HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Content-free Discourse (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:17:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.150236.26953@natinst.com>,
lmg@natinst.com (Louis Gomes, a culture-shocked, uprooted Portuguese) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.234314.13656@athena.mit.edu>,
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>,
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and
>>>a Democratically-controlled Congress will keep a lid on
>>>spending is fooling themselves.  
>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>>Why do people make such statements?  I can understand that one or two of
>>these things might creep into a passionate argument, but when the entire
>>body of a post is just one ridiculous statement, it's time to shut down
>>Usenet, chuck everything, and move to Portugal.
>
>Hey, hey, hey! Stop picking on us. I can quote you extensively from
>mainstream Portuguese newspapers from any time in the last 3.5 years
>ripping the Quayleman to shreds with great gusto, and mocking the
>archconservative hangups of American society in general, and of this
>administration, in particular... :-)


Do you know any decent apartments in Sagres?
To save money, I'd even do without indoor plumbing
just to escape Dannikins and his foul incontinence.


Dhanesh

PS: If you want a smiley, add it yourself.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1737 alt.politics.clinton:2026 alt.politics.perot:1293 talk.bizarre:26197 talk.politics.misc:40003
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:33:42 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

in article <1992Aug14.055540.18924@athena.mit.edu> howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:

>But abortion, unlike murder and robbery, is legal.  Therefore it is her 
>LEGAL right to make that choice and there is nothing Bush can legally
>do to stop her.   He did not say that he supported her decision but rather
>that he would support her.

One thing that has struck me as odd in this whole debate, and it's as 
applicable to Bush as it is to Quayle (he spoke on this same topic a few 
weeks ago), and that is neither of them mentioned adoption.  Both Bush and 
Quayle said that they would try to talk there daughter/grandaughter out of 
it, but neither one said anything along the lines of "we would ask her to 
have the baby, and then we would raise it as our own if that's what it took".

This is something I have wondered for a long time - all those nice white 
people who are breaking the law by blocking entrances to women's health 
clinics (like Operation Rescue), I wonder what percentage of them have 
adopted black babies?  White babies are pretty easy to get adopted, but 
it's a lot harder for black babies to find a home.  Have a high percentage 
of these pro-lifers done anything concrete for saving a life, like adopting 
an unwanted child, or is this just rhetoric on their part?

Any one have any stats on this?

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1371 alt.politics.marrou:753 talk.politics.misc:39345 alt.politics.elections:10426
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 13 Aug 1992 16:21:06 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <19259@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> In article <wPe8oB1w164w@coldbox.cojones.com>, system@coldbox.cojones.com (Bryan Lockwood) writes:
|> } shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> } 
|> } > Oh come on now. First of all EVERY school teaches a religion in
|> } > one way or another. In a public school it is usually humanism. Now
|> } > I might not want my taxes going to spread humanism and Joe across
|> } > the street may not want his money going to spread Christianity or
|> } > Hinduism or what ever. The obvious solution is to keep the government
|> } > and taxes out of it all together and let people choose the education
|> } > that they want for their kids.
|> } 
|> } Won't fly. In this scenario, education would be too expensive for many
|> } parents to afford!
|> 
|> If they can't afford their children's education, then they shouldn't have
|> had children in the first place!
|> 
That won't fly. 
1.	If there were no educated workers, the rich could not 
	continue to amass wealth. 

2.	At the time you decide to have children, you do not know how
	much it will cost to educate them.  This is like saying that
	if you child will catch a terminal disease in his/her first
	10 years, you shouldn't have one.

3.	Education is as much a benefit to the society as it is to
	the individual.

|> } Maybe one way of
|> } looking at it is to say that you spend the rest of your life paying back into
|> } the system to cover your _own_ education.
|> 
|> If you buy a loaf of bread, you are not obligated to keep paying the grocer
|> for that bread for the rest of your life.  Once you have paid your doctor for
|> medical care, you are not obligated to pay for that care for the rest of
|> your life.  Why must it be any different for education?

Education lasst longer than bread or medical care.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:32:14 GMT

In article <19281@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.150838.12908@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>} [If your idea of 'school choice' is to subsidize the flight of the
>} wealthy and middle classes out of the public schools while leaving the
>} less affluent there, then I am opposed.  That's not 'choice'.  It's
>} the old 'separate but equal' game with a shiny new coat of paint.]
>
>You seem to be saying that it is good that the public schools have a
>captive audience -- if everyone can't leave, then nobody can.  I cannot
>accept that as being at all good.

Gee, someone else telling me what I "seem to be saying".  Can you say
'strawman'?  I thought you could.  Why is it that people can't read
what is said, rather than trying to 'interpolate' to reach something
that wasn't said?

>
>BTW, why do you assume there would be this big flight from the public school
>system, if deep in your gut you do not believe there is something inherently
>desparately wrong with that system.  And if you do believe that there is
>something that wrong with the system, how does forcing people to remain tied
>to it improve matters?

How does the creation of a permanent underclass by forcing them (and
only them) into substandard educations improve matters?  What's wrong
with plans that let EVERYBODY choose instead of just some selected
subset?  What's wrong with saying we should fix the system rather than
abandon it (and people who don't have the wherewithal to get out)?
What's wrong with reading what is SAID instead of erecting strawmen
and then arguing with those?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1349 alt.politics.elections:10414 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2404
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:36:12 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

If it is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.  If it is
murder, then it is murder if his relatives do it.  The inconsistancy
demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the thinking.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:36:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.152926.15159@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
|>In article <23582@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
|>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
|>
|>> If it is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.  If it is
|>> murder, then it is murder if his relatives do it.  The inconsistancy
|>> demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the thinking.
|>
|>No, it demonstrates that Bush is a loving parent who would
|>support his children and grandchildren no matter what they did. 
|>
|>
|>Doug Holtsinger

But wouldn't he support them more by giving them the choice themselves
then making the choice for them and every one else.  Why are these 
'right to lifers' holier than thou(or me)?   If you support someones
decision, is it only to be supported after the act was committed?  If so
why don't you allow them to make the decision for themselves, sort of
support their right to decide whats best for themselves if your going
to care about them anyway?  
            
Maurice LaBiche (Mo.L.)             labiche@bnr.ca
Bell Northern Research              
Richardson, Texas                   i'm really in Texas, USA not Canada

No opinions herein expressed have anything to do with the opinions 
of Bell Northern Research or Northern Telecom or CIA or NSA ...
These statements are mine and mine alone, well i guess my wife 
agrees with some of them?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:17:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.174311.2402@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In regards to the restrictions, perhaps most Americans have not
>carefully considered the effects of, say, a 24-hour waiting period.

Okay, let's see the argument.

>For the well-off, this is no great hardship: they most likely live
>near an abortion clinic, or can get there easily.  They probably can
>take a day off very easily.  For poor, rural women, the 24-hour wait
>is an undue burden.  Most likely, she earns hourly wages.  How much
>does she lose if she has to take a day off because of the waiting
>period?  Further, she most likely has to schlepp across the state to
>get to a clinic.  In each of the Dakotas, there is ONE abortion clinc.
>Not only does she have to travel for hours, paying bus fare back and
>forth and forgoing wages, she'll be forced to stay at this clinic at
>least over night.  Isn't this an undue burden?  More subtley, the
>waiting period is patronizing.  It assumes that the woman in question
>has not considered her situation at all, assumes that she looked at
>the home pregnancy test, and boom, she's at the clinic the same
>afternoon.  Is this truly what happens?

I'd have a lot more sympathy for people making this argument if it
applied to other choices, choices that one can't even legally exercise
outside one's home state.

Surely if 24 hours an undue burden and an insult, it is so in general,
and not just when we're talking about abortion.  Surely 3, 7, or 15
days is even worse.

Why is abortion the only choice worthy of respect?  After all, we
believe pro-choice advocates who say say "we don't like abortion, but
it isn't our decision to make", so why doesn't that apply to other
choices she might make, choices that said advocates may not like.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 13:59:13 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <24712@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
]>Yes... I know of the excesses of the bible beaters, and I have indeed
]>read about the Spanish Inquisition. These are no excuse for the
]>hostility or even hatred for anything related to Christian religion
]>(which seems to be the main target).
]
]Huh? Want to run that by me again? If a set of tortures and murders in
]the name of a cause don't qualify as a reason for disliking that cause
]then what exactly *would* qualify?

Sure. It was an aberration that occurred hundreds of years ago
under vastly different conditions. To continue to treat Christian
religion as if it stands for the inquisition is about as clever
as assuming all liberals are communists because a few were once
upon a time.

]This is a kind interesting concept though, let's see if we can apply it
]to anything else:
]
]*   So, admittedly Stalinism did lead to a few million deaths in work camps
]    and so on, but that's no excuse for hostility to stalinism.
Nice try, but I have no problem with you objecting to the Spanish
Inquisition (which is the analogy to Stalinism)
]
]*   OK, it was probably a bad idea to have all the folks in Jamestown
]    commit suicide, and what with them killing a senator and all. Still,
]    that's no argument against Reverend Jones' ideas....
Of course it is. Reverend Jones was not a representative or typical
Christian. He was a typical cult leader (which occur in lots of religions
and non-religions).
]
]*   Well, yes, the terrorists do have a bad habit of blowing up
]    airplanes, discos and all, but that's no reason for an irrational
]    dislike of 'em.
Give it a rest, eh?
]
]*   Yes, I've read about the Holocaust. Six million Jews was it? Still
]    you can't go from there to saying that the Nazis were bad guys...
Please explain what this has to do with modern antipathy towards anything
related to the Christian religion.

You are constructing a classic strawman argument. Please try again
with something a bit more rational and to the point.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
From: tyler.brown@EMCB.CC.UTAH.EDU (TYLER JAMES BROWN)
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Organization: University of Utah
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:21:34 GMT

In article <oeXmv0K00VAxQ2P0QA@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:


> glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>>In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>>And there are laws against prostitution. 
>>
>>And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
>>(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
>>that did not exist when such laws were enacted.

>Then I'll give you the medical reason that did exist at the time. 
>Syphilis.  Until the advent of penicilin in the 20th century, syphilis
>was as deadly a disease as AIDS is today.  There was just as much
>medical justification to pass the laws then as there is today.

>                                       Tom the non hacker
>                                       Kemp in 96!
>                                       "If patriotism is the last refuge
>                                       of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
>                                       is the current refuge of totalitarians."
>                                       Bob Jackson
	
	Thats all changed today. I have lived in Nevada most of my life and 
if a prostitute is found to have any sort of venerial disease it makes the 
papers. A friend of mine went to Mustang Ranch a couple years ago. (I live 
about 20 miles from it.) They now require condoms for all vaginal 
intercourse. At least that is what he told me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2272 alt.politics.clinton:2338 alt.politics.elections:11073 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2748 alt.rush-limbaugh:3775 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4691 talk.politics.misc:40854
From: M22614@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:03:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.152926.15159@ncsu.edu>
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
 
>
>In article <23582@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>
>> If it is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.  If it is
>> murder, then it is murder if his relatives do it.  The inconsistancy
>> demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the thinking.
>
>No, it demonstrates that Bush is a loving parent who would
>support his children and grandchildren no matter what they did.
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>
Actually, there is a bit of moral bankruptcy here.  I think the real
question that should have been asked is, "obviously you would still
love your grandaughter, but to be consistent, since by having an
abortion she will have committed murder, and since you're in favor
of capital punishment for everything short of jay walking, would
you not concede that capital punishment would be a justifiable
punishment for her heinous, immoral act of child killing?"  One
may afterall love one's child yet recognize that one's child must
still pay for his or her crimes.
 
**Mike Wambsganss
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:40:45 GMT

Did you all hear that the original ads had to be pulled because they
voilated a federal law against using the presidential seal in any form
for endorsement?

It's like Bush's answer on Dateline NBC last night, where he reiterated
Quayle's opinion that an abortion should be the choice of the woman, as
long as it's a relative of his.  Bush has shown again and again that he
thinks he's above the law.

------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?-------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu) | Georgia Tech College of Computing 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The green grass grows around the backyard shithouse, and that is where
     the sweetest flowers bloom.  We are flowers, growing in God's garden,
     and that is why he spreads the shit around."  - David Byrne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:22:25 GMT

....
Is anyone else sick and tired of having Barbara and Marilyn held up as the
paragons of womanhood?

Sharon O'Neil


Yes. I too don't like them. I would not Barbara Bush as my grandmother,
mother, wife, friend or anthing else. Double that for Marily Quayle.

On the contrary, I would be very pleased to be related to Hillary Clinton
in any way.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Subject: Re: school choice (Was: Is this a socialist country?)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:56:29 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug12.173409.20184@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In article <veal.196@utkux1.utk.edu> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug10.165705.23891@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >>In article <1992Aug10.014900.1240@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
> >
> >>>  You, of course, have the right not to answer that question.  Others, of
> >>>course, have the right to draw what conclusions they will from that refusal.
> >>>
> >
> >>The question asked about what *I* do with *MY* money.  Being a
> >>libertarian, you have already demonstrated that you are a hypocrite by
> >>asking it.  
> >
> >     Why?  Nobody is forcing you to respond.
> 
> Because as a libertarian, what *I* do isn't germane and is my affair.
> Implying otherwise is hypocritical for a libertarian.

And whose definition of libertarianism would that be?

Libertarians believe that you should be free to do as you please, so long as
you do not infringe on the right of others to do as they please.  This does
not imply that a lack of curiousity is required.  Asking you how you spend
your money does not infringe on your right to do as you please.  Declining
to answer such questions is entirely within your rights, as is arguing about
it and turning the whole thing into a pissing contest.

If you are interested in learning more about libertarianism, I can recommend
some good books to get you started.

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2351 alt.politics.marrou:859 talk.politics.misc:41008 alt.politics.elections:11149
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Rubin Herman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:12:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <BtAv3I.5s2@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>>Not what I am saying.  If a person, poor or not, can afford a child, fine.

>>Tell me, if it is wise for someone who cannot afford a child to have one
>>anyway, how about two?  Five?  Nine?  Fourteen?  At what point do you
>>think someone, who cannot afford children, should stop having them?

>Tell me, is it wise to base a national policy on the assumption that
>poor people are not going to have children if they can't afford them?
>Is it wise to punish the children for the poverty they are born into?

"Wise" is a loaded word.  "Necessary for survival" may be more appropriate.
Our current laws, in most countries including many countries which admit
that they have an overpopulation problem and officially support birth
control, have the effect of encouraging poor people to have many children.
It is not the intention of the laws which counts, but how the poor people
perceive the consequences of their actions to produce more children.

That YOU would not have an extra child for the amount of State support
provided is irrelevant; it is the opinions of the poor which count here.
Peasant women in India come in for birth control after they have had
their half-dozen or so.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc