HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:34:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Sep29.171139.4316@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>I was reading McPaper (USA Today) yesterday, and I saw where this
>congressional candidate somewhere in the eastern U.S. has been running
>anti-abortion shock advertisements as part of his congressional
>campaign.
>
>The guy's name is Bailey (Mike Bailey if I recall correctly), and the
>article said he's an advertising exec who `decided to run for congress
>after learning that political ads for candidates cannot be censored
>unless they contain explicit sexual or excretory imagery.'

I read in Newsweek that this guy's ads were so bad that PAT BUCHANAN
was so shocked and offended that he cancelled a speech at a Bailey rally.

Now, I haven't seen the ad, but if it's so right wing as to offend
Pat Buchanan, well, that's pretty damn far to the right!

(Newsweek said the ad juxtaposed Holocaust victims and aborted fetuses,
and made some comparison... typical pro-lie slogan, though I guess this
particular manifestation was pretty graphic.)

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)

-Kristy
-- 
    +==========================+===========================================+
    |Kristy Patterson          | What is the law?      NO SPILL BLOOD!     |
    |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | Who makes the rules?  SOMEONE ELSE!       |
    +==========================+============================Oingo Boingo===+
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:07:42 GMT
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization

Kathryn Scholl writes:
>In article bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>]
>>]      A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when
they
>>] consent to sex.
>>
>>Sure, and when you go bungee jumping, you consent to the possibility
>>that the cord will break and you'll smash into the ground.  Having
>>consented, all should let you lie there, offering no aid.
>
>
>You're right.  And yes, I would expect aid.  However, I would NOT
expect
>the GOVERNMENT to pay for the ambulance and doctor...would you?
>
>Save for some _private_ donations from people who might want to donate
to
>my cause, I would expect to pay for it on my own, wouldn't you?

Eh?  Is my memory that short or has this thread just taken a 
_serious_ apples and oranges twist?

As in: the discussion was yet another episode in the never-ending
Usenet abortion flame wars.  No one had brought up the government
paying for anything (in _this_ thread).  

*scratching my head, i am....*
-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49191 alt.politics.bush:7532 alt.politics.clinton:8216 alt.politics.elections:14972 talk.abortion:40108 alt.sex:31690 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6223
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:18:42 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Health Insurance (was: difference between Democrats and GOP)
 <92268.192104DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <Bjy-hGA@engin.umich.edu>
 <1992Sep26.194436.1146@news.columbia.edu>

In article <1992Sep26.194436.1146@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
(Gary L Dare) says:
>
>jwh@citi.umich.edu (James W. Howe) writes:
>
>>I don't believe that single payer NHI or pay or play are the way to
>>go for a variety of reasons.  The biggest reason, IMHO, is that I
>>don't want government to have any more control over my health care
>>options than they already do.  If single payer is such a good thing,
>>why aren't Federal employees covered under a single payer system?
>
>Hey good question for discussion ... I guess I have some thoughts
>on qualifying your question or any answers that may arise ... I'm
>really curious about answers to these following questions as well:
>
>1. Barring the fact that you're talking about the U.S. federal
>government for a moment, wouldn't this be in effect a form of
>self-insurance by the employer?

Well, to answer Jim's question first, federal employees are not covered
under a single payer system because it is not possible for a single
employer to create a single-payer system.  One element of a single payer
system is a common reimbursement methodology, which has to be used by
all employers and insurers for all providers.  The federal government
as an employer can only determine its own system, not that used by other
employers.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:20:23 GMT

>Simple questions to shut up a right to lifer
>
>"How many hungry kids have you fed today?"
>"How many homeless kids have you taken into your home?"

You ask those kids if they'd rather be where they are now or dead, and guess
what they will answer.
-- 
*****  The Rink  *****   Programming is an art form that fights back.
***                ***
* ss1@kepler.unh.edu *   "But that no man is justified by the law in the
***                ***    sight of God, it is evident:  for, The just shall
*****  Cheers!!  *****    live by faith."  --  Galatians 3:11
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Call 1-800-LIV-FREE if you want to nuke Washington DC
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:39:37 GMT


This is a direct line to NORAD which, for the next 48 hours, will have a
B-2 bomber, fully loaded, circling the nation's capital.

If you want to stamp out greed and corruption at the source:

Call 1-800-LIV-FREE

If you want to liberate America from the totalitarian grip of oppression:

Call 1-800-LIV-FREE

If you think that the only problem with the asylum is that the wrong
inmates are running it, then register to vote this November.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48486 alt.politics.bush:7089 alt.politics.clinton:7693 alt.politics.elections:14587 talk.abortion:39235 alt.sex:31258 alt.rush-limbaugh:6138
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:46:49 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
> To whit, it is incredibly arrogant, as well as wrong, for you to
> dismiss the very real physical and emotional risks of pregnancy
> as merely inconvenient.

This is a common arguement. Why is it that often people forget the 
'very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion?

Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women
(especially young women) to become infertile and have multiple mis-
carraiges (sp?) in later life. Why is it that many pro-choicers
argue for sex education, but education about abortions risks isn't
considered as important?  I'm not saying that this is the way you
feel. But it seems to simply be neglected by the pro-choice pamphlets
and information. If they're *really* pro-choice, why doesn't their
agenda include this type of education? If it's only through education
that people can make 'responsible' choices, then why is the most 
important part of the information, the risks of the abortion, left
out, ignored and neglected.

> Defense?  Against what?  I am simply saying it is arrogant (as well
> as stupid) for you to comment on the rigors of pregnancy, never
> having been pregnant yourself.

To use a common arguement here, then I can say, that it is arrogant
for anyone not in the military to have an opinion on women in combat,
since they've never endured the rigors of military training. And who
would this include? Many of our congressmen.

I don't think this is an accurate arguement. Firstly, I don't recall
any of Bruce's comments being specifically on the 'rigors' of pregnancy.
Secondly, it's possible to get a small understanding from reading on
the subject, and Bruce might have had the experience of being in the
delivery room with his wife. We don't know that. How can you say his
statements are in arrogance when he might have experiences and knowledge.
You have no way of knowing.

There are many things that we all have opinions on without having 
experienced them, or having much knowledge on the topic. Using the
above argument would invalidate most of our opinions and let us 
simply be lambs led to a slaughter.

ag
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48153 alt.rush-limbaugh:5988 alt.politics.bush:6883 alt.politics.clinton:7434 alt.politics.elections:14405 talk.abortion:38822
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Speaking of Rights and Personal Responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:14:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>ps: is it a coincidence or conspiracy that one of those
>huricanes was named andrew?????

Bwahahahah...

ve vill NEVER tell.

-- 
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                           Hank for President '92:
                       Because ten years later, dammit,
               logic is *still* the chastity belt of the mind.
From: berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE GRITZ: Solutions and Hope
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:12:15 GMT
 <BvB20q.F2n@apollo.hp.com><BERG.92Sep29085707@malice.cass.usu.edu> <BvCKCy.9n3@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:58:10 GMTLines: 47

In article <BvCKCy.9n3@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>2) I felt that many of the things Anita wrote would be of interest to
>>Non-Mormon citizens of the U.S. as well, so I took the liberty of posting her
>>writings.  I didn't feel it would be appropriate to censor what she had written
>>to be more palatable to a national audience.
>
>     Oh, definitely don't censor this.  I want people to know how wacky
>     and dangerous these ideas are.  This nation was founded by people
>     trying to escape religious persecution but you/Morrow want to make
>     the US a "Christian" nation.   Although I have relatives who are 
>     Christians, including two ministers, I personally am not and nor
>     are many of my other relatives, friends, and co-workers.   I've seen
>     what happens in other societies that try to create theocracies (e.g.,
>     Iran, Saudi Arabia, 16th century Spain, etc).  Thomas Jefferson warned
>     us about this and we have to remain vigilant to protect our liberty.
>

Good grief, get a grip!  Neither I, Anita, nor Bo are trying to force you to
become a Christian.  I do HOPE, however, that you are trying to live the
Judeo-Christian ethic--you know, little things like: Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery (where are you Bill?), Love thy
neighbor, etc.--since the health of our nation depends on the actions of her
citizens.

It is so interesting to me that the people (like the Supreme Court) who like to
quote Jefferson on the "wall of separation between Church and State" never
finish the quotation.  In it, he states that the wall, established by the 1st
Amendment, goes ONE WAY and should keep government out of religion, but NOT
religion out of government.  For the record, here's the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances."

The Founding Fathers endeavored to establish a government based on Christian
principles, and they believed that this system of government would only succeed
in a nation of Christians (I believe it was Jefferson who said that too).  I'm
sorry (or at least I should be :-) ) if this offends you.

I'll have to start digging up quotes so I can be ready for your next flame :).
--
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,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion related mortality
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:43:34 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <69462@hydra.gatech.EDU>, jbutterf@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Jill Butterfield) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.171758.150099@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <BvCr49.KKs.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >>      [L. Talbert, "DIC More Common Threat with Use of Saline Abortion,"
> >>      Family Practive News, 5:19 (October, 1975)]
> >
> >Hey - maybe that's why they don't *do* saline abortions any more.
> >Welcome to the 90's.
>
> I just wanted to comment on this.
> 
> Are you SURE they don't do saline abortions anymore? The last I heard,
> they still performed saline-amnio infusion for second trimester abortions.
> 
> D&C is generally used only for 1st trimester.
> 
> Anyone know this for sure?

From the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sat Oct 26, 1991, p5B:

        ABORTION/ Doctor says saline method discarded
[...]
        Saline solution is no longer used as an abortion technique,
        said Dr. Mildred Hanson, who does abortions in Minneapolis.
        "Nobody uses saline anywhere," she said.  "It is accompanied
        by a risk of bleeding and also by a risk of some of that
        saline going into maternal circulation."
[...]
        Today, abortions in the first trimester usually are by
        suction aspiration.  Late-stage abortions are done by a
        surgical procedure.

        Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
        said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
        "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
        done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
        of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
        those conditions," she said.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Re: Polling errors
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:06:18 GMT

In article <BvpKLo.2B5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>>>The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
>>>error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
						    ^^^ ^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^
>>>who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign...

Ah, there's the rub.

>The distribution of the error due to sampling is approximately normal with
>mean 0 and variance pq/n if the sampling is random and the number of
>individuals sampled is at all large; for the crude purposes here, if the
>expected number of individuals in the class is even as large as 10, this
>is not bad.  Now the square root of pq ranges from .4 to .5 as p is between
>.2 and .8, so using the worst possible value .5 makes little difference.
>For p about .1, the margin of error would be from 1.8 - 3%, and for p about
>.01, from .6% to 1%.

Not exactly what's being investigated.  Perot has polled roughly 7%, we've
seen asserted.  The claim is made that Perot is well above the typical
polling margin of error, and is surely more than a sampling fluke.  The LP,
by contrast, is derided as never having received close to the typical polling
margin of error.

Do we all see what's going on here?  The polling margin of error tells us
how accurately the opinion poll represents the true underlying distribution.
Thus, the margin of error is telling us how we could expect people to vote,
given the phrasing of the questions and the timing of the poll, at (I presume)
a 95% confidence level.  The way the LP has done in the past is how much the
LP actually did receive at the voting booth.  So, receiving less than the
margin of error in a given poll might allow one to dismiss the LP as
insignificant, on the argument that the poll isn't sensitive enough to measure
the level of support the LP would receive.  Actual vote totals, by definition,
are.

Even if the vote totals are seen as a sample of 90,000,000 out of our total
population of eligible voters, we should bear in mind that this is much larger
than the number of people typically contacted in CNN polls; hence, we'd expect
a smaller margin of error.

Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48739 alt.politics.perot:1711 alt.politics.elections:14727
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:40:11 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

		FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT PEROT TO SHUT UP...

    One simple fact remains:  You'll have to bend over to the establishment
again.  If or after Perot is defeated, he will be forgotten by the lawmakers,
who won't do anything of the sort that he sees to help bring the deficit down.

    You want $500bn deficits??
    You want an $8-10tr debt??
    How far do you want this to go before someone has to step in??

    Perot, by his "ill thought-out" plans, is the only realistic choice to get
the economy on track.  Although Clinton's plans are good, he'll deficit this
country into oblivion with his infrastructures.  And we all know about Bush.

    You may not like him, but when you get right down to it, he may be the only
true choice for change you have.  With a Dem. total win in November imminent,
just remember what Clinton is asking for, because he'll get it with no problem. 
Does the country want that??

						Mike Falkner
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Effects of U.S. national debt
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:38:04 GMT
	<1992Sep28.222213.4388@desire.wright.edu> <f+2-fv=@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

>>>>> Regarding Re: Effects of U.S. national debt; jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) adds:

jwh> I don't disagree with anything you've said, however, it would be very
jwh> helpful to have FICA revenues and expenditures removed from the aggregrate
jwh> numbers so we can really how tax revenues as a percentage of GNP match
jwh> up with prior years.  Likewise spending.  If you include FICA revenues
jwh> (and expenditures) people can claim that while income tax rates declined,
jwh> FICA rates increased dramatically, thereby implying that the shortfall
jwh> was made up by FICA, and hence the burden falls on those making less
jwh> than $50,000.  Does anyone have raw numbers for the past 20-30 years
jwh> on revenues and expenditures, such that revenues from FICA can be
jwh> removed from the revenue side, and FICA related expenses be removed
jwh> from the spending side?

Actually, I am not sure FICA shouldn't be counted. In one of the more famous
blue smoke and mirrors scams Congress has perpetrated during this time, they
have been borrowing money from the social security trust fund and treating
it as general revenue (the sort of thing that sends teamster pension fund
managers to jail...).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:33:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(me)
# Clayton, stay on the subject.  We are talking about AIDS & STDs here,
# and your claim that "sodomy in private becomes a public matter".
#   

/(cramer)
/I haven't made an error.  The relationship between sodomy and AIDS
/is purely statistical.  

No; it is not.  You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the
data if you believe that.  The statistical relationship is between risky 
behavior patterns and AIDS.  Period.  End of argument. 


But even so, that was not your point.  Your ORIGINAL point was 
(here, let me):

	 >> Sodomy
	 >> in private suddenly becomes a "public" matter because it affects
	 >> the society as a whole (transmission of STDs).  
 

You still have not proven how gay sex is a public threat.

Even if that were true, you have also not demonstrated how the AIDS 
argument should permit employers / landlords to discriminate.

And, you have not answered the question of the parallel 
implication:  

SINCE:
STDs (esp. non-AIDS STDs) are primarily transmitted through heterosexual
intercourse, 

AND SINCE:
you have advocated restrictions on gays based primarily on the
AIDS-through-sodomy factor,

THEN:
You must be in favor of restrictions on heterosexual unmarried intercourse
as well, in order to curb the other threat to society, non-AIDS STDs.




/(me)
/# Clayton, take your finger off the caps key.  I never made any such
/# claim that there is  "widespread conspiracy".  Diabolical plots and
/# dark conspiracies are more your style anyhow.

/(cramer)
/They are?

Oh, yes.  It is not *I* who has been talking about the liberal media,
the swaying of psychologists over to the gay cause, the NAMBLA conspiracies,
the militant homosexuals who want to "recruit" youngsters in schools,
etc.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc