HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:42:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <6439@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
|> In article <BvBMFq.9xA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
|> >Plain and simple: Clinton stood up for his beliefs by refusing to kill people  
|> >he believed this nation had no business killing.  Pick up the New York Times
|> 
|> I fail to see how arranging for relatives and friends to influence your
|> draft board, then arranging to join ROTC and (with political precision) then
|> reneging on the agreement, is somehow "standing up for his beliefs".
|> 
|> Standing up for your beliefs would be something like burning a draft card,
|> telling the draft board to stuff it, going to Canada.  Clinton never did
|> ANYTHING he thought would affect his political viability in the future.
|> He tried to have his cake and eat it too.  He tried to make sure that
|> there would be no consequences. 
|> 
|> I have more respect for the people of my generation (and I consider a few
|> of them friends) who said they wouldn't go in the military, and went to 
|> jail instead.  I can respect their "standing up for their beliefs"; I
|> cannot respect what Bill Clinton did.

I guess that your voting for Perot or Mickey Mouse then 
because to vote for JDQ would go against your priciples.

Jared Dahl
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: To err is human...
Summary: 1+1+1=3, if you use the right frame of mathematics... 
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: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.213133.21202@calspan.com> schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) writes:
>In article <lcet04INN354@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>|> 
>>What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
>>the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
>>the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
>>resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
>>either side is correct) as the "final argument."
>>
>
>You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
>sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
>of caution?  

Becuase the "abortion debate" is not just about the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornBaby".
It's about something that may or may not be a "person", and a *PREGNANT WOMAN*
who *IS* a person.
--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6461 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4884
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Keywords: masturbation
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:26:41 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <Fek1RB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>
>On the other hand.....
>  "Dan Quayle is 2 pounds lighter than a straw hat."
>                           -Republican Senator Lowell Weiker
>
You lose a lot of credibility quoting the most hated man in Connecticut.
How a guy can *claim* to have been a republican, when his deomocratic
replacement is more conservative than he was (as a senator).



-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:18:01 GMT

In article <5673@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>.The government profits from the sale of substances which can cause
>.cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver and lung cancer which can cause death in
>.real human beings.  Does this bother you?  Note also that taxation is a
>.tool which can be used to get less of something undesirable (that's the
>.ostensible raison d'etre for the tobacco and liquor taxes - they're sin
>.taxes, alledgedly the gov't has some sort of interest in stamping out
>.sin (that's why we also subsidise tobacco farmers, go figure)).  What
>.was that quote from a Supreme Court decision?  "The power to tax is the
>.power to destroy?"  Apply this reasoning to the income tax at your own
>.risk.
>
>Gee, I'm glad you brought that up. The tax on cigarettes and alcohol do
>bother me a bit that somehow the country is profiting on the dependence
>of part of the population to some drug. On the other hand these taxes
>aren't levied by people who advocate that cigarette smoking or alcohol
>consumption is and should remain a constitutionally protected right
>against those "health-freaks" who prefer every tobacco factory or
>alcohol distillery go straight to hell. Usually these sin taxes are used
>to pay for advertising and health programs that encourage breaking the 
>dependence on these substances.


Umm, I don't think I've ever seen an ad from any gov't meant to deter
smokers.  Methinks this tax money from tobacco and alcohol is more or
less siphoned straight into the maw of the U.S. gov't, where some of it
can be sent back to Jesse Helm's tobacco farmers.  Can't say that I
know anything about tax dollars being used to help fund programs to
break dependence on these substances - never been in that situation.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that there really is a debate over the right
to smoke or drink - sure, non-smoker's argue that we shouldn't have to
pollute our lungs while engaging in some activity, and there are some
nuts who want to hold liable tobacco and liquor companies for the
injuries suffered by or because of the individuals who were forced
(NOT!) to consume these products.  However, I'm not too sure that this
is necc. trying to deny the right to smoke or drink.


>I don't think this is the case with the abortion debate. If a "tax" or
>"fee" on an abortion clinic is imposed, where is the money going? I

Probably where tax money usually goes - to go to pay for some programs
which you think are a waste of money and for some which you think are
worthwhile.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Rush and the liberal conspiracy
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:48:24 GMT

In article <nate.604@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>>>All Rush fans were I work,  hes on once a month,  are what you might call
>>>liberal.  All are for Roe vs. Wade, Clinton,  Civil Rights,  Limited
>>                                                              ^^^^^^^
>>>Government,  Higher Education spending, etc.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Good one!  Are Conservatives for increased taxes and Afirmative Action
>>in your world?
>
>    Probably not, though I can't speak for Bob. It may be, however, that 
>the liberals in "his world" defy the Rush Limbaugh description of the 
>"typical liberal". 
>

Well, there you go again, trying to undermine our perfectly OK
stereotypes!  But seriously...  I can accept a lot of waffling on many
fringe positions, but to say that a basic tenet of liberalism is
"limited government" defies all attempts to define the liberal
position. 

While most liberals may not say outright that they want a big
government, the policies they advocate *do* result in big government.
This type of denial is typical of Americans in general, nowadays. 
We want to have lower taxes and no public debt, but also want to keep
all our handouts.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6566 talk.abortion:40642
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:09:03 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <5644@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) wrote:
>=> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
>=> "1987
>=> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
>=> each abortion clinic."
>=> 
>=> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?
>=
>=Not especially.  Did you have a point here?
>
>Well I was hoping you would be able to think about what could be a
>financial/fiscal convienience of being pro-choice with respect to the
>government. Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
>of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.

Can you prove that the government would profit from this move? Any economist
will be glad to tell you that raising a unit cost does NOT necessarily result
in increased profits, since the potential always exists for a decrease in 
volume. And if the government "profits", so what? As long as they apply the 
"profits" to worthwhile social programs, deficit reduction, tax reduction, or 
other "good" causes, don't we the people "profit" as well?

Or, maybe what you're trying to imply is that Clinton is really, secretly a 
pro-lifer at heart, who wants to raise the cost of abortions so that less 
people will be able to obtain them (?). I'll take the risk, thanks...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 07:44:40 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) wrote (in article <1992Sep24.201833.26324@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>):
>In article <tv9n!t-.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>And yes, arbitrary boundaries are bad, but sometimes they're
>>necessary.  I've at least tried to justify mine; you're just asserting
>>yours.  Could you explain your decision that personhood starts at
>>conception, like I've asked above?
>
>Certainly Brian, I look to the scientific experts and follow their 
>opinion on this subject.  While it is by no means a consensus, a 
>large majority of embryologists agree that human life begins at 
>conception.

I completely agree with you, but read my question more carefully.  I
didn't ask you to defend that human life begins at conception; I asked
you to defend that personhood begins at conception.  'Human' does not
mean the same thing as 'person', so if you're trying to assert that
nothing can be one without being the other, then it might be good to
start off by explaining how you got to this conclusion.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6516 alt.activism.d:3535 alt.politics.elections:15115 alt.politics.clinton:8425 talk.politics.misc:49475 talk.abortion:40520 alt.politics.bush:7695
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 4-Oct-92 Re: Walking down to the
>stu.. by Ron Bense@oasys.dt.navy.

>I am in complete agreement with Mr. Holtsinger's analysis.  I support
>both abortion rights and have no moral qualms with infanticide for
[...]
>SInce any line is arbitrary, a well-defined line is desirable.  Birth has
>the advantage of the sharp distinction between inside the women and outside
>the women.

At least you recognize this "minor" detail.
<sarcasm off>

>In constrast, Mr. Bense's suggestion that it is ok to kill the
>baby/infant because of its location seems absurd.  He bases this on the

Pardon? Did I suggest it? I merely said that the conditions of one versus
the other (inside the woman versus the outside) were the reasons most
see to allow abortion/not allow infanticide. I did not state that it
was ok to kill because of its location (which is a woman) but because
one imposes on a single person while the other does not. I admit that
I did not go into detail, as Holtsinger and I have gone round on this
topic a few times, and he is very aware of my opinions. For that reason,
and to save time, I omitted several details, as to rehash them each
time is both unecessary and tedious. Please don't ever think that what
I write in a single post is the whole of my position, because it is
not.

>claim that infants don't need the direct support of another person's
>bodily functions.  A nine month old fetus doesn't need the support
>either.  A fetes' ninth month in the womb is just something desirable
>for the fetus in pre-medical societies.

I agree that the ninth month is a bit unecessary, but desirable in any
society. As for whether a fetus after 8 months requires any unusual
support, I'm not sure if it does. Note that I did not specifically state
anything wrt the nonth month, but to the entire gestation period in
general. There was a reason for this, as Holtsinger alluded to the criteria
applying to the entire gestation period. In many other posts, I've stated
that to my knowledge, no one has gotten a "trivial" abortion in the
third tri, and I've even asked if anyone was aware of a non-medical
reason for a third tri that was done. (non-medical meaning both woman
and fetus were in good health, with the fetus having no defects)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Perot Thing
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:11:58 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

Anyone else find it pretty darn funny hearing Rush take a call from that
Perot organizer during Wednesday's show?  I think that's the first time I've
ever heard Rush at a loss for words.  All he could do was keep mimicking
Perot's accent, like it was a cross to keep those Perot supporters at bay!
For a moment, I thought Rush would burst a vein in his head.


BTW, now that Perot has re-entered the race, won't we be hearing from Rush
all about the evil little man?  As Bill Bennett commented on CNN Thursday
afternoon, the Bush campaign trashed Perot when he was first un-running.
Then they and Clinton's campaign sucked up to Perot for a while.  Now,
he's a dangerous megalomaniac again, to hear the Bush campaign tell it.  
It tires.

I'm probably too cynical to actually vote for Perot, but I thought his
little speech today (about spending our children's money being immoral)
was about the most inspiring politics I've heard in a while.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6128 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6026
From: bab@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Brian Alan Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV show + Miscellaneous Stuff
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:03:01 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <BvCFuo.3GF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
...
>the one case in which he thought she was criticisng him. Unfortunately I
>thought that he undermined his case when later in the broadcast he
>referred to General Schwartzkopf as "the most important American general
>of this century". I have no doubt that the heirs of McArthur or Patton 
...
>-- 
>Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
>Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
>nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

I believe he said "one of the most important American generals of the century."


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Laugh and the world laughs with you.  Shoot someone   |   Brian Baker
  and you really limit your appeal." - Joe Martin        |   bab@wpi.WPI.EDU
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: test3
Summary: Test, ignore
Keywords: test, ignore, sheep, perot
Date: 2 Oct 92 07:50:59 GMT
Distribution: pa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: ccohen@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu


Test, please ignore!
From: rovero@skye.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:58:44 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <1992Oct2.182033.5295@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>So why are the deficits under Reagan and Bush so much higher than under any
>democratic president, ever.  And don't forget,  the President proposes the 
>budget,  the congress just agrees to it.

The congress doesn't "just agree to it".  They declare the president's
budget dead on arrival, rearrange all the spending priorities, put in
plenty of pork barrel, and then add taxes that result in recessions
and less total tax income.  

The congress has been solidly democratic (except for two years of \
republican senate in the 80's) for many years.  Might they have
*something* to do with the problem?

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6464 alt.activism.d:3512 talk.abortion:40349
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: A fetus is a child, look it up.
Keywords: child, fetus, offspring
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:27:53 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: HALF, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Oct02.042824.158278@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1054@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>> Look up the word "child".  You will find nothing about a soul.  A fetus is
>> by definition a child.
>
>Depends on the dictionary.

No it doesn't.  You're perfectly correct that some dictionaries (especially
abridged ones) don't explicitly include the words "unborn" or "fetus" in
the definition of "child" (although most do).  However those that don't,
like "American Heritage Dictionary", don't exclude the unborn in their
definition, i.e. that don't say "born offspring", they just say
"offspring".  Are you going to tell me that the fetus isn't an offspring
too?  He most certainly is.

Please keep in mind that this didn't start with me making a big point of
the fact that the fetus is a child.  It started with other people claiming
the the fetus isn't a child and that it was ridiculous to say otherwise.
That is corruption of the language for political purposes.

>> That is why there are phrases like "she is with-child".
>
>You are WRONG, idiom-breath.  A fetus is by definition a sweet roll.
>That's why there are phrases like "she has a bun in the oven."

That's very clever, but I'm not wrong.  "With child" is not an idiom in the
sense you're using above, but part of proper usage (if fact, included in
some dictionaries as examples of).

Why is this (false) distinction so important to you people?  What I call
"it", the words I properly use to describe what "it" is that is aborted in
an abortion, does not change what "it" is.  If you are perfectly
comfortable with abortion, then it shouldn't matter.  Why do you get so
angry if I say a fetus is a child (which it is)?  What exactly is the
problem here?

Once more, from yet another dictionary, for those who still doubt:

	child  n. 1a: an unborn or recently born human being:
		      Fetus, Infant, Baby.

That is from, "Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Unabridged", G & C Merriam Company, 1976.

Have we not beat this subject to death, in fact, beat the corpse to a bloody
pulp?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: phil@meaddata.com (Phillip Jacobs)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna 
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:34:09 GMT
Distribution: usa

Rush Limbaugh on Madonna
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NOW, there's a vision that will bring tears of laughter to your eyes!!!


Phil Jacobs                                                   (513) 865-7743
Mead Data Central       In a hundred years       System Evolution & Modeling
P.O. Box 933          This all won't matter!               phil@meaddata.com
Dayton, Ohio  45401      -jimmy buffett-             ...!uunet!meaddata!phil

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion