HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: This Shall Not Stand!
Keywords: homosexuality
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:02:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Well, well, well.  It is being reported on the news that Bill Clinton
is expected to announce today (28 Jan. '93) that he will postpone
lifting the ban against homosexuals in the military for at least six
months.  This is apparently in response to substantial opposition to
the lifting of the ban in Congress.  It seems that the phones have
been ringing off the hook in Congressmen's and Senators' offices in
response to this issue.  And the constituents have expressed support
for the military ban on homosexuals by as much as 50 to 1 margins (and
in some cases even more than that).  (Say, if the percentage of
homosexuals in the population is really 10%, as homosexual activists
claim, then how come the margins against homosexuality are so large?)

In another development, a judge has issued a restraining order
preventing Colorado's Amendment 2, which forbids the granting of
special privileges to homosexuals -- but does _NOT_ discriminate
against them -- from taking effect until the courts can rule its
Constitutionality.

The homosexuals are not going to prevail in this society, nosirree!
Now, whatever consenting adults want to do behind closed doors is
entirely their business, and there really isn't much anyone can do
about it without eroding the right to privacy.  But many homosexuals
want much more than this.  It seems that they _DO_ want special
privileges at the expense of society in general.  And if the court
does not uphold Amendment 2, then, by liberal logic where everything
that is not prohibited is required, a mandate will be proclaimed to
bring about "equality" for homosexuals -- and a move will be under way
to institionalize special privileges for them to "achieve" this
"noble" goal.

Like hell.  If the courts do not uphold Amendment 2, the next step
will be to lobby for an amendment to the U.S. Constitition that
establishes nationally what Amendment 2 does for the state of
Colorado.  The events of that past few days regarding the military ban
illustrate that such a move is certainly feasible.

In fact, why should we wait for the courts to act?  Even if they
uphold Amendment 2, this would only show that it is legally sound --
and we should go ahead with such a national amendment anyway.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:20:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.112847.2255@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>Roads less than a mile or two long have been created, but they are not
>usually up to quality for the mountainous traffic of an interstate highway
>load. 

There was also no profit to be had from the road, and no profit motive to 
maintain it.

[anecdote deleted]

>>When private investors have to buy the land in a free market, they will
>>seek the cheapest land that suits their purposes.  This means the land
>>that is least useful for other purposes will be used for the road, and
>>land that is more useful (and therefore more expensive) will remain
>>intact for its other uses.  I think that is a better way to decide than
>>letting politics decide who gets hurt for somebody else's benefit.
>-------------------------------

[much of anecdote deleted]

>than the private corp's fee!!! 

Did you bid out the contract, or settle for a non-competitive situation?

>Boondoggles are in all human endeavor, but
>even more so where there isn't the power of eminent domain to overcome a
>holdout who's in the way. 

Overcome some holdout who's in the way?  You mean you approve of using 
coercive force to take property from people?

>Libertarians keep failing to reinvent the wheel
>when given the chance. They'd rather drag something privately!

What chance?  I don't recall a Libertarian administation recently.

Further, yes, I would rather drag something privatly than be coerced into 
giving the state power over my money.  But then, I have no choice, do I?  We 
live in a statist society.

>I don't care whether you think God loves you or fate smiles on you, but
>when you lose your fucking job and can't afford the necessary property and
>medical insurance you won't be so fucking sure, now, will you!!??

Likely not.  As a libertarian, all he wants is the freedom to succeed OR 
fail on his own merits, and when he loses his job, can't afford property, or 
medical isurance, he will most likely blame himself for not planning 
properly.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69993 alt.politics.elections:25195 alt.politics.clinton:21316
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:02:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
%Broward Horne an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
%>      Any society that consistently rewards irresponsibility, punishes
%>      long-term ethics, and always bets against the odds, is doomed to
%>      failure.  I'm have absolutely no interest in being around when
%>      the 'facts' show up.
%Well Broward, if you're so sure you're right, then leave.
%We who are working
%to better this nation don't need defeatist do-nothings around
%dragging on our efforts. The tasks are daunting enough. Furthermore,
%please don't come back when things improve...it's not fair to those
%Americans who will work hard and make the sacrifices to bring
%about the change.

That's one reason why I voted for Bush. (Be careful, Dr. LaFave, you're
starting to sound like a Republican. :) )
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Reality is a b!tch
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:24:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.164819.3885@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
}In article <1jj0v3INNp5u@gap.caltech.edu> chdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Christopher Dunn) writes:
}>The Clinton team says that fulfilling some of Clinton's promises might
}>endanger the recovery.
}
}Heck, some of knew that *before* the election!

The question is: did Clinton?

If yes, why was he lying when he knew better?
If no, why was he so (selective?) blind/ignorant?

Neither case bodes well for long-term anything...


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,soc.college
From: twallace@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Todd Wallace)
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:05:10 GMT

Funny that Germany would have a law banning prostitution in
towns smaller than 10,000. I wonder if it has to do with the
not-very-well-publicized campaign the German government is
waging against inbreeding in small German towns. From what I
gather, the problem has grown to the extent that retardation and
handicaps have gotten unusually high for an industrialized
nation. Crazy Germans! What do they think all those "Guest
Workers" are there for! Geez! Take a hint from your American
counsins!
----------------------------------------------------------------
|    Todd Wallace               |  "A pessimist is surprised   |
|    twallace@gmuvax2.gmu.edu   |   as often as an optimist,   |
|                               |   but always pleasantly."    |
|                               |            - Robert Heinlein |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:10:19 GMT

thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>In a previous article, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) says:
>>
>>>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>>
>>>>         i)  Privitiztion is happening most everywhere but HERE
>>>
>>>That's because so much in America is already privatized, or never had
>>>strategic state industries in those areas to begin with.  Also, the
>>
>>     Note that your posting doesn't refute what I've said.
>
>Yes it does.

Merci, Ted ...

>Britain is privatising its electric industry.  We can't -- it's 
>already private.

Except for being private, ConEd and LILCo seem to stumble and bumble
MUCH worse than Ontario Hydro or Hydro Quebec ... and note that in the
latter cases, their limited markets (Canada's two *largest* provinces;
barely midsized on a US scale) would be unprofitable to anyone who'd
risk dumping a lot of capital into buying them ...

>Health care?  We're private, everyone else is public.

Whoa, that depends where you draw the line ... in Canada, France and
Germany, the basic insurance is public; everything else is private
despite what some Americans like the tell each other ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Minor Historical Nitpick (Was Re: National debt is not bad)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan19.140407.20741@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<J.TURNER.93Jan19210031@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1993Jan20.024852.16731@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1jmdbaINNqbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:52:28 GMT

<In article <1jmdbaINNqbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

<In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

<>Defense expenditures during peace didn't become a Very Big Thing for
<>the US until the Cold War.  The US has historically had a very small
<>military establishment prior to 1939 or so, and has depended more on


< Historically, the U.S. has been a second-rate agrarian colony too.
	
	Uh, not since the 18th century have we been a colony.
	And we've not been primarily agrarian since, oh,
	the late 19th century. 

	A "second-rate agrarian colony" would have been hard
	pressed to win the Spanish-American war, for example.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:00:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.132220.22639@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> carter@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Carter.Edmonds) writes:
>Here's a question.  Just how elastic is demand for gasoline?  
>
>If demand is elastic, a significant increase in price will be met with
>a marked reduction in consumption.  But will the higher price motivate
>people to buy a new car? (This is not an option for many people.)  Will
>they buy a house closer to work?  (Spouses sometimes work on opposite 
>sides of town.)  Also, how high must the tax be for someone to give up
>a comfortable car for a smaller model?  (People might cut costs on
>other items and keep their cars.)
>
>I suspect that many people can not or will not reduce their
>consumption of gasoline.  Some may compensate for higher fuel costs
>by reducing spending on other items instead.
>
>Any opinions, hunches, insights, statistics?
>
>            carter.edmonds@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Carter Edmonds)             


There are several factors that must be taken into consideration
here. The most important is, not just how significant an increase,
but what people's expectations are with respect to the longer term.
If it is clear that not only are prices higher now, but that they
will continue to rise, then changes in behavior can be expected,
though not necessarily immediately. For example, someone may not
trade in their gas-guzzler right away, but they might choose a
more fuel-efficient car when they replace the gas-guzzler. Ask
Detroit about this phenomenon during the early 80's.

Given the fact that today's society is physically structured around
the automobile, changes in patterns of residence, shopping, etc.
are lot likely short of a major calamity. We are pretty much stuck
with the infrastructure we have, and the least disruptive option
would be to find more efficient ways to use it.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69460 alt.activism:21258 alt.conspiracy:14538 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13632
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:41:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:

>In article <1jq7ieINN1mh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>      Exactly the attitude that will kill the U.S.
>>
>>     Meanwhile, my technical skills put me in the top 5% of 
>>     jobs in most "undeveloped" countries, and cashing all
>>     my stuff in for U.S. dollars gives me a retirement 
>>     that I can only DREAM of in the U.S.
>>
>>     Uruguay has a climate that would probably be conducive to solar.
>
>Well, you go uruguay, I'll go mine.  Say hello to Sendero Luminoso if 
>you pass through Peru.  

        Hmmm, no, I've already ruled out Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, and
     Brazil.  Chile, eh, I don't know.  I have a friend visiting ther
     soon, but I'm not inclined.

        Perhaps Mexico.  Might as well be where the jobs are going.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70027 alt.politics.clinton:21333
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:42:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>pathetic.........
>

         Come unto me, Norman, and the Torch of Truth will set you
      free...

         1985 - I'm working for Savin.  I'm flying to Dallas constantly,
                doing about 40% of our training classes, with FIVE other
                people available to go.  But *I* "always did well".   

                Made the branch look good.  So I'm missing my evening classes,
                sometimes one, sometimes two weeks, and my sundays.

                Without compensation.

                One day they give me tickets.  I'm supposed to miss the
                FIRST two weeks of night class.  I said  " no more, 
                send someone else "  I end up going, but with the promise
                of no more travelling during my semesters.

                FOUR weeks later, I have plane tickets on my desk.

                I went out that day, found another job at 2/3 my salary,
                went back and QUIT.

    " Oh, no, wait, wait, we can work something out.
      How about a raise?   10%?  Plus, no more trips to 
      Dallas!  "

        THAT, Norman, is YOU.  Reprehensible bullshit.  

        " Well, we tried to dick you, sorry, lets start over "

                 THAT, Norman, is AMERICA now.

                 *I* voted for "fair, shared sacrifice"

                 *I* voted for reality.

                 *MY* conscience is clear.

      You, and the rest of America, can prepare to flame on, with my 
      blessing.

e hhh
hxxxxxxsehlhhkawlays shll the tn
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
>
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: State's Rights (Was: Re: Destruction of the U.S.)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:56:15 GMT

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:


>It comes to the same thing. The state forces minority children out
>of the public schools - not the fed business.  The Jewish children
>find themselves sitting through Christian benedictions and it's
>not the feds business.   

Yes or no, do you want a global govt, to let the British and Mexicans and
whoever else cares step in if Washington does something they dislike.  If
appeal to a higher authority is good, should we have a higher authority than
Washington.

>Not at all. The states had slavery before the Constitution. THe
>const did not really address slavery except for how to count them
>for representation in Congress.  The same question has not been

I believe there was something about not being able to restrict imports
up to some date.

>answered:  Why are you more concerned with the rights of slave
>owners then slaves?

That's bullshit and you know it.  What I said is that Washington played
an ACTIVE part in slavery, not a passive one like you claimed.  You are
just making accusations to create a distraction from the obvious.
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,atl.politics.clinton
Subject: Prepare for EN-ENTRY!!!!!
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:35:06 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA01080; Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:46:16 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA01993; Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:46:07 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA03944; Wed, 27 Jan 93 13:35:07 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: atl.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


	On Nov. 3, 1992,  43% of the American voters walked into
	their booths and pressed a button marked,
	
		     "  NUKE ME! "
		     
        On Jan. 20, 1993, 60% vicariously participated in an event 
	labelled, 

		    " Oh, PLEASE NUKE ME! "

        On Jan. 21, 1993, President Bill "Taxcut" Clinton stepped
	off an airplane, proclaiming,

		    " Prosperity in our TIME! "

        On Jan. 30, 1993, 80% of the American public got what they
	wanted.


	Ka-BOOOMMM!!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69960 soc.motss:58541
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Yuppie Vacation Bill (WAS Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:59:22 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <90680@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1k1ogvINNlai@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> |In a previous article, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID) says:
|> 
|> |>>would allow a worker to take up to 12 weeks of
|> |>>UNpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of a child... [or for
|> |> ^^^^^^
|> |>"illness" of a family member]
|> |>
|> |>And just who, do you suppose, can AFFORD to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave?
|> |>None of the "working families" I know of can afford a three-month unpaid
|> |>leave of absence.  They should call this bill the "Yuppie Vacation Bill".
|> |>
|> |>And the cost in lost productivity will naturally be borne by everyone.
|> 
|> 
|> Actually it is probably just a case of the camel getting his nose in the
|> tent.
|> 
|> A couple of years from now, somebody will do a study that shows that only
|> rich people have been able to take advantage of this law.
|> Some sympathetic congress critter will then propose that anyone taking
|> maternity/paternity leave should be given some small fraction of their
|> income during the leave.
|> 

I believe that Rep. John Dingell has already made that argument and is
proposing (at least unofficially) that some form of *paid* leave be
mandated.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh