HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:11:06 GMT

[]
Claytoon, you're a lying pig with a marginal grasp on
reality.  Every time I hear a news report about a sniper
in California gunning random people down in the street
or about some other psycho committing a mass murder, I
listen for your name.  Get some help.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Independents for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:53:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

I am!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:55:26 GMT

<1992Aug14.141438.26592@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <Bsz71p.2A8.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>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.
...
>> Anyone who would
>> challenge someone else for quoting a newspaper story that
>> most people in the U.S. have read has lost touch with reality.
>
>I haven't seen any newspapers which have suggested that President Bush
>supports a ban on "all" abortions.  

Yeah?  So?

>                                    Ron Echeverri's alleged UPI
>story seems to make that suggestion, which is false.

So take it up with UPI.  Also, reread the story quoted above.  The Republican
subcommittee passed the plank. The endorsement of Bush's policy can be
taken two ways:  Either they thought Bush approved, or there is an implied
"and" before "endorsing", as in they passed they plank AND they also
endorsed Bush's position.  Either way, your gripe is not with Mr.
Echeverri.

>                                                      President Bush 
>supports exceptions for rape, incest, 

So he's into punishement.  I guess it helps his "tough guy" image.

>                                      and the life of the mother. Either 
>Ron Echeverri concocted his story, or UPI is a very dumb news organization
>for making such an obvious error about Bush's stance on abortion.

Or the subcommittee has some inside info on Bush's *real* policy.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ai260@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. Fisher)
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:12:32 GMT


On: Sun Aug  9 02:59:54 1992, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
says:
> In article <1992Aug5.201238.7075@newshost.unh.edu>
> pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes: 
> >jb> == Jim Burris
> 
> >
> >jb> Aren't many small businesses exempt from the minimum wage laws?
> >
> >They have to be pretty small, and (therefore) don't employ that many
> >people. The people who write about such things say that about 85-90% of
> >workers are ``covered'' by minimum wage laws at the federal or state
> >level. (I think that's an obfuscation however; many people most
> >directly affected by such laws are those *not* working, and hence not
> >``covered.'')
> 
> There are two minimum wage rates, one for agricultural workers, and
> a higher one for other workers. The military is not covered, workers
> in prison industries are not covered, and self employed persons are 
> not covered. All others are.
> 
> Gary
Service workers, ie, those who work for tips (waiters,
waitresses, etc.) are also not covered. There's also a minimum
which the company must gross before it becomes subject to
minimum wage laws. (I can't remember what this amount it is, so I
won't say.)

---
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:                                                               :
:                It's not a supply-side problem.                :
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:                            - J F -                            :
:              Bitnet:   ai260%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm     :
:              Internet: ai260@cleveland.freenet.edu            :
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40165 ca.politics:6860 ba.politics:4565
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:49:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11776@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># Those outrageous displays are in a gay pride parade.  Not in the Macy's
># Thanksgiving day parade, not in the St. Patrick's Day parade, but the 
># gay pride parade, where we dress up in our party clothes and go celebrate.
>
>Yup.  And you wonder why straight society is offended.

Nope.  I cannot figure out why they are offended.  Then, after watching
the one sided news coverage, it becomes more clear.



># 1. NAMBLA has not ever been given anything but a cold reception in these
># parades.
>
>How about giving them the boot out?

I am not on the parade committee.  I cannot do that.


># 2. I dress up in leather to go to the gay pride parade.  I do not go in
># drag, I am not effeminate, I am not a child molester, I do not dress like
># a cowboy, or a construction worker, or a heterosexual.  The reason that
># these are stereotypes is that you attributing characteristics of a few
># homosexuals to all homosexuals.
>
>Great.  You fill one stereotype; other gays fill the other stereotypes.
>Not smart, if the stereotypes are false and cause problems.

Don't tell me how to live my life.  The stereotypes are false, the costumes
are not.  Why can't you let people live their own lives without judging
everything that they do?




>Shall I start posting some of the garbage that appears in soc.motss
>on a regular basis?  Say, Le JoJo?


Joseph's postings are not for you, who find homosexuality inherently
"disgusting".  They are for homosexuals, who share context and understanding
about what he speaks.  They are wonderful postings.

They are just not targetted for you.  It is the same thing as the Mapplethorpe
photos.  They are beautiful photographs, however, the subject matter is not
for everyone.

Why do you insist on forcing your morality on everyone?  You can keep it
for yourself, I don't care.  I just don't want any for myself.



>I've already posted materials showing this sort of semantic gamesmanship
>about "molestation."

All the gamesmanship is coming from you.  The rest of us make sure to define
our terms.


>You admit that the stereotypes are played up fully in parades,
>and then complain about prejudice.  What's wrong?

The people in the parades are individuals dressing up in "play" clothes.
The stereotypes are the assumptions that people like you make based on their
clothing.  Based on my appearance, you would have assumed all sorts of 
false things about me.  The stereotypes are not on our side, they are in your
mind.


>No, the comparison would be if an Irishman engaged in behavior that
>appeared to glorify the actions of the Irish Republican Army.  Yes,
>I know that the Sinn Fein marches in St. Patrick's Day parades 
>back East, and it horrifies, disgusts, and angers me.


Then why aren't you ranting against the irish all the time?


FWA
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Date: 21 Aug 92 07:53:00 GMT

`10%' ???  What the Heck?

We already paid = 14% = of each '91 tax-dollar for National Debt.

And as best I recall, that's also been bumped up higher for 
'92 tax-dollars as well. 

So what's the deal? Is Bush sounding the-bugle-call-of-retreat 
from-fiscal-responsibility?? You made a real clear clarion call 
there George.

How about cutting back defense, space stations, supercolliders, and 
other non-essential projects until such a time as =no= taxes need be 
paid for federal-debt. And if you think these things are essential,
then explain to me how the heck spending can be cut. Credit don't
cut it, either. 

Borrowed funds now are only higher taxes later. So any new project is
damned expensive since we're already $4.5 Trillion tax-dollars in the
hole, and headed to $10 Trillion by 2000. Can you afford your taxes
doubling in 8 years just to service the debt? For the crooks in DC
that is the easiest way to Balance the Budget. Paying down the debt 
is quite a different matter. 

Of course, =if= I were working for a company supplying stuff for
government and my income were coming out of some other stupid sucker's
taxes, I might be pushing "how absolutely essential" my company is to
the US, the World, and the Future, too. After all it's just a damn ball-
game right. "Screw the other team -- the only thing important is that 
my party, or my company wins -- and besides, if they aren't as good at
winning as we are -- fuck 'em. Those dupes are all evil dumb dopin'
sinners anyhow. They shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Yeah! 
=Competition= beats =Cooperation= with the rest of America any day."  
... =If= I were in cahoots with government, that is.

The allegiance of those who are connected to government (either directly, 
through parties, through business, or through pay-offs) becomes distorted 
in exactly the same way that the allegiance of those in a nation or family 
becomes fixed. No difference.  

Instead of a "10%-block" how about a set of blocks reflecting major 
departments and programs so that I as a taxpayer can check off where
I want my money spent. Say 10 major divisions, in which I can specify
how much I want to go to each by percent. So that the Rulers in DC really
know where I think the money should be spent -- or not spent. If they
have to work from available funds they'll for damn sure learn how to
budget. 

Just so there's no doubt about where I stand personally -- George Bush, 
I still think you're a liar and a puppet, and Bill Clinton ditto. 

Here's the miracle of partisan-politics -- if you breed an elephant and 
a jack-ass, whatcha get is $4 trillion pounds of pork. 

 /              \      |      /  Balanced Budget Phooey! \
(  Stephen Tice  )  -- S --  (    Needs-Only-Spending     )
 \              /      |      \   =NO TAXES for DEBT=    /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: On having a mixed political outlook
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:09:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.230512.23021@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.171013.42228@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug9.200531.22387@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug8.132113.42211@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>>I [am] culturally conservative and liberal on
>>>>economics.
>>>>
>>>>Does this ring a bell with anyone?
>>> 
>>> I don't know what this means but I believe the Nazis had this
>>> philosophy.  Sorry, just had to point that out.
>
>I disagree. Culturally, the nazis were radicals, overthrowing 
>established religious, cultural, educational and political institutions.
>You cannot be a totalitarian and *not* be a radical, since 
>totalitarianism implies complete control of all societal organizations.
>
I'm not aware of any systematic overthrow of religion in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps a few church leaders who spoke out were jailed or killed.  As
for the overthrow of cultural and political institutions, well if course
they got rid of these.  Any culturally conservative group would have.
After all, these were the culture and politics of the ultra-liberal
Wiemar Republic.  As for education, there was no tradition of broad
based education in Germany.  Rather it was education for a select few.
So to sum up, the Nazis were culturally conservative.  In fact, this is
the major reason that they initially had a broad base of support in
Germany.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:49:52 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>But didn'tcha know, Rocker...

>The Y chromosome clearly confers unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge.
>That's why we should listen and obey our men sans questions.
>Similarly, all those female hormones that wash through pre-menopausal
>women interferes with her clear thinking and right judgement.

Shit, I forgot again.

Thanks for reminding me, Elizabeth.  Much obliged.

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:02:21 GMT

In article <ac#n28l.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.140250.416@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:

>>...Phool... [Phil Ronzone]
>>...Claytoon... [Clayton Cramer]

	But:

>...Melissa...
>...Miranda...
>...Monica...
>...Moronica...
>...Mincebrain...
>...Melody...
>...Marianne...

	Phil Ronzone, you're worse than I am!!!

	:-) :-) :-)

/Loren
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Let's get real about AIDS shall we?
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:09:50 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <4600@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	The War on Drugs strategy must be multifaceted. The attack must
>occur from supply to customer. There is also an education component of
>this strategy as well, as your kids (or just "kids") attest. But this
>strategy must be as deep in American society as it is broad.
>Individuals, families, communities, states, and the federal government
>must all contribute to eliminate this scourge.

Mr. Chuck, the "drug problem" is a government created problem, caused by
people sticking their noses in where they don't belong and aren't wanted.
The "War on Drugs" is not that at all, nor can it ever be - it is an attack
on the fundamental right of people in this country to privacy.

I will not, nor have not supported any strategy formulated by the you, the feds
nor anyone else which involves prison terms for victimless crimes, boot camps
for the crime of ingesting something that the government deems unhealthy, and
wars of agression against countries which may not share our views on the
subject, as well as peasant farmers trying to make a living.

Your war is lost, Mr. Chuck. Why don't you go find something useful for
the government to worry about.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: John.Tipton@iphase.UUCP (John Tipton)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: clinton's economic pl
Date: 12 Aug 92  07:05:00 EST

It seems like the `Rich' always want to grab all the marbles.  They have accountants and lawyers to make sure they don't pay taxes but make a killing off the `Government'.  They have security teams to monitor the common man from dirtying there schedule.  You not only want the `Uncle Sam' to enforce contracts but protect your rights to lasse faire but you want even more to take your `aide to America program' and take your com- panies to Mexico so you can rape two birds with one stone, and now you want a saf
e haven where you don't have to give back to the system that raised you.  Sounds like this `All American' would cheat his own mother. Maybe he supports the Bush-Iraq scam because publicly `John Bull' is a patriot, but privately he has made `big bucks' from all the money he and Uncle George have procurred from sells of sensative arms to Saddam Hussen.  Of course he waves `old glory' and preaches God Bless America, but has he or any of his ever done more then that famous bastion of Con servative Americanism;
 Ronald Reagan?  No not ever.  Maybe his uniform was some cosmetic make-up. My belief is that there comes a time when even the towers of Bastile must come down.  I say build this country, and stop flim-flaming your mother!

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.010931.6775@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

> Obviously, the right to life argument, when used in favor of the fetus, 
> would only apply if you believed the fetus to be a human life.  I, for one,
> suspect that it is not - it is probably some form of canine or arachnid.

A member of the human species is actually a dog or a spider?  That is the 
funniest thing I've read all week.  You're in desperate need of a biology 
lesson.  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:34:07 GMT

In article <Bt3EtF.Ct2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug16.191500.30885@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write:
>>"Witholding assistance" a serious crime?  What can you be charged with
>>for not applying the Heimlich maneuver to a person that chokes to death?
>>For not rendering CPR to someone who collapses from a heart attack?  For
>>not donating an organ to someone who will die without it?
>
>No, Larry, you can't be charged in the cases you give examples of but
>you certainly can be charged with negligence (even the negligent
>treatment of animals) depending on the circumstances.  For example, when
>parents refuse to provide food for their children they can be (and
>sometimes are) guilty of neglect.  If the child dies they are
>responsible.  If withholding food isn't withholding assistance from
>someone then I guess we have very different definitions of assistance.
>I think that my example is more in line with the mother/child
>relationship we are talking about.
>
     A parent has a specific previous responsibility to that child.
What appears to have been suggested is that two strangers have some
sort of legal responsibility toward each other to come to the others
aid;  a legal responsibility that would allow the government to forcibly
coerce them, or punish them afterwards if they do not comply.
     Negligence implies a previous responsibility.  Simply being present
does not imply that your inaction constitutes negligence.  You must be
involved in some other way than mere proximity to constitute legal
obligation.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39433 talk.abortion:31541 alt.politics.bush:1429
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 13:09:58 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug13.183438.25997@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
>and that all of them are pro-choice.  
>
>Doug Holtsinger

After about 5 of these sillinesses, I gotta wonder:

Doug, don't you think it's pretty damned narcissitic of you to figure 
all women don't think?

Women don't need Mr. Bush's opinion, and they don't need Chris's, and they
truly don't need yours.  Rather than bash Chris, why not figure out what 
pill *you* are pushing and give it a rest, eh?

Adrienne Regard




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:08:55 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Young man, how dare you insinuate that "Clean for Gene" has anything
>> to do with "Tail Gunner Joe!"
>> 
>> [--standard lemon-harangue pie deleted--]

> But The YoungLady Was Worrying about The HORRORS
> of "Clean for Gene" McCarthyism! What with all 
> those PsuedoHippies Wallowing Around the street 
> trying to Elect some TaxAndSpend Deomocrat
> bent on Destroying WholeSomeAndTraditonalFamilyValues
> and Running the Economy into the Toilet, and KowTowing
> to Foreign Dictators....

Ah, I see what you mean: our WholeSomeAndTraditonal
Republicans only intend to run our economy into the
little house in the back yard instead of the toilet.

Sounds wholesome and traditional to me!!!

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:50:48 GMT

In article <11782@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.235549.8542@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
@ In article <11727@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
@ >The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
@ >Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
@ >themselves as influence your perception of them?"

@ More likely the psychiatrist would lean over and ask:  "Tell me,
@ Clayton, how long have you had this obsession with homosexuality?"

>Since it became clear that the homosexual community can't bear
>to tell NAMBLA where to go.

	The shrink would now say: "Clayton, you have this obsession
with connecting homosexuality with NAMBLA. I wonder what childhood
experiences you have had with men that have given you this obsession
with men seducing boys. Were you ever seduced as a child? Please help
bring such things out in the open, because if you let this obsession
control your life, very bad things can happen. I have heard reports of
a lot of people on a nationwide computer bulletin board getting very
annoyed with your incessant harping on this issue. And might your
invoking of the Bible on the supposed wickedness of homosexuality also
reflect your personal obsessions, since I've never heard of anyone who
does not practice _some_ cafeteria theology."


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush