HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.171309.14317@news.uiowa.edu> bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:
>From article <1992Oct2.202020.679@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>>>fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>>>nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>>>nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>>>cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>>>hypocrisy?
>> 
>> Coming soon on NBC ...
>> 
>> "The Death & Murder Hour" and "XXX Film Review"
>> 
>> No more need to speculate what goes on in back alleys and bedrooms, now you
>> Can See For Yourself!  Educuate your kids (and yourself!) about all the 
>> latest techniques of sex (and murder)!  See a woman bleed to death in agony!
>> See threesomes having sex!  See a teenager blow his brains out!  Seee useful 
>> sex positions demonstrated for you in the privacy of your own home.
>> 
>> Gather the kids around the TV, folks, and join together as we show you all
>> about the beginnings AND endings of life!
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ray Fischer
>
>But everything you have mentioned, Ray, involves life forms that are
>universally accepted as more than mere "clumps of cells", so this does
>nothing to refute the original argument.  Try again, please.
>
	Actually, I rather thought his point was that not everything that
happens in the world needs to be shown on network TeeVee, but if you insist
on an even more appropriate example:
	"Now, live on prime time: The Surgery Hour!  Real broadcasts of
open-heart surgery, gangrenous limb removal, cancer operations, hemorrhoid
removal.."
	What, you don't think children need to watch this?  And yet you still
think surgery is acceptable?  What are you, some kind of stiking hypocrite?
	Get it now?  This is another strawman.  Another pointless non-issue.
Another attempt by DoD to villfy anyone who has the temerity to disagree with
him.
>Bill Nolte
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: casseres@apple.com (David Csseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:04:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computr, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.221656.4554@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man, aka The Enema) wrote:
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 	Which government agency was supposed to inspect that Carolina chicken
> factory?

Are you seriously claiming that the Holy Free Market would have kept those
workers from being burned to death?  Those people died because government
didn't do its job of enforcing regulations, not because there were
regulations.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Reject Bankers' Systematic Economic Slavery
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:06:23 GMT

In article <16089@umd5.umd.edu> gurd@wam.umd.edu writes:
>Len B. writes
>[some crap that looks like it was lifted from Lyndon Larouches campaign  
>(yes he is running for President DESPITE the fact that he is in jail)  
>materials]
>
>Hey Len, can you spare us this little Larouchian economics lesson.  If  
>people wan't to read crap like what you posted they can read it in  
>Larouche's joke paper the New Federalist!

What?  Larouche?  Even Larouche isn't THAT stupid to suggest GALLOPING
inflation as the solution TO our economic problems.  

(Capitalization scheme borrowed from the original post obviously sent by a
buggy newsreader and/or writer.)

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52334 talk.politics.guns:22216
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time "Letters to the Editor" fax number
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:07:56 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <Bw2D1r.Lwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze) writes:

<   Incidentally, Time Customer Service suggested that I send
<   a fax or letter to "Letters to the Editor" -- 1-212-522-0601.

	Don't bother to use this number if you are planning
	to send in a letter supporting the Constitutional
	Right to Keep and Bear Arms; TIME won't print it,
	because the editors have declared that issue "decided".

	I wonder; could their "news" stories on firearms laws
	possibly reflect that editorial policy?

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
<today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
<==============================================================================

	Certainly the "liberals" in Congress wouldn't let Amendment
	2 by; or, for that matter, Amendment 4 or 5.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:14:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.042301.22431@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.205400.27531@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|> 
>|> Just putting up Mr. Rosenthal's opinions, laddie.
>
>And the "Bullshit" was directed at his opinions, old timer. :-)
>
>|> Anyway, I've seen the "democracies don't go to war with each other" claim
>|> made a number of times, and I haven't seen a refutation yet.
>
>I can't think of any two communist nations which warred with each other
>either....
>
Ever heard of the Sino-Soviet conflicts?
How about Vietnam taking over Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge (how ever
you spell it)?
Or the border clashes between Vietnam and China?

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:15:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>
>> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>> independent of who is President and what he does.

  This is clearly NOT an ordinary recession with an ordinary cyclical
  recovery; if it was we would have already started to see a major
  turnaround by now!   Today's Wall Street Journal published another
  economic consensus forecast showing only 2.7% growth next year with
  some economists adding that if they were wrong then 2.7% is on the
  *optimistic* side.   If this were an ordinary cyclical recession
  then next year would be 5-6% GDP growth!

  As I've been saying, we will almost certainly have to get serious
  about the deficit in the next few years and once we do we're going
  into a *depression* with double-digit unemployment and massive social
  unrest.  (again, if anyone can make the numbers come out some other
  way >please< post them to the net!!).  So I sure don't envy the Demo-
  crats if Clinton wins.  


>                                        The only thing holding the
>Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
>elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
>party from fragmenting.                

  I agree with this.  I'm just scared of what will replace it.


---peter
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The 'Missing' Pages
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:35:43 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Oct10.215747.12178@Princeton.EDU>, 
pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) said:

> > If it were politically right for Mr. Clinton to have gone to
> > Moscow, why are there three (or however many) pages missing
> > regarding passport documents?
>
> Let me answer this by excerpting two paragraphs from a New York
> Times article today (Sat. Oct. 10)
> 
>       What happened was this, say several officials.  When news
>       organizations sought Mr. Clinton's file under the Freedom of
>       Information Act, a clerk in a records warehouse in suburban
>       Maryland opened his files and discovered staple holes on copies
>       of his passport applications and assumed it meant part of the
>       file had been pilfered.
> 
>       With that, a State Department Inspector General summoned Federal
>       agents.  They determined that the holes in the application forms
>       were probably left when a photograph or check stapled to the
>       document was removed during processing.

Likewise, the Los Angeles Times (reprinted in the 10/10/92 Boston
Globe at p.7) reported:

      WASHINGTON -- The FBI said yesterday is had found "no evidence"
   that Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's passport files had been tampered
   with, ending an investigation that had fueled Republican attacks on
   the patriotism and credibility of the Democratic presidential
   candidate.

      The FBI announced the conclusion of its inquiry in a statement
   that also said that the agency contemplated no further involvement
   in the matter.

      Sources said the bureau believes that the items missing from the
   file that caused a State Department official to become suspicious
   were a bank check that paid the passport fee, a copy of a birth
   certificate and a passport photograph -- all routine items that are
   part of the passport application process.

> Case closed.

Looks that way.  Wonder what the Slime-o-matic'll come up with next...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stockdale NAILED it!
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Anybody who thinks Stockdale is not a very smart man is sadly mistaken. He
has one hell of a head on his shoulders. Now, he was very nervous and he isn't
a slick political speaker like the other two. It was like listening to two car
salesmen try to sell your dad a car.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: grahj@gagme.chi.il.us (jim graham)
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Originator: grahj@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:44:44 GMT

In article <eyrdz5v@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.104147.12858@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>writes:

>>Indeed!  We should do all in our power to prevent all abortions AND
>>murders!
[and so on....]
>Or do something faster, easier, cheaper, and no less legal!  Force all men
>to have vasectomies!
[and so on....]

I've got one question for y'all on this --- this stuff is appearing at my
site, which doesn't subscribe to any groups even remotely related to this
topic.  in fact, I can't even find a newsgroup in the Newsgroups line that
is even at my site, yet it's obviously somehow being cross-posted to at
least one of them, since it is clearly getting there.

here's a list of the (non-local) newsgroups at my site.  can anyone tell
me which of these it's getting cross-posted to (it only seems to appear
in junk, but again, it's obviously cross-posted to one of the others, or
it wouldn't hit my system at all).

      alt.fan.douglas-adams
      alt.galactic-guide
      comp.dcom.modems
      comp.dcom.telecom
      comp.editors
      comp.os.msdos.4dos
      comp.os.msdos.apps
      comp.os.msdos.misc
      comp.text.tex
      rec.pets.cats

and for the next step, can anyone tell me why it doesn't seem to appear
in whatever group it's cross-posted to out of that list?

thanks....

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50616 ca.politics:8579 ba.politics:5996
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Moral Premises--    was Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:01:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct9.185220.26527@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

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

Camille Paglia would agree with you.

But with one crucial exception: she holds dead homosexual men considerably
responsible for the heights to which our civilisation has risen.

Somehow I think you would beg to differ!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 8 Oct 92 07:42:20 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct5.022741.29579@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <3OCT199215413892@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>This notion that someone else should be trusted to spend (up to half)
>>of our money (and more because of debt) -- is simply a con job.
>
>The government hasn't come close to spending half of our money since
>World War II.

Whoa, what are you smoking? Can I have some?

The government isn't just the federal government, and their gouge isn't
just the income tax. If you add up the income tax, the SS tax, state
income tax, local income tax, sales tax, property tax, intangible tax,
excise tax, fuel tax, etc, etc, etc, it gets real nasty. Jack Daniels
says a quart of their finest costs $0.25 plus tax. GM says a Caprice
Classic costs $627 plus tax. Half? Hell we'd be lucky if we got to
keep half.

Gary
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:23:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <CB.92Oct12161007@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>Stephen Tice (I think) writes:
>   
>   Bill-Clinton is being offered up as a leader. Where is the evidence?
>   He didn't lead on the battlefield, and now I'm being told he didn't
>   lead in the peace-movement. So where is the evidence to back up Brave-
>   Bill's dedication to the cause he supposedly felt strongly about? 

Yes, it's my question.

>Aren't you trying to have it both ways?    Bush was just chastising
>Clinton to "come clean" because Clinton *did* lead demonstrations.  You
>guys will have to decide whether this would have constituted leadership
>or treason.  (In fact, he appears to have been a minor organizer.) 

Fair counter-question. I highly respect Ghandhi, King, and Jesus Christ
as dedicated pacifist. So no I'm not trying to have it both ways. I think 
Bush is expressing the typically hard-hearted fundamentalist attitude now.

If I assume Clinton played a minor part -- then that is perhaps the
worst situation. Neither did he feel strongly enough to get involved
in an anti-war leadership role, nor did he go off to war and personally
stand along side his peers. 

Instead he takes off to Oxford and takes European vacations. 

He'd been better off taking a courageous stand on either side of
the issue -- then and now. Especially as someone being considered
for President. 

This is what has set me against Clinton personally. I'd rather be
spending my time exposing the spending abuses of booth parties. But
there's now a clear problem of leadership and Bill Clinton.

>By the way, Clinton's leadership is demonstrated by his tenure as governor,
>in which capacity he was voted the most effective governor in the
>country, including by a number of Republicans.

You realize I hope that his skills as a bureaucrat -- if taken alone --
leave big holes in his character. Being able to *manage* a state 
"effectively" is not the same as being a leader. {The President should
do both.}

What I'm asking is how can Bill Clinton inspire you? Not just on 
promises I hope.

Like Bush, he seems to me to be someone the Party can manipulate,
and his performance in the debate reminded me most of all of a 
marionette.

Correct me please, if I'm wrong... but I'm seeing yet again the text 
book cliche about "hollow party candidates" coming to life again -- 
in Bill Clinton. 

Having Bush as a party puppet killed the checks and balances between
the executive and congress; so I hate the thought of having just another 
propped-up cardboard figure for President.

>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-13-92
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:35:49 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


    I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.

    Polls are now showing Clinton with about a 16 point lead going into the
debates, and really the only way that Bush can win the election is for the
Republicans to come out with a "smoking bimbo" and destroy Clinton
instantaneously.

    This election will end with much turnover, and it will start at the top.  I
still believe that Ross Perot has the best ideas, but I no longer believe he
can win.  I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course of the last 8
weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.

    When all the votes are counted, Clinton will win, Bush will lose, and Perot
will have wasted his time.  I'd say it may be in Perot's best interests not to
bother going on with what the Americans voters now see is a charade.

    This IS NOT a Clinton endorsement; just a statement of political reality. 
Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, scares me, but I know now that that
is probably what we are going to have for the next four years.

    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: <None>
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:32:22 CST
 <1992Oct6.004552.5641@nas.nasa.gov> <1992Oct6.071220.24057@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct6.071220.24057@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> I can't just drop the "agenda"--I can't just look the other way.
> 
> As for my suggestions on abstinence--I neve said anything about your
> personal habits, nor am saying that sex should be illegal, I was talking
> about people excercising a little responsiblity.

But your idea of responsibility really doesn't have much to do with
other people's idea of responsibility.  I'm responsible...  You're
responsible...  But we may act in ways which conflict with each other's
notions of responsibility.  Doesn't this remind you of how each person
has a different idea of when personhood is obtained?  Doesn't this
remind you that different people have completely different ideas
concerning the morality of abortion?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's Reentry
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:35:18 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <12OCT199208523775@utkvx3.utk.edu>, dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
> Four comments on Perot's born-again candidacy for President:
> 
> 1. Is it possible that Perot started with a plan to quit and reenter at the
> last possible moment in an "October Surprise"?  Since Congress has so much
> experience looking for October Surprises, maybe it should investigate.

	:).  Some of us new it was a Possum Play.

> 2. Quitters never win.

	But he didn't quit...

> 3. Perot has vowed to "fix" the nation.  What does a neutered nation look like?

	US under Carter.  A repaired nation looks like the US under Reagan.

> 4. No matter how much money he spends, no matter what stunts he pulls, no
> matter how hard he tries, he will never, ever pass this course --- uh ---
> get my vote.

	After the debate, an in house poll yielded:

	Perot 75%
	Marrou 25%

	So there you have it.  Bush & Clinton might as well concede.  Anyone
who votes for them is just wasting their vote.
:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Look at this! (was Re: Sixteen more years)
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:33:30 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct14.175517.4865@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>I think that what you will see us do (and I want to fight for this
>here in Arizona) is:
$  (1) dump the abortion issue - it is impossible to put forth a moderate
$      positiion on this issue with the rabidly feminist media that
$      we have today. Anything other than absolutely no government
$      control of abortion will be distorted too badly.

	Does John Moore believe in lots of government here?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49990 alt.politics.clinton:8851