HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: RUSSIA: Yeltsin Propses Liftin Ban on Homosexuals
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:15:40 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

And its about bloody time too.  Yeltsin wanted people to appear
in front of the (Russian) White House, but didn't have a
printing press.  (The Coup fools, so inept at all else,
did understand to shut down the printing presses.)  The
leader of an underground, and illegal Gay newspaper of
Moscow, turned his printing press into ``show up in front
of the White House for Yelsin, and the end of communism''
poster makers.  And his gay friends distributed them until
they were widespread enough that *everybody* wanted to distribute
them.

He was one of the first people honoured by Yeltsin when the
Coup failed.  Yeltsin asked him what could Yeltsin give him
as such a true patriot (or something like that -- I only
have the translation.)  He said ``pass a law ending the
discrimination against homosexuals''.

So Yeltsin honours his promise!

And about bloody time too!

laura

-- 
    Since Ryan White was buried in April 1990, his grave has been vandalized
    *more than* four times.

    (this news courtesy Phil Paxton ipwp400@indycms.bitnet)

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: disinformation
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:11:51 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article MLJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu, METZE@VMETZE.MRL.UIUC.EDU (Virginia Metze) writes:
>
>Someone told me that the term 'disinformation' was invented
>during Bush's term as head of the CIA.

"Disinformation" comes from Russian "disinformatsiya", which is KGB-ese for
the technique of spreading false information to discredit enemies of the 
regime.  A typical example might be the following.  During a critical stage of
negotiations in a foreign country, an authentic-looking letter on the stationery
of a US ambassador is circulated which "reveals" information that is embarrassing
to the US.  This is an old dirty trick, and I am sure that US intelligence
agencies also used it from time to time.

>That would certainly explain this presidential election,
>wouldn't it?

I don't think that it was quite in the same league as Soviet disinformation.
Had someone actually circulated a doctored picture of Perot's daughter in a
compromising situation, it would have been disinformation.  The underhandedness
of the campaign seems to have been more in the realm of innuendo.  Bush used to
head the CIA, but I doubt that he would dare to risk his campaign getting caught
in such a blatant fabrication of false information.  Nor do I believe that the
CIA engages in this kind of activity as much as conspiracy enthusiasts would like
them to.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Bill "STOGIE" Clinton. HEHEHEHEHE!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:52:49 GMT


In article <10357@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, 
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) said:

> > But not ONCE did I see Clinton smoking a CIGAR!  Until last night,
> > as he strutted about a golf course.  [SMTP@idbsu.idbsu.edu]
>
> I saw that picture too.  My first question was.  Was he inhaling?

I saw a blurb about that in a recent Boston Globe (I think it was
yesterday's, 11/9/92, but I'm not sure, since I'm in catch-up mode and
I read about four days' worth of Globes yesterday).  Apparently, a
golfing buddy of Clinton's (one of Hillary's law partners, I believe)
presented him with a victory cigar<*>, and Clinton obligingly stuck it
in his mouth.  Unlit.

<*>I'll assume that his bodyguards weren't so paranoid as to insist on
   testing the cigar for poison before letting Clinton have it, though
   it would make for a nice variation on that recurring Saturday Night
   Live Weekend Update line from the Ford-era: "Alert Secret Service
   agents wrestled the cigar to the ground..." :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 9 Nov 1992 23:07:31 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>who was then the EEOC Commissioner. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>works should be dazzling.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

The coldest cut:  After a stint at EEOC, Hill is appointed to the
Court.

You heard it here first.

-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative? 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:37:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.144755.26931@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.033656.8548@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>>>The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
>>>collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on

>>why not give the credit to Gorbechev (spelling?)?

>Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
>'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
>wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
>it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely?  Bush tried to
>claim credit for this one, but he just happened to be the one in
>office when things came to fruition.  The credit belongs (on this side
>of the Big Water) to President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

And without Gorbachev, they might have decided to hold on to their
Empire, possibly leading to a major war.

But that's besides the point.  Are you claiming that communism *works*?
If not, then the most you can say is that Ronald Reagan slightly speeded
up the process of the collapse, not that he caused it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60018 ca.politics:9561 misc.legal:19887
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:25:31 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA


  Gawd, school's in again. Another shining example of our public school
system's utter failure.

In article <Bxny3z.Aww@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> You both seem to agree that child molesters are bad.  You disagree about
> whether homosexuality is also bad.  Why is your judgement on homosexuality
> superior to his judgement?  Society used to ban homosexuality and child
> molestation.  Now you are working to make sure it only bans child 
> molestation.  Perhaps the child molesters will work to make sure they are
> also socially acceptable and your words will be viewed as bigoted by
> a later generation.  Will that make child molestation "right" and "good"?

  Let put this very simply so you *might* have a chance of understanding.
Molestation of children involves a fundamentally coersed transaction.
Young children are not capable of giving consent and as such can never
be on equal terms with an adult. Homosexuality between consenting adults
is not coersed and therefore the government should have no interest
in it, one way or the other.
 
> You dislike the idea that society may proscribe homosexual activity because
> you engage in homosexual activity.  Too damn bad.  There is action which,
> no matter how pleasant it may be to the actor(s) involved, should not be
> allowed in a society.  

  You dislike the idea that society may proscribe morons from posting
from UIUC because you are a moron posting from UIUC. Too damn bad.
  Look buster, I suggest that you go back and take a remedial civics
class and find where in the constituion society gets the right to
legislate morality. Hint: it ain't there. Just because enough thugs
of your kind get together does not make it Right.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Subject: Re: Term Limits                                                        
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:28:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.043335.13004@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

[article deleted]

>Still, we need term limits. The citizens of 15 states have already voted
>in favor of them by true landslide margins (3 to 1 here in AZ).
>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)

I don't believe I've ever agreed with John Moore about anything, but I
do here. Both the reasoning and the conclusion are right on.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill "STOGIE" Clinton. HEHEHEHEHE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:30:18 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <9211082121.AA06721@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> SMTP@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:


>      But not ONCE did I see Clinton smoking a CIGAR!
>      Until last night, as he strutted about a golf course.

I saw that picture too.  My first question was.  Was he inhaling?

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Bespectacled Bill C.
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 19:53:07 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14941; Sun, 8 Nov 92 18:56:24 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA27221; Sun, 8 Nov 92 18:56:23 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0237; Sun, 08 Nov 92 19:59:18 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2664; Sun, 08 Nov 92 19:59:17 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


      Okay.  Now, I noticed reading glasses on Perot.
             I noticed them on Bush.

      But I *sure* don't remember seeing them on Clinton!  :)

      This is just too, too funny. hehehehehheheh.

      It's <glancing at watch> 5 days since the election,
      and so far I've got Clinton chewing cigars like Teddy Roosevelt
      with Franklin Roosevelt glasses perched on his nose.

      What next?

      A Gorbachev head?

      George Washington teeth?

      Maybe a wooden leg?

      hehehehheheh.

      NAFTA goes through unchanged.
      Perot's voters didn't really care about the deficit.
      The middle class tax cut was just "an idea".
      And a bespectacled, cigar smoking Mr. Bill.

      I anxiously await tomorrow's revelation.
      This is going to be good. :)
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why "Child Abuse Causes Homosexuality" Really Doesn't Fly
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:48:29 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <101349@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13100@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny indicated that 26% of molesters were
# #exclusively molesting little boys, and 4% were bisexual.  That's 30% of
# #molesters who are homosexual or bisexual.
# 
# Excuse me. Are these molesters FIXATED, or REGRESSED?

No breakdown given by type.

# It seems to me that you were arguing about men who molest boys as almost
# always being fixated.

No.  I pointed out that the fixated pedophiles are the most dangerous,
and go after boys, mostly.

# And we both know about the psychological origin of fixated pedophilia.
# It's the lack of maturation of sexual identity, leading to a narcissistic
# manifestation where the man identifies with the boy victim. Fixated
# pedophilia starts often before the onset of puberty; fixated pedophiles
# most often start abusing when they are themselves adolescents.

Very true.

# Assigning an adult orientation to them is meaningless. They don't like
# men or women, just kids. The fact that boys are targeted only reflects

Frontlines, "Monsters Among Us", November 10, 1992.  They interviewed
a number of child molesters, mostly with long, unpleasant histories
of molestation, and in some cases, murder.  Some were uninterested
in adults; others weren't that discriminating.  Some were only 
interested in males, including some as old as 13.  Others were
bisexual, going after girls and boys, raping teenagers, on occasion.

# the fact that men are almost always those afflicted with this disorder,
# and they identify with boys more easily. But just look at most publicized
# pedophilia cases, and you'll see that fixated pedophiles also target girls
# if the opportunity arises.

It depends on the fixated pedophile.  Most prefer boys.

# Now, REGRESSED pedophiles, that's another story. Since they HAVE developed
# an adult sexual orientation, and merely regressed into pedophilia, their
# object choice DOES reflect their sexuality.
# 
# Got any data on the relative victim gender incidences for regressed
# pedophiles?
# 
# Brian

I haven't seen any yet.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:19:26 GMT

In <1992Nov06.231922.28016@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: What is the difference between killing someone through an act of
>: commission and killing them by an act of ommission, John.  Not much,

>A big difference actually.  In the second case, you're not killing him at all.
>I'm still waiting for my $10,000 that you stole from me by an act of
>omission...

Wrong.

>: Another word to add to that list containing 'theft' that you
>: apparently are using different (i.e., libertarian standard) meanings
>: for instead of the meanings in english.

>Sorta like your use of "killing" above?  Using "theft" to describe taxation
>is like using "murder" to describe abortion:  Not legally precise, but used
>for an emotional effect.  In the case of "theft", the one doing the "stealing"
>(ie. the government) is the same entity determining the legal definitions.  How
>convenient.  You don't like the word "theft"?  Fine.  It doesn't make taxation
>any more justifiable.

Exactly right, and I don't buy the use of the word 'murder' for
abortion, either.  What I'm trying to point out to you (and have
sometimes tried to point out to the typical anti-abortion activist) is
that the emotional effect you get is the WRONG ONE, if your goal is to
try to convince anyone to agree with you or to get them to listen.
They hear the emotionally loaded words and think, "Well, here's
another fringe nutcake" and they stop listenting.

However, in the case where you let someone starve to death, you ARE
effectively killing them.  No distortion or emotional effect required.
If you deliberately do NOT provide assistance, you are accepting some
responsibility for the outcome of that.  This is so widely understood
that it even finds its way into song lyrics.  "If you choose not to
decide, you still have made a choice."

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:32:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.061205.112535@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.094404.20897@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>
>>Why not?  They elected Reagan twice.
>
>   Then why did it take 3 terms of Republicans to dismantle the towering robot
>   of the Democratic influence?

Amusing image of Volton pops into my mind.  Aah, the afternoon
cartoons of my youth!

>>
>>If you understood the meaning of socialist, you'd either (1) conclude
>>that the Democratic party is NOT socialist, or (2) conclude that the
>>Republican party IS socialist also.
>>
>  Gee, I thought the meaning of Socialist meant that the Gov't takes care of
>  everything, just like the Democratic philosophy. At least as a Republican, I
>  still have a choice.

Nope.  Democrats come in all stripes, from Conservative to Liberal.
Democrats tend to believe in a more activist government, but usually
because they see the market not providing socially good results
(pollution, health care, who gets into college, things like that).
Democrats, though they are generally to the "left" (of course, a
one-dimensional characterization of the political landscape is kinda
silly, but hey...) of Republicans, are still far to the "right" of
real socialists, like what you find in Europe.  (There was a
pre-election debate here a few weeks ago, between the College
Democrats and one of the campus Socialist groups.  A real brouhaha,
with the Socialists accusing the Dems of being part of the system, the
Dems calling the Socialists unrealistic.  The really fun part was when
the local Communist student group got up from the audience and
starting railing on both Dems and Socialists for being sell-outs to
capitalism.  The College GOP didn't show up to this one, though they
were invited.  The Libertarians couldn't be found, so no one invited
them.  I thought that would have made the evening, though.)

Re: choice & GOP.  Did you watch the convention in Houston?



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58293 talk.politics.mideast:21863
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ohm Salam)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:07:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
>cities:
>		Little Rock, Arkansas
>		Bagdad, Iraq
>Think about it.


Think about *what*, James?

What *exactly* are you saying here about President-Elect Clinton?

Common, don't you know he is pro-Israel?  Isn't every politician?

Anisa
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Four years of fun
Date: 13 Nov 1992 12:59:32 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov


	Now that the election is over and a Democrat will be in
office, it's time for four years of fun.  I can't wait to blame the
next natural disaster on Clinton.  I can't wait to see if Clinton's
faithful servant Al-Gore makes the White House kitchen kosher.  I
can't wait to slam Clinton for every broken promise, most of which are
impossible to fill.  I can't wait to see who the Democrats are going
to blame for the problems of the world.  
-- 
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:40:37 GMT

In article <13129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.162210.17260@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

># #Shall I repost the many postings from soc.motss trying to justify
># #adults having sex with 12 and even 8 year olds?

># 	Don't have to.
># 	There are people here in this newsgroup that find it acceptable
># 	to be sexually attracted to 11 year old girls...

>There are?  They are pretty depraved, aren't they?

That sort of depends.  Do they have a choice, or is it
biological/hereditary?  If it's b/h, then no, they aren't depraved.

Now, if they actually molest 11 year old girls, then they should be
jailed.  But to be *attracted* to 11 year old girls?  That isn't depraved,
necessarily, no.

Of course, you seem to have a major problem distinguishing between an
orientation and an action, Clayton, so I don't know why I'm bothering to
post this.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Wine Tariff
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:56:25 GMT

rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>
>The wine industry would not welcome high tariffs on French wines, 
>since they also export wines.  And they also sell a lot of wine to 
>people whose incomes depend on healthy international trade.

Quite true.  The NYT Business covered the California craze sweeping
parts of Germany right now, especially the south around Bavaria where
Munich is located.  Being primarily a beer market, a wave of TV shows
like "L.A. Law" and "90210" have sparked a boom in California wines
and upscale cafes are offering new dishes like "Sonoma Duck".  Note
that any retaliatory tariffs are EC-wide, despite the American tariff
targeting France's product.

>So far, I can't believe that a trade war is going to happen.

As of this morning, they've called in Arthur Dunkel the GATT moderator
to try and bring the two sides together, and maybe close the Uruguay
(sixth) round of GATT at the same time.  We've been hearing "so close"
since Spring, let's see ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!