HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 15:05:21 GMT

In <lbafldINNbn7@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, Jim Graham writes:

>aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>|> And, besides this, there is another problem: How to apply the law: How do
>|> you show that you fired someone because he is incompetent, and not because
>|> he is Gay.
>|> There is a problem with the burden of proof, if that persons says: I was
>|> fired because I am Gay.

>Easy.  The Boy Scouts of America are very vocal in proclaiming "We,
>being the last bastion of decency in this country, fired Joe Scoutmaster
>not because he had the best record of any of our leaders, not because
>the scouts he led were the most able, most conscientious, most always
>prepared(TM), but because he was - TADA! - a homosexual."  What more
>proof do you need.

I don't need more proof.  The BSA's refusal to admit gays is obvious even to
those who are tired of hearing everyone in an "oppressed group" complain about
discrimination every time something negative happens to them.

>Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous happening to a straight
>person?

Yes, I have.  I've heard of the government stepping all over our rights to
decide with whom we associate.  Private organizations should not be forced to
accept people they don't desire.  We have a right to dislike that, personally
boycott them, and so forth.  Also, we have a right to see that our tax money
doesn't fund them.  But do we have a right to say who they have to accept?  I
respectfully have to disagree.

For example, women can go into men's locker rooms.  They fought for that
"right."  Then, Mills College wanted to admit men.  And the women went
ballistic!  Why?  Isn't removing sexist barriers what they wanted?  Apparently
not.  So, we have a society where women can go into men's locker rooms, and
men can't attend a women's college.  That says nothing about a male reporter
trying to enter a women's locker room.  I don't know if it's ever happened, but
the women would certainly protest.

Same thing in this case.  I have a feeling that as soon as gays fought their
way into the BSA (a private organization), then they would form their own
organization (no straights allowed!).  And you know what?  The "fairness" of
that law would not be challenged nor its "bigotry" contested.  That sounds like
something *totally* ridiculous that could happen to a straight person.

Yet, there's something horribly wrong with a society that hears "straight
person," "gay person," "black person," or "white person," and chooses to ignore
the word "person" and judge on the basis of the first word.

Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"...there was a white woman talking to the African-American woman..." -- Bill
Clinton, September 11, 1992.

Hey, Bill--if you're going to say "African-American" to be PC, isn't it then a
racist slur to use the term "white" instead of "European-American?"
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Confiscating Inheritance
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:38:13 GMT

In article <26255@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) wrote:
> I guess we've entered pissing contest territory, but I have to say
> again, 'Why not?'  Estate taxation is one of the oldest forms of
> taxation around.   What's so special about this form of income?
> You think, for example, the Kennedys' inherited-wealth lifestyle
> should be protected by tax policy?   No, thanks.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm a lot more irritated about the taxes extracted
> directly out of what I "*earn*".  As should most people, who are not
> likely to inherit much other than a broken color tv & a shaving mug 
> from their dads.

A tax policy should never try to do something it can't do.

Parents have lots of opportunities to pass things on to their
children/grandchildren.  Obstacles that only apply at death can, and
are, easily avoided.  The other opportunities can't be stopped.
If parents know who their kids are, they'll pass things to them.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Amiga@cup.portal.com (Philip Barry Kirschner)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Hurricane Andrew
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:47:29 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

         Hurricane Andrew Corporation 



             1425 Arthur Street



           Hollywood. Fla ,33020



      (800) 647-FIND, (305) 920-8192



A 501-C3 Organization Dedicated towards 

rebuilding the lives of hurricane Andrews Victims



501-C3         IRS#650354595   FLA#N5068



____________________________________________________











To Whom it May Concern,







The Hurricaine Andrew Corporation was  formed on September 10,1992  

in  Florida and is recognized as a charitable 501-C3 organization in the 50 

State's. The Mission of the (Corporation) is to provide needed relief



in the form of Construction,Job retraining and physcological counseling



to the victim's of the terrible storm.Currently the federal government and



congress are doing nothing accept sending tent's and food stamps to the 

victims.







On October 31,1992 a telethon will be aired involving over 150  citys.We 

are seeking corporate sponsorship to cover air time and satelite time.All 

donations are fully tax deductable.







Contact: Philip B Kirschner



              C/O Hurricain Andrew Association







Senior Producer: Max Kirkland. John Elsworth



 



























































































                                           
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 02:40:34 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep8.183348.23415@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >I disagree. There is a much greater chance of agreement if
    >people are non-rigid in their moral beliefs, or are willing
    >to ignore them when empirical evidence conflicts with them,
    >or when tolerance of the other fellow's view will yield a
    >mutually beneficial result.

True, but in a horrible sense. I'm sure that a group of Muslims and Catholics
could, in being "non-rigid", plot together much more effectively to get
say, the Jews.

Or to justify doing business with the NAZIs or the (now ex) Soviets or
the PRC or Vietnam -- hell, rigid morality just gets in the way, don't it?

    >But, in general, I think that there are few subjective
    >utilitarian gains to be had by making absolutist moral
    >claims, if you want to proceed on that level. The typical
    >historical result of rigid ideological camps is war.

Again true, but limited. Holding the WRONG absolutes is useless or worse.
If you hold the wrong absolutes in science, you be fucked. If you hold
that all X people should be liquidated, you also be fucked.

    >To me the essence of morality is tolerance of others. Not
    >because it is an absolute truth, but because it works.
    >Tolerance says that you can believe whatever the hell you
    >want, as long as you dont impose it on me. This allows people
    >to interact in positive ways (including economic), without
    >ever having to confront their inevitable disagreements on
    >absolute moral truth.

So you and I, holding that "thous shalt not kill" are on an "equal" level
with that thug in the funny black uniform@holding the train to the
concentration camps?

Sorry, I'll take absolutes with MY coffe please -- you go over and
"tolerate" him, eh?

Of course, it IS an absolute to say "as long as you dont impose it on me"
ya' know ....



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:52:29 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <92255.50298.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <BuFHy9.FGq@wrs.com>, Richard Stueven writes:
>
>>I have heard a number of reports on the campaigns of Barbara Boxer and
>>Diane Feinstein, especially regarding the fact that two women are running
>>for the two Senate seats.  I have heard nothing about June Genis, a third
>>woman in the race, who is a Libertarian candidate for the Senate.

KQED radio did mention June a couple of weeks ago (the day after the
campain HQ opened?)  The gist of the report was that she is positioning
herself as a moderate between Boxer and Hershensohn.

This was during a 5:00 - 5:30 PM "prime time" commute news program - I
forget which one.

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
You can easily obtain a clear understanding of any complex situation
by ignoring contradictory information and confounding factors.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:28:30 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <26255@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) wrote:

> I guess we've entered pissing contest territory, but I have to say
> again, 'Why not?'  Estate taxation is one of the oldest forms of
> taxation around.   What's so special about this form of income?
> You think, for example, the Kennedys' inherited-wealth lifestyle
> should be protected by tax policy?   No, thanks.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm a lot more irritated about the taxes extracted
> directly out of what I "*earn*".  As should most people, who are not
> likely to inherit much other than a broken color tv & a shaving mug 
> from their dads.

Look, it's very simple.  If I sacrifice my entire life to set aside money
for my children, why is it that people like you think it's fine if the
government now steals a portion of what I managed to save for my children?

Maybe I just don't understand you folks: why is my money YOUR money?  I
don't WANT big government.  I don't NEED big government.  I don't WANT to
PAY for big government.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 15:32:18 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <26285@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
    >You're using a dishonest argument here,
    >using some propaganda-like rhetoric & probably some special
    >pleading... ... ... now I have to support the idle rich
    >too?!?!

Talk about propaganda!!! How about taxing me to support the idle poor?
The "poor" that don't have to work for the food stamps and GA and place
a huge burden on the "services" you mutter about, the services that the
rich don't burden much.

BTW -- just WHAT are these beloved services of yours?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:48:38 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep15.213752.8986@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >In article <b7ynalm.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>You are so ignorant. The rich do NOT put money into S&L's.
    >>They have always been a lousy investment. When you have $100K
    >>or more to invest, banks and S&L's are about the last place
    >>you invest.
    >>
    >Phil, the rich sure as heck DID benefit from the S&L bailout.
    >Mr. Miliken (and others) figured out that they could act as
    >the middlemen in LBO's, and thereby get money (insured by our
    >tax-dollars) out of S&L's. It is extermely unlikely that they
    >could have sold these junk-bonds without access to money
    >which was insured. The guys running the S&L's really didn't
    >care if the investment was risky, they just wanted something
    >with a high return. After all, its not like it was their
    >money they were risking (they weren't even risking their
    >depositers money).

Uh, junk bonds are NOT insured.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Who IS Clyaton Cramer?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:24:38 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <casseres-140992100623@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
    >In article <1992Sep9.203208.18002@tcsi.com>, swami@tcs.com
    >(Venkates Swaminathan) wrote:
    >
    >>I'm new to this newsgroup, so maybe this is a silly question.
    >>
    >>Who is Clayton Cramer, and why are his views on gays and
    >>lesbians the subject of so much of the debate on ba.
    >>politics? Is he someone really important or influential?
    >>
    >"Clayton Cramer" is fiction -- a cruel parody of protofascist
    >extremism and ideological bigotry, perpetrated by
    >irresponsible survivors from the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Actually, the above "description" of Clayton is very much the same
(ideologically) as the NAZIs describing the Americans as a mongrel race
bent on destruction of Germany racial purity and German noble ideals.

Both are so bad, so wrong, so stupid, and so indicative of what is felt inside
the entity doing the smear, that well, read for yourself.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: An interesting expiremnt that you too can try
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 07:21:29 GMT

In article <!wxn+6.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
(much deleted)
>The soc.motss was felt to be "heavily" disgusting. For example, two women
>could NOT believe that "this kind of stuff" was "allowed" to be posted
>(well, it wasn't the time for First Amendment discussions). An example of
>this "kind of stuff":
>
>    (from soc.motss)
>
>    In article <1992Sep8.191037.16118@auto-trol.com>
>    katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>    >Obmotss-relevance (sorta): I've heard that the act of
>    >sneezing is, physiologically speaking, similar to an orgasm.

Hmmm... let me get this straight, so to speak.  A female poster writes
of sneezing and expelling semen from her vagina, and this means that
homosexuals will never be accepted?

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:00:20 GMT

In <1992Sep11.201112.21467@PA.dec.com>, George Neville-Neil writes:

>In article <ART.92Sep11020240@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) wr
>>In article <1992Sep10.204740.11450@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.co
>>
>>
>>
>>   >All the liberals on the national scene today want to raise taxes.
>>
>>   Please define "all" and "liberals".
>>
>>   Or refrain from such mind-bogglingly senile statements.
>>
>>Show me a liberal who doesn't want to raise taxes and I'll admit that
>>Clayton is senile.
>>

>I'm a liberal, and I don't wish to raise taxes.  I'd rather see
>them spent without the current amount of graft.


>Take it back from the fed and let the local gov'ts deal with it.

I agree totally.  However, we keep voting for and empowering people (especially
in the House) who have a vested interest in keeping the size of the federal
government large.  A huge federal government empowers themselves, and doesn't
adequately address the needs of cities and states.  And creating conditions
which lead to misery and suffering empower big-government types even more.

I don't see any national politicians doing anything to control government size.
Reagan cut aid to the states--which I partially agree with, since think that
the states should be more autonomous--but then the boobs in Washington (of both
parties) mandated state spending on what used to be federal programs.  The net
result was huge budget problems at the state level, even before the recession.
Yet somehow, the number of government employees continued to grow.  The Reagan
budget cuts didn't allow enough flexibility to states and counties.

I would much rather pay 7% in Federal taxes and 20% in state and local tax.  I
think the County Supes and the city councils know what they need more than
Washington ever will.  The federal government has very few Constitutional
obligations, but somewhere along the way, the 10th Amendment apparently got
lost.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5095 ca.politics:7510
From: jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:02:49 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <0wrnc+h.loren@netcom.com> loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>
>I would also like to point out that the federal estate tax is only
>charged on estates larger than $600,000 dollars.  Again, this is
>something that would benifit the very rich.

Not quite. The $600,000 is the limit on the GROSS estate, not the net.
In other words, a $300,000 house (not all THAT uncommon in Silly Valley) 
with a $250,000 mortgage counts as $300,000, NOT $50,000. Add in a
"reasonable" amount of life insurance ($500,000 is not out of line for
someone with small children) and suddenly alot of people fit Rick's
definition of "very rich".

-John Muth
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5137 ca.politics:7558
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:05:23 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <mxsn45m.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Of course, you forgot to mention what a cabal of homosexual pigs would do
|> if I opened (or tried to) a trendy bar/eatery in the Castro district.
|> Somehow, I think the cabal would decide not to patronize me, no matter
|> how good the food or eats were, just because I'm not one of them. And thus,
|> I'd be out of business.
|> 
Bzzt.  Thanks for playing.  There are several non-gay owned places in the Castro.
Including the local hardware store, Cliff's Variety.  Now if you were actively
hostile to gays then you would probably lose all of you business.

|> And that's just the way the world works.
|> 
This last line says more about what kind of a person you are than
you can know.


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Who IS Clyaton Cramer?
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:15:42 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep9.203208.18002@tcsi.com> swami@tcs.com (Venkates Swaminathan) writes:
    >I'm new to this newsgroup, so maybe this is a silly question.
    >
    >Who is Clayton Cramer, and why are his views on gays and
    >lesbians the subject of so much of the debate on ba.
    >politics? Is he someone really important or influential?

Naw -- he's just someone who thinks and posts rational thoughts mostly.

So he's a real minority on this group and should be ignored.

After all, ignore the unpleasant truth and it will just go away.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Biography
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:41:08 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <athos-070992224950@kip2-32.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
    >"If all Americans were like you, America would certainly
    >would not perish." --Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn letter to Bruce
    >Herschensohn.

A. Solzhenitsyn has a very limited understanding of what America is about.

He does not support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
apparently (?) believing that his political works, dangerous as they may
be to a ruling State, shoulkd be publishable, while a group of works
consisting of displays of the naked body and written descriptions of
(legal) sex acts are somehow so dangerous to people that they should be
banned.

And his anti-Semitism in the later years has started to come out of the closet.

Great writer, but a basic totalitarian at heart.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5058 talk.politics.theory:4051