HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: ...more than 200 Contra regulars and 12 commanders have been murdered
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:40:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In<1992Oct1.141658.4484@desire.wright.edu> Bret writes:

>        An interesting article is in today's Wall Street Journal (October 1st,
>1992.  Page A12).

>        It recounts the story of a book written about the Contras, and how the
>real story was ignored by journalists because it frequently crossed the
>ideological bounds of "left" and "right".

[stuff deleted]

>        ...On the contrary [credit went to everyone except the Contras], since
>Violeta Chamorro was sworn in as president in 1990, more than 200 Contra
>regulars and 12 top Contra commanders have been murdered by revengeful
>Sandanistas.  No one has been prosecuted in connection with these murders--not
>surprising since the Sandanistas still control the army, the police, and much
>of the judiciary.
[...]
>---end of excerpts---

>  It's great to see that there are objective people out there working for the 
>truth, instead of a bankrupt social/economic system.

>Brett

Thanks for a very interesting review.  I think it's about time the U.N Humand 
Rights Commission takes a trip to Nicaragua and initiates a report on the 
Sandinista led assasinations.

Edelmiro

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:28:06 GMT

In article <35984@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
    >>If the Jews had indeed DONE the things that they were accused
    >>of (such as slaughtering Christian babies for various Jewish
    >>rituals, defiling Christian virgins etc.), then indeed, a
    >>hatred for the Jews would have been logical.
    >>
    >>Now, the question is, do people that dislike homosexuals have
    >>an accurate concept of what homosexuals do that they do so
    >>dislike?
    >>
    >>Now, I don't think rabbi has EVER been found slaughtering
    >>Christian babies for Passover.
    >>
    >>Have homosexuals ever had bathhouses where large numbers of
    >>homosexuals had random, anonymous sex with very large numbers
    >>of partners in a single night, or have Crisco parties, or
    >>....
    >>
    >>Golly, maybe to know 'em IS to dislike 'em ... (is the
    >>operative concept).
    >>
    >>So well, are these activities TRUE?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>-- phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
    >Are you serious. The problem of slaughtering Christian babies
    >is murder. The problem of defiling Christian virgins is rape.
    >
    >The reason that it would be correct to hate Jews because they
    >did this is because it is correct to hate murder and rape.
    >
    >Since Jews don't, as a class, do either, then what we have is
    >lies. Even though people lied about the fact that Jews did
    >it, they were not wrong in their belief that rape and murder
    >is wrong.
    >
    >Now, you seriously want to say that having random anonymous
    >sex, (which by the way is not the distinguishing mark of
    >being a homosexual) is akin to rape and murder?
    >
    >Is this what you meant? You have rapists and murders and
    >people who engage in anonymous consensual sex in the same
    >list of Great Criminals. Really? -- Since Ryan White was
    >buried in April 1990, his grave has been vandalized four
    >times.

You have a comprehension problem, don't you?

I said nothing about equating anonymous consensual sex with random
large numbers of people with murder -- the first is moral, the
second is not.

While murdering babies is horrible, and untrue in the case of Jews,
the before mentioned sexual practices are true of some numbers of
homosexuals, and IS considered disgusting by many people.

Indeed, murder of babies and that kind of sex is immoral in many
religions.


So you have evaded again the point -- unlike Jews, homosexuals are
disliked by many for precisely WHAT they are and do.

Got it now?

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 00:35:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>	OH PLEASE!!!! You are ridiculous. The real issue is that human
>beings are being killed. They cannot defend themselves, but someone 
>must. Don't give us this bullshit about this being a women's rights

Damn straight!  It's about time somebody did something.

>issue - it is an unborn children's rights issue.

Unborn children?!?  Oh.

I though you were talking about the people in Somalia, Haiti, & Bosnia.

Never mind.   :-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Not *another* one? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on.../
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 02:24:54 GMT

In article <BvCww4.5zE@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <0pjzy9h@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>The most important of these is the right to live. 
>>Not in the US.
>
>	The right to live IS the most important right. That is why it
>is mentioned first among the Big Three.

Oh, god.  Not another one.

Bruce, the Declaration of Independence is *NOT* the same thing as the
constitution.

It has no legal claims whatsoever.


If you're going to continue with this, please take it to
alt.politics.constitution, or whatever that newsgroup is...

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:11:04 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
] Lot then offers his 2 virgin daughters, but the Sodomites
] would have none of it (presumably like the denizens of the Castro
] district).  If Lot isn't giving up the 2 men, they're going to take
] him instead.  So the 2 angels smote the men of the city with blindness
] and told Lot to get out of the city because God is going to destroy
] it, and don't even look back.
] 
] _THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
] don't we?


trivia question here teddy dearest....

but does this not also mean that giving
up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...

Do try to read the trext, and you will note
that you weak reed has gone wandering through
your hand again.....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:59:10 GMT


In article <1992Sep25.001337.18519@ke4zv.uucp>, 
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) said:

> Well, it's the President's job to determine when to rattle sabers,
> with the concurrence of Congress, and it's the soldier's job to do
> the rattling. But it seems to me that the Commander in Chief should
> at least have an idea what sabers are. Clinton confuses Patriot
> anti-aircraft missiles with Tomahawk cruise missiles. That's not a
> good sign for someone responsible for military preparedness and
> military action.

On the other hand, I think I read somewhere that no less a personage
than the guy next in line for the job of C-in-C, Vice President Dan
Quayle, made exactly the same error in responding to Clinton's error
that you did -- it's neither the Patriot anti-aircraft missile nor the
Tomahawk cruise missile that matches Clinton's description of "going
down airshafts and in through windows" or whatever it was that he
said; it's the variety of "smart bombs" in the U.S. arsenal.

Be that as it may, here are two points in defense of Clinton:

(1) Whatever their comparative inherent abilities to serve as C-in-C
may be, Bush enjoys the incumbent's advantage in that, because he's
_already_ got the job, he is, in times of military crisis, constantly
surrounded by and briefed by the nation's top military men... nobody
can show that Clinton would have made the same error if _he'd_ spent
the last three and a half years in that position.

(2) If the C-in-C (or a candidate for that position) doesn't know that
the U.S. has cruise missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, smart bombs,
etc., or doesn't have a good grasp of what they can and can't do, that
may be a cause for concern.  But (imho), a simple error regarding the
_nomenclature_ isn't _that_ big a goof.  What's the worse that can
happen from it?  The President tells a general, "All right, we know
what building Saddam Hussein is hiding in, and we know that it has a
vulnerable air shaft.  I hereby order you to send a Patriot missile
down that shaft and destroy that bunker."  The general hearing this
order isn't going to say "Yessir" and order some poor technician to
try to modify a Patriot missile for smart-bomb duty.  He's going to
say, "Excuse me, sir, but the Patriot is an anti-aircraft missile.  I
believe that you want us to use a smart bomb," and the President will
say, "Oh, yes, right, that's what I meant."  Admittedly, all this
might cause the general's personal Bozo Rating of his C-in-C to go up
by a few points, but if he has any right to be wearing those stars on
his shoulders that won't affect his performance as a military officer
by one iota.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.192721.11432@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.070843.14122@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>>  Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows

>George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
>issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
>original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
>uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
>very least, not *opposed* to term limits.

I haven't read Will's book yet, and he presumably develops the idea more
thoroughly than you report here, but this still seems rather bizarre.

If there were *no* term limits back then, then you could make the claim
that the founding fathers would have supported term limits if they had
thought about them.

But since they HAD thought about them, and explicitly rejected them
(read the notes on the Constitutional Convention), deliberately leaving
them out of the Constitution, it seems odd to me to argue that they
didn't oppose them.

(BTW, on another posting on this thread.  The claim that 'time, place, 
and manner' includes term limits is ridiculous.  Term limits go to
*qualifications of the candidates*, not logistics for an election.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49635 alt.rush-limbaugh:6569 alt.politics.bush:7775 alt.politics.clinton:8544 alt.politics.elections:15218 talk.abortion:40644 alt.sex:31964
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
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
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:32:07 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep28.100717.6029@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
|> : Exactly my point.  I am firmly pro-choice.  I am trying to point out
|> : the inconsistency inherent in the anti-abortion position.  I can
|> : respect, if not agree with the absolutist anti-abortion position.  Once
|> : they start with the "rape, incest and life of the mother" exceptions,
|> : though, I believe they are more interested in punishing the mother for
|> : daring to have sex than in preserving a human life.
|> 
|> Once again I have to point out that right-to-lifers do not want to punish 
|> women for having sex, any more than people who denounce terrorism want to 
|> punish minorities for taking an interest in politics, O.K.? 

	Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures another in
a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and health of the one
injured.
	BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions. 
Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).

Steve
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48894 alt.rush-limbaugh:6311 alt.politics.elections:14815 alt.politics.clinton:8021 alt.politics.bush:7371
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Answer the question, John (was Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments))
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:16:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct1.073038.9588@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.161734.2084@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>Ditto! I have had to debate this with dozens of people and I STILL don't
>>know where they get this 250,000 civilians killed by the US, from! 
>>
>>I want to see this proof, also.
>>
>
>Don't know about the 250,000 civilians figure, but the numbers do trickle in.
>The New England Journal of Medicine just published a study of deaths among
>children in Iraq immediately following the Gulf War.
>
>Their figure was 46,900 children in the first seven months of 1991.

Well, according to the report, the "normal" number would've been 
half that.  So child and infant mortality has doubled from 
20-25,000. (BTW, Children make up a much higher proportion of Iraq's
population than they do here)

The question is who do you blame for these 20-25,000 additional deaths?  
An Iraqi government that either refuses to cooperate (impedes, in some 
cases) with UN relief teams or blocks medicines outright from certain 
areas of Iraq, or the U.S.?

>
>The number was attributed to a severe outbreak of diarrhea, caused by lack
>of working water and sewer systems.  The study was paid for by the United
>Nations Children's Fund, and researchers were drawn from the U.S., England,
>New Guinea and Jordan.
>
>46,900 is a lot of kids.

20-25,000.  That's still a lot of kids.  Kids who needn't have died if
it weren't for the Iraqi government.

-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSS PEROT!
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:11:28 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep30.192607.20868@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> DESY is an international lab. There are several hundred Americans on site.
> 
> I'm not American, I object to Perots demand for Europe and Asia to pay $200
> billion a year tribute to pay for US overspending.

  If you don't want American troops on your shores, Phill, tell your lawmakers
to send them back.  If they need us that badly, they should have to pay for our
services.
 
						Mike Falkner

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48726 alt.rush-limbaugh:6261 alt.politics.bush:7270 alt.politics.clinton:7908 alt.politics.elections:14717 talk.abortion:39568 alt.sex:31409
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
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
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:24:39 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep25.004034.18756@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep24.181854.19286@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> >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
> >
> >Douglas, Douglas, Douglas....
> >
> >Please read my paragraph again.  Slowly.  Have I excluded adoption?  (And,
> >BTW, I do NOT believe that every woman should have an abortion; I am not
> >pro-abortion.  I believe that every woman should have the CHOICE between
> >having a child and not.)
> >
> My apologies, I caught only part of the message on my new Newsreader.  I am
> now fixing the error.

"Please pardon me, I'm a not-terribly-bright reactionary twit, and I
respond to articles I haven't read and wouldn't understand even if I _did_
read them."

Please feel free to "fix the error" by doing a median strip imitation in
the middle of a freeway convenient to you.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:05:10 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Adrienne Regard writes:
>Jeff Davis writes:
>>Why don't abortion opponents join together to help get a ban
>>on something around which a consensus could be contrived: say,
>>a ban on abortions after the first trimester? 
>
>Just taking a wild guess, I'd suggest it's because you can't
>formulate a nice clear cut emotional argument for such a thing that
>doesn't invite intense scrutiny and argument.  It's much easier to
>point at conception as an 'event' from which to protect feti, than it
>is to point to some arbitrary time along a continuum and make an argue-
>ment for it.

I would not try to formulate such an argument. I would be trying to
find a political solution which currently seems insoluble. 

>
>Which is not to say that I don't think you are absolutely right in  
>pointing out that more people would go along with such a thing -- because
>of their own 'discomfort' with the notion of aborting fetuses that look
>like cute cuddly little babies.
>
>But it would be even more of an affront to intellectual honesty.  More
>folks would have to recognise that they are supporting a law from the
>indefinable sense of 'ickky' than from any sensible stance.

I don't feel intellectually dishonest in trying to reduce the number
of abortions. Nor do I feel morally superior because of my
opposition to abortion. 

>
>>It is not the place of those who oppose abortion to hide
>>behind self-righteousness and assume that complications from
>>abortion are God's retribution. 
>
>It isn't?  How do you know?

There is a Zen saying: If you see the Buddha, kill him. I 
distrust people who feel they have a direct line to God. Most
people do as well. My whole post was written as an attempt
to draw back from absolutes.  To try to imagine a 
political -- i.e. temporizing -- way to limit abortions.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49586 ca.politics:8456 ba.politics:5883
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:11:28 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> Eric Sieferman) writes:
|>          ......
|> >
|> >As to HRP's "plan", he is willing to balance the budget in
|> >a few years by massive tax increases and draconian budget cuts.
|> >Doing this in such a short time frame would likely send the
|> >US into a major depression.  Most of the economics professionals
|> >in this country could come up with a better "plan" than this;
|> >but since they don't have massive personal fortunes,
|> >they won't be heard.
|> >To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
|> 
If there was anything that I thought conservatives and liberals,
Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and those misguided
that support that Texas guy, and old and young, etc. was that
this is that much of a problem.  We may not agree with how to 
deal with it, but we all know it is a growing millstone
around our neck and the necks of our children.

On the other hand, maybe the country should just declare bankruptcy,
cancel out the debt, or pay it off at 10 cents on the dollar,
and go on with life as before.  That certainly fits the Neil
Bush definition of capitalism.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex