HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 1 Oct 1992 16:22:10 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John Townsend) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> |> Larry Margolis) writes:
|> |> |> John Townsend) writes:
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> > It most certainly is.  You can't possibly think that if George Bush is
|> |> |> > reelected abortion will be made illegal.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> Why not?  Certainly the Republican Party platform is anti-abortion - it
|> |> |> doesn't allow any exceptions for rape or incest.
|> |> |> 
|> |> Actually, the real problem is that I don't know what to think.  George Bush
|> |> says he supports the Republican Party platform, and then says something 
|> |> else as well.  Also, I was under the understanding that the platform does
|> |> not even allow for abortions for rape or incest.
|> |> 
|> |> |> > the Reagan/Bush "packed" Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld
|> |> |> > Roe v. Wade.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> Barely.  And Blackmun has stated that he's not going to hang on another
|> |> |> 4 years.
|> |> |> 
|> |> If you only counted the votes of the justices appointed by
|> |> Reagan and Bush, RvW would be long gone.
|> |> 
|> |> John must be prevaricating.  He can't possibly believe what he
|> |> posted.  Can he?
|> 
|> Sure can.  Anyhow, there are plenty of objective, dispassionate reasons why
|> Roe v. Wade stinks as a Supreme Court decision and should be overturned, even
|> if you think that abortion should be legal.  Certainly, the Supreme Court
|> should not be making the abortion policies of this land just because the
|> Congresscritters don't have the spine to take it on.  Speaking of spineless-
|> ness, here's another monkey wrench for your neat little view of the world
|> (from the Rush Limbaugh radio summary):
|> 
|> [eliminated a bunch of unrelated data about Clinton and Bush]

Is this digression designed to avoid backing up your claims.  You say you
"sure can" believe it.  Care to gave anyone a reason why you believe the
above statements you made?  Maybe you could tell us what point you were
trying to make also.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-800-HITLER2?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:13:26 GMT

nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:

>From article <farenebt.717861998@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, by farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy):
>Perot has discovered that a real budget reduction plan entails quite a bit 
>of sweat and he's spelled it out in detail in his book. 

>Anybody that has a concern for the future of this country beyond
>the petty power struggles of party politics should read Perot's book no
>matter what they think of Perot.  There are some good ideas in there.
>While you're at it, dig up Tsongas's book and read it, too.  

To paraphrase Dan Quayle: "Ross Perot, you're no Paul Tsongas." I voted
for Tsongas in the primary because he was the only Democrat who was
telling people what they needed to hear not what they wanted to hear.
Tsongas was saying, "Tough choices need to be made." Tsongas was promising
to reduce the deficit not balance it. You have to reduce it somewhat
before you can even think about balancing it fully. Tsongas believed
that sacrifices would have to be made and tough choices too, he didn't
believe that he could do it "without breaking a sweat." Paul Tsongas
also detailed his positions on a great many non-economic issues.
He did not promise to be Superman. He promised to be a good President.

Perot, on the other hand, is giving everyone a scapegoat instead of 
properly affixing blame to everyone: Congress, President AND the press
AND the voters AND especially the non-voters. Perot is saying, "It's
all Washington's fault! You people don't deserve any blame." He's telling
people that he can balance w/o breaking a sweat. He's telling them
what they wnat to hear. Tsongas told people the truth.

Tsongas was the only politician in the primaries who was really honest
in the primary (except for Buchanan. I hated what Buch. said but he
was a lot more honest than the others). 

Perot was an undeclared candidate, then he acted like a declared 
candidate, then he dropped out, now he might be getting back in.
Who knows what's going to happen next? I don't trust Perot... even
less than Bush or Clinton. He's toyed with his supporters and the
media. He quit when the going got "tough" (even though he faced only
a tiny percentage of the criticism directed at Bush and Clinton). When
the war for oil was in prepartion, did Bush hand over the reins to Danny
boy? When the GOP's were attacking his wife, did Clinton call it quits?
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"If you don't vote, you don't count!"
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	"Eligible non-voters are hypocrites."
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"It is better to have clean hearts and dirty hands than 
 dirty hearts and clean hands."   ---Rev Jesse Jackson			

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49889 alt.politics.elections:15395
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:23:35 GMT

In article <sykz3!b@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >Naturally, USA Today -- being a lighthouse on the rocky coastline of
# >American journalism -- declined to print any material derived from
# >interviews with anyone who might explicitly make the charge that these
# >people are simply anti-abortion activists exploiting a loophole in the
# >law to get their gory pictures on the air through subversion of the
# >electoral process.
# 
# Ok...who volunteers to run for federal office so we can show pictures
# of the women who died from illegal abortion and tell their stories?
# (Tagline: "Illegal Abortion Kills Women!"?)

Actually, my S.O. quipped that perhaps I ought to run for office so I
can show gruesome video footage of circumcision in my campaign ads.
Trouble is, I'm too much of a political junkie -- I couldn't run for
office unless I was trying to win, and I couldn't win.

#                    -rocker
#                     but not during afterschool specials - i _care_
#                     about kids

But kids absolutely *need* to *KNOW* the **/GOD_AWFUL_TROOTH/** about
circumcision -- it's vitally important!  Millions of little boys and
girls are being mutilated every year around the world!

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

No, I'm not an anti-circumcision fanatic -- but I think the procedure
is, at best, unnecessary for boys, and an abject horror when it's done
on girls.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48306 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5995 alt.politics.bush:6979 alt.politics.elections:14487 talk.abortion:38976 alt.politics.clinton:7559
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:33:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


One of the most commonly spread lies by the anti-abortion movement
these days is that Planned Parenthood did a study that showed that
90% of women who have abortions regret their decision, or had 
problems, or some such.  This lie was evidently originated by
_New Dimensions_ magazine.  

The truth is, PP did no such survey.  The magazine quotes a PP
report that says that the results of a survey conducted by David 
Reardon on members of a group called "Women Exploited By Abortion" 
"may have been accurately tabulated."  PP was commenting on the
question of whether or not Reardon counted answers correctly,
not whether or not the results were generalizable to the
population of all women who have had abortions.  (On that 
subject, Reardon himself said "this study used subjects from
support groups of women who are self-identified as needing 
assistance with post-abortion problems." - David Reardon and
Wanda Franz, "Different Effects of Elective Termination of
Pregnancy on Adolescents and Adults, _1990 Annual Report of the
College of Agriculture and Forestry_, WVU.)

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49241 alt.politics.clinton:8257 alt.politics.bush:7559
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Tax increases (vs. borrowing *forever*)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 04:12:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct1.114541.4475@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	This spending started in 1974.  By coincidence (NOT!) that is the year
>that courts ruled in favor of congress, and against the President for
>impounding funds that congress said should be spent.  Thus, unless/until a

In other words, the Supreme Court decided that the President had to
enforce laws, even ones he didn't like, or veto them and face an
override. The Nixon system was to prevent the possibility of override by
merely ignoring the law.

>	David Stockman:  see "the Peter Principle".  For an accurate anlaysis
>of the Reagan Years, see _The Seven Fat Years_ by Bartley.  For why *any*
>president can not effectively combat congressional spending see "impoundment"
>and the court ruling from 1974.

Sigh. Must we post again: Neither RR nor GHHB ever submitted a balanced
budget, and the budget which the Congress passed had a LOWER deficit,
more often than not, than the one your heroes submitted.

Even a line-item veto has a provision for override. Do you think a
country in which the Executive has the authority to terminate a program
passed by Congress *and signed into law by himself* 
deserves the name "democracy"?

Impoundment is a non-issue. The budget is unbalanced because Ronald
Reagan sold the country a free lunch. I could have Seven Fat Years on my
Mastercard, too.

Its morning-after in America.

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A question I have always wanted to ask
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:17:36 GMT



Why does no one ever talk about UnBornGrandParents?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.133846.9484@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
>>There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit; it
>>depends upon how the deficit is funded and what the
>>money is spent on.
>>[...]
>>
>>I could provide some references to back this up,
>>but I'm not in graduate school anymore.
>>
>>No kidding.  
>>
>Well, unless you can find me some references, or something more
>substantial to back up your statements I don't think you have many valid
>points.  

It's a shame, because he's right.

If you want references, I'd recommend Eisner's work out of Northwestern
University.
 
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Presidential Debates
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:57:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct1.013141.22432@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>What is Bush doing?  If the main reason for avoiding the debates is
>his disputes with the format, why did he wait so long to do anything
>about it?  Is he trying to use time pressure to force Clinton to
>accept whatever terms he chooses, or make it look like Clinton is
>the one rejecting the debates?

    Most economists expected that the September's unemployment numbers
    due on Friday were not going to be good for Bush.  Hence, Mr.Bush's
    sudden change of heart may have stemmed from his handler's attempts
    to divert the public opinion from the issue, and that is why Bush
    steadfastly refuses to debate Clinton on 10/03.

    On the other hand, one shouldn't completely discount a possibility 
    that BLS just came up with a new, creative way to count unemployed
    (code-name the October Surprise).  As a result, the unemployment rate 
    went down in September making it easier for Bush to participate
    in the debates.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Call 1-800-LIV-FREE if you want to nuke Washington DC
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.164937.1374@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>I hope it hasn't escaped everyone's attention that Ipser posts from
>Singapore, which "enjoys" so freedom-loving a government that the Wall
>Street Journal was banned there a few years ago.  I won't even bother
>recounting the story of my Singaporean college classmate who was
>arrested and held without charges for several months.

Exactly what, I wonder, was supposed to be the point of the above
paragraph? Other than to demonstrate Mark's grasp of the international
scene, of course.

Are the reprehensible actions of the Singaporean state supposed to
somehow reflect on Ed Ipser? 

Or has Mark simply decided to adopt the Kaldisian tactic of making an
issue of his opponent's non-US location?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:04:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.001055.20039@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Sep27.165910.22464@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>]> at least have an idea what sabers are. Clinton confuses Patriot
>]> anti-aircraft missiles with Tomahawk cruise missiles. That's not a
>]> good sign for someone responsible for military preparedness and
>]> military action.
>]
>]On the other hand, I think I read somewhere that no less a personage
>]than the guy next in line for the job of C-in-C, Vice President Dan
>]Quayle, made exactly the same error in responding to Clinton's error
>]that you did -- it's neither the Patriot anti-aircraft missile nor the
>]Tomahawk cruise missile that matches Clinton's description of "going
>]down airshafts and in through windows" or whatever it was that he
>]said; it's the variety of "smart bombs" in the U.S. arsenal.
>
>Quayle said "cruise missile" - not "Tomahawk cruise missile." The
>cruise missiles do indeed go in through windows (see the gulf war
>video from a Tomahawk land attack missile).

Lets deal with the last point first, namely that some video exists from
a cruise missle.  If you think about it for a moment I think you can
convice yourself that no such video can possibly exist.  First of all,
the cruise missles are guided by radar, not video so there is no video
equipment on board to take pictures with.  Second, there is no way that
a cruise missle would send an active signal to some receiver because
that signal could be used to lock in and destroy it (and they travel at
subsonic speeds so destruction would be relatively easy).  Third,
exactly where would the cruise missle send a signal?  If there are
freindly forces in the vicinity why use a cruise missle in the first
place?  The possibility that a signal would be beamed back to the launch 
point via satelite is equally absurd.

Clinton claimed that there was video of Patriot missles going down air
shafts and through windows.  He was clearly wrong.  The pictures were of
various laser guided munitions or video guided glide bombs.  On the
other hand Quayle screwed up as only he can do by 'correcting' Clinton
to an equally incorrect munition  (the cruise missle).  And some people
wonder why Quayle is viewed so negatively.

Paul.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48395 talk.abortion:39099
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:13:16 GMT

In article <12523@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
The usual.  Follow-ups redirected to talk.politics.misc.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:23:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:
Remarks from mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) deleted.
%On a more serious note, I think I can forgive Clinton breaking his
%pledge.  What was he supposed to say?  "Well, I'm running for 
%Governor now, folks, but if a better opportunity comes along, I'll
%be hitting the trail like a pony turd!"  
%
%I know when I'm interviewing for a job, I don't go out of my way
%to give the impression that this would just be until I can find a
%better offer.  I think everyone operates that way, no?

Well, not everyone. Back home Don Owen (a very respected TV anchor)
decided to run for the Public Works Commissioner's seat back in Shreveport.
He ran ads that said he will not use his seat (if elected) as a stepping
stone to higher and higher offices, thereby implying that he will not be
more interested in the accumulation of his power over the good of the
constituency. At times, when hotly contested local elections were up for
grabs, people would try to beg Owen to run, but he steadfastly stuck to
his pledge and did not leave his position. So far as I know, he still
has not reached higher office than PWC.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	No social life & damn proud of it.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Infanticide and Superior FirePower
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:19:54 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
] In article <Bv20t2.JEx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
] >In <1992Sep21.170813.3183@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] >
] >>Anyway, contraception fails more often than we care to
] >>admit, and abortion can be a responsible way of dealing with that circumstance.
] 
] >	No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
] >child for convenience's sake is deplorable.
] 
] I agree, killing a defenseless child for convenience's sake is deplorable.
] But what does that have to do with abortion?


I think that Bruce was just trying to point out that he is
against the use of Artillery and Air Power in the support 
of our troops....

You Know how those Wimp Liberals Are.....

Then again it could be that he is just confused
about the distinction between being born and not yet being born,
and that his AntiChristian Ways were peeking out as well....


You Know how those Wimp Liberals Are.....

What they need are some WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues!!!!!


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Tom Peter's view
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:35:31 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Russ Anderson writes:
>
>  ECONOMIC VISIONS BLURRED BY DEFICIT REALITIES
>  By Tom Peters
>
>  Lyndon Johnson overdid it and inadvertently launched the entitlements 
>  society.  

This gets repeated and repeated. LBJ left office with a budget surplus...
The huge growth in entitlements came under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and
Bush. The numbers have been published here so often they're almost 
threadbare.

An addendum to the post...not really germane.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:42:21 GMT

arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
# 
# What you need to do is go back to the original Subject and 
# note that I was defending my honor.  The fact that the 
# boycott may be ineffective or ilconceived  is not the issue.
# 
# I was called a Jew hater and antsemite for suggesting it. 
# THAT is the issue.

I wonder what is happening here. First, ARF (Jack Schmidling)
suggests boycotting Kosher food, claiming it would be a good
way to show solidarity with the Palestinians. As posters have
pointed out, this would be a clearly antisemitic and idiotic
thing to do, which not only will be considered vile and stupid,
and link the Palestinians to Nazi-like ideology, it would also
hurt Muslims living in the US, as many of them prefer to eat
Kosher food. Not surprisingly, no one on the net who supports
the Palestinians (and there are quite a few) supported this
idiotic suggestion.

Then, ARF tried to defend himself by claiming the boycott would
"bring attention to the plight of the Palestinians". A rather
poor attempt, as there is simply no connection between Kosher
food and mideastern politics. Thus, it is not a question of how
much damage it would or would not bring, but a question of WHY
such a suggestion would be made in the first place. After all,
there are many ways to draw public interest with regard to a
certain cause; WHY choose one that a) has no relation to the
cause concerned, and b) smacks of Nazi idealogy and racism?

And recently, a new interesting development - ARF reduces his
suggestion to boycotting Coors beer! Does Coors have anything
to do with mideastern politics? 

Someone recently remarked on the net that ARF is in the beer
producing buisness. Could it be that there is some hidden
agenda here?

-Danny Keren.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc