HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:08:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.110627@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# |# As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
# |# Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
# |# Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
# |# nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
# |# what it meant.
# |# 
# Rape is a sexual orientation?  Hmmm.  Not according to my dictionary:
# 
# rape: n. 1) The crime of forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse.
# 2) The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
# 
# Now, how can you possibly equate rape with sexual orientation?

Because for a rapist, it IS.  Even if they don't commit rape for
10 years while sitting in prison, their essential orientation doesn't
change.  When they get out, they commit more rapes.  It is what they
prefer doing, and it is an expression of their screwed-up sexuality.

# Since child molesting is a sub-class of rape you really have no
# leg to stand on in this one.

So tell me, is pedophilia a sexual orientation?

# |# Big deal.  We are also one of the few first world countries without
# |# an established religion.
# |# 
# At least established as codified in law.  But that's another fish
# to fry.

Groan.  They don't you much in schools these days, do they?
That's the DEFINITION of an established religion -- codified in
law.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44481 ca.politics:7569 ba.politics:5149
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:47:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.060645.26832@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 	[an anti-discrimination bill...]
# #As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
# #Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
# 
# 	Bullshit. Rape and child molestation are acts of sexual
# aggression. No matter whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. O

How does that alter the fact that these are sexual orientations?

# Claytoon, what would you think of a "North American Man-Girl Love
# Association"? Would you flay straight people to death for not
# appropriately denouncing this NAMGLA?

If NAMGLA were marching in straight parades, yes.

# ## It is interesting that if the NEA were abolished we would be the only
# ## "first world country" where the federal gov't did not fund art.
# 
# #Big deal.  We are also one of the few first world countries without
# #an established religion.
# 
# 	Not quite correct.

Britain has an established religion, the Anglican Church.  Germany
states frequently have two or three different religions that are
funded out of taxes.  (There is a procedure, at least in Bavaria,
for stopping funding, but it's still state collection of taxes to
fund the Catholic and Lutheran Churches).

# 	Since you apparently crave a state religion so much, why not
# have one that's really fun?

Not in the least do I crave a state religion.  It's bad for
both state and religion.

# 	Like neo-paganism?
# 
# 	Bring back that old-time religion! :-)
# 
# 	You'll be dancing in a circle under a sacred tree in no time
# at all. :-)

You mean the religion that used to engage in ritual sacrifice
of people?  The bodies in the bogs?  Wicker enclosures used by
the Celts to send messages to the afterworld, by putting prisoners
of war inside and burning them alive?

-- 
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,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:37:40 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <BuBKpM.M8s@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
    >In article <1992Sep6.221015.6614@tc.cornell.edu>
    >shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
    >
    >>so there was certainly no question of my 'flaunting it' at
    >>the office (still wearing your wedding ring, Phool?).
    >>
    >The real question is, what does his boyfriend think about it?

Oooh, what rhetoric!! I'm thrilled and chilled.

But as I told you before, Tim, I don't date outside my species. Debate maybe,
but not date. And I don't care how close you shave your fur nor about
your cosmetic tail amputation, the answer is still no. Now run along
and gibber with Melinda before evolution punsihes you two any further.

Boy, some veterbraes just can't no for answer when you turn them down for
a date. Last time I lift up any rocks ...



-- 
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 talk.politics.misc:44079 talk.politics.mideast:19695 misc.headlines:6242
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:55:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep7.195519.6497
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Sep7.185144.5501@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>Nonsense.  Just as Germany rejected any legal right to bits of
>Yugoslavia it gained by Britians appeasement when it violated that

As someone kindly pointed out, I meant Czechslovakia, not Yugoslavia.

Sorry about the mistake,

Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Summary: granted 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep08.224925.3176@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Mich writes...
>somebody wrote:
> 
>>	Let's get real people. Reagan and Bush just happened to be
>>on the watch when the collapse came.
> 
>So what? Dukakis just happened to be on the watch when the "Massachusetts
>Miracle" occured, and that didn't seem to stop him from taking credit for
>it, either.
> 
This is true. Also, when the "Massachusetts Miracle" collapsed he took
the blame. History should be accurate all the way around.

  Michael P. Deignan

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Family Leave (was Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?)
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:16:12 GMT

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>In article <20368@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>> In article <farenebt.716140581@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>> } I think I need to provide you with some info on the first one. The bill
>> } mandates up to 12 weeks of UNPAID maternity leave for workers who work
>> } in businesses of MORE THAN 50 EMPLOYEES. Therefore, your example doesn't
>> } hold water.
>> 
>> I heard it was 25.  Oh well, what ever the actual number is, apart from
>> another case of government's meddling into someone else's affairs, there
>> is another bad side effect of that bill -- businesses whose employees
>> number at or below the cutoff point will be reluctant to hire the number
>> of people that would put them over that threshold.

>It's interesting that Republicans see parental leave is seen as government 
>interference while requiring government contractors to conduct drug testing 
>is not.

The Republicans are just as much big government as the Democrats. It's just
that the Dems are big govt in the boardroom while GOP's are big govt
in the bedroom. 

Why should a woman be forced with the choice, "If I have the baby, I will
lose my job."? Isn't this contrary to the Republican's pro-life platform?
If she has the baby, she will have another mouth to feed and less income.

Vetoing the family leave bill is another example of how hypocritical
the Republicans are on family values!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:40:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep10.95709.12603@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Peter Nelson writes:
>>
>>   4. We have a flawed definition of "liberal" and "conservative".  What-
>>      ever the viewers are, and whatever the networks are, the networks
>>      are giving people something which resonates with their world-view
>>      and values.  
>>
>>   Personally I say "4".  I can think of no other likely explanation
>>   for why, in a world of media choices, we get the results we do.  
>>
>There are other sides to 4. Like try to imagine what a "conservative"
>newscast would sound like: Hortatory. Example driven. Lessons to be
>learned. Stern. Statistical. 
>
>Television needs a warmer image than, say, Rush Limbaugh with his
>pointless snide remarks. Or consider Buckley's "Firing Line" as an
>example of what a better conservative newscast might look like:
>argumentation, debate, etc. Fine, but you need to be a debater yourself
>to spend more than 10 minutes with it. If you've ever watched Pat Robertson,
>with his painful didacticism, you've seen how easily a Law Driven
>approach to TV turns dull.

  True, true.  But consider a Ronald Reagan -style "Morning in America"
  view of the world.  It could be warm, inviting, Disney-esque.  It could
  show functional families (it doesn't have to racially divisive: they
  could be black, brown, etc as well as white) - two parents, kids, dog
  cat, stationwagon (US-made, naturally).  Being a news show, of course 
  it would have to deal with crime, drugs, AIDS, etc, but it always por-
  tray these as the consequences of straying from traditional family
  values.    All of this would have to be subtle, or course, and such
  an approach would have to emphasize good news over bad in general
  and find the right(-wing) slant on stories, e.g., the situation
  in Yugoslavia might be subtly portrayed as a breakdown in "order".
  The religious right already has shows like this but they have such a
  strong religious message that they only attract a narrow base.  I'm
  sure if the religious part were watered down and replaced by some
  vague emphasis on general "piety" (so as to appeal to conservative
  Catholics, Jews, etc) it would do quite well.   *If there was a
  market*, which I'm skeptical of.  


---peter




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Decline Of Rights in the U.S: Will Clinton Reverse This?
Summary: Dissenting opinion  
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:33:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.205116.11522@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

>In article <BtzM5p.3r4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry  writes...
>>ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) once wrote: 
>>> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even
>>>> charging you with a crime!
>>>
>>> Correct. This power has also been extended to game wardens, State
>>> and even local police in some States.
>> 
>>I said in theory. :-) The forfeiture laws are patently
>>unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say. That's the problem
>>with allowing the courts in interpret the Constitution. They can
>>interpret it to mean whatever they like.
>> 
>Unfortunantly true. This came about in the 80's to combat drug
>smugglers, but is now used against anybody.

     A police officer in Florida a couple of months ago said something
interesting on CNN:  "When you take away someone's money, you take away
their ability to purchase narcotics."
 
     Well, yes...

>>>> Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court believe
>>>> there is no right to privacy in the U.S. 
>>>
>>> Name them, please.
>> 
>>Well, that penumbra thing was pretty damn stupid. I'm pretty sure
>>all the sitting justices would agree with that. But I too agree that
>>there is no basic "right to privacy" per se.
>> 
>Scalia for one. I think Rhenquist feels that way too. But just 
>because it isn't spelled out, is what the 10th amendment is for.
>Oliver Wendel Holmes believed in the right of privacy and so did
>Earl Warren. In fact most Supreme Court justices believed in it.

     Amendments Nine (Enumerated Rights are not the only rights) and
Ten (Reserved States Powers) are pretty much ignored these days, except for
a couple of goofy exceptions.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:01:04 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Mark Wilson writes:
>Clinton never joined the ROTC.  He told the draft board that he was going
>to join in order to delay getting drafted.  But when it came to time to
>actually participate, Clinton decided that he would rather go back to
>England to continue his education.  A country that was conveniently beyond
>the reach of the draft board.

This is just silly. Sure it was beyond the reach of the draft board, just
as the next desk over is beyond my reach. Had Clinton's eventual draft
number been under, say, 125 he would have gone in the service as a
private instead of as a ROTC-trained 2nd lieutenant. As it turned out,
he received a 300+ which put him (for all practical purposes) out of
the draft. Had he failed to appear before the board, he would have been 
guilty of the crime of avoiding the draft and would have been prosecuted when
he returned to this country from abroad.  

The issue boils down to this (it seems to me):

Conservatives, mad as hell that their other attacks on Clinton
don't appear to be having much affect on the populace at large,
find Clinton's Viet Nam avoidance much more heinous than Quayle's
Viet Nam avoidance.

Where you come down on this seems to be a product of where you start:
both of these estimable gentlemen plucked strings to avoid the war.
Your opinions of their current merits will, of course, differ.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Season: 0-1 Lifetime: 0-3 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45559 alt.politics.usa.constitution:218
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Commerce Power (was: Dangers of line item veto)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep14.215013.16654@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu 
(Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
> Could the Congress pass a law withholding Federal Highway funds to
> states that don't ratify an amendment to the Constitution?

Under current constitutional jurisprudence, if Congress utters the magic 
words "interstate commerce", it can do whatever it wants.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: **STUDENTS FOR CLINTON MAILING LIST**
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:18:42 GMT

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.002015.26368@cco.caltech.edu> bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:

>   The Clinton/Gore Email Volunteer Team has started a new mailing list
>   exclusively for STUDENT groups supporting the Clinton/Gore ticket.
>                   ^^^^^^^
>Good grief, do you mean to tell us you're not going to include DOKTOR
>LaFave, that great genius who, excuse me, hu, iz so much smarter than
>those dirty rednecks with thair fifth grade education(S)?

If I may, this whole flamewar between Dr LaFave and his "critics"
seems to be getting a bit out of hand. You're wasting a whole lot
of bandwidth hurling childish insults at one-another. If you want
to call each other names,  please do it through email.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians do not have a problem
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44362 ca.politics:7545 ba.politics:5125 soc.motss:38592 ba.motss:1562
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:54:54 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <12164@optilink.UUCP>, Clayton Cramer writes:
# that person is fomenting civil unrest. As such, the fomenting
# of civil unrest can be prosecuted in a court of law.  The only
# road block one would have is to prove that this is what the
# person is trying to do.
# 
# Are there any legal begals on this group that can comment
# further?
# 
# Len

>A true liberal -- Mr. Bucuvalas believes that the correct
>response to free speech is jail time.

I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Bucuvulas is a little scattered in his thinking.
A few bits short of a byte, if you will. 

Beyond that, I'd love to see the look on the judge's face as he threw that case out of 
court. They're overbooked these days, and don't look kindly on frivolous cases brought
by people who simply don't like each other. 

You may be a jerk and you may have a screw loose, Clayton, but that's the extent
of it.  I want to add my voice to those calling for any private harassment of you 
to stop immediately.  I would like to suggest to you, though, that sending off 
net discussions to the CCTV (Cal. Coalition for Traditional Values) and related 
organizations is a terrible thing to do, as was your suggestion that you may go
off (along with unnamed others) and join the various organizations devoted to 
stifling freedom in this country.  Isn't that a prostitution of everything you have
claimed to stand for? 

JZ
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:29:23 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <Sep.14.09.59.40.1992.29737@romulus.rutgers.edu>
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>Given the nature of police work, police are generally inclined to
>distrust anything that anyone under suspicion might tell them. [...]
>I learned this many, many years ago while hitch-hiking cross-country.
>I was being checked out by a highway patrolman in Illinois who asked
>me for my social security number.  "What do you want that for?", I
>asked him.  "To see if you're wanted.", he replied.

For aiding and abetting a gay-bashing?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:45616 alt.politics.clinton:5553
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Media smells blood: Opening for Perot?
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:32:32 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	The media smells blood: there has been a dramatic increase in the
number of stories about Clinton's draft-dodging.  The media has even begun
(retroactively) showing Clinton being booed and jeered at events for his draft
actions, and broadcasting his statements that he could have handled the
controversy better.

	Look for this to become a "major" issue in the media during the next
two weeks.

	It's also the opening that the Possum (Mr. Perot) needs to enter the
race.  He stated that there will be no "October" surprise, but it isn't October
:).

	As I stated back in July when he withdrew, Perot understands that
coming back in now leaves little time for people to press for specifics, allows
Perot to capitalize on the non-issues oriented mud-slinging of Clinton and Bush
and show their economic plans to be the wispy content-free political promises
that they are.

	Not being a Perot (or Clinton, or Bush) fan, I am encouraged that he
may come back and at least shake up US politics.  But who would be his running
mate?  Clearly he wants E. Dole or Tsongas.  But will they break ranks?  For
any Republican it wouldn't be party suicide, as Bush clearly will be a
persona-non-grata immediately after the elcetion (whichever way it goes).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc