HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.212614.13366@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.221932.1772@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.174653.21783@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug16.041709.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>
>>>>> Are the egg and sperm cell not both alive prior
>>>It is really a matter of where you draw the line in order to balance respect
>>>for human life with the realities of available resources.  
>>
>>Do humans become mere economic units rather than special living, loving
>>persons? 
>>
>
>No.  I am merely drawing the distinction between sentient human beings, who
>possess the ability to love and enjoy life by virtue of a central nervous
>system, and fertilized ova which differ from their mother's tissue only by
>virtue of their DNA structure.  Do we need to have compassion on DNA molecules
>because they are unique?  There is, of course, a continuum between the
>primitive ovum and a sentient person which is why abortion should be viewed as
>the least desirable form of birth control.  If possible, it should also be
>restricted to the very early stages of pregnancy.  The ideal platform would
>probably be between that of the Democrats and that of the Republicans (IMHO).
>It would, however, appear difficult to justify the Republicans position of
>opposing abortion while opposing ther implementation of programs which would
>make perinatal care universally available.
>

At least you would agree that the unborn needs to be protected in the
middle and late terms.  

But one question I pose to you is this: When can you say a "fertilized
ovum" becomes human?  At what point can you say this person becomes human?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<57272@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Aug20.063950.18437@s1.gov>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:50:09 GMT

<In article <1992Aug20.063950.18437@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

<	   That's what I like about trains :-)<

<	   They are more weatherproof.<

<	   Fast enough trains can successfully compete with air travel.
 <  Consider the example of the French TGV, which travels at 180 mph in
 <  some routes, 

	Name them. 

	I've ridden TGV twice and the train never
	exceeded 100 mph. I don't believe that train could
	come close to 180 miles per hour.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:32:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.220315.1424@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>                                                                    ^^^^^^^
>>dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>platforms.
>
>	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>abortion?

Wait until the subcommittees on love, truth, peace, and economic prosperity
have presented their planks :-)

Matthias
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:48:50 GMT

In article <2A83356F.17896@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Scott Cromar writes
>> I agree that we need a line item veto, but I'm not sure how
>> much good it would do with Bush at the helm.  After all, he
>> has yet to identify the major sources of savings that
>> would come about if he had a line item veto to exercise. 
>> And, if he has some programs in mind for the chopping
>> block, he should show some leadership and put them into
>> his budget proposal.  (The few pork-barrel items he has
>> identified as targets for a line-item veto add up to less
>> than a billion dollars.) 

This is not true. Bush had a "pork-barrel" of proposed recissions
that was close to $8 billion a few months back.
More to the point, though, is that he has had some proposals
on entitlement caps that would save much more than this.
They are in his '93 budget proposal.  Congress is not doing anything on
these proposals. I think a line-item veto would at least wake them up
and get them thinking about making choices instead of logrolling.

>True enough, but you overlook the strategic situation. 
>
>Even if Bush genuinely believes that some programs are pork, ought to be cut  
>and that the advantages both on a policy and a political level of the reduced  
>deficit or reduced tax burden outweigh the political furor of the recipients of  
>that pork barrel program, it still wouldn't be wise for him to remove that  
>piece of pork in his budget proposal. The Democrats in congress would just  
>immediately restore funding and he himself would get top billing on the enemies  
>list of that special interest group (while the Democrats will be rewarded by  
>it). So none of the positive consequence of the cut would come to pass but all  
>the negatives would. A line item veto would change that dynamic.

Too true. Bush has studiously avoided picking losing fights, and fighting
pork barrel against Congress is normally the most difficult. 
The net result, unfortunately, is that the Democratic Congress
has pretty much gotten its way on these budgetary matters.
------
P.McGuinness


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:46:24 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

Wes


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:51:03 CDT


In article <1992Aug21.161741.28094@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug20.173307.25429@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) 
> >writes:
> >
> >> I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
> >> larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
> >
> >But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
> >adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..
> >
> 	Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was Carter who initially 
> deregulated the S&Ls and Airlines. Did Reagan deregulate airlines
> on his own? 

Carter, not Reagan, deregulated the Airlines.

Carter also deregulated oil prices (oil price controls were part of Nixon's
wage and price controls).

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:49:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.024519.6289@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
>>the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
>>she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
>>something?
>>
>How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
>Paul.

I'll assume you are correct.  I don't know the ins and outs of how the
pill works.  But it only changes the argument depending on whether you
are assuming life begins at conception, viability, or birth.

Thanks for the information.

Tim



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39895 talk.abortion:31833 alt.politics.bush:1687
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:06:41 GMT
	<FOX.92Aug14150707@graphics.nyu.edu> <Bt07sy.BDJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <Bt07sy.BDJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

   In article <FOX.92Aug14150707@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
   >In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
   >
   >   If one believes that the fetus
   >   is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
   >   precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
   >   rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
   >   fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
   >   assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
   >   human being.
   >
   >The right to life you are referring to prohibits taking another
   >life.  However, it does not mandate giving anything up to save
   >the life of another.  That is why it is not illegal to refuse to
   >contribute to relief efforts in Somalia.

   I think my posts were clear.  Your point is well taken.
   >
   >   The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
   >   that the fetus is NOT a human being.  If one accepts THIS assumption
   >   then the woman's right takes precedence and again no inconsistency is
   >   found.  The point is that there is no inconsistency in either argument.
   >   It simply comes down to which assumption about the fetus you are willing
   >   to accept.
   >
   >From the above you see that an argument against reproductive
   >rights cannot be based on whether the fetus is a human being,
   >since one is not automatically responsible for the life of
   >every other human being.  One might argue that the mother is
   >the legal guardian of the fetus and has responsibilities for
   >that reason, but this is by no means clear cut.  For example,
   >the legal status of a child is very different from that of a
   >fetus: you can't take it as a dependant on your taxes, you
   >can't assign assets to it, etc. etc.
   >

   Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
   the assumption that the fetus is a human being.  Although as you noted
   above you do not have contribute to the well being of others (actually
   there are many cases where you do such as laws against neglect of
   children but I'll let that go for now because it isn't particularly
   relevant) abortion is the destruction of the life (again all this is
   predicated on a specific assumption -  this is not a pro/con abortion
   debate) therefore the argument remains quite valid.

Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
is a human being.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Do I believe this?
Keywords: GOP Convention
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:15:12 GMT

In article <9tbfto8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.180201.26786@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>>The speaker said that Bill Clinton is proposing a $100 [bm]illion
>>increase in federal (domestic?) spending.  This is the largest
>>spending increase ever.  Do we want that?  And the crowd chanted
>>"NO".
>
>I don't know how many other lies in that sound bite there are, but the very
>first sentence was one.  Anyone who'd bothered to read any of Clinton's
>speeches OR the Democratic platform knows that he's not proposing anything
>of the kind.

Well, just how much is Bill Clinton's pay or play scheme going to cost?
The spending estimates are accurate, based on adding the costs of his
various programs up.
*Aside* from his plans on national health,  which *will* involve
much greater Govt spending, he has proposed over $50 billion
in 'investment' (read Govt spending) on 'infrastucture' (read 
public works projects) and other programs.

>The speaker is, of course, preaching to people who'd rather
>kill themselves than find out what Clinton actually intends to do.

Some of us have found out what Clinton intends to do, thanks to the net
providing his economic plan and numerous speeches, and it frightens
us greatly. I've read his plan a few times, and I don't like what I see.

He promises tax hikes that will destroy jobs and damage investment --
and *won't* raise the revenue he claims. His attempt to tax U.S.
subsidiaries will backfire, as will the unnecassary and demagogic attempt
to raise tax income rates on upper-income taxpayers.

All his deficit "reduction" is simply 'slick' claims that the
economy will grow wonderfully.  Based on the increased tax
and regulation burden he promises, this will simply not happen.
He does virtually nothing to cut the deficit, but is willing to
let the debt increase by $900 billion over the next four years.
He spending cuts, like 'cut Congress staff by 25%' is the ultimate
in gimmicks and hypocrisy.  If the Democrats were serious about
cutting legislative branch spending, they could have done it years
ago.

---
Pat
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:33:43 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  writes:

> 
>    But do I, would I support my child? I'd put my arm around her and say, 
>    if she were trying to make that decision, encourage her not to do that, 
>    but of course I'd stand by my child. ...

There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy floating in the air.  Let me pose
     the abortion question to you in another way: if your child, let's
     say, were about to commit murder (premeditated, no less), would
     you stand by him/her?


> Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com

Stephen @Trajan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40297 ca.politics:6888 ba.politics:4608
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Religion In America: Hard Numbers
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:01:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <16jdfqINN456@hal.com>, howard@titan.hal.com (Howard Gayle) writes:
> In article <11764@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # Since about 40% of the population
# #attends religious services in any given week, the evidence suggests
# #that the majority of Americans, and probably a large majority,
# #still hold to their religious beliefs.
# 
# This assumes that people join a church and attend its services
# for religious reasons.  That sounds obvious, but there are also
# many secular reasons for joining a church, e.g. to meet people
# socially, to make business contacts, to do charitable works, to
# enhance one's reputation, or to take advantage of benefits
# available to church members.  Church activities are often
# life-long traditions.  In Sweden, for example, most people
# attend church once a year, on Christmas Eve.  It's as
# traditional as burning bonfires on 30 April to frighten the
# witches away.
# --
# Howard Gayle

This isn't Sweden.  I don't know anyone who attends church for
any of the reasons above.  Do you?

Enhancing one's reputation?  By going to church?  That lowers
your reputation (at least with liberals, who dominate our
society) nearly everywhere I've lived in California.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:18:30 GMT

In article <JTURNER.92Aug13062537@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
}In article <1992Aug10.014137.1076@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:

}>   Er, the development of new technologies *is* part of "the market".

}	Sure.  It's amazing how much comes out of government funded
}research and how little out of private R&D.  What's more amazing is
}how quickly libertarians forget or ignore this.

so what trying to say is that the $68 billion the federal government
spent on R&D this year (which breaks down as: Pentagon - 53%, Health &
Human Services - 14%, NASA - 12%, Energy - 11%, other - 10%) has done
immensely more to improve the quality of life in this country than all
the money spent on R&D by the market sector during the same period.

i hope you are prepared to justify this statement with some hard data.

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:08:18 GMT

In article <l97ftfINN2un@spim.mips.com> 
mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>> The initial question involved putting PEOPLE (read: Men and Women) in
>> situations where abortion does not become an alternative.  Since conceiving
>> a child is a joint act between a man and a woman, then men are capable of
>> NOT getting a woman pregnant.  No pregancies, no abortion.
>> 
>> So men, indeed, can help put women in positions where abortion does not
>> become an alternative.

> So we are left with the following alternatives:
>
> 1	The only purpose of sex is reproduction.
>
> 2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 
>
> 3.	Sex is a sin, for which the penalty is pregnancy.  Sure puts an
>	interesting slant on the wonderfulness of parenting and the meaning
>	of "family values."
> 
> If this is your agenda, we can certainly shorten the discussion.

You are the only person with an agenda here, Michael Polen.  Nothing 
in Mr. Guerrero's remarks could be construed as saying that sex
is a sin, or that abstinence is the only answer.  Mr. Guerrero 
has not even indicated whether he is pro-life or pro-choice.  

Your post was a shameful, transparent attempt to slander Mr. Guerrero.
If I were Mr. Guerrero, I would demand an apology from you.  Come back 
when you have a real argument, Michael Polen.
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      Canada Has Pneumonia!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:13:49 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21982; Wed, 19 Aug 92 16:26:03 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA23815; Wed, 19 Aug 92 16:25:48 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 6460; Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:25:26 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4721; Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:25:25 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


   sorry, can't let this go by  :)    NOT EVEN! :)

>>  am including Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, and so on here too.

>this is very funny. you just mentioned a set of countries EVERY one of which
>has a healthier economy than the US as well as being more socially advanced.
>how are these societies stuck or declining. AND THE USA IS NOT !?!?!?!?!


     I visited Toronto last weekend.  Totally illuminating!
     Cool phrases on Canadian news channels like:

       " And the Art Museum of Ontario may reopen next year "
       " with the petitioning of the Toronto Symphony for
         bankruptcy "
       " if layoffs continue at their present rate, 1992 will
         supersede the 1990 all-time record for layoffs "

    11% unemployment!?
    $7.40 for two ice teas and fries!?
    $10 / hour for PARKING!?

     Holy CHRIST!

    The couple I stayed with:

       " Our income tax was raised $20 / week this year "
       " Our property tax was raised 5% this year, but we were lucky, some
         places it went up 14% "
       " Well, the General Sales Tax [ Federal government tax on just about
   every goddamn thing under the sun ] was raised from 8 % to 15 % last
         year "

      " Can you help us get a job in the States? "
      " Our condo has lost about 25% of what we paid for it "

   Christ.  Not to mention the GANGS!  It was like being back in L.A.
   except it was CLEAN!

       Luckily, everyone has health insurance.  Ulcers are covered.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'll do anything to be re-elected
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:14:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

If he's willing to do anything to be reelected, let me put forward a
new idea:

CUT THE DAMNED DEFICIT!

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40762 talk.politics.theory:3744 soc.culture.usa:6690 alt.conspiracy:10155
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:03:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: gcf@panix.com's message of 19 Aug 92 17:45:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
> Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
> back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
> and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
> American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
> actions and relationships.

	I don't know what he's worried about, no one's
tried to misapproppriate Country and Western music. ;)

				--Jeff Turner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40742 ca.politics:6959 ba.politics:4677