HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:08:15 GMT


In article <13576@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> # Our inability to marry is the reason I have most often heard cited by 
|> # the many companies that do NOT offer spousal benefits to gay couples.
|> 
|> That's an excuse.  They could do now if they wanted.  But there being
|> few stable homosexual relationships, and even fewer where one party
|> is working, and the other is home raising kids...

There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex relationships
are less stable than opposite sex one - actually, there is
evidence to the contrary.
 
|> I don't think the state should be involved in marriage.  It's none
|> of their damn business, just like any other consenting action between
|> consenting adults.  It's a shame that homosexuals don't believe that.

AKA - I've got my benefits and privileges, you can
just fuck off.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64268 soc.motss:52321
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:49:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: bbx.142
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <Bz9M8D.Ex1@queernet.org> max@queernet.org (Max J. Rochlin) writes:
>In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>No, a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
>>his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
>
>Sounds pretty simplistic.  Does this mean that if you (a male) were sexually
>molested once as a child by your father, then you're a homosexual?

Actually, I thought that if you ever had sex with a member of the opposite
sex then you were "heterosexual".  No requirement for exclusivity.
Oh well, as they said on "Show Boat", "Any amount of colored blood makes
you legally colored in these parts."

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Volant Solo, Han's Brother)
Subject: Soma-lia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Mao & Levin plans cost too much, tv's cheaper 
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:24:00 GMT

"You are getting sleep-eze, sleeeep-eze...."

"Rocka-fellll, und gut kniiight...."

"There, their, just let big bro' take^H^H^Huck you in...."

<Now, softly, repeat>
S'Lassie MArX AmWay, made in us, back-up disk, perfect-day...
< reread prior line >

-= u r now, 1 token over, go aks Homeless Alice, 4 chang =-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: davei@wam.umd.edu (The One True Dave)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.175154.20010@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>James Meritt writes:
>#Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
>#bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?
>
>Does this matter? Or do you just think it is better to kill innocent
>civilians rather than having volenteer soldiers risk being killed? The
>soldiers accepted the risk of being shot. When did the Somalies
>travelling on a bus accept this risk?
>
I don't think becoming a soldier should be a suicide pact. And
the Somalians don't have to accept a risk to be at risk. If you're
killed by a falling tree or a meteorite or the odd lightning stroke,
you're dead. It's not your fault, you didn't accept the risk, but
you're at risk anyway.

I'm sorry those people died, but I don't think the soldiers are to
blame. Neither is "high command," by the way; those people would 
probably have died without the soldiers. 

The moral of the story is: CHeck your brakes before driving through
checkpoints in a tense military situation.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Welcome to alt.conservative.forum
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:44:41 CST


In article <1992Dec18.170305.11748@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> This new group was created to provide a forum for conservative ideas. In
> that sense, it is a counterpart to talk.politics.progressive, and pehaps
> at some time should become talk.politics.conservative.

OK, I'll get the ball rolling.

What are "conservative ideas"?  How do they relate to the following issues?

Drug prohibition: Conservative (former Drug Czar) Bill Bennett supports the
    "War on Drugs" while Conservatives such as Milton Friedman, William F.
    Buckley, and George Schultz oppose it.  Which side represents the 
    conservative view?

Abortion: Conservatives such as George Bush & Dan Quayle want abortion 
    made illegal (in most cases) while Conservative Barry Goldwater does
    not. Which side represents the conservative view?

Isolationism:  Conservative George Bush supports an activist US role in
    the "new world order" while conservative Pat Buchannan does not.  
    Which side represents the conservative view?

Free-Trade:  Conservative George Bush supports free-trade while conservative 
    Pat Buchannan does not.  Which side represents the conservative view?

Capital gains tax: Conservative Ronald Reagan wanted capital gains taxed 
    at the same rate as other income (1986 tax reform) while Conservatives
    George Bush and Jack Kemp want capital gains taxed at a lower rate than
    other income.  Which side represents the conservative view?

Yugoslovia breakup: Conservative (former Sec of State) George Schultz supports
    intervention in the former Yugoslovia while conservative George Bush does
    not.  Which side represents the conservative view?

-- 
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,alt.conspiracy
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:07:59 GMT

In article <BzDBDK.8Dn@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.173155.18587@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>And if homosexuality is truly a genetic trait, do we see homosexuality in the
>>same ratios in the animal kingdom?  If it is a genetic trait, the percentages
>>of population with each sexual preference should be similar in both humans and
>>animals.  Anybody have any figures?
>
>Again, who cares?  Christianity is a purely volitional behavior.  There is
>no presence of it in the animal kingdom, and is clearly not hereditary.  So
>I take it you are saying that its status as a volitional behavior should
>allow it to be used as a basis of discrimination?

You are extrapolating.  Questioning whether or not homosexuality is genetic or
not means in no way that I condone discrimination against them.  My gay
friends and my straight friends are well aware of this, and it offends me that
you would assume otherwise.  

Besides, your comparison of homosexuality to religion is apples to oranges. 
Homosexuality is a behavioral trait.  Behavioral traits span from irritability
in one celled critters to sexual preference in higher order mammals.  Religion
is something only possible in beings who are able to reason.

Please be a bit less flamboyant the next time you spew your knee-jerk
paranoia.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:45:02 GMT

In article <BzH5sI.6nw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>>That is, at minimum we would be enforcing the no-fly zone by
>>intercepting and possibly destroying Serbian fixed-wing aircraft
>>flying over Bosnia.  At maximum, we'd be using smart bombs and
>>anti-radiation missles to take out various targets.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What the hell is an "anti-radiati

An anti-radiation missile is a type of missile used to destroy radar facilities
by homing in on the radar beam, such as the Shrike and HARM missile.


Simon

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:33:22 GMT

In article <BzF24q.19I@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>
>So, I suppose you support Dan Rather and his boyz for blinding the Marines
>on the beachs with their camera lights.  Suppose there had been snipers
>waiting for the USMC?  Nice to know that the media had properly illuminated
>our boys, eh? (DEFINATELY POOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE PRESS)  

Actually, if the Pentagon thought there'd be real resistance, I don't
think they would have told the media where the landing would take
place.  As said a few times, the military has gotten extremely good at
controling the media, as the Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, etc. attest.
To think that they'd fail to think through their press handling would
be to indulge in a bit of inconsistency, to say the least.

The landing would have been the height of US popularity in Somalia,
and would have been a fair opportunity for the Pentagon to get some
good PR (what better than Marines coming to save starving children?),
or to set up a situation when the press may get out of hand and
embarrass themselves.  There would be an excuse to corral them up and
shut them up in case there's another hot war.



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Politicians
Date: 15 Dec 1992 04:31:15 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu
Originator: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu

Are there any newsgroups or mailing lists for those of us who are political
candidates?  Please reply through E-Mail.
-- 
Jason Hanson         |   915 W. Wisconsin Ave #1010   |     (414) 288-2179
Marquette University |   Milwaukee, WI 53233-2373     |     Ham Radio: N9LEA/AA
--  jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu       ==+==       n9lea@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na  --
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64088 alt.conspiracy:13122
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 00:16:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) says:

>In article <1gg7dhINN72e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>      What I really find interesting is this:
>>      My (  Canadian ) girlfriend now lives in the US.
>>      Her parents live in the US.
>>      Her brother lives in the US.
>>      Her sister, who has declared bankruptcy 3 times so  far,
>>      still lives in Canada. :)
>
>Which proves that your immigration laws do work.
>That's all. Just what's your point anyway?
>-- 

      I just thought it was amusing.  The one person in the 
    family who is still in Canada is irresponsible.  It kind 
    or reminds of the people who still live in LA, like my
    ex-coworkers.  They're getting dicked so bad, that they
    HAVE to convince themselves it's worth it.


        It's just amusing and sad, that's all.  :)
>Michael MY Hui  ~{PmCw6w~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
>
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:27:35 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
|> >
|> >What?!?  Did this get posted here by mistake instead of in talk.bizarre?
|> >Or maybe
|> >talk.I'm.so.stupid.that.I.can't.think.for.myself.and.need.Rush.to.tell.
|> >me.how.to.think.and.which.facts.to.conveniently.ignore
|> >
|>    No John. Rush tells it the way it is and should be. This is the perfect
|>    example of what idiocy runs rampant in this country. Rush EXPLAINS what the
|>    liberals and Demonazis want to "do for me". They want to provide me with
|>    health care, car insurance, health insurance, etc, etc, etc. Why can't I
|>    keep the plans I have now? Am I incapable of retaining my OWN plan?
|>    Certainly not. Are you? Well.... Makes me think that I'm icapable of it.
|>      What facts does he ignore? The fact that H. Ross Perot wanted to tax the
|>    shit out of you and me? The fact that B. Clinton is liar and cheats
|>    (allegedly, but NOT denied) on his wife, Hillary von Hitlerhousen? The fact
|>    that he has absolutely NO CLUE as to what he's doing in the terms of foreign
|>    affairs (except demonstrations) and the military? The fact that B.C. said
|>    that if he can't get the revenue for his programs, he'll either postpone
|>    their entry or nix them all together. If he can't do it, (and he won't),
|>    WHY VOTE FOR HIM???
|> 
I'm glad there is a Rush.  It allows people without logic and perception
to have an opionion.  Paul does have a future as fiction writer, however.
There are certainly no supportable facts in his posts.  Actually, there
are facts, but they are unrelated to his conclusions.  Kind of like a
historical novel.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:63904 tx.politics:7936
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Your FICA is unsafe
Date: 11 Dec 92 01:10:09 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <21977@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>....  All that must happen is that the benefits which
>are paid per person declines as the number of people increases.  The
>government has already begun doing this.  At one time if your father
>died and you were in college, the government kept paying you SS until
>you graduated or turned 22.  This is no longer the case.  For another
>example, consider that the retirement age for people around our ages
>is now 67.  By taking 2 years off, it has effectively reduced the
>amount of SS you will get by about 28% (assuming you live to be the
>average age of 72 and you retire at 67 instead of 65).
>
>If the government raises the age at which our children retire to 69
>or 70, most men will only receive 2 or 3 years of benefits.  Change
>the rules so that wives don't receive their husbands benefits after
>they die, and you will dramatically reduce the requirements for
>funding.
>
>Frankly, I think that some of this should have been done years ago.
>If they'd raised retirement to 68 or 69 as life expectancy rose into
>the 70's, we'd not be paying the high taxes we are now and SS could
>actually be a "safety net".  Instead the middle class is screwed
>because it cannot afford to both pay FICA and save for retirement.
>And the middle class sure as hell isn't going to get out of SS what
>it put in.
>-- 

It is absolutely absurd that this kind of thing happen.  Why should my
retirement benefits depend on demographic trends?  This whole SS thing is
a fiasco.  At least they could have held each individual's contribution
in a personal account.  But no, they want to take the money for general funds.

SS is one of the biggest robberies in history.  It is partly a random
subsidy that takes money from part of the population and gives to others.
The only non-random part is that politicians can use the funds to buy
time so that temporarily they don't have to face up to budget realities and 
be able to keep telling the public that they can have their cake and eat it
too.

When are they going to give individuals back the control over their own
destiny?  When are they going to stop being big government do-gooders and
stop spoonfeeding those income earners who aren't even "smart" enought
to plan their own retirement?????

- Karl Wee
  kwee@oracle.com

  "Pretty soon they'll find a euphemism for Government."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Bush WANTED to Lose
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.073007.8628@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>There's been a lot of punditry attempting to figure out why
>Bush ran such a poor campaign. One possible explanation, of
>course, is that he was as incompetent at running his campaign
>as he was at running the country, and that his loss shouldn't
>therefore be that surprising. But the other possibility, of
>course, is that there is more to it than that.
>
>Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Bush was, in fact,
>the moderate Republican his longtime friends all claimed.
>Suppose that this moderate Republican, out of blind ambition,
>made a Faustian bargain with Reagan and the neo-fascist far-
>right loon wing of the Republican party in order to become
>Vice President and then President. Suppose, having made this
>deal with the devil, Bush suddenly woke up sometime in the middle
>of this year's Republican Convention to find that a large
>group of small-minded compassionless bigoted fascists were
>throwing a Nuremburg rally in his honor--EXCEPT HE WASN'T, IN
>THE END, WILLING TO PLAY FUEHRER? What could he do to save
>himself and the country? 
>
>Lose the election.
>
>And not just lose it, but lose it so hard and ugly that the
>far-right was discredited within the Republican party and
>sent back under the rocks from which it had slithered.

       Um, the Republicans really didn't lose the election that bad, you
know.  They even gained seats in Congress.  Bush lost the Presidency by 
about six points, and a lot of states were within that margin.  That the 
Republicans were out and out rejected seems a little like wishful thinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
From: bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 12:02:12 GMT

   pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) queries Clayton, who provides an indirect
   answer...

 PR>> > Clayton, I know the numbers get confusing, but I have to wonder if
 PR>> > you're deliberately playing stupid here.

 PR>> > When we talk about how many gays there are, you cite the Kinsey
 PR>> > study's claim...

 CC> No, I didn't quote Kinsey on this subject at all.  As usual, you don't
 CC> know what you are talking about.

        As usual you duck the question.  Your numbers don't make sense. 

        Paul, he isn't playing...
 
 
-Bruce Garrett

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Organization: ILS
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:56:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.093547.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
> In article <1992Dec15.003610.28723@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> > I really don't understand this conservative dislike for boycotts.  Firstly
> > a boycott is a perfectly fine way for groups to gain their ends via the
> > free market without having to pass laws.  In that way the use of boycotts
> > promote  free enterprise and limit the expansion of government powers.  In
> > a free market economy the consumer has a right to decide what they are
> > going to consume on what ever grounds they want. 
> 
>      I agree with your analysis of the power and utility of the boycott;
> however, I disagree with your opinion that conservatives dislike *all* 
> boycotts.  

I would site the recent editorial in conservative US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
a world report and some of Rush Limbaugh's confussed comments as cases of
anti-boycott feeling for the sake of anti-boycott feeling.  The US NEWS
article even went as far as attacking boycotts for making economic
purchases political.  Strange,  that in a Capitalists Democaracy people
should be against politics getting envolved in economics.

 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64257 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10118 alt.rush-limbaugh:11641 alt.politics.bush:14562
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:15:46 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa, world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec10.154158.14760@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec10.021802.13612@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >	Let's see from 1960 to 1992:
|> 
|> >1960-64 JFK/LBJ
|> >1964-68 LBJ
|> >1968-76 Nixon/Ford
|> >1976-80 Jimmy Carter
|> >1980-88 Ronald Reagan
|> >1988-92 George Bush
|> 
|> >	If you think that JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter are all "loony
|> >left-wingers", then I've got the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge to
|> >sell to you. But I've seen even Nixon called a "liberal", so I guess
|> >the majority of those Presidents are flaming left-wingers.
|> 
|> Do you honestly believe that JFK and LBJ would be considered Democrats 
|> today?  I seem to remember JFK saying something like "Ask not what 
|> your country can do for you..."  That sounds just a little to the 
|> right of modern Republicans.  LBJ was a hawk without compare (IMO), 
|> and yes, Jimmy Carter was a loony left-winger.  Or perhaps just loony.
|> 
JFK's "Ask not ..." led to the peace corp and other participative
government.  Sounds a lot like Clinton's education program and Bush's
1000 points of light.  What has this got to do with liberal or conservative
approaches to government.

LBJ's hawkishness is also not a liberal or conservative issue.  I hadn't
noticed that all wars were started and fought by Republicans.  Actually,
keeping our hands out of other people's business use to be a conservative
postion.  It probably still is.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.