HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:28:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

Discussing why a city in Indiana didn't pass a sexual orientation
antidiscrimination ordinance:

In article <1992Sep9.145921.16689@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, berninge@iron.ecn.purdue.edu (James A Berninger) writes:
# Apperently, later that evening, there was some further concern over
# the ordinance.  Several people (including a local lawyer) mentioned
# the "fact" that "sexual orientation" includes pedophilia,
# bestiality, and the like, and that inclusion of this phrase was
# unacceptable, unless the council defined the phrase more adequately.
# A total of four votes were taken, and the final vote was 5-3 against
# the ordinance -- the woman who talked with her minister changed her
# mind.  I don't understand it, either.  (The final vote tally was
# according to WLFI-18 news.)
# 
# Jim Berninger                   ______ "This is no 'Whoops!'  This is

Amazing.  There are other people in America who can use a dictionary
to figure out what "sexual orientation" means.

And this guy doesn't understand why protecting pedophiles doesn't
fly.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradic
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:24:53 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 9777@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>The last time we had a veritable scumbag
> as President was when LBJ held that office -- and he (and his legacy)
> has very nearly destroyed this country.

So, I suppose that you consider Nixon to be an honorable man?  Please!!  Give 
me a break!  Nixon was *THE* most dispicable person ever to hold the office
of President.

Also, be so kind as to document how LBJ "nearly destroyed this country."


> The last thing we need now is
> Bill Clinton to finish the job.

You'd rather have four more years just like the past four years?


> 
> Vote Bush.

if you insert the words "for anyone but", I'll agree.


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44660 alt.politics.clinton:4817 alt.politics.bush:4655 alt.politics.democrats.d:60
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH: ON MANUFACTURING JOBS
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:39:04 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In <1992Sep9.015914.637@genome.wi.edu> Bert Smith <bowler@athena.mit.edu> writes:


>REMARKS BY GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON
>STANDARD KNAPP, INC.
>PORTLAND, CT
>SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
> .
> .
> .
>Under the theory that we have, I think it's pretty
>clear that we haven't supported manufacturing.  The
>theory of trickle down economics is that if taxes
>are made low enough on the highest income
>individuals, and the highest income companies, and
>the  government does nothing else, all the right
>investment decisions will be made and manufacturing
>jobs will grow.  That's our theory.

>Our competitors' theory is quite different. They
>believe that government has to support the free
>market with real incentives to always modernize
>plant and equipment, with intense support for
>constant retraining of the work force, and with
>aggressive trade programs, not just for larger
>companies, but for small and medium-sized companies
>as well.

Unfortunately, those other countries' governments can afford to do it, since
they haven't thrown a great party with tax payers' money and created a mess
of politically untouchable subsidies and programs.

The U.S., on the other hand, is running into the limit of fiscal policy
imposed by the simple fact that already too much of our savings is taken
up by the huge government deficit and debt and not enough is left over to
invest into the private sector, no matter how the financial markets
distribute our savings.  More of this approach a la Clinton would provide
non-basic (hence non-reusable skills) job training with the efficiency of
government programs at further expense to taxpayers/the deficit.  I'd say
we'll reach the point of negative return on this approach real quick, if
not already.

And remember that Clinton's plans ASSUME there'll be strong economic growth to
provide the tax base to pay for these programs.  His proclamation of
no-deficit-increase as a result of these programs actually DEPENDS to a
large extent on this growth.  Good luck.

In the final analysis, the U.S. economic problems (other than short term
regulating problems) are so inextricably tied to the cultural, political and
productivity realities of this country that THERE IS NO CLEAR FIX.  At
least Bush is trying less to appear to have a fix for the fundamental economic
problems.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45544 ca.politics:7806
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:24:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12280@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>You see, even the most fundamentalist people I know oppose
>gay bashing.  I have yet to meet anyone that supports it.  (Then
>again, I don't know anyone that supports violent attacks on 
>peaceful people.  Do you?)

Instead they believe that God will do the gay-bashing for them.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45448 ca.politics:7786 ba.politics:5321 soc.motss:39075
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:01:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <thaaang.716441023@cwis>, thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton 'hey, what's this DELETE key for?' Cramer) writes:
# #I would be happiest of all if homosexuals stopped trying to involve
# #the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
# #private.
# 
# And I would be happiest of all if the moral majority stopped trying
# to involve the government in telling consenting adults what they may
# do in private.
# 
# --
# John Dorrance  * Don't fuck with Ms. Congeniality *  thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

I am in complete agreement with you.  But when you tell me that
the only choices are to support your fascist agenda, or their
fascist agenda, which way do you expect me to go?

When homosexuals start supporting more freedom, instead of less,
this whole argument can go away.

If AB 2601 gets signs by our governor, there will be no peace
on USENET about this issue.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: pswanson@shine.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:39:11 GMT

In article <BuKyns.G19@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.162145.13082@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
[bunch of stuff deleted]
>>
>>Someone recently has come out with a book, whose title I forget, which debunks
>>the idea of the 'lean, mean' private sector, as opposed to a 'bloated, inefficient'
>>public sector. The author documents numerous examples of corporations which were
>>every bit as bound up in bureaucratic waste and paralysis as any despised
>>government agency. And this in an era of fierce international competition...
>
>  Right.  So presumably they won't stay like this for long.   Either they 
>  will change or go out of business.   Nobody says that private enterprise
>  can't be bloated and inefficient.  But market advocate claim, and generally
>  I agree, that such companies can't stay like that for long (unless they
>  are protected by government intervention from feeling the effects of
>  the market).
>
Does one counter-example disprove your theory?  In short, GM.  They are the
ultimate in inefficiency and while they are loosing market share it sure is
taking a long time.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:09:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.055802.27485@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>   The latest plank in the animal-rights platform: cat control. Animal
|>   lovers want to make it illegal for people to let their kitties out of the
|>   house. It seems that animal-rights activists have discovered that cats
|>   have a nasty tendency to kill birds, rabbits, frogs, and other cute
|>   creatures. "A housecat hunts for fun," says Merrit Clifton, former editor
|>   of The Animal's Agenda. "It gets all its calories indoors, and then it
|>   goes out to devastate whatever there is to devestate."

Even a blind pig will find an acorn, now and again.  "The Animals Agenda" is on
the mark, as far as the effect of cats on the environment.

For many years, Game & Fish departments throughout the Midwest and the Southwest
(and possibly elsewhere) encouraged killing of feral cats, due to their
destruction of game and song bird populations.  Here in Oregon, many landowners
still do, based on their own observations of what cats kill.

IMHO, a cat that is wormed, fed regularly, and sheltered must seem
Terminator-like to wild prey-species.

Now that coyotes are on the rise again, cats have changed from primary predator
to lunch, in many locales.

Personally, I am very fond of my two cats, and keep them indoors, where they get
to savage the occasional fly, beetle, or spider stupid enough to wander into the
house.  The only prey they "devastate" is the overpopulation of crunchies in
their food bowls, and the occasional hapless catnip bag.

Followups to talk.politics.animals.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:50:17 GMT

In article <12280@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>You see, even the most fundamentalist people I know oppose
>gay bashing.  I have yet to meet anyone that supports it.  (Then
>again, I don't know anyone that supports violent attacks on 
>peaceful people.  Do you?)

Ask Ted Kaldis sometime about tire irons.  Or watch THE TIMES OF
HARVEY MILK, which includes an interview with someone who once
believed there was nothing wrong with going out and beating up a few
queers.  Or just pull your head out of the sand and observe that there
are a hell of a lot of people who consider queerness to be a social
crime punishable by physical mutilation.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pork Barrel Politics
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:54:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.154720.12699@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> 
> In article <19891@drutx.ATT.COM>, 
> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) said:
} > Do you really want people, who show such a complete and reckless
} > disregard for finances, managing a $6 trillion economy?
} 
} For some reason, this doesn't bother me very much... as you say, the
} checks _were_ covered, and each congressman _knew_ when he wrote each
} check that (a) it wouldn't bounce and (b) if there were any expenses
} or losses incurred in the process, they'd be covered not by the
} taxpayers but rather by his fellow _voluntary_ participants in the
} House Bank.  So where's the irresponsibility?

Suppose you had an accounant handle your financial affairs.  And
suppose it was discovered that this accountant routinely wrote dozens
of overdrafts every month for years, and didn't even bother keeping
records of these transactions.  Would you consider that responsible
behavior?  Would you trust that accountant with your money?  I certainly
couldn't.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.153133.20422@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>co> The American taxpayers pay for the huge subsidies for health care for
>    the well-off...the non-taxation of health care benefits in the US is
>    an absolutely massive subsidy.
>
>  Pity. Something that isn't taxed, heaven forfend! I guess US taxpayers also
>  subsidize sex, 'cuz there's no "sex tax", at least not yet, at least as long
>  as tax-lovers like M. Olchowy are stymied in figuring out how to tax it.
>

I'm not advocating taxes...I'm just pointing out the unfairness of the
US tax system which provides a huge tax subsidy to the well off for
their health care and no equivalent tax subsidy to veterans or the
poor.  The US health care system is a caste-socialize or subsidized system.

The system system can be made fair by provided the same unlimited tax
credit for health care purchased by the poor.  See...I am a tax-hater
...not a tax lover.  

>gs> I always thought externalization of costs and internalization of benefits
>    was something to be avoided. We read all the time about how polluters
>    should pay for the costs of their pollution, rather than externalize those
>    costs to the rest of us. Does the principle still apply when it comes to
>    health care, or not?
>

If you have a dedicated health insurance premium attached to a national
health insurance plan...how is that externalization of costs.  The tax
subsidies in the present system are more of an externalization of costs.
With NHI, all you are essentially doing is setting up a patients "union"
to bargain with the doctors "union" and the hospitals, and thus provide
a system of checks and balance on costs and services...
NHI internalizes the costs and provides cost control.

The public through the government then can make a secondary decision
if it wants to subsidize any particularly groups premiums...like say
veterans or children, or institutions, or R&D.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 04:33:30 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep4.204611.18126@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]: 
]: By the way, many gays claim that their "characteristic" is not
]: involuntary. I think that they are in general wrong about that.
]: 
]Why the hell should you not believe gay people when they tell you the
]truth about their lives? Could it be because you are prejudiced (i.e.
]have preconceived notions that have little to do with the truth)? How
]arrogant and ignorant you are!

Well, we certainly tweaked your nerve, eh? Have you ever considered that
some may be right, and that my statement allowed for that? Have you ever
considered that perhaps my statement may be based on some reasoning and
information, rather than "preconceived notions?" Have you ever considered
that if homosexuality IS strictly a choice, then it is going to be
a lot harder for homosexuals to be accepted?

No, of course not. You are just emotionally reacting without considering
what I am saying, or the implications thereof.

I have heard gays say that they find herosexual sex repulsive. I have
heard heteros say the same thing about homosexual sex. Do you think that
people find things repulsive as a matter of choice, or of conditioning,
or of instinct? I personally would CHOOSE to find nothing repulsive -
it makes life easier.

Why don't YOU consider that there
may be more than just "choice" to the homosexual eroticism? Is it just
too politically incorrect to consider that homosexuality may be
predetermined in many people? WHY do homosexuals insist that
their homosexuality is a choice? Is it necessary for all behavior to
be considered a choice in your reality model? I'm really curious
about this - not just flaming.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:07:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep10.145433.22737@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
]It appears from reading the posts regarding Bill Clinton
]and the draft, that most viewpoints represent a post-
]Vietnam perspective.  Below are excerpts from a 24 February
]article by Col. David H. Hackworth (ret) which appeared
]in Newsweek.  For those of you who don't remember,
]he was a much-decorated officer who lead an unsuccessful
]attempt to rescue POW's in North Vietnam.  The title
]of the article was "When No One Wanted to Fight"

I think it important to point out that Hack was in VN and saw how stupidly
the war was being prosecuted, but he was not in a position to determine
whether the war was being fought for good ends. In his book (which I have
read), his main argument against the war is that "we weren't really
fighting for the democracy in VN, because it wasn't a democracy." With
this level of unsophisticated analysis, it is hard to take his views
on what was going on in the US (as opposed to VN where he was present) 
very seriously. Hack got pissed off at how the war was being fought, 
and translated that illogically into a view that the war should not be
fought. That is like being unhappy with how a mechanic is fixing your
car, and concluding from that that the car should not be fixed.

This is not to start an argument as to whether the war was correct,
but rather to show that Hackworth's logic is suspect and his knowledge
of what what it was like to be facing the choice in the US is poor.


]"Beating up on Bill Clinton over whether he evaded the
]draft during the Vietnam War is like taking the strap

Bill Clinton is being beaten up for being dishonest about how he got
out of it.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What Here!?! (Re: Working for change?)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:41:11 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep15.155836.14703@bellahs.com> tnelson@bellahs.com (Tom Nelson RD) writes:
>What is immoral about change?  You are speaking as though a torpid society 
>was something to be worked toward.

Nope, if we are to change, I'd not (prefer) to see it go to the NAZI style ...



-- 
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: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:28:59 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Sep10.045351.10823@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
> 	Bill Clinton had his chance, during the Vietnam War,
> 	to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.

George Bush had his chance, during his first term,
to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.
> 
> 		If he didn't have it back then,
> 		what makes anyone think he's got it now?

Good point.  No second term.


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44242 ca.politics:7517
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:28:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep3.141500.15066@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <12103@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # What constitutional right of NAMBLA's is in jeopardy if the
# # homosexual community refuses to associate with them?
# 
# I don't associate with NAMBLA.  Jeeze, Cretin, can't you
# read?  I support the right of the organization to exist.

So do I.  So does everyone.  But that doesn't mean that you
have to march with them.  If you do, some assumptions will
be made about your level of upset with what they propose --
just like marching with the Klan.

# # Fine.  You've made your bed -- identifying with the exhibitionists
# # in S.F. -- now you complain of having to sleep in it.
# 
# I don't identify with the exhibitionists in SF.  Jeeze, Cretin,
# can't you read?  I don't care what the folks in San Francisco
# do.  I care that the intellectually-impaired think that
# because they happen not to like what they see in San Francisco
# they can use it to justify bigotry against all gay and lesbian
# people.  Take some responsibility for your own opinions.
# -- 
#        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Take some responsibility for your own opinions, yourself.
If you don't want to be identified with such a crowd, don't
insist that you are part of it.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc