HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 9 Oct 92 00:56:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1687A9093.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
|> In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|>  
|> >        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
|>  
|> Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
|> truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
|> rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
|> crime.
|>  
|> Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.

	My pleasure, sirrah....
	I start with the assumption that a person has the right to control their
own body unless they waive that right.
	I observe that people are responsible for the effects of their behavior
on others.  When a woman has sex, she knows she might become pregnant.  If, by her
voluntary action of sex, she causes a child to appear in her womb, she has taken
a voluntary action and is responsible for the effects of that action on her
unborn child.
	Rape, by contrast, is involuntary.  No waiver of the right to control her
own body, and the right remains fully intact.  Instead, it is the rapist who is
responsible...and if the woman aborts, I would charge the rapist with murder as
well as rape.
	If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.

Steve

Why settle for the lesser evil?
	Cthulhu in '92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Far simpler solution
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:14:55 GMT

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
] 
] Or do something faster, easier, cheaper, and no less legal!  Force all men
] to have vasectomies!  If a rapist can't get a 12-year-old girl pregnant,
] she doesn't have to be pressured to have/not have an abortion!  Of course,
] the planet will get *real* peaceful in 80 years or so, but the problem is
] certainly solved in the short term.
 
Carrie

Why is it you Wimp Liberal Types always want to do things
in a HALF ASSED MANNER!

Why Not Strike a Blow for Freedom 
and Outlaw HeteroSexuality all Together!!!!

"When they OutLaw Hetro's
Only Criminals will be Hetro!"

This would STOP all of the Problems!

ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:05:19 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>It's worse.  The Cable bill is a gift to the networks from Congress.
>It forces cable systems to carry all local signals -- and then _PAY_
>the stations whose signals they are carrying.

Please tell me where in the Cable Act it requires cable companies to pay
the stations whose local signals they are carrying.  The requirement to
carry local stations is in section 614, which is an exception to the
section where they are required to obtain permission to rebroadcast.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.172233.24617@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
    >I assume you're talking about something that happened after
    >the killer of Moscone and Milk was sentenced, in the late
    >70s? Two police cars were burned; I'm not making any excuses
    >for that. However, they weren't private property, so no one
    >(possibly uninsured) person suffered as a result of that
    >crime. IMO, that property damage isn't shit, compared to a
    >brutal and merciless bashing. Your assertion that they are
    >somehow on par makes me wonder just what relative values you
    >place on people and property, Phil.

The fact that you wonder about the "relative values" I place on
people and property shows that you have either not read my posts
or did not comprehend them.

To oversimplify, people "ain't shit" without property. Destroy
property, you destroy people.

Consider the ethnic cleansing in the remants of Yugoslavia.

Very few people (as of yet), relative to the entire Moslem population,
have been murdered.

The terror, horror, and great tragedy all comes the destruction of
their property. Their homes, their land, their possesions, all
uprooted, stolen, taken in the name of the State ... they don't
have the legal ability to buy food in those areas they are being
kicked out of (note that LAWS had to be passed for this as the
shopkeepers were apparently willing to sell them food).

Horrible tragedy -- yet their lives are "protected" (mainly to avoid
even more of a world outcry) -- very few have been murdered (the ratio
is below that of an average week in a typical African country) yet.

It's "just" their property that has been "interfered" with.





-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

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.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:34:53 GMT

In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
# 
#      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
# 
#      Gore/Braun in 2004

Oh right.  Braun's appeal might (_might_) be enough the first time, when
everyone can feel virtuous about voting for a black woman, but she can't
get along with such an obvious lack of character and intelligent ideas
forever.

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Nam castum esse decet pium poetam (Catullus 16)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (I don't know man, he was just here)
Subject: When do I hear from voter registration
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:22:40 GMT

I'm registered to vote, but I haven't heard word one from voter registration 
as to where I'm supposed to go to vote. Any clues?

Josh Guttman

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:12:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.040553.8174@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Oct8.183558.8297@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
>]In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
>]ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
>]and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square. 
>]I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
>]unpatriotic? 

No, but then I wouldn't vote for you either.  :-)

Especially if you lied about it (as Clinton has) while running for 
President. 
To wit: His campaign first said he wasn't an organizer in
London, he didn't participate in demonstrations in Oslo, and he
didn't go to Moscow.  This contradicted the statements of Father McSorley,
who said Bill Clinton was an organizer of the demonstration in London
in front of the American embassy ( anti-war not anti-American, right?).
Oh yes, and in Oslo he just met McSorley at a train station ( this
constradicts what McSorley said in his book "Peace Eyes", where Clinton was
a member of a peace delegation). Then they said: yes he did go to Moscow,
innocent student trip, don't remember what happened. 
And he was sort of an organizer at the London anti-war
demonstrations, but that doesn't really contradict his earlier denials,
and anyway to suggest anything from this - like unfitness to be
President - is pure (ugh) McCarthyism! (stated in strident tones).

Please.  As McSorley said (quoted in last Friday's papers):
"Clinton can't tell the truth about what he did."

I guess he can't, even the second or third time around.
It seems like in Clinton's world 2 plus 2 could equal 5 if you try hard
enough.... (hmmm, I see a solution to the deficit problem. :-) )

>Not according to what you say. In 1966 I visited East Berlin, and in
>1969 I took part in anti-war demonstrations (in the US, not overseas),
>but then I admit it and am not running for president. Please don't throw
>out red :-) herrings into this debate.

My sister visited East Berlin too, then joined the Foreign Service.
They checked her out quite thoroughly on this point.
Now, she plans to vote for Clinton.  ( Well maybe they didn't check
deep enough. :-) )

Pat
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:40:03 GMT
 ct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
...
> Mr. Vietnam Veteran, the pathetic issue that you're flogging is what's
> known as a red herring.  Have you ever heard of being a tourist?  I know

	It's just really fun to hear the same people who can't prove that Bush
was in Paris say it's still a big issue to state that Clinton being in Moscow
is not.
:)

> quite a few people who visited Moscow in that era--AS TOURISTS.  Why
> don't you apply your cold-war mentality to something productive, such as
> trimming your hedge with napalm.

	Napalm sucks as a hedge-trimmer.  Hedge *remover*, maybe.
:D

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 20:01:49 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <JASON.92Oct9135511@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

|> 
|> 	The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in
|> war protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He
|> apparently went to Russia to protest against America.  It is one
|> thing to peacefully protest an American policy in America, but it is
|> completely different to support an enemy in time of war.  

This is complete nonsense.  Even Bush didn't claim
Clinton was supporting the other side.  I still blame
Bush for making a vague insinuation of wrongdoing
which encourages misinterpretation by the ignorant.
That's why it's sleazy:  if you look at the transcripts
of Bush's speeches, he makes vague mumblings about
trips to Russia, vague mumblings about "criticizing
America". Without having to get out on a limb
and claim any facts, he gets people like Jason Austin
to draw "conclusions" like the above.

There is evidence that Clinton protested the Vietnam war (*not America*)
in London.  Nobody denies it.

There is evidence that Clinton travelled to Russia.  Nobody denies it.

There isn't a speck of evidence that Clinton travelled
to Russia to protest against the Vietnam war there.
There isn't a speck of evidence that Clinton ever
supported "the other side" in the Vietnam war.
Any insinuation that he did is the same kind of
red-baiting slander that our friend Nixon used
in the 40's.


|> 
|> 	One thing I wonder is why Clinton is avoiding this issue
|> completely.  Instead of coming clean, he is use the old higher than
|> the other guy political maneuver, and people are falling for it.  I
|> believe I should know everything about a person's past and attitudes
|> before I trust them with the power of the presidency.
|> 

This isn't an issue, and Clinton isn't avoiding it.

As far as knowing everything about a person's past is
concerned, what about Bush's *official* role in Iran-Contra?


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:58:22 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS) writes:
> 
>  
>  When a persons draft number came up they had the option to 
>  join the service of their choice. Some went to the navy, some the guard,
>  and others the army. once you joined you had no idea if you were 
>  going to war or not because some units did and some units did not.


Nope; wrong on this point. Once you were drafted, you went where they sent
you, which was usually the Army. If you wanted to avoid the Army, you
enlisted AHEAD OF TIME. On RARE occasions, a recruiter could get an
induction notice cancelled so you could join his service; it didn't happen
often. Clinton got exactly this treatment; and then wimped out. 


>  Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
>  for that reason he has served his country regardless of where he was stationed.
> 
>  Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.
>  

Agreed.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:21:54 GMT

In article <85032@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 18403@oakhill.sps.mot.com, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.143550.1650@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.
>
>>I don't disagree with your analysis - it would be hard for Bush, or Perot,
>>to catch up, and yes, Clinton is in the runaway position.
>
>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  After all, we are all in 
>the same boat.  The important thing is not whether Democrats or Republicans
                 ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>prevail, but whether our nation prevails.  As a very partisan Republican, you
 ^^^^^^^  ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
This is exactly why I cannot in good conscience vote for Bill Clinton.
He WILL raise taxes on ALL of us, and grow the deficit besides.  Just 
watch, (if he wins) it WILL happen.

>With both the legislature and the
>presidency in Democratic hands, it won't be possible for them to blame poor
>performance on a gridlock, veto-happy president.  They must turn things around,
>and they know it.  

I don't place any faith whatsoever in this argument; all the Democrats
have to do is supply enough pork in the right places, and they can
continue to use my money to buy districts (as they do now) for as long
as they please.

>If Clinton is inevitable, then it serves no purpose to trash his character and
>his ideas.  Our hopes now rest on his success.

It serves plenty of purpose to trash his ideas, if we think they are
wrong!  The one thing that the Democrats just can't ever seem to
admit is that they might be WRONG about something!

>>BUT .... I wouldn't be scared of a Perot presidency; and I suspect
>>neither would many Americans. Who knows, maybe Americans
>>will turn to Perot as a Different kind of Change.

I hope so.   Clinton represents change, but only in that our
President will now blow-dry his hair.
From: 00rggraham@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [talk.politics.drugs] Libertarian presidentia
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:25:54 GMT

>>PS.  Andre Marrou is _adamantly_ opposed to the criminalization of drugs.
> 
> And hence, the Libertarians continue to condemn themselves to obscurity.
> If the Libertarian Party EVER wishes to join the debates, they need to
> join the mainstream of America.
> 
and that is exactly the attitude that is pulling this country apart.
the libertarians met every requirement to be included in the debates.
their stand on the issues does not matter and does not figure into their
inclusion.
different sides have been drawn among the candidates that were included in the
debates...even staunch ones as with rights to abortions.
decriminalization of drugs is harsh, but so are abortions...clinton and perot
were included.

ross graham
00rggraham@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
mandarin@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:29:42 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Oct9.211302.19575@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <BvvEFD.1KE@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
>> In article <1992Oct9.191500.16393@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>
>Not even Bush believes that spending cuts alone will work.  With budget 
>cuts and optimistic economic forecasts, he still ends up predicting a 130 
>billion dollar deficit at the end of four years.   There is simply _no 
>way_ in the real world you are going to cut the budget any deeper than 
>Bush or Perot.  Neither of them believes that those cuts will balance 
>the budget in any reasonable period of time.  
>
>You can talk about 1.1 trillion being a lot of money until you're blue
>in the face.  Congress is _not_ going to cut the budget that much as
>things stand today.   

The answer to this objection is simple .... Change the Congress.

Clean House.  End the Democrat's status-quo rule and monopoly on
power. Then we'll have some *real* change, by the people who really
control the budget.

>I love this idea of deficit reduction through spending cuts.  The 
>difference is that I've figured out that it is not going to happen in 
>our current system.  The only way you're going to get a congress 
>responsible enough to make those kinds of cuts is to support Perot's 
>program of government reforms.   

I agree that Perot's Govt reforms would help .... but again, *Congress*
will have to pass it: the reforms, the budget, everything the President
proposes.

If you want *real* change from the status quo, you need to vote one
of three ways:

Clinton/ Republican Congress
Perot/ Republican Congress
Bush/ Republican Congress

Any of the three with a Democratic Congress, and we will see
just more of the same tax and spending increases, filibustering of
reforms, abuses of power, and ignoring the will of the people.
Like the way they have prevented term limits from even coming
to a vote, and preventing the Balanced Budget Amendment from coming to
a vote in the Senate; like the way they've 

>You're proposing four more years of gridlock and the associated exploding
>deficit.

(sigh) Clinton is ahead in the polls. He has *promised* more deficit
spending (his tax increases won't cover the increases in spending he
promises).  Perot's plan is better, if it were used. Bush's plan, "The agenda
for American Renewal" is the best of the three; he'd be winning the
election now if he had gotten this plan through the Congress earlier.
It would gotten the economy moving again.

But neither Bush *nor* Perot are magicians - they can't make the Congress
behave responsibly.

.... that's our job, the voter's job. We need to force reform
of the legislative branch. Ending the Democrat's monopoly on power
is the best and bluntest way to do that.

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:37:35 GMT


In a previous article, tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller) says:

>
>On 08 Oct 92 02:20:55 GMT, doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) said:
>
> D> Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
> D> followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
> D> Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
> D> demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
> D> of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
> D> come clean with the American people?"
>
>	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
>it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
>

Can you recall every detail of a trip you took 23 years ago?  

When you can present a detailed report of your trip, including the name
and occupation of every person you met, your location for every second of
that trip, and what you were thinking every second, then I will take your
comments seriously.



>-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
>"Bill, I think you should go and play some solitare..."
>
"Cerebus, I think you should go and play dead...your brain obviously does..."
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: How can you vote for Perot?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:27:43 GMT

In article <92290.070525KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>  The guy is in, he's out, and he's back in again!  And Tuesday he showed just
>how poor his judgement is.  Stockdale is a cute man who has led a remarkable
>life, but let's be serious.  This guy as Vice President is MORE scary than
>having Danny Boy as VP the last 4 years!!!  Could you see this guy making a
>snap decision?  Could you see Stockdale giving a State of the Union Address.
>Clinton's first speech after his nomination made the point that the first
>decision any candidate makes is his Vice Presidential choice.  Bush gave us
>Dan, and look what we got over the last four years.  Clinton chose Gore, who
>as impressed more than not.  And Perot gave us Stockdale.  If anyone seriously
>thinks that Stockdale would make a good VP, let alone President, then go ahead
>and vote for Perot, you are hopeless anyway.  Let's be honest about this, and
>if we are, we know that Perot really messed up on this one.

     I suppose this goes to show just how different people think.

     I'm not voting for Stockdale because Perot's on his ticket.  :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------