HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Is George IN the Loop
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:09:33 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


First OFF, I must Agree with Former JCS ADM Crowe
that George Bush has missed the mark on the issue.

Now, Let us return again to address one of the older questions.

We KNOW that it is "immoral to demonstrate against one's country
when it is at war...." {Read His Lips, Would HE Lie to US?}

We also Know that 'Hanoi Jane' { for the kids out there, that
is Henry Fonda's Daughter....} provided a prima facia case of
treason during war - which, unless they have modified things, 
is a CAPITAL OFFENSE - and hence without stautes of Limitations.

Why then is it that Nixon, Reagan, AND BUSH, have not even
sought a Grand Jury Investigation of this CRIME?

Could It be a Secret Conspiracy that they are NOT telling
us about? Nixon 'opened china', Reagan stopped using the
'evil empire' rhetoric - and of course Bush assisted in
the 'alledged' suicide of Communism....


Or is George MERELY out of the Loop Again?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:37:36 GMT
 <1992Oct7.160837.9971@ncsu.edu> <1992Oct7.181733.15406@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <1992Oct7.185331.16658@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.181733.15406@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>>>> And Jesus said:
>
>>> And here's yet another data point to support the observation
>>> that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
>>> issue of religion.
>
>> [...]  this in response to the latest
>> wave of biblical exegesis from the pro-life forces.
>
>The only "wave of biblical exegesis" which I've seen recently
>is coming from a single person -- "The Rink" -- who is responding
>to Steve Adams' claims that the bible supports abortion.  So once
>again, it is the pro-aborts who are the first to raise the issue
>of religion. 
>
>Doug Holtsinger

1. I posted the Numbers citations in response to a question about Biblical
   objection to abortion.

2. I am NOT pro abortion.  I have NEVER been pro abortion.  I AM pro
   choice.

Abortion is a terrible, awful, horrible thing.  Unfortunately, it is
necessary.  And it MUST be legal, safe and available.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42791 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6924
From: rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:28:37 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <waddell.718966184@willow.cs.scarolina.edu> waddell@cs.scarolina.edu (Jeff Waddell) writes:
>>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>>being
--------------
There has never been any precendent set down that a fetus is a
human being. Even in common law which serves us in the US as
well, suits for pain and suffering over a lost fetus is entreated
for the woman and not for some fetus. It only serves to mitigate
murder and does not add charges of captal murder. And there is
nothing in the bill of rights that mentions a fetus. In fact the
laws are always written in a manner to describe a "born child", a
minor, or a "born human being", and not a fetus. I think you sit
around and make this crap up. The shit you spout with no regard
for truth is amazing.
-Steve
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct15.184727.26677@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>FACT #1: Which attribution lines, Bogus?

The one where someone was asking me a question, and you thought they
were talking to you.  (Or was it the other way around?)  Anyway,
as Susan said, the evidence *was* posted.

>>he made the utterly laughable statement that
>>Jesse Jackson called "the Jews of New York" "Hymietown"

>FACT #2: Jesse Jackson said "WELCOME TO HYMIETOWN." He said it in
>        Brooklyn, NY. FACT. I am right and you are wrong.

Which shows that Jesse Jackson is a racist.  That you are unable
to distinguish between "the Jews of New York" and "Brooklyn, NY"
shows that you're an idiot.

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: guest@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Guest Account)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:19:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.215537.15422@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>>FFLA believes the inherent rights of both beings are equal.    Once you strip
>>away the artificially imposed inequality things aren't so easy.  Start from
>>there, then talk about how a feminist should approach this much more imposing
>>dilemma.
>
>Supposing, for the moment, that anybody actually believes that the
>inherent rights of a pregnant woman and a fetus are equal, just what
>might those rights be?  How are the two equal?
>

Ray-

I'm not sure what you mean.  I've seen some long convoluted threads discussing
the fine points of 'what is a right, anyway?'.  Here I am referring to the
juxtaposition of the right to continue to exist verses the right to decide what
to do with one's own body.
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:59:19 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Distribution: usa

Mr. Holtsinger writes:

> But just about every law has some moral basis.  Child abuse 
> laws are based upon the moral principle that it's wrong to 
> cause innocent human beings to suffer.  

Agreed. What I'm saying is that there are some moral principles
which are so different across different religions that there is
no common ground. In three major world religions (and the splits
and factions contained therein), there is a common set of morality
that make it easy to create laws without limiting anyone's freedom
of religion. 

In a country which purports to have separation of church and state,
it should take this into account when writing laws that deal directly
with things touched by religious morality.

Abortion, or more correctly, when a child is considered a 'person'
is different from religion to religion. 'Person' meaning, in this
case, when that religion decides the child's life is not forfeit.

> Child abuse laws and 
> abortion laws share the same underlying moral principle. 

Question. What is the underlying moral principal? The right to life?
Or something about treating other human beings humanely? (Honest 
question.)

ag


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Interesting Question, did you have an answer?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:58:22 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] Do you have nothing substantial to say about FFL's positions?  
] 

carry on smartly now DearOldDoug,
we really hope you have an answer here....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:15:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.044307.28561@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.ut
a.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.145154.4804@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.e
u (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.064548.23641@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.u
sa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>Ok folks, read this carefully: I am not promoting some sort of Orwelli
n
>>>"sex police", I am merely asking what's wrong with a little responsibi
ity??
>>This begs the question that protected sex followed by abortion as a bac
up
>>procedure is irresponsible behavior. I do not believe this to be the ca
e.
>>If you are going to assert that it is, you should argue for it it.
>>
>>-Ekr
>
>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>an abortion.
>
So if everybody has sex with condoms/other contraception, then
abortions are ok in your opinion?  That's interesting!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 07:08:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.221109.3673@craycos.com>, sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>In article <Bw4oG1.MH3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>
><flaming drieux for his, ahem, *unique* style>>
>
>>	Not that it's relevant, but you've underestimated my acedemic
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>>credentials.  But let's get back to the point.
>>	Your paragraph above seems to imply that you can't understand it
>>either, and you use the old "solution left as an exercioose for the reader"
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>dodge.  Way are you pulling a Clinton?  Just tell the truth (quoting a certain
>         ^^^
>>VP).
>>
>>	Exactly, in FRENCH and GERMAN.  My post said that what he was doing was
>>not English.  I'm glad to see you agree with me.  If the language of use here
>>were German, it would be acceptable.  Since we are using english, though, it is
>                                                          ^
>>babble.
>
>If you're going to post a spelling/grammar/style flame worldwide, it would be
>prudent to proofread it first.
>
>'Nuff said.
>
>Steve
>
>PS> Just out of curiosity, is "acedemic" a compound of "anemic" and "academic"?
>    Sorry...couldn't resist ;-).


	I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! 
	I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! 
	I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! I hate DEC!! 


	I feel better now.  This keyboard is NOT the cure for high blood
pressure.  Quite the other way, I fear.  and while I added "exercioose" after
spellchecking, DECspell passed the rest.  Anyone need an anchor for their boat?

	Also, a newsreader that allowed one to edit the "newsgroups" line would
be nice, as well.

Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:35:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct7.203312.11542@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>Here is what Perot says about mortgage interest deductions in _United
>We Stand_.
>
>|                     STOP SUBSIDIZING THE RICH
>| The average mortgage in the United States is $104,000. I propose that we 
>| limit deductions on interest to mortgages of $250,000 and that we eliminate 
>| the special deduction for vacation homes.
>
>This makes perfect sense to me.

  It makes IMperfect sense to me:  Perot is right that, as I've pointed
  out here many times, the home-mortgage-interest deduction is nothing but
  welfare for the middle-class.

  But Perot's proposal is just more of his usual "soak the 'rich'", 
  politics-of-envy b.s. that totally belies his claims about "sharing
  the pain".    The fair way to deal with the home-mortgage-interest
  deduction is the same way they dealt with the consumer-credit deduction.
  Set a deadline, say 10 years from now, by which it would be eliminated
  and reduce the percentage of it you could deduct from your taxes
  every year until then.            

  I would also suggest that taxes be lowered in general during this period
  so that reducing the deduction doesn't just become another defacto tax
  increase.


>If the panelist implied that Perot was suggesting that the interest 
>deduction be eliminated for the average American then he was either 
>misinformed or was distorting the facts.  

  More's the pity.


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52593 talk.abortion:43184
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Dipstick Alert (WAS Re: KKKaldis Alert)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:49:19 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>> = (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

[re: a, as usual, quite contradictory bible story of Lot...]

>>>_THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
>>>don't we?

>>No, KKKaldis, that's what God thinks of people trying to rape His angels.

>Elizabeth, why do you call people nicknames like this on the basis of such
>fragmentary evidence?

Hey, Holtsmussen-clone, you robot: why do you stick your little weenie
(SEE DickSizeWars) into t.a. for ten minutes and decide everybody is
reading posts from redneck assholes like K*ldis for the first time?

I and many others have been reading the fascist tripe of ol' Tire Iron
Ted for quite a while.  Maybe someone with more patience can fill you in
on the tire iron part - from ~3 years ago.

It'd be refreshing to see you honestly face reality, Professor.  You
sound like a loon.  Do you ever get strange looks from your students?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 12:32:17 GMT

In article <Bvsqz3.1L4@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>
>>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>>>and Really are not the sort of things
>>>that decent persons with good personal
>>>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>>>themselves in/with/towards.
>>
>>
>>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>>you flood your bedroom.
>>                                  
>>
>>
>>        
>
>
>
>  What does this have to do with Bush?
>

Nothing, and that's why I had to kill them all.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Decline of America:  A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (II)
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:45:37 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <9210100400.AA07061@tba.msi.cornell.edu>
harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Decline of America:  A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (II)
>
>
>=======================================================
>    Number of people killed with handguns, 1988-90:
>=======================================================
>
>COUNTRY                TOTAL  PER MILLION
>
>United States          9,602     38.3
>Switzerland               53      7.9
>Israel                    25      5.7
>Sweden                    19      2.3
>Australia                 13      0.8
>Japan(21)                 46      0.4
>Canada                     8      0.3
>United Kingdom             7      0.1

     This is nonsense.  I *know* Canada  has more deaths by handgun
per year, much less for two years.  (Same goes for U.S.)

>Sources: Handgun Control, Inc. (Washington, D.C.); U.S. Department of
>Justice, Uniform Crime Reports 1990 (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1991),
>p. 12; Text: Handgun Control, Inc. and the Death Penalty Information
>Center (Washington, D.C.).

     Handgun Control, indeed.  I notice that the crime reports for the
other countries involved weren't used.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:56:15
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Oct14.152238.23005@csrd.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu's message of Wed, 14 Oct 92 15:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.152238.23005@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:

> >In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
> >book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
> >on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
> >page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
...
> I also found the Quayle tactic offensive: it is one thing to say that
> your opponents are slick and untrustworthy, but it is a totally different
> thing to stand in front of many million people and tell outright lies. Did
> Quayle think that those facts cannot be checked?

The problem, unfortunately, is this: tens of millions of people saw
Quayle standing up there and making these accusations.  By the time
journalists get around to exposing false accusations like these, they
will get printed in a back page of the newspaper, where far fewer
people will see them.  And even when they are exposed, journalists are
forced to obey conventions of politeness, so, instead of bluntly
saying "Quayle lied," the journalists will use various circumlocutions
that will make the situation seem less clear than it really was.
(e.g., "Both candidates made statements that do not appear to be
completely accurate.")  As a consequence, even those people who see
the stories exposing the lies will, unless they are unusually
attentive, merely be left with the impression that there is some
controversy about Quayle's statements.

Lies work.  Quayle might be stupid, but he is smart enough to
understand that lies work.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52115 ca.politics:8705 ba.politics:6129
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why "Child Abuse Causes Homosexuality" Really Doesn't Fly
Summary: Clayton flunks statistics again.
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:57:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <12745@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Yup.  Men who like to have sex with boys aren't homosexuals.  I 
>understand.

No, you're just being sarcastic, and you're a statistical ignoramus.

This is a major flaw in all your numbers.  In particular, by defining
men-who-have-sex-with-boys to be homosexual in the same sense that
men-who-have-sex-with-men are homosexual, you are *guaranteeing* that
"homosexual men" will have a higher rate of molestation rate.  Again
-- knowing that someone is "homosexual" because he introduces you to
his male-SO is not the same as knowing that someone is "homosexual"
because he was caught molesting Boy Scouts.  Don't confuse the two.
If the word has some special power over you, say "sex-with-men" and
"sex-with-boys".

Here -- I'll play a little statistical game.

Suppose we define a group that I call "C-men".  It includes men whose
last name begins with a "C", or men who molest children.  Voila!
Clayton, you and I now belong to a group of men who molest children
something at something like 20 times (*) the average rate.  Better not
let any of those "C-men" run the boy scout troop, eh?

This is the same game that you are playing with the "H-men".

(*) I do not know exactly what percentage of men have a last name
beginning with "C".  The inverse will probably be a decently large
integer, which is sufficient for the example.

David Chase
Sun
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51400 alt.politics.usa.misc:165 alt.politics.usa.constitution:663
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:59:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1bcj28INNper@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
?:No, but the Constitution is a written code of law. To read into it
?:whatever one wants, would be equivilent to throwing away the whole
?:thing. Wherever possible, it should eb interperted to mean what it
?:was written to mean (e.g. what the framers intended the provision 
?:in question to mean.) This helps remove modern political bias, etc..

>It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
>political and social biases.  

The meaning (and biases) of the constitution should remain static (original
intent?) until the constitution is formally modified, via the amendment
process.

If you don't like the constitition, try to change it, don't ignore it.
If nine old men can change the meaning of the constitution just by
whim.  What is the purpose of even having a constitution.

Why don't we just declare that the Supreme Court can throw out any law
they don't like and leave it at that.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50361 alt.activism:17298 misc.headlines:6552 sci.econ:8012