HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shibumi@joes.garage.com (Kenton A. Hoover)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:24:43 GMT
Reply-To: shibumi@joes.garage.com
Organization: Joe's Garage, San Francisco, KA

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In the U.S., heterosexual IV drug abusers are rising fast.  (Most
>of AIDS patients in the U.S. are still homosexuals, of course).

IV drug users don't tend to live as long after contracting HIV as
other reasonably healthy individuals.  Has to do with existing damage
to their bodies from drug use, plus fewer long-term drug users tend to
be gainfully employed, have health insurance, etc.  This might skew the
statistics somewhat.

>Have I been tested?  Only as a consequence of donating blood.  Of
>course, I do something terribly perverse: monogamy.  My wife shares
>in this perversion.  We have nothing to worry about, unless 
>some AIDS-tainted blood slips through the screening system, and we
>are suddenly in need of blood for an unplanned operation.  But
>then again, that's another argument for mandatory testing, isn't it?

Due to the several month 'window' that exists between the time of 
infection with HIV and the production of antibodies, the blood supply
is still at risk until a cure can be found.  

>The homosexual community brought AIDS on themselves, by their
>promiscuity and complete lack of concern about STDs.

Like the hetrosexual community brought syphilis or chlaymydia upon itself?
Like the people of Europe brought plague upon themselves?  You can do 
better than that, Clayton -- you aren't that poor a thinker.

The homosexual community has managed to greatly slow the progress of HIV thru 
the population.  On the other hand, in the hetrosexual community, HIV spreads 
by leaps and bounds.  In Africa, one could argue that HIV is the 'hetrosexual'
disease, based on its explosive growth in the population.  Denial that HIV
is a general problem, of the entire population, is a major reason for its
spread.

| Kenton A. Hoover                                                            |
| P.O. Box 882643                                             +1 415 957 3614 |
| San Francisco, Kalifornia 94188-2643                shibumi@joes.garage.com |
|==============442.075+100=146.850+=444.625+131.8=440.900+114.8===============|
|       Said Young James, In my opinion, there's nothing in this world        |
|     beats a '52 Vincent and a redhaired girl.  Now Nortons and Greeves      |
|    won't do.  They don't have a soul like a Vincent '52.  He reached for    |
|    her hand and he gave her the keys.  He said I don't have any further     |
|    use for these.  I see angels on Ariels in leather and chrome swooping    |
|    down from Heaven to carry me home.  He gave her one last kiss and died   |
|                         And he gave her his Vincent to ride.                |
|                 "1952 Vincent Black Lightning" by Richard Thompson          |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Ooohh..... Yer gonna get it now!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:45:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <archer.220@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <Bs4LJB.8q4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>
>>veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>
>>if you are even the least bit politically awake, you'd know that not 
>>everything the government is allowed to do is spelled out verbatum in the 
>>Constitution...

>Um, yes it is.  This is why we HAVE a Constitution. It's just being ignored.

Very true - that's the whole point of the 10th Amendment; any powers not
specifically enumerated to the federal government belong to the people and 
the states. On the other hand, if a right of the people is not enumerated 
in the Constitution, it can still exist - that's the point of the 9th 
Amendment. This is why an amendment was needed to collect an income tax.
-- 
John Switzer               | "Gammera is really neat,
                           | Gammera's full of turtle meat, 
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | We all love you, Gammera."
jrs@netcom.com             | ---MST 3000
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36406 ca.politics:6094 ba.politics:3833
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:09:10 GMT

In article <MATT.92Jul21110933@physics2.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul21.143843.23744@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
|>pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Douglas C. Pearson) writes:
|>
|>> Is it conceivable, folks, that Mr. Perot is going to return to the 
|>|>> campaign after these raving mad supporters of his get him on the
|>ballot in  
|>> all 50 states, just like they were commissioned to do?
|>
|>He is not going to get on the ballot in all 50 states.  I don't know
|>about the requirements elsewhere, but here in California, his
|>supporters cannot put him on the ballot without his active
|>participation.
|>
|>In California, a candidate must fill out an application requesting to
|>be put on the ballot; petitions are not enough.  The California
|>Secretary of State has already announced that since Perot has said he
|>is no longer a candidate, she will not put him on the ballot.

I would not be so sure. Perot has said that he will not ask to have his
name removed from the ballot. I have not heard him say that he will not
continue to go through the motions required to get onto the other
ballots.

The California Secretary of State is likely to end up in jail if she
does not wait for an official written request from Perot to cancel the
process of having his name go on the ballot.

Just because Perot says that he is not running for President does not
mean that he does not want to be on the ballot.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:13:45 GMT

From article <1992Jul29.084212.27404@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach):
> From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>>>Okay, here's my beef with the Libertarian Party: their hypocrisy in claiming
>>>to be an independent, different, totally new third way around the two big
>>>parties -- and then spending all their time posing as rabid right-wingers
>>>finding Eeeeeeeeevil socialists under every bed.

We also find evil state capitalists (state-subsidized corporatists) under
the bed.

>>
>>It's not necessary to be right-wing to despise socialism, just
>>commitment to freedom.
> 
> Whose freedom? Where is freedom when your lack of resources
> compels you to virtually sell yourself into slavery to those
> who have "chosen" to be born to rich parents? Good education,
> good health and good housing do a lot to give people freedom,
> and one way of providing these things is through the state -
> that's socialism. I agree that there are problems with
> socialism, and I would not describe myself as a socialist, but
> I do at least recognise why people are attracted to it, and do
> not dismiss them as Eeeeeeevil.
> 
> Matthew Huntbach


Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under socialism, it is exactly the opposite.

	       - Aldous Huxley (I think)


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35695 soc.men:13670 soc.women:14049 alt.censorship:6225 misc.legal:14744
From: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:13:08 GMT
Reply-To: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Organization: International Computers Limited, Reston, Virginia, USA

In article <1992Jul19.211814.3023@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Here's the passage (from Richard A. Posner, Law and Literature, a
>Misunderstood Relation, 1988, Harvard University Press, p.98):
>
>     The key is found in their brilliant plots and dramatic devices,
>     in their poetry, and in the largeness of spirit which enabled
>     Shakespeare to breathe humanity into the most incredible
>     monsters-as OTHELLO THE BLACK MISCEGENATOR [emphasis mine],
>     Shylock the Jewish usurer...
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]

>                        Although nauseating little statements like "the
>black miscegenator" display the racism at the heart of law and
>economics, 

Just curious:

	Why is it that you do not also call Posner an anti-Semite?
	
-- 
Stephen Carlson           | ICL OFFICEPOWER Center    | In theory, theory and
scc@rlgvax.reston.icl.com | 11490 Commerce Park Drive | practice are the same.
..!uunet!rlgvax!scc       | Reston, VA  22091         |    (703) 648-3300
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: >>  SSX  <<   ( Screw the Status Quo )
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:40:56 GMT

In article <01GMYWT6FVC0001TMD@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
(Stephen Tice) writes:

|>Let me recap the points from the Senate hearings I cited before in which
|>the DOE detailed the SSC cost estimates:
|>
|>    $8.3 billion to construct the SSC (target completion 1999)
|>    $910 million for the detectors (not listed by in the DMN story)

This is part of the 8.3 billion TOTAL cost. But adding it on is only to
be expected from the man who bandied about terrabytes per nanosecond.

It's not even a cost that the US govt is expected to meet. The rules of
the game are, to join an international collaboration, you have to build
and pay for a detector.

|>    $313 million per year operating costs following construction
|>     (this in constant '91 dollars, over a 25 year projected lifespan,
|>      also not listed by The News)

That is the cost of maintaining a HEP physics group, the running costs
are to be met by closing down an existing HEP lab. This is merely money
being transfered.

|>... which comes to about $17 billion if things go as expected -- in other

Of course if the machine had a 100 year lifespan then Mr Tice would tot
the cost up to 30 billion, if 200 years 60 billion etc, 

|>words a "Rosy Scenario." The DOE testimony also included contingency
|>estimates *much more* costly.

No the 8.7 billion figure is the pessimistic scenario, the optimistic
scenario is 4 billion. HERA was built to the cost estimates, would have
been built on time too but for reunification causing some of the funding
to be delayed. LEP was built on time and on schedule. 

|>BECAUSE if I don't question (and check out) the pork-barrel projects in my
|>own backyard -- what right would I have to question the other Multi-Billion
|>-Dollar programs??

Come off it Mr sour grapes ex-Perot supporter, your interest has nothing
to do with saving taxpayers money, you just thought you could get baqck
at some of the people who made fun of you when you were touting the
Perot line. Your tactics still havent changed, long posts full of quotes
which are either irrelevant to or actually disprove your case. You
turned out to be wrong about Perot and wrong about the technical
feasibility of the SSC, now you retreat to vague hand waving predjudices
that assume that every large project must inevitably overrun it's
budget.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Tsongas Economic Plan
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:49:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.190702.25414@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <14efviINNaif@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>>I think one aspect of the Tsongas Economic plan that defintely needs
>>to be returned to the national debate is Tsongas' call for a cut
>>in the capital gains tax, favored by both Bush and Perot but opposed by
>>Clinton.  Has Clinton changed his mind in favor of it now?   
>
>I believe that Clinton has endorsed a targetted capital gains tax
>reduction, similar to what Tsongas advocated (but not at all like the
>'give money to the rich' untargetted plan that George Bush has
>repeatedly called for).  

It is also similar to what Perot was talking about (of course, he was
suppose to put it in a position paper which never occured).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:00:19 GMT

In article <nlkrssk@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

> I don't think that white heterosexual males are inherently bad people.  I
> just think that they have much less understanding of discrimination than
> any other group.

I'm sure most white heterosexual males _with disabilities_ would disagree.

What was someone saying about the wide-brush variety of painting going on
around here?

   ---   Rick

       *** Smash the State!  (and have a _nice_ day!) ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:54:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.192831.13488@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <Brwo8M.MFz@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
>>    More ca-ca.   It's apples and oranges.   A vote for a balanced budget
>>    amendment is a vote for something abstract.   A vote for a cutting a 
>>    spending program is a vote for something quite real and concrete.  
>>    Only a moron would think these are comparable.  

Yes, they are different.  But it is wrong to say a balanced budget amendment
is "abstract". The Bill of Rights is "abstract" is you want to look at it
a certain way.  But it has a very real and concrete influence on
Governmental behavior. 

The Balanced Budget Amendment, because it would be permanent and beyond
simple legislative override, would have a powerful and concrete impact
on the budget process. Consider this: if we had a balanced budget amendment
over the last 30 years, would we have had 29 unbalanced budgets?
Would we have been 1 for 30?

>True, but this seems to imply that 280 Congressman are actually for a 
>balanced budget amendmant and just couldn't bring themselves to vote for 
>specific cuts.
>
>How it actually worked is the various congressmen got together and
>said 'you are in a tough re-election race, so you vote for the balanced
>budget amendment, I have a shoo-in election so I'll vote against'.  The
>whole thing was basically a political game--the one thing congress is good
>at.

This is the way the Democratic House has handled it for the last decade.
Every vote has failed, miraculously, by incredibly slim margins.
It lost by 9, I believe, in June, and when Tip O'Neill was speaker,
it lost by about 5 (this was in the early 80's). This is a bill that
has consistently had more co-sponsors than needed to pass, and
yet the Democratic leadership has bottled it up in many sessions,
preventing a vote.  In the Senate this year, Mitchell squelched a vote
once the House defeated it.  Gramm's attempt to force a vote failed,
suggesting that far fewer than 67 Senators were really for it.
(e.g. Bentsen, who claims to be for it, but helped squelch the vote).

Still, despite the effort by the House and Senate leadership to posture
on this and to kill it quietly and with the minimum of damage,
it is instructive to note this:
The best predictor of how a Congressional Representative
voted on the BBA in June was how much of a big spender he or she was.
More than 90 of the House's 100 top spender's (rated by NTU) voted
against the Balanced Budget Amendment.
So when it comes to actually voting there *was* a connection between
the abstract and the conrete.

>
>SEH
--------------
P. McGuinness


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Demopublican or Republicrat ?
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:38:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.160011.11244@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>However, Mr. Sanders had previously been very active in Vermont
>>politics as a Democrat and had developed much name recognition as
>>such prior to deciding to seek the Senate seat as an independent.
>>Libertarians are not willing to pretend they're Republicrats just to
>>get elected to lower office first.

>... as they conclusively demonstrated with their '88 presidential candidate.

Exactly.  Surprising, however, thatan opportunist like you would even
comprehend the possibility of not sacrificing principle to expediency.
Maybe in a few years you'll comprehend the meaning of ethics, even.

-- 
Frisbee players are ultimate lovers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36557 ca.politics:6136 ba.politics:3872
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:54:14 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <nsjdou0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <+4mmj4h.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #2. Both Clayton and myself (I don't know about the others) state
# #   repeatedly that we believe in live and let live, and that you have
# #   every right to your sexual preference. We ask for the same in
# #   return.
# 
# No, you ask for the right to exclude us from society.

No, we ask for the right of individuals to exclude you from their
society.  If we are just a poor, ignorant minority, this should be
no great loss, right?

# #   But, are you going to have your cake or are you going to eat it?
# #   If you talk about oppression, then what is your problem if I
# #   mention a poll show that a majority of people dislike/disapprove
# #   of homosexuality? If the poll is full of shit, then you ain't
# #   oppressed, right?
# 
# I am not oppressed by the majority.  I am oppressed by a very hateful
# and vocal minority.
# 
# FWA

Why, then, do you need these laws passed, if the majority already
agrees with you?  Are you suggesting that a "hateful and vocal
minority" owns most of the rental housing and businesses in America?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:47:50 GMT

In article <11465@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> I'm always amazed at the straw men the AIDS compassion brigade
|> brings out.  I recognize that the homosexual community doesn't 
|> understand or believe in faithful monogamy (perhaps because that
|> community can't do it); but there's a lot of people out here who
|> manage it just fine.

First of all, Clayton, I am not part of the homosexual community and
I do in fact believe in faithful monogamy.  Your post was a followup
to _my_ comments, so I'm not sure how you got off in the direction of
the "homosexual community".  I posed no straw man.  Yes, you can label
me as "compassionate" toward anyone who gets AIDS.  I don't care how
they got it.  All I know is that I am at risk, albeit a very small one,
just as you are.  Our children are at risk.  Can you guarantee that your
children will not have sex with anyone until they are married?  And if 
they do, can you be sure your daughter's first lover is not a bi-sexual,
or your son's lover has not slept with an IV drug user even unknowingly?
Are you aware that you are at risk if your dentist uses the "wipe clean"
method to clean dental instruments?  Do you know that if you get AIDS
that way, you may give it to your wife?  Wouldn't you like to find a cure
or a vaccine so you don't have to worry about yourself, your wife, and
your family members?  Would you be callous if one of your family members
engaged in some high risk activity through youthfull experimentation and
then got AIDS?  "Well, guess you deserved it son".  You use the label
"the AIDS compassion brigade" as if compassion is a disdainfull label.
I would suggest that even those without compassion should support finding
a way to eliminate AIDS if for no other reason than out of self-interest.
It is a lot more complicated than "fags get AIDS so I don't have to 
worry".

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35139 alt.politics.elections:8801
From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:41:18 GMT
	<1992Jul21.192940.20241@dscomsf.desy.de>
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
In-reply-to: hallam@zeus02.desy.de's message of 21 Jul 92 19:29:40 GMT


You can't usually sue for specific performance of personal service contracts,
because that would be indentured servitude. You can only sue for damages.
Therefor, expect the suit against Perot ( which is asking for specific
performance as remedy, not damages ) to be tossed out.


--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:24:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.194054.15208@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Actually, Bill Clinton does drink, but only very occasionally
>(according to his own statement on Arsenio Hall).  He didn't try
>alcohol until he was in college.  During the interview with Arsenio
>Hall, Arsenio said something to the effect of, "And you don't drink,
>either . . . " and Bill corrected him, stating that he would
>occasionally have A drink or a glass of wine.

But he forgot to mention that he doesn't swallow :)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton