HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 24 Sep 92 18:51:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep24.155636.22419@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:

>If they want a minority baby from a poor, crack-addicted woman, they could
>probably have it today.

Not unless the adoptor is the same minority.  Haven't you heard that publicly 
funded adoption agencies greatly resist placing minority children in homes 
with white, or even different minority parents.  In recent cases, they have 
even denied adoption to mixed race couples of which one of the parents are 
of the same minority as the baby.  Foolishness?  You bet.

Ted
 

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49085 alt.rush-limbaugh:6373 alt.politics.elections:14919 talk.abortion:40004
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Michael Bailey, more info (was Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Date: 2 Oct 92 07:00:22 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

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

From The Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal
By David Goetz      September 16, 1992

              Mother sues to stop anti-aboriton ads

A Jeffersonville, Indiana woman has claimed in federal court that
her two children could suffer permanent "psychological and
emotional injuries" from graphic anti-abortion ads sponsored
by GOP congressional candidate Michael Bailey.

Kathryn Copeland said she is "just a mom, trying to protect
her kids" after she filed the suit yesterday (Sept. 15) in
U.S. District Court in New Albany on behalf of her son,
Christopher, 8, and daughter, Katie, 7.  The suit seeks 
an injunction to stop Louisville TV stations from broadcasting
the ads.

Several of Bailey's ads show pictures of what he has said are
aborted fetuses.  He has bought time to run at least one of the
ads on Louisville stations for the next two weeks.

Copeland, who characterized her family as "pro-life," said the
ads constitute "psychological child abuse," and her children
aren't ready to deal with the issues raised in the ads.  She
said her daughter almost saw one of Bailey's ads during the May
primary campaign, but Copeland got to the set in time to turn
it off.  "I just don't want to go through this for another two
months," she said.

Bailey won the primary race for the Republican nomination to 
oppose incumbant 9th District Democrat Lee Hamilton.

Copeland's suit names as defentants Bailey, his campaign commitee
and the four commercial TV stations in Louisville.  Bailey has
also bought TV advertising time in the Evansville (IN) and Cincinnati
markets.

The Federal Communications Commission requires TV stations to run
federal candidates' political ads uncensored as long as they meet
certain requirements and are not obscene.

Bailey was unconcerned about the suit yesterday, citing an earlier
unsuccessful attempt in federal court to stop his ads during the
primary.  In that case, prompted by a lawsuit filed by Nickie L.
Greene of Louisville, U.S. District Judge Edward Johnstone
ultimately dismissed the case, saying it had no basis in law.
Johnstone said Greene was seeking to "take away from others a 
freedom similar to the one she seeks to enforce."

Last month a federal judge in Denver refused to issue a restraining
order in a similar case against a Colorado candidate for the U.S.
Senate who is running ads modeled after Bailey's.  

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

Vickie  katefans@chinet.chi.il.us

Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education, Pro-life
                    Feminist for (the rest of my) life

       *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48927 ca.politics:8336 ba.politics:5770
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: COUNTER BLITZ -= Strike out against Pork-Party-Politics =-
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:58:58 GMT

>I've always liked the idea of 24 hour voting.  With all polling places across
>the US opening and closing at the same time.  This would also remove the
>problem of western voters being told the outcome of national races before
>they have even had a chance to vote.

No it wouldn't, since the eastern voting would still tend to take place
three hours before the western voting, thus allowing exit polls to determine
the outcome and influence western voting.  You need to synchronize the voting
*AND* restrict the hours so that everyone votes at approximately the same
time.  Keeping the polls open 24 hours will defeat the synchronization,
because people will vote when conenient, which will be synchronized to the
local work day.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:13:08 GMT

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...
|> >In article <4OCT199222470702@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> >>In article <1ao6gsINN5cu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes...
|> >>> 
|> >>> 
|> >>> Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
|> >>>*******************************
|> >>> 1.  Shorty errs?  Nope!
|> >>> 2.  He's ornery, Sport!
|> >>> 3.  Spy on the errors.
|> >>> 4.  Open yer shorts, R.!
|> >>> 5.  The sorry person.
|> >>>*******************************
|> >>
|> >>I love it Dave.
|> >>
|> >>-- Stephen
|> >>
|> > 
|> >	Stephen Tice - The Nice Pets
|> >		       Pec This Teen
|> >		       Steep Hen Tic
|> 
|> ;-)  Yeah, yeah "mother hen."
|> 
|> Here's another:  He's T-n-Ice, Pet!
|> 
|> -- Sdt
|> 

   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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Perot's publicity
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:25:06 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct1.171105.10909@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:

>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:

+>>I will read his book. I ask you, though, why wn't he publicize
+>>any of it.

+>>He's saying, "I don't want to publicize my positions, just read the
+>>book. I expect that you should do me the favor of reading the book
+>>so I won't have to talk about it. I don't want to be forced to
+>>explain or defend my positions to the public so just read the
+>>book so I don't have to talk about it."

+>>Most candidates try and make their positions MORE accesible and
+>>easily known by the public. Perot, proving that he's not a politician,
+>>is doing the opposite.

+>What?  Thanks for the very inaccurate paraphrase.  I believe you're 
+>refering to his responce to a caller on LKINGLIVE?  He was responding
+>to criticism by saying "look, most of my positions are outlined right 
+>here in this book".  A book the caller obviously hadn't read.  A book
+>that's probably available at the public library in her hometown.  Is
+>it too much to ask that someone do a bit of research before complaining
+>about the guy?

	Is it too much that a candidate avoid one of the cheapest forms
of dodging a question?   

	TV's perot talks no end about his supporters, his "movement",
his postcards from small children and purple hearts sent in by military
men  and yet very little time is ever spent discussing issues.  




+>And I ask you WHERE, OH WHERE, can I get information on either Clinton's
+>or Bush's plans?  (Besides USENET - doesn't count)  Where can the average
+>person go to get a copy of their platforms?  Or is the average person 
+>only expected to read what the media doles out?

	Both parties/campagins produce no end of such material.  And
ironically, you of the perot-bots who bleat about people
not reading "the great plan" apprently have not even bothered to read
the material produced by the other candidates.  Or is it that unless
your spoon-fed where to get a book or campaign material, you can't 
figure out how to get such materials.

	Most thinking people might just try to contact the political
party or the campaign in serach of such materials.  But then again, 
supporting perot doesn't really require more more than a desire to
trust the "strong leader".



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49831 alt.politics.clinton:8703
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:40:37 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1as1f6INN4ss@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider) writes:
> For all of those libertarians out there... How exactly is the Libertarian
> philosophy of government different from what happened in the U.S. during the
> 1870's - 1890's? What leads Libertarians to believe that 'individuals and the
> market' are strong enough to correct abuses?
> Chris

	19th Century America is often pointed to by Libertarians.  Mainly
because it was Before Socialism.  No income taxes.  No FDR social programs.  No
big government bureaucracy.

	Not that life was perfect :).

	People usually act in their own self-interest.  Some more so than
others.  The idea is to have fully educated, fully responsible people making
informed choices.  Of course it starts to break down if a large number of
people decide they can't be bothered, but any system will under those
conditions (except Totalitarianism, which counts on it).

	As far as private/consumer groups, there are:

	Planned Parenthood
	UL
	Good Houskeeping
	Consumer's Union
	Various media watchdog groups
	Public utilities commissions
	Charities (Salvation Army, Red Cross, Amnesty Intl, etc.)
	Etc.

	The problem isn't that these kind of groups don't work, rather the
government prohibits these types of groups in certain areas!  They don't want
people to see how really bad the EPA, OSHA, VA, etc are!

	While the rest of the world moves to privitize their bloated
bureaucracies, the US seems intent on moving in the other direction.  Not
willing to learn from either our victories, or socialism's defeats, we'll go in
and show that the US can succede where others have failed.

	Anyone remember Vietnam?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48936 ca.politics:8338 ba.politics:5771
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:59:32 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>And even that makes homosexuals look good compared to soc.motss postings.

Cramer, shut your filthy mouth.

You make me ashamed to be straight.

-- richard

=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:42:07 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Michael Friedman writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.94729.24996@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>
>In that case why is it dropping now instead of six months ago?  Maybe
>because the market is lowering the expected future value of those
>stocks becasue they anticipate Clinton screwing up the economy?
>
>>The market is currently around 3200-3300. Tradional margins for these
>>technical standards would put the market at around 2100-2200. >
>Snicker.
>
>That's a 5% range.  As traditional standards are nowhere near that
>exact I think we have some creative creation of statistics here.
>
>Mind giving us a source for this claim?
>-- 

The story was in the Louisville papers. It was written by an
analyst from a local brokerage house. His analysis had led him
to caution people away from stocks. Since brokers usually like
to have people BUY I thought his analysis deserved mention. 

I agree with you about his precision. So I inflated the range of 
values he specified. His analysis created numbers so exact as
to be -- as you said -- snicker raising. But the story gave
no indication that he actually used those numbers as anything
other than a mark on a wall. One technical that he specified actually 
had the market trading around 900. So, in the interest of not being 
accused whiffing ether I didn't report that. Maybe his analysis was 
so wildly off the mark as to be unuseable -- I don't know, I'm not a 
broker or economist.  Personally I believe that ALL markets behave as 
unpredictably as fleas on a dog, so...    

At any rate, I believe moderating his numbers to a plausible
range didn't distort the thrust of his analysis: BEWARE.
Of course, most of my sibyls in the past have brought me to
the plight if not of actually wearing barrels at least to the
point of doing comparison shopping.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Terminating a Pregnancy/Terminating a Command
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:51:24 GMT

Terminating a Pregnancy is an interesting Euphemism.
This sort of reminds me of the job Martin Sheen had to do in Apocalypse
now.  Martin Sheen was supposed to "terminate the command" of Colonel
Kurtz.  

Isn't Terminating a Pregnancy so much more easy to swallow than 
terminating a human life?

Just like Terminating a Command is so much more easy to swallow then
Assassinating Colonel Kurtz.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:28:49 GMT

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:

>>AIDS is not God's way of punishing the homosexuals for their lifestyle.
>>
>>It's God's way of punishing the homosexuals for electing people like
>>Willie Brown (San Francisco) and John Cullerton (Chicago) to office.
>
>AIDS is not a punishment from God at all. It is a natural consequence
>of ignoring the users manual. Sort of like jumping of a cliff. No punishment
>but a lot of consequences.

What user's manual?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.bush
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:42:09 GMT

In article <celw4MS00awL8551EQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and
>responsibili.. C.J. Silverio@eno.wpd.sg (1508)
>
>
>> [does this really belong in that many newsgroups?]
>
>> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>> |chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> |>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>> |>|A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>> |>|consent to sex.
>
>> |>If a couple is using contraception, that indicates that they are
>> explicitly NOT
>> |>consenting to pregnancy.
>
>> |If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
>> |are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
>> |protection does not mean they don't face the risk.
>
>> Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
>> to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
>> a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
>> automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
>> to live with injury without medical redress.
>
>But, if there is no medical redress, then you will have to live with the
>consequences.  If abortion is murder, then there is no medical redress
>to pregnancy except to carry it to term.  Therefore, a couple having sex
>> would consent to having a child if the contraceptives failed.

Whoa, there, you've got everything backwards: if you go back and re-read the
thread carefully, you'll notice that one of the PREMISES is that couples are 
legally responsible for their actions, and the CONCLUSION is that abortion 
should be outlawed. In your post, youe state that premise as the conclusion, 
and the conclusion (or something very much like it) as a major premise. Put 
this all together, and what do you get? A big circular argument, that's what.

If you wish to continue your line of discussion, I'd recommend doing it in
a _separate_ talk.abortion thread...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 11:21:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.194019.29818@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.211122.21587@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
>>and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
>>frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>
>>>An analogy:  I smoke of my own free choosing.  If I then get lung cancer, 
>>>(god forbid) it's not unreasonable to say that I consented to that risk of
>>>my own free choosing.   If killing somebody else would save me (fantasy)
>>>why would that be justified?   
>>
>>improper analogy - the situation is different.  here's a better one.
>>i suffer kidney failure.  in the entire free world, you ahve the only
>>matching kidney.  you also suffer terminal lung cancer - incurable.
>>
>>if you don't donate a kidney to me, i will die.  you will die with
>>or without your kidney.  but you refuse to donate your kidney -
>>it has rights or some such nonsense.
>
>Not at all, human's have the right to life which includes their body
>and the products thereof.  That person has a right to do with his/her
>body as they see fit, you do not have any just claim to the kidney.
>Before someone says "Ah ha! But doesn't the Mother have a right to her
>own body?" let me add, it is not at all clear that the fetus is her
>body or that it is an individual's.  That's the question.

No, that's not right.  Even if the fetus is individual, then the nutrients
etc., that a mother supplies are her own.  She might refuse them, as a donor
refuses to give a kidney.  The question that I see is, should she have
more obligation to "donate" than a kidney donor, as she is the mother of
the fetus, and also partly responsible for the fetus' requirement in the
first place?  

If someone can convince me that the answer to this is "no", then I am 
pro-choice, because then a woman is at best completely justified to refuse, 
at worst selfish.  And no, I do not care to say which is which, for any 
individual case.  But if you wish to base your argument on your petty 
perception that a fetus is not worthy of the same respect and dignity as 
any other human life, you may forget it.  (convincing me, I mean, not 
abortion rights :-))

>
>Mike Best
>


-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.192023.1578@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>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.

Wait until those kids grow up, so that they can give an INFORMED response, and 
I'll wager most of them would have preferred that their mothers had waited
until she was in a more stable financial/marital/social status before having
them.

Some of those adults might even answer "she probably shouldn't have had me
at all"...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49666 alt.politics.perot:1871 alt.politics.elections:15242