assertion* (that's you) to prove it.  If I said "bander-
  snatch are frumious"  (a positive assertion) how would you go about
  DISproving it?   You can't.   But that doesn't mean my claim is correct.
  The responsibility is mine to define "bandersnatch" and "frumious" and
  describe how I reached my conclusion.

  Rand's assertions are simply undefined and unsubstantiated claims.
  

>Every entity has the right to pursue survival in the way it has
>evolved too. A lion has a right to [try to] hunt to live, a rabbit
>has the right to try and run away from predators, and so on.

  According to what?   Why do you think this is true?   This is a
  good example of the sort of unsubstatiated "thinking" that is at
  the base of your philosophy.


---peter





Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49585 ca.politics:8455 ba.politics:5882
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:13:55 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

[followups to talk.abortion, please]

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
|But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be
|the only choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for
|couples: abstinence until they are fully ready for children.  I
|mean, in all the arguements that concept always gets lost.  And
|some folks think you just beamed down from a UFO when you bring
|it up.

But you apparently *did* just beam down from a UFO, given the
lack of understanding of human nature that you show.  

Are you married or in a relationship?  Can *you* give up sex
until you intend to have a kid?  Most people can't, don't want
to, and don't see the point of giving up sex.  They use birth
control, and judge that they've minimized the risk of pregnancy
acceptably.  Or they practice oral sex, anal sex, or mutual
masturbation, which makes pregnancy even MORE unlikely.

The drive for sex is a basic & very deep human drive.  You can't
thwart it for very long.  It's better to acknowledge reality &
work with it.  Some realistic possibilities:
    - better sex education
    - better contraception
    - reversible sterilization for men & women
    
---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: VOTE GRITZ: The Council on Foreign Relations
From: berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:56:54
Distribution: world
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

			  THE MANIPULATION OF AMERICA
				       
				  written by
				 ANITA MORROW
				   Candidate
			     United States Senate
			     Populist Party - Utah

Part III - THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

The Council conveys that it is merely a foreign affairs "club", concerned in
spreading knowledge of international relations, and in developing a reasoned
sense of American foreign policy.

It is of interest to note that for such an innocuous institution, millions of
dollars have been poured into it over the years.  Even more interesting,
business men (bankers, lawyers, and industrialists) walk in the front door of
the Council (CFR) and out the back door as STATESMEN.

They then go on to become Secretaries of State, Secretaries of the Treasury,
and Secretaries of Defense, among other government positions.

Former member of the CFR for twenty years, Admiral Ward was shocked and
dismayed by what he saw transpire.  After resigning, he told of the CFR's true
goals.

  "Submergence of the United States sovereignty and national independence into 
  an all-one world government, a NEW WORLD ORDER."

He also said their facilities for developing, promoting, and supporting these
goals is substantial; and with the mass media they are able to discredit and
intellectually and politically destroy any opposition.  The mass media is also
used to confound and confuse issues.  In 1954, Senator William Jenner said:

  "All of the strange developments you see in foreign policy agreements may
  be traced to this group."

Rockefeller, Morgan, Baurch, and others like them own corporations or shares of
corporations in America, Latin America, and Europe.  Among them are:  Pacific
Steamship, Allied Machinery, International Mercantile and Marine Company,
American National Terminals Company, and others.  These large corporations have
episodes of business where huge profits are made.  These episodes are known as
WAR.  It is through manipulations of the CFR that war is often brought to pass,
with huge profit being made for member's corporations.

ONE CAN SEE WHY THE ASSOCIATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE COUNCIL IS
NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT.

--
Glenn A. Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Utah State University

"We've got one more hill to take... Capitol Hill!" - Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz
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: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:13:04 GMT

In article <16873CA0E.TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu> TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> 
>>
>>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the
>>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>>     the last few days.
>>
>And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.

I SECOND that. How about we create a newsgroup for drieux? 

<alt.fan.drieux>


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:55:00 GMT

wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>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.
 
>	Stupid lady.

I'm sorry to hear that you knew her.
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:03:34 GMT
Subject: Re: You're NO John Kennedy
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

> Hello, everyone,
> 
> 
> Who said "I knew John Kennedy. You're no John Kennedy", and to
> whom was it said? Could you phrase it exactly, more or less?
> 
> Thanks!
> Nick

Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, then the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate,
to then-Sen. J. Danforth Quayle of Indiana, during the 1988 Vice-Presidential
Debate.

A closer quote is "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy - Jack Kennedy was a personal
friend of mine.  And Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"  Not exact, but that's
the best I can dredge up from my memory.  As I recall, Quayle had no reply -
he just stood there looking somewhat stunned.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   User Interface Tech. Div.|those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:06:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.020125.16980@cs.brown.edu>,
dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

	The more Schmidling tries to wriggle out of his NAZI like
	suggestion to boycott kosher food, the more pathetic it
	becomes. Like someone caught in quicksand who sinks more
	and more as he moves around. 

In article <Bv44s9.Cor@ddsw1.mcs.com>,
arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) responds:

	And the more you try to turn my [sic] into a racist Jew
	hater, the more absurd you become.

We cannot truly know what is hidden in the depths of anyone's heart.
In the case of Mr. Schmidling this problem is compounded by the
difficulty he has expressing himself clearly.

Let us just say that he has a morbid obsession with Jews and Jewish
culture.  He has set himself up as a self-appointed watchdog to keep
Jews honest.  The nicest message he has ever broadcast about Jews was
the one where he calls us Hymies and Ragheads.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values" (III)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:00:08 GMT

The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values" (III)


=======================================================
  Percentage of preschool children with full polio, DTP
(diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis), and measles immunizations,
                       1985--87:(50)
=======================================================
COUNTRY             POLIO         DTP        MEASLES
=======================================================
Denmark             100.0        94.0(51)      82.0
Belgium              99.0        95.0          90.0
France               97.0        97.0          55.0
Germany              95.0        95.0          50.0
Netherlands          96.9        96.9          92.8
Switzerland(52)      95.0        90.0         60.0
United Kingdom(53)   87.0        87.0          76.0
Norway               80.0        80.0          87.0
Spain                80.0        88.0          83.0
*******************************************************
United States        55.3        64.9          60.8
U.S. nonwhite        40.1        48.7          48.8
*******************************************************

Sources (for chart and text): Bret C. Williams and C. Arden Miller,
Preventive Health Care for Young Childnen (Arlington, Va.: National Center
for Clinical Infant Programs, 1991), p. 76; Bret C. Williams, "Immunization
Coverage Among Preschool Childnen: The United States and Selected European
Countnes," Pediatrics (Elk Grove Village, 111.: American Academy of
Pediatrics, 1990), p. 1052: various releases and publications of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Illinois.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From page 21 of:

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 15:05:02 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct6.165008.8041@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> In <70165@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK):
|> >In <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
|> 
|> >>I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
|> >>Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
|> >>cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
|> >>progressive result.
|> 
|> >PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
|> >of government interference.  [...]
|> 
|> This is idiocy itself.  While the bill may not have been the optimal
|> choice (and, in fact, I don't believe it was) it is certainly BETTER
|> than the status quo.

In what way?  The bill encourages the continuation of cable monopolies
because of the way the incentives to local governments are structured.
A community with competition can't be regulated, and therefore the
community will lose out any franchise fee that it charges to its local
monopoly.  The bill increases the amount of government bureaucracy
which will certainly come at increased expense somewhere along the way.
The bill does nothing about letting alterative technologies (i.e. the
phone company) into the marketplace, thus creating real competition.
I certainly don't think it is better than the status quo.

|> 
|> It wasn't that the cable companies were setting high, but fair, prices.
|> They had *monopolies,* and were setting whatever ridiculous price they
|> wanted.  (Granted, the monopolies were granted by the local governments,
|> and an optimal bill would simply have forbidden this.)

Actually in most places, the cost per channel has remained fairly constant.

|> 
|> But the bill simply says that in the absense of competition, the prices
|> charged by cable companies can be regulated, and it forbids certain
|> ridiculous practices designed to increase the hidden costs of cable --
|> forcing you to rent a box and remote for no reason, for instance.
|> 

Forcing you?  How about cancelling your subscription if you don't like
the costs?  Pity the poor American who is unable to get his dose of
television because he has to rent a box and remote in order to receive
cable channels.  There are no 'hidden' costs, you get billed for 
service.  If you don't like the price, cancel the service.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:33:29 GMT

In article <Bvq04z.80z@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.013645.8919@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
> brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.171522.8500@u.washington.edu>,
>>
>>BTW, I think C-SPAN's coverage has been good.
>>
>In fact, I'd say that C-SPAN's coverage has been far and away the best
>of all media outlets (with the possible exception of the Orange County
>Register).  Eric's rather lame attempt to be snide about us getting
>coverage on PBS is typical of people who are more impressed with their
>own cleverness than with ideas and principles;

Ok, I stand convicted of snidery.  But, what "principle" allows
the candidate of the LP to appear on a TV station partially
funded by tax revenues?

The paragraph I wrote (before the snide virus attacked me)
was in response to a complaint about the minimal coverage
given to the LP, primarily by TV.  My response was that
the owners/controllers of electronic media saw it in their
best interest not to give much coverage to "minor" candidates.
It was based in the ideas and principles of the free market.
Then, admittedly, I degenerated into buffoonery.

>however, to the
>miniscule extent that PBS receives government (tax) funding,
>Libertarians do indeed object.  Since shows such as MacNeil/Lehrer as
>well as most PBS stations are supported by voluntary donations, Eric's
>point falls rather flat in any case.  Better reload and try again.  ;-)

Actually, I was more impressed with Marrou than with any
LP candidate since McBride.  He sounds much more in-touch
with reality than many other LP candidates, and not simply
a dictaphone for the same old slogans.  Is this a sign that
the LP is actually interested in becoming a real political
party and not just a fringe debating club?  I hope so.
 
>  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
>  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
>                         \-------------------------------------/


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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections