HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:32:10 GMT


In a previous article, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says:

>In article <1992Aug19.211700.21925@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> In article <11804@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <Bt0qsG.Gy8@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
># ## Okay, one simple question for you -- see if you can answer this one:
># ## are you speaking for the heterosexual community?
># #
># #But if
># 
># No, no.  No "if" -- you're evading the question.  Do you speak for the
># heterosexual community?
># 
># ____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
>
>In opposition to child molestation, yes.  Now, you can find a few
>straights out there who don't have a problem with adults having
>sex with children.  But I can say with great certainty that nearly
>all heterosexuals agree that child molestation should be a criminal
>offense.
>-- 

As do nearly all homosexual persons.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43819 ca.politics:7461 ba.politics:5051 soc.motss:38246 ba.motss:1542
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:43:30 GMT
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.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.

Escalation just leads directly to further escalation. One person's
behavior should not result in targeting everyone else who falls into
the same category, as defined by you, Clayton. That would be evil,
and only lead to tragedy for someone, somewhere, eventually.

>Do I make myself clear?

Yes. You are unable to restrain yourself from sinking to the same depths
as one of your opponents has sunk to.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast 
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:53:01 GMT

Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
#
#The territories are no protection at all. With the exception of the Golan
#heights there is no particular military value to any of it. Israel has borders
#with both Jordan and Egypt with or without the territories. The Golan heights
#had military value before the guided missile got onto the international arms
#market. If Saddam can bomb Tel Aviv from Iraq then Syria would have no problem.

I have to disagree with this. Skuds are not the only possible
weapon. In a conventional war, the territories have great
importance. The Syrians have used the Golan heights for many
years to launch devastating artillery attacks on the Kibbutzim
below. As for the west bank, without them Israel is about 10
miles wide at some places

It is clear that if the territories are returned they should remain
demilitarized, or you might have a return of the '67 war but
in a far more deadlier version.

#Why not in the right of return pattern? They have as much right to live in the
#country of their birth as any other people.

What about 800,000 Jews who lived in Arab countries, who were treated
like garbage, subjected to persecutions and pogroms, and who fled
to Israel, leaving everything they had behind? Why doesn't anyone
mention them anymore? I'll tell you why: it is because Israel
took them and incorporated them into herself (not that it was
without difficulties). All this while the Arab countries didn't
give a flying f**k about the Palestinian refugees, and intentionaly
kept them in the worst conditions possible, in the meanwhile buying
half of the united states and causing segmentation faults in
the computers of the Swiss banks.

-Danny Keren.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.222507.21961@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>dp> Or does it become acceptable by prefixing it with 'cultural', another word,
>dp> like 'liberal', guaranteed to stir up the mob even more? The Republicans 
>dp> have been playing this kind of 'polarization politics' for a long time now,
>dp> and I for one am getting pretty sick of it.
>
>  So am I, just as I have the Democrats playing the same stupid game. If you
>  want to talk polarization, marginalization, and so on, talk to the rabidly
>  PC liberals. Now's there exclusivity for ya!
>

I agree that the Democratic demonization of 'the Rich' is reprehensible, and
a valid example of 'polarization politics'. In listening to many Democratic
politicians (Tsongas excepted), it seems to me that the idea of being rich
is OK only as long as you're not *actually* rich. The American Dream is fine
as long as it's just a dream. Once you actually become rich, however, you
become one of the evil *them*. You can't have it both ways.

Even so, I worry a lot more about the Republican flavor. After all, rich
people tend to be rich as a result of a lot of conscious, deliberate effort.
Also, they can become 'un-rich' if they want to. The Republicans go after
people largely because of involuntarily-acquired characteristics (e.g., gays,
blacks).

>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:13:52 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep2.164548.8590@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
]In article <1992Sep1.154514.24172@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>Keywords: 
]>
]>By the way, many gays claim that their "characteristic" is not
]>involuntary. I think that they are in general wrong about that.
]>
]
]Just like your 'choice' to be heterosexual, I guess.

As far as I know, there was no 'choice' involved. It is the way I am,
not just the way I choose to be.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:46:59 GMT

daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:

>I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
>term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
>the House Minority leader) has been in office for at LEAST 30 years!  If we
>look at other districts, I am sure there are many other "lifers" in
>Congress.

Just by listening to that GOP shindig in Houston, I was sure that all
of Congress were Democrats. I will heed their advice though and vote
against my incumbent Congressman, a Republican (Gerald Solomon).

>Therefore, I think term limits of 2 terms for Senators (12 years) and 
>4 terms for Representatives (also 12 years, to be fair) would do nicely.

Yep.

>I think there are PLENTY of capable people out there who can serve in gvt.

Maybe, but they're all complaining and not voting. Actually, most Congressmen
(or at least 'many') have law degrees. I'm sure they could make a ton more
than the 100,000+ a year with a lot less hassle if they were big shot
lawyers. Many of them certainly aren't in it for the money.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95	FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:54:49 GMT

In article <PA146008.257.714783489@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1484@seqp4.sequoia.com> markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy) writes:
>
>>In <PA146008.242.714181907@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug18.195426.20499@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>     It's the politicians.  Passed by Congress, signed by the President.
>>> 
>>>     It is simplistic and absurd to try and lay the whole thing at
>>>the President's feet.
>>> 
>>>     To eliminate the deficit solely based on what is precieved as
>>>"Regan/Bush's spending" would require you to *eliminate* the Defense
>>>budget, just to start, and not even Clinton suggests that.
>>
>>>     The President may submit a budget, but not penny one is spent
>>>without Congress' say-so.  If 2/3 of Congress decided to be fiscally
>>>responsible, they could *ignore* the President entirely.
>>
>>Not one veto was overridden by Congress - so 2/3's could but they
>>certainly didn't.

Just a little info for both of you on this issue.  Does anyone realize
that constitutionally it is not even the job of the president to come up
with a budget?  The whole process is supposed to begin and end with the
congress, with the president only having veto power against it.  He can
suggest things, but that's all.  Congress in no way has to listen to him.
It is only since about the 30's that the responsibility for coming up
with the budget has fallen on the president at the insistence of the
congress, and it was initially designed to be the rope by which the
congress could hang president Roosevelt and his radical ideas of the
times.  Sad but true folks.  Read your history.

It is congress responsibility to develop a budget and not the presidents.
Put the responsibility back where it belongs and let's see what happens.

Tim



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:42:05 GMT

mp> Michael Polen
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Those who watch a lot of television (and thus help determine content) tend
gs> to be younger and more liberal compared to those who regularly exercise 
gs> their political control (and thus help determine the current political 
gs> setup.)

mp> Show me any statistics that says these populations are not holding up
mp> their fair share of TV watching.

  Well, how about the fact that the bulk of TV shows these days are still aim-
  ed at those 18-34, whereas this group also tends to vote at much lower rates
  than older groups. The older a person gets, generally they get more discrim-
  inating in what they watch on TV.

  Anyway, the original point was that Hollywood is more liberal than the pop-
  ulation as a whole. Do you disagree or not? Lastly, when was the last time
  you saw an honest-to-goodness conservative character that wasn't portrayed
  as a buffoon or got all good-n-liberal when they were pressed? I know that
  conservatives can hold their own in political discussions with liberals;
  why is this fact so rarely shown on television?


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43785 talk.politics.mideast:19619 misc.headlines:6201
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:46:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12028@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

BK:
># Boswell makes arguments that the early Church viewed itself as a liberation
># from the Holy Codes of Law in the OT. Why else would Paul try to crack down

CC #1:
>Indeed.  Does that mean that all rules were abolished?  No.

then, inexplicably, CC #2:
>As we have discussed, the New Testament wiped out the Holiness Code.

Which side are you taking, Clayton??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Decline Of Rights in the U.S: Will Clinton Reverse This?
Date: 3 Sep 92 05:34:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) once wrote: 
> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>>> In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't
>>> own it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can
>>> request the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody
>>> can tell you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of
>>> the law, meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or
>>> person with due process, and nobody can take your property without
>>> due process (in theory today, though).
>>
>> Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even
>> charging you with a crime!
>
> Correct. This power has also been extended to game wardens, State
> and even local police in some States.

I said in theory. :-) The forfeiture laws are patently
unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say. That's the problem
with allowing the courts in interpret the Constitution. They can
interpret it to mean whatever they like.

>> Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court believe
>> there is no right to privacy in the U.S. 
>
> Name them, please.

Well, that penumbra thing was pretty damn stupid. I'm pretty sure
all the sitting justices would agree with that. But I too agree that
there is no basic "right to privacy" per se.

In the U.S. the right to privacy has always been intimately connected
to the right to be secure in your property. The "liberal" courts, in
disassembling our property rights for the supposed social good, have
also disassembled our basic privacy rights. Ergo, you have contrived
opinions, like Roe v. Wade, to awkwardly justify some right to
privacy. You have government which can search and seize your property
without warrant. And that's not because of conservative courts, which
believe it or not are actually reassembling property rights piece by
piece. The current state of affairs is the product of so-called
liberal courts and legislatures which have trivialized private
property to the point that you really have no right to control it.

Perhaps the "conservatives" want to get "tough on crime," trampling
our rights in the process. But if we hadn't been ignoring our basic
private property rights for the last fifty years or so, they wouldn't
be able to get away with nearly as much bullshit. The mean evil
"conservatives" are simply taking advantage of fifty years of
"liberal" trampling of rights.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "When Congress is in session, no man's pocketbook
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  is safe." -- Mark Twain
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and
 for liberty to yield." -- Thomas Jefferson
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Keywords: Endorse Bush US Senate female Pro-Choice
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:55:07 GMT

In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
} After hearing the speeches,  I have decided to stick with
} my Republican beliefs.  I was raised in the Great State of
} New Hampshire with the belief of family,

After hearing the speeches, I have decided the Republican "belief of
family" is exclusively of that modeled after Ozzie and Harriet.  I
don't deny that such families still exist, but they are not the only
ones around.

} lower taxes and a
} strong feeling against big government.

The Republicans want just as big a government as do the Democrats --
just in different areas.  The Democrats believe that government should
regulate every aspect of people's economic lives.  The Republicans
believe that government should regulate every aspect of people's
personal lives.  There isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194525.13117@menudo.uh.edu> inde788@Elroy.UH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.085725.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <550HqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>> 
>>>> In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>> >Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
>>>> >explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe as next President of the United States, he owes it to the residents to
>>>> see the damage directly himself? Just a thought.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
>>> 
>>> According to AP, he (Clinton) was invited by Chiles.  Maybe Chiles figured that
>>> if Bush got his photo-op, Clinton was entitled to his.  Clinton remarked last
>>> week that he felt it was better for him to stay away.  I guess that, given how
>>> useless Bush is, at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> |Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
>>> |Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
>>> |3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
>>> |Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
>>
>>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
>>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
>>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
>>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
>>nail on the head with the issues either...)?
>>
>You are missing a point, we will have a president who can atleast
>hit the nail on the head with the issues 50% of the time than a president
>who can even try hitting a nail on any issues.
>
>-Ashish.

	That's right.  Clinton will miss the nail completely the other
50% of the time and screw up the Us's, if not the world's situation,
whereas if Bush were given a hammer and nail, and he knew he couldn't
use it, he wouldn't bother.  He would give the hammer and the nail to
the carpenter, where it belongs.

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:14:28 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug20.194135.14255@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
]John, I agree that the situation with capital gains taxes seems unfair
]and needs to be fixed somehow. However, the fairness issue inplies that
]those who are wealthy enough to not work but live off investments, do
]not pay a small tax rate than those who must work. Index the capital
]gains tax for inflation if you like, but don't give some stock
]speculator a break that I, a working person, can't get because I can't
]take all of my income as capital gains.

You imply that those who make their living by investing (speculating is
too strong a word) in stocks are not working. Do you know any of these
people? I know several, and they are the hardest working people I know.
They are working in the information industry: they are allocating capital
in our economy based on profit potential. I see nothing wrong with
rewarding these people for their labors, because the work they do is
as important as the work that you or I do.

Sure, there are some leeches in this, but there are leeches at all levels.

We have, however, made the incentives under which these people operate somewhat
perverse.  The combination of a tax that doesn't discriminate between
ordinary income, short term gains and long term gains with a lack
of indexation for inflation creates a strong bias towards short term
investment in service industries (read: low capital investment and low
wages).

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43025 alt.politics.bush:3656 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4957