HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 05:53:27 GMT


In a previous article, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:

>In article <1992Aug19.224946.12105@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In any case, while Bush was talking about family values, where is his
>>support for children?  Why is our infant mortality rate one of the
>>highest in the industrial world?
>
>Because certain US subpopulations have third-world infant mortality
>rates and one can pick countries that don't have those subpopulations.
>(The US isn't a nice uniform "industrial" country.  It is a unique
>geographic collection of first, second, and third world communities.)
>We know that pre-natal care is the difference between 3rd and 1st
>world infant mortality rates.

Excuse me Andy, but I was wondering if you could help me out with a
small question on terminology. What, in your definition, is a 
"subpopulation" and what defines a person as belonging to such an
entity?

You see, I always thought "third world" referred to what are also
sometimes called the less-developed countries, those without a
_modern_industrial_base_. The U.S. does still seem to have a modern 
industrial base, although it is in trouble in many parts. If you
are talking about rural areas, it doesn't really speak to the question
of some of the highest infant mortality rates being in inner cities
such as Washington, D.C. Maybe you can explain to me why, if the
industrial development characteristic of "first world" nations is
present in the U.S., there exist what you call "subpopulations" who
do not benefit from it

Also, I was under the misconception that the phrase "second world"
referred to nations living under the communist system. Maybe you
could give me some examples of communities in the U.S. that live
under that system.

I would really appreciate it.

>
>Interestingly enough, some of those communities have FREE pre-natal
>care available; the rates continue to be high because it isn't used.

Some examples would enhance your argument.

>Should Bush be send in troops to make sure that it is?  No?  Then what
>should he do to reduce infant mortality in those communities?  The
>relevant care is FREE; should he bribe them to show up, penalize them
>if they don't, both?
>
>>Why do so many children live in poverty?
>
>Because single-parent families are poor.  Did Bush chase away the
>other parent?  (Govt does go after parents that don't pay child
>support.)
>
Did Bush do anything to foster an economy where the "other parents" 
can find stable employment at a reasonable living wage?
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:30:37 GMT

fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
|> You miss the point.  The scandal is that (he says) he believes #1 and
|> #2, but either doesn't understand or won't admit that from these two
|> statements #3 follows immediately.  If such an article as you ask
|> for existed we would be re-assured of his integrity (if not his
|> judgement.)

Let's try with an example to which you might be able to relate with
less or opposite political bias:  Pacifists say killing an enemy in war
is murder.  But does anyone ever assert that all pacifists would like
all veterans that have killed in war to be executed, or sentenced to
life in prison?  Are all pacifists hypocrites, too?  Punishment is
supposed to be a deterrent, not revenge.  Rational opponents to any
legal behavior first want to see the behavior banned, *then* enforcement
addressed.  And even most fundies do not equate abortion with *first
degree* murder.

Scandal?  Really.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1759 alt.politics.elections:10664 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2526
From: rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 16 Aug 1992 14:22:44 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

In article <Bt3BDu.BvG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>First, only first degree murder is punishable by death and this is only
>true in some states (and in very specific instances in some states e.g.,
>for killing a policeman in the commission of another felony -- NY at
>least when I lived there).  Therefore one can certainly call someone a
>murderer (even in the first degree) without calling for their death.
>Many do.  If one were to follow your logic then a state like NY which
>allows the death penalty only in specific cases is a state filled with
>hypocrites (or at least hypocritical lawmakers) because some people are
>murderers and they are not subject to the death penalty.  The main point
>is that our society views different types of murder differently.

That's not the issue, Tim.  The issue is, if you support the death penalty,
regardless of what state you may be in, then you must enforce it equally upon
all murderers.  Quite simple, eh?

>Second, it would be hard to prove first degree murder because one could
>always argue that the state of mind of the mother did not let her
>understand that her action is murder.  This is especially true when the
>act is currently legal.  It is also true because the mother is often
>sedated in some way for the abortion. Therefore your argument has no
>logical foundation.

So what if it's legal?  It IS murder, according to right2lifers.  Therefore,
if R2L's believe in the death penalty, they should call it upon all murderers.

Besides, how can it NOT be first degree?  Isn't the mother PLANNING to have
an abortion?

>Third, if the mother doesn't actually do the abortion herself (and they
>almost never do) that would also raise legal questions concerning her
>degree of culpability.  That is why some states have chosen to go after
>the abortionist rather than the mother.  The legal issues are more
>clear.  And the chance of conviction is greater.

The mother still should have at the very least an accomplice role.  After all,
she's asking the actual "hitman" (the doctor) to carry out the "hit".
Didn't they get Gotti for murder even though he didn't actually committed them?
I'm not sure, but i'm sure that wouldn't be the only case.  Also the "cheer-
leader mom", etc.

>As I think you can see from these three points there is no inconsistency
>in calling the act murder but not in seeking the death penalty for the
>mother.  Not that it is important to the argument but some people oppose
>BOTH abortion and the death penalty with equal vigor.

Very few, you'll notice.  Besides, to repeat an oft-repeated phrase, it's not
pro-abortion, it's pro-choice.

5150
next up: a constitutional ban on Pepsi.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:49:04 GMT
	<1992Aug18.174311.2402@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 18 Aug 92 21:17:11 GMT

Folks, after this post, I'm taking alt.fan.dan-quayle out of
the follow-up. It's no longer relevant to him. I suggest that 
those who wish to continue this thread do so elsewhere.

In article <1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
   In article <1992Aug18.174311.2402@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
[argument concerning waiting periods fo abortion deleted]

  =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.

But abortion is NOT the only choice. There is adoption as well as
birth control. If you don't know what hassles there are in trying to
give up a baby for adoption, or in trying to adopt a baby (or an older
child), especially when the child isn't white, then you don't know
the whole issue. If there are people who are truly pro-life it is 
those who shut-up, put their money where their mouth is, and 
either adopt, or try to make it easier for others to do so.
There are those who do, and I'm sure you don't see THEM trying
to coerce the gov't into legislating morality.

As for birth control, it seems pretty obvious-
no conception=no abortion/any other choice.
Yet, it seems that many people who proclaim themselves pro-life 
are much against birth control. This denial of an option is why
the label anti-choice is earned. I, personally, think Mrs. Bush
said it best- The issue of abortion does not belong in a 
political platform- It's a shame she's not running. 
I wonder if Mrs. Quayle would make a better veep, or just a more
amusing one. Now let's try to get this out of fandanqu and leave it
there. The original thread was fine, but it's wandered.

=   -andy
=   --
=   UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
=   ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2293 talk.politics.misc:40891 alt.politics.clinton:2365 alt.politics.elections:11087
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:45:20 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Aug12.213308.2330@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.200411.1166@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>
> ... (Would Clinton pay for a lawyer if he knew that his daughter murdered
> someone and was being tried for it?  ...

How about trading all these hypothetica in for a couple of real choices that
real people had to make, that really happened?  Or is that too boring?

Would Clinton approve of a plan to spirit his brother out of state and away
from legal action if his brother was caught dealing drugs?

The answer to that one is "No".  It actually happened.  He told the over-
accommodating legal beagle that his brother should face the result of his
actions, and his brother was convicted and jailed.  (Clinton did help his
brother get into a drug treatment program.)

Would Bush pull strings to ensure that his son did not have to face the con-
sequences of doing something of questionable legality to help the company the
son worked for to blow their business so badly that it cost the FDIC $1 mil-
lion to fix it?

The answer to that one is "Yes".  It actually happened.  (Does anyone know
if Bush bothered to help his son get into a program to teach him not to do it
again?)

To get back to the oh-so-much-more-fascinating hypothetical question, slightly
altered to cover both candidates and to make it easier to answer wrt their
reactions to real situations:

"Would the candidate try to help his daughter evade the law if she had mur-
dered someone?"  Based on Clinton's experience with his brother, for Clinton
it looks like the answer would be "No".  Based on Bush's experience with his
son, for Bush it looks like the answer, awful as it is to have to say it
about *anyone*, would be "Yes".


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"To every hard problem, there's a simple solution, and it's wrong." - Turski |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:48:01 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug19.023629.14030@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
]In article <1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
]>
]>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.
]
]Such as?

The choice to take drugs. Are all pro-choicers anti-war-on-drugs?
Is Clinton? Is there a certain hypocricy here?

The right to keep and bear arms.

The choice of whether to keep your income or have the government give
it to someone else.

The right to enforce a contract (there is a 3 day waiting period on
loan contracts, for example).
-- 
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
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:35:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug17.174847.12821@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

			.....................

>I believe that the benefits of an educated populace are much greater
>than these others that you mention.  An educated populace translates to
>social and class mobility.  If only the rich get educated, the poor will
>stay poor.  This will cause an increased polarization in society which
>will eventually become unstable and lead to a revolution!  Such horrible
>repercussions!

I am willing to support a system which educates the population.  This was,
to some extent, the case in at least large parts of this country before
the current educationists took over, in the elementary schools about 60
years ago, and at the secondary level after WWII.  But the current schools
are the greatest impediment to education anywhere in the world.

Furthermore, the attrition in the ranks of teachers who understand and can
teach subject matter, and the replacement of learning with mechanical 
activities best left to computers, has gone to such a point that even
a total revision of curriculum and upgrading of the system cannot be done.
When teachers and administrators try to prevent those willing and able
from learning more than the class allows, the system must be at least
modified so that THOSE can learn, if only by getting the schools out
of the way.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2508 talk.politics.misc:41282 alt.politics.clinton:2592 alt.politics.elections:11284
From: fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Young Republican Nazi's(Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT)
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:46:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis


The remarks about the demonstrators kind of set me off.  There was
a nice little clip in the news showing some young Republican Nazis
stormtrooping outside a speech being given by Ron Brown.  As usual
the young Republican Nazi's were rude and boorish.  I've seen 
these folks before.  Back in '88, Lloyd Bentsen came to the UCSD
campus to give a speech.  Towards the back, where I was, there was
a modest gathering of young Republican Nazi's.  Every time Bentsen
started to speak, they would start screaming at the top of their
lungs (gibberish about privatizing and liberal...standard Republican
fare).  As I watched the RNC last night I saw plenty of the Nazi's 
in the crowd.  There close cropped hair revealing reddish ears as
they strained to cheerlead (similar to football games).

The point of this whole post has more to do with future elections
than the current one.  Who's gonna beat these insensitive, selfish,
coddled brats back when they get older?   The Reagan years spawned
thousands of these hatchlings.  Be careful of these folks.  They
want to win at all costs.

-MeatHead
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.000534.5661@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
..
>>Name one freedom that the Reagan Bush Supreme Court has taken away from 
>>you personally....
>
>I don't have my Supreme Court file here. However, Lynn Martin did not give
>much proof that we are better off.

I believe I know what I was thinking about when I wrote about the reduction
in freedom. Perhaps I should have said has put my freedoms at risk. I am 
thinking of the things that they have done to remove protections of people
accused of a crime. They have relaxed evidence rules, allowing searches of
automobiles, luggage on busses, searches of houses without a warrent if done
in good faith etc etc. 

You might ask why that should bother me unless I am some unsavory character
who deserves ....

I would like to illustrate with an example.

A woman I know, I will call her Mary, complained to her boss that she was 
being harrassed by a person I will call Joe. The boss did nothing about it. 
Mary told her husband, I will call him Ed, about the situation. Ed 
called Joe and said the harrassment better stop or he would come in and 
punch Joes lights out.

Now imagine this a little differently. Imagine Ed a little less physical,
a little brighter, and a little more aware of law enforcement. He is afraid
to challange Joe physically. Mary keeps nagging Ed. So he decides to take care
of Joe. He calls the police and convinces them that there is a good possibility
that Ed is dealing drugs. The police break into Eds house. They hassle him or
beat him. Perhaps they even kill him. They sieze Ed's bank account. They never
charge Ed because they never found any evidence. Ed is broke. He has to sue
to get his property back. He has no money so he can't get a lawyer. End of
story.

If you think that this can;t happen, read alt.society.civil-liberty. Similar
things are happening all the time. The only thing you don't know about the
real cases is who gave the tip that got the police to carry out their seisures.

So yes I think the threats to my freedoms have gone up significantly. Worst of
all they will continue to go up as long as the Reagan/Bush appointees are on
the court. They will go up even faster if Bush appoints another Justice like
Thomas.


>
>>
>>Mark T. Evert
>>Friendswood, TX
>>
>>My opinions are my own.
>
>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:35:48 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2537 alt.politics.marrou:871 talk.politics.misc:41338 alt.politics.elections:11311 talk.politics.theory:3803
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:15:07 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug22.190539.20845@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug17180945@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <24922@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>>
>><   The thing is that christianity has shown a penchant for this sort of
>><   thing. Apart from the inquisition I'm thinking of:
>	 [List of atrocities ommitted.]
>><   So this "aberration" seems to be a regular feature of christianity.
>><   It's a reasonable question to ask whether a penchant for mass-murder
>><   could be expected from a creed whose god is also depicted as having
>><   a very strong genocidal and murderous streak.
>>
>>	I note that all of those events occurred rather a while back.
>
>Sorry, no cigar.  Persecution of non-Christians by Christians is hardly
>limited to ancient cases.  Croation massacres of Serbs and Bosnians
>in WWII had the active support of the Church.  Similar instances of
>Christian complicity and support for the Holocaust can be cited in 
>other parts of Eastern and Western Europe. 

Have we all already forgotten why the Vietnamese monks immolated themselves?
It was to draw attention to the massacres of Buddhists and overall campaign
to destroy Buddhism in Vietnam being carried out by the Roman Catholic puppet
government of South Vietnam.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2331 alt.politics.marrou:858 talk.politics.misc:40942 alt.politics.elections:11125
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:51:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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?

Who's punishing the children?  Explain to me how "we the public" are
"punishing" the child for being born into poverty.  Who begat the
child into poverty?  Who, by law, is the legal guardian (and hopefully
financial provider) of this child born into poverty?

I ask again, how is it that the children are being punished?  How am
*I* punishing that child?

Methinks that your suggestion is to force people to subsidize these
children.  In that case, you are trying to justify your ends by your
means.  Justification of subsidization through stealing other people's
property.  As if 2 wrongs made a right.  Where do you intend to get
your money from anyway?  The middle class and the rich?
--
Han-Young Huang
hhuang@athena.mit.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1448 alt.politics.clinton:1862 alt.politics.perot:1261 talk.bizarre:25829 talk.politics.misc:39466