HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: The Claytoon and the SF Gay Rights Parade (was Re: A Retraction)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:19:05 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <63949@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
@ Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
@ shun child molesters?

@ Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

>Did you watch the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco?  The NAMBLA marchers
>were booed and subjected to thrown trash all along the parade route.

>Would you consider that to be shunning child molesters?

	I saw that too when the NAMBLA delegation went by. I guess the
Claytoon should have shown up and watched the whole thing.

	And what excuse did he have to _not_ show up? Lack of parking?
He could have parked at the Richmond BART station and taken BART right
into SF for the day.

	I think that he would have found some of the men to be very
virile -- I wonder what would have happened had he seen some on the
men on parade -- like some men representing a C&W bar who dressed in
tight blue jeans and who wiggled their buns.

	And why did he complain about the "Dykes on Bykes"? Is he
afraid that his wife might become like one of them?

	And for someone who demagogues a lot about "Judeo-Christian
values", he seems unwilling to follow some of the teachings of the man
he presumably believes to have been God -- that one should love one's
enemies, turn the other cheek, give extra clothing to a robber, walk
even farther with a burden that a soldier has ordered one to carry,
etc. etc. -- he has been very unloving to homosexual people.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:22:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.132255.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
>the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
>abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
>that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
>situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
>for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
No they can't.

>1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.

>2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years)

False. The 1981 tax cut incresed personal and standard exemptions
and took millions of lower income people off the income tax rolls.
All tax rates were reduced, for both low and high income taxpayers.
Every American received a tax break from the Reagan tax reform.

>and cutting
>back on social programs,

False. Total spending on social programs did not decline.

>the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

False. All got richer.

>3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
>rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
>monumental deficit in the 90's.

Defense spending has been a shrinking share of GNP and of the Federal
budget since 1985.

>Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
>that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

20 million people (with 20 million new jobs) can't be wrong.
During the great Reagan boom, we added the equivalent of another
Germany to our GNP.  All this while reducing inflation from
double digits, and correspondingly reducing interest rates.

>dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: I demand
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:47:56 GMT

I do not consider Ms. Shore to be a generally recognized net-idiot as
the unnamed is. I no longer respond to anything he says the same way I
gave up on Mr. Schmidling, and I avoid reading any of this posts when
possible (although I occasionally bounce a key). I didn't realize that
this was going around again.

If Ms. Shore was in fact parodying that person, then I apologize to
her.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,misc.education
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: net 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:05:29 GMT

In <1992Aug6.143005.13922@anasaz> scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug4.212007.634@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>
>>What you call "the Occupied Territories" happens to be 
>>smack dab in the center of Israel.  Most of Jerusalem is 
>>in "the Occupied Territories".  Suburbs a short drive 
>>outside of Tel-Aviv are in the "Occupied Territories".
>>Where should Israel build new houses - on the Lebanese border?

>Oh, I see.  I've been wondering where to put in those extra trees,
>and how I could squeeze in a pool and guest house.  I should have
>realized: In my _neighbor's yard, silly!

Well, didn't we do this once ourselves - I believe it's called
Texas and California now. :-)

REB


>-- 
>But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
>playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
>To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
>Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
>Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:28:09 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <BsvJy5.sz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: 
:   You're right that regardless of the numbers the rich guy will
:   always find it easier to come up with the money.  So what?  The
:   goals of the flat tax proposals I've seen, are to reduce the 
:   tax-induced distortions in the economy (compare the shape of 
:   the curve in the above flat tax scheme to the current one), and
:   to simplify the whole problem of taxation, tax law, compliance,
:   etc.    

A lot of these "distortions" might be beneficial.  The home
mortgage deduction encourages home ownership, which means jobs
in the construction industry.  The credit for daycare makes
it more practical for single mothers to stay off welfare.
Unless national health insurance is enacted, a flat tax with
no deductions would be absurdly cruel for those suffering a
catastophic illness.   Even with national health insurance,
there will inevitably be some medical expenses not covered.
If I earn $30,000 and someone steals $10,000 from me, should I
still have to pay tax on the $10000 that exceeds the $20k
exemption?  That's the casualty loss deduction.
If I cannot deduct expenses, I am very unlikely to risk
starting my own business; are you against entrpreneurship?
Once you let me deduct expenses, you open the door to
questionable deductions and all your simplicity is lost.

It is very easy to achive simplicity, but not without
inflicting real pain on somebody.  

Every hard problem has a simple solution which is wrong.

-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39746 talk.abortion:31734 alt.politics.bush:1601
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:07:07 GMT
	<16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

   If one believes that the fetus
   is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
   precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
   rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
   fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
   assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
   human being.

The right to life you are referring to prohibits taking another
life.  However, it does not mandate giving anything up to save
the life of another.  That is why it is not illegal to refuse to
contribute to relief efforts in Somalia.

   The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
   that the fetus is NOT a human being.  If one accepts THIS assumption
   then the woman's right takes precedence and again no inconsistency is
   found.  The point is that there is no inconsistency in either argument.
   It simply comes down to which assumption about the fetus you are willing
   to accept.

From the above you see that an argument against reproductive
rights cannot be based on whether the fetus is a human being,
since one is not automatically responsible for the life of
every other human being.  One might argue that the mother is
the legal guardian of the fetus and has responsibilities for
that reason, but this is by no means clear cut.  For example,
the legal status of a child is very different from that of a
fetus: you can't take it as a dependant on your taxes, you
can't assign assets to it, etc. etc.

-david
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and big tits (was: Private Discrimination)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:54:56 GMT

In <archer.289@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <l7u1amINN9qp@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>>T. Archer writes:
>>|> Michael Polen writes:
>>|> 
>>|> >No, but what would you do if you were the one that was not allowed to
>>|> >get an education or take a job that could feed your family.  Or if
>>|> >you could not advance in your company because your last name starts
>>|> >with an "E?"
>>|> 
>>|> Then I wouldn't want to work there.  I have refused to work at more than one 
>>|> place because they insist on drug testing, and I will not put up with that 
>>|> kind of invasion of my privacy.
>>|> 
>>It isn't an invasion of privacy.  

>Sure it is.  What I do on my own time is none of the employer's business.  
>Note that I did not say he had no right to ask me to take a drug test.  He 
>can ASK me to do anything he wants.  I just refused.

>>You are not forced to do it.  You can do
>>just what you did.  On the other hand, if you want them to let you enter
>>their privacy, view their corporate trade secrets, have access to their 
>>personal personnel files, hold a part of the corporate future in your 
>>hands, etc., it seems like a fair trade.  

>I didn't think so.  That's why he had to find another bit-banger.

>>Working for a company is not a one-way proposition.  It is a mutual contract.
>>You have a right to expect the company will give you a resonable environment
>>to develop successfully or you can leave.  They have the right to an employee
>>that will put their full efforts to the success of the company or they can
>>refuse to keep/hire you.  What will you do when all the companies you
>>would like to work for require a drug test?  Give up drugs or eating?

>Start my own company.  
>-=-=-
>T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
>University of Tennessee

Didn't think Mr. Archer and I would be agreeing on too many things,
but here we do. Any company has a right to have a no drug user
policy, but where they go beyond the boundary is in having a drug
'testing' policy. If I seek employment at company X and they ask
me if I use drugs, I will tell them the truth, namely no I do not.
Now if they then say, well you won't mind taking this test, that's
when I head out the door. After all, I am taking 'their' word that
they will provide all the good things they say they do, so they
will simply have to take my word. To insist on a drug test means
that they don't believe me (and I suspect the reason would be that
they are a bunch of liars themselves). This, IMHO, is a damned
good indication that you really would not want to work for such
people.

REB

My parents didn't raise any liars.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:27:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <2d4m9xj.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <11693@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >There is a hostility to sex outside of marriage.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Considering sexual compatibility to be a major factor in a marriage,
> wouldn't it be STUPID not to have before marriage?

I'm always a little mystified by this one.  What is "sexual 
compatibility"?  If we were a species with dramatic different
sexual organs from individual to individual, I might understand
this claim.  But in fact, "sexual compatibility" takes place in 
the brain.  How you treat your spouse has a lot more to do with
sexual response than anything else.

> Or do ministers buy cars without a test drive?
> 
> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If cars and drivers reconfigured each other to meet each others
needs, probably.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:36:52 GMT

The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
spending.  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:25:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.210641.9317@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>I read an interesting editorial piece in the paper today.   It asserted
>that 'family values' is a code word for the issue of women's role in
>today's society.

Even more than that, it is a code word for ghettoizing and
marginalizing homosexuals.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Comments on the Republican Convention
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 00:11:44 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

I've left the Republican convention on while I've worked.  Here are some
questions and observations based on sporadic listening:

1. Several speakers have called for term limits on Congress.  Some of
these speakers have also attacked bureaucracy.  Yet, if terms were
limited, wouldn't this increase the power of the career bureaucrats?

2. Two common themes of speakers seemed to be (a) Bill Clinton has no
foreign policy experience, and (b) Ronald Reagan was great.  Did Ronald
Reagan have any foreign policy experience when he ran?  Are Republicans
saying that they should have voted for Carter in 1980?

3. Pat Buchanan(sp?) said that Hillary Clinton compared marriage to
slavery.  This is rather misleading.  In the article where she made
that comparison, she was writing about the legal status of children.
She observed that, historically, there have been four classes of
people in the United States who were legally under the control of
others: children, slaves, Indians on reservations, and wives (for
much of this country's history, women were legally much like children,
with their husband's permission being required for many things).
This is hardly the kind of radical feminist stuff that Buchanan was
trying to imply that she said.

4. If Congress if to blame for all this spending and the deficit, how
come (a) President Bush has never submitted a balanced budget, and
(b) Congress has actually approved *less* spending than Bush has
asked for?

--Tim Smith
From: 6500alh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Archie Holmes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Hillary's articles? Help!!
Keywords: Clinton, election, family, children
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:35:30 GMT
Distribution: talk

Hello.  I am new to this newsgroup so I apoligize if this has been
already discussed.  The Republicans at the dramatic presentation they
call a convention keep referring to two articles that Hillary
Clinton wrote in the mid 70's I think.  Does anyone have the exact
references to them?  Thanks in advance.

Archie Holmes
6500alh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39115 alt.flame:12004
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:35:34 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <Aug.12.07.31.03.1992.24980@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Xref: exucom.exu.ericsson.se talk.politics.misc:38765 alt.flame:15067
>Path: exucom.exu.ericsson.se!texsun!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!news2me.ebay.sun.com!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!romulus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
>Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
>Message-ID: <Aug.12.07.31.03.1992.24980@romulus.rutgers.edu>
>Date: 12 Aug 92 11:31:04 GMT
>References: <1992Aug6.015505.26437@uwm.edu> <1992Aug06.215151.22116@microsoft.com> <11669@optilink.UUCP> <1992Aug12.011130.4069@udel.edu>
>Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
>Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
>Lines: 14

>In article <1992Aug12.011130.4069@udel.edu> carroll@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:

>[to Clayton Cramer]

>> If you come back to reality, and look at the normal homosexuals [...]
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I would submit, rather, that it is Mark C. Carroll who needs to return
>to reality: the term "normal homosexual" is in fact an oxymoron.
>-- 
>The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>this would hold such views???       ||

Oh, no, not again...
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Police Force (was Re: Nationa
Date: 14 Aug 1992 22:53:33 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 20842@cs.cornell.edu, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

a lot of "sky is falling" hysteria....

> 
> >THIS IS NOT A JOKE.  According to Frank Wolf's office, VA Representative, 
> >10th District, it is currently in the Subcommittee on Civil and 
> >Constitutional Rights.  If it passes this subcommittee, it goes to the 
> >Committee on the Judiciary, and then to the floor of the House of 
> >Representatives.

And there it must pass by a 2/3's majority.  Then it goes on to the
Senate etc etc etc...

> 
> Oh, big deal.  Amendments are proposed all the time.  Most of them
> never make it out of committee.  The original 10 (Bill of Rights) were
> distilled from 145 proposed amendments.  (Unfortunately, I don't know
> how many amendments have been proposed since 1789, but I'm sure it's
> more than a few.)

Ahem, about two years ago, I did a report on constitutional amendments.
There have been over 10,000 proposed amendments.  The funniest one that
I remember was one that proposed changing the name of the country to The 
United States of Earth.  :^D  


Bob De Guc
voter


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39554 ca.politics:6760
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:29:47 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.173249.23563@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <11706@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # Imagine if the Republican Party Convention upcoming had people
# # holding up signs for the KKK, or Aryan Nations.  "By not completely
# # ostracizing racists, the Republican Party keeps the fringe of
# # 'acceptable' political expression on the fringe.  If racists are
# # completely ostracized, then the people attacking racism will go
# # after Christians (or pro-lifers or small business owners)."
# # Do you see the silliness of this argument?  Would you consider the
# # presence of such signs and groups at the RNC to be evidence of
# # something terribly sick?
# 
#   Um, just what exactly do you consider Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannan
# to be? Where *have* those howls of protest been? And why hasn't Helms 

I asked about racists.  You tell me about Pat Robertson and Pat
Buchanan -- both of whom have substantial popular support in the
U.S.

# been ostracized? The religious right, my friend, *is* a fringe group 

No, they are probably 20% of the American public.  (Largely a non-voting
block, fortunately).

# which is virally fascist. Where is that indignity and outrage from the

Fascist?  Fascists oppose individual rights and capitalism.  Buchanan
is virulently pro-capitalist, as is Robertson.  There are aspects of
their programs that put a low premium on individual rights with
respect to sexuality (much as the gay community opposes individual
rights when it comes to business), but to call them fascist is absurd.

# Republican party that you so piously demand from the Gay community?
# 
# 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ