HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:13:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <13131@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># Unless "exclusive homosexuals" molest girls at some unusual rate, I
># think this means that, if your goal is preventing child molestation,
># then the best man for interacting with a mixed group of children is an
># "exclusive homosexual" (however Abel defined the term).

>Great.  Protect the girls, damage the boys.  Of course, that appears
>to be a mechanism for making more male homosexuals, so I guess I'm
>not surprised that you would make such an absurd suggestion.

Why would I want to make more male homosexuals (assuming that your
absurd "mechanism" assertion is correct)?  This seems like a bit of a
non sequitur.  There's no inherent virtue in homosexuality; it's the
people that happen to be homosexuals that matter.

However, (remembering that this is assuming that your shaky statistics
are correct in their most damning intepretation) you are entirely
correct that it is an issue of "protect the girls, damage the boys".
Or, perhaps it is an issue of "protect the boys, damage the girls".

(Again assuming your statistics are correct, which I do not generally
do) you can either minimize the chance of ANY molestation occurring
(maximize the chance of 0 victims) or you can minimize the expected
number of victims.  (Given your statistics) one choice says "choose
the homosexual", the other says "choose the heterosexual".  Given this
most favorable interpretation of your statistics, this hardly
justifies a jihad against homosexuals.

> when the goverment saus that a group with ... a disproportionate
> number of molestors in it MUST be given protected minority status, I
> get very upset.

Historically, our government has accorded special status to a minority
that contains a disproportionate number of molestors, rapists, and
murderers (among other crimes).  Even today, that minority has
disproportionate representation in government and business.  This
minority also controls what you see on TV and movies, and what you
read in the paper and magazines.  (Can you guess who I'm talking
about?)

Now, I agree that one wrong does not justify another, but I think you
do have to keep a sense of perspective.

David Chase
Sun
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:24:22 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <101196@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >Saying a pedophile is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual
    >applies only to REGRESSED pedophiles, who have previously
    >demonstrated an adult sexual orientation and have since
    >regressed to pedophilia.
    >
    >For fixated pedophiles, who have never had their sexual
    >orientations mature beyond interest other children, tagging
    >them with an adult sexual orientation is completely
    >meaningless.

To (try to) go back to the original issues ...

1. It is moral to discriminate on ANY basis for ANY reason whatsover.
   Whether you are discriminating in a dating partner or a new hire
   for your basis, it is moral to use any subjective or objective
   reasoning whatsoever.

2. If we consider the hiring of an individual to work in a day care
   center, we most certainly wish to ascertain her/his likelihood
   to engage in sexual activities with children.

   Besides the illegality, almost all parents wish to have strong
   control over the sexual interactions of their children.

3. Most people would be much much less concerned with the hiring of a woman
   than with the hiring of a man. By the numbers posted, 95%+ of all
   children molested are molested by a male.

   THUS, TREATING "MALES" AS A BLACK BOX, we are correct in being much much
   more wary of men wishing to gain employment in a day care center. Even
   though of course, very very few men, out of all men, molest children.

4. Treating male homosexuals as a black box, an extremely high % of
   molestation incidents are performed by male homosexuals as compared
   to male hetereosexuals. It MAY BE (and it may not be) that a very
   few male hetereosexuals do a very large number of molestations.

   Thus, the black box category of "male seeking day care employment"
   shows higher (than female seeking) likelihood of being a threat.
   The black box category of "homosexual male seeking ..." shows even
   higher, perhaps thje highest of all groups except for "male seeking,
   convicted of prior child molestation".

Thus, from a black box category, homosexual males are one of the
highest threats to children froma sexual molestation view.

Since we can not read minds, nor can we divine intent, we can only look
at the possible objective categories.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7117 talk.politics.misc:60082 alt.politics.elections:23758 co.politics:1989 ne.politics:2973 alt.politics.clinton:17114 alt.politics.democrats.d:545
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Charity (Re: Ignorance
Summary: Correction
Date: 14 Nov 92 06:12:40 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov13.232316.953@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov13.022043.20940@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>>No, we shouldn't, and most people wouldn't.  We aren't faced with a 
>>>choice of government charity or no charity, there is the very real
>>>alternative of private charity...
>>>Private organizations should be the primary source for charity, government
>>>should be secondary, not the other way around.
> 
>>If private charity could supply all the needs of America today then
>>I would back up your statement 100%, but I don't believe it can. I don't
>>believe it has close to the amount of resources neccessary. (If you 
>>could supply information comtrary to this I would be interested)
> 
>You are missing an important presumption here: If the government is
>no longer providing this charity, then the government also doesn't
>need to tax as heavily. That would put more money into people's
>pockets (and presumably, therefore, more into charity.)

You presume a lot. I saw a study in the newspaper about a month ago
that said that although the rich gave more to charities amount-wise,
they gave less percentage-wise. It might be difficult, but I could find
it if you want.

 Finally, if people _aren't_ willing
>to give as much to charities as you think appropriate, why do you
>(and people like you)

Hold it right there buddy. You are being very presumtuous to group me
accourding to your standards.

 have a right to _force_ them to (by means of
>government taxes.) Since how much charity is appropriate is a
>moral judgement, isn't that imposing the moral views of the 
>majority on a minority? (Little different in my mind, from state
>religions.)

You could either look at it in a morality term, or a term of social
need. If you look at it as social needs then the majority has the moral
right to set the level (this subject could branch off into a whole 
different discussion). As for comparing it to state religions, your 
arguement takes a stretch of logic to reach. Are you comparing the 
social services of this country to Communism?
> 
>                                         Frank Crary
>                                         CU Boulder
Garrett@Ingres.com
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7060 talk.politics.misc:59856 alt.politics.elections:23628 co.politics:1878 alt.politics.clinton:16994 alt.politics.democrats.d:496
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:39:14 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <1992Nov4.161616.21762@netcom.com+ mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
+In article <1992Nov3.232047.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
+>(ahem)
+>YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!
+>Thank you Illinois.
+>Thank you California.
+>Thank you, America.
+>blissed-out.max
+
+I hope you're a big fan of deficit spending, censorship and all the
+other things that made this country so great.

Ahem, "censorship"?  You're expecting *more* censorship with Democrats
in power?!?  Oops, I forgot, Jesse Helms, Edwin Meese, Phyliss Schlafly - 
all those Republicans who are champions of free speech.  Right.

jb
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Inheritance taxes
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:08:20 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1dvbqnINN10a@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.012419.13792@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.co

>>Politicians champion inheritance taxes as a way to sock it to the rich.
>>In reality, it is the not-so-rich -- the middle class -- which pays the
>>bulk of estate and inheritance taxes.  (The United States has estate
>>taxes, which tax the estate of the deceased.  The United States does not
>>have inheritance taxes, which tax the heirs, instead.)

>What definition are you using? The US Estate Tax does not kick in until
>AT LEAST $600K. With any type of decent estate planning this threshold
>can be raised significantly. Are millionaires middle class to you?

First of all, when you consider that people slowly build up wealth over a long
period of time, I'd say that a $1 million estate left by a 70-year-old is
upper middle class--and just plain "middle class" in areas where a modest
home costs $250,000.  A $600,000 estate is certainly middle class.  My parents,
for example, own a MODEST $220,000 home near San Jose.  They raised 5 children
and never earned more than $70,000 per year before retiring.  That sounds
solidly middle class to me.  Through sound financial planning, I'd say they
have a net worth somewhere between $600,000 and $1 million.  So yes, I'd say
that we ARE hitting middle class people the hardest by this.

Secondly, have you heard of HR 4848?  This bill, disguised as a "long term
care" package (who could oppose such a caring idea?), has a provision tucked
in it which would *lower* the tax-exempt ceiling from $600,000 to $200,000!
Congress, hoping we wouldn't find out about that provision, tabled it since
Bush would veto such a tax hike.  I hope they won't resurrect it and I pray
that Clinton won't sign it.

Of course, the idea was that Bush would veto a "long term care bill" so that
the Democrats can say that Bush is "out of touch" and "doesn't care."

$200,000.  Two hundred thousand.  LOWER middle class people can EASILY acquire
an estate of over $200,000 in a full lifetime.  Heck, 75,000 of the people
designated "poor" by the 1990 census OWN homes worth over $300,000.  So people
classified as "below the poverty line" will be hit by this tax!

Now how do you feel about it?

This bill signifies the return of the Bohicans.
BOHICA = "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again."

>PS Inheritance taxes go back to at least feudal times--in fact, the
>right to inherit was not automatic.

Does that necessarily make it right?

Tim Irvin, possible Libertarian for Congress '94
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7059 talk.politics.misc:59855 alt.politics.elections:23627 co.politics:1876 ne.politics:2936 alt.politics.clinton:16993 alt.politics.democrats.d:495
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Correction
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:54:55 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov12.230012.16382@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                              writes...
>In article <1992Nov12.092934.20343@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>    >Frank, I regret having to disabuse you of THIS faulty notion
>    >also. However, the facts you state are in error. During the
>    >so-called "dog-eat-dog" era (which I calculate ran roughly
>    >from the Civil War to the beginning of the Great Depression,
>    >very few so-called poor peopl escaped poverty. What was
>    >notorious during that era was the way the rich and powerful
>    >preyed on the working poor by essential enslavement,
>    >revolting working conditions, pitiful wages, and no sharing
>    >of profits. Unions were formed out of this horrid sick
>    >society. What is really important is that this was NOT when
>    >the greatest growth of our country took place. Oh, for sure,
>    >there were notable inventions and lots of progress (cars,
>    >phones, airplanes, etc). But the industrial level of our
>    >society had not really started to progress.
> 
>You are very much mistaken. The post Civil War period through the
>beginning of the Second World War saw the greatest expansion of
>American industrial might ever seen.

Important correction. He said from the Civil War to the "beginning of
the Depression". That's an 11 year difference.
> 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:13:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.053914.29388@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.161616.21762@netcom.com+ mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>+In article <1992Nov3.232047.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
>+>(ahem)
>+>YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!
>+>Thank you Illinois.
>+>Thank you California.
>+>Thank you, America.
>+>blissed-out.max
>+
>+I hope you're a big fan of deficit spending, censorship and all the
>+other things that made this country so great.
>
>Ahem, "censorship"?  You're expecting *more* censorship with Democrats
>in power?!?  Oops, I forgot, Jesse Helms, Edwin Meese, Phyliss Schlafly - 
>all those Republicans who are champions of free speech.  Right.

I guess you didn't catch Al Gore's defense of his woman's crusade to
censor (and limit the availability of) certain kinds of music to which
she's averse.  His rationale was that they were going after only the
really offensive stuff.  Sounds like another example of someone in
power putting his values into my life.  

And I don't even *like* rap.



-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6799 ca.politics:9375
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Third Party Strategies
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:36:10 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA


Something that really impressed me in the last election was how many
couples and groups of friends effectively wasted their votes. For example,
I know two business partners one of whom voted for Bush and Hershensohn and
the other voted for Clinton and Boxer. Now, for both of them, their real 
first choices were Marrou and Genis and Perot and Genis respectively but they
didn't want to waste their vote.

The sad thing is their votes were wasted anyhow becuse they canceled each
other out. If they had made an informal agreement among themselves _not_ to
vote for Republicrats, they would have sent a much more powerful message
to the polls-WITHOUT AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. Boxer and Clinton
would still have run, but with less of a mandate to create mischief.

My own sense is that we need some strategies to increase the overall vote for
third party candidates by some kind of system of informal agreements among
friends. Clinton is now listening to Perot because
1) Perot has a big megaphone to squawk through
2) Without Perot's support clinton has no popular mandate.

We can do the same thing in more elections, I'd love to see Senators and
Representatives going to office with 40% of the popular vote-and needing
to learn to treat the Greens and Libertarians and even the right wing
groups with a bit more respect.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7014 talk.politics.misc:59639 alt.politics.elections:23504 co.politics:1806 ne.politics:2899 alt.politics.clinton:16877 alt.politics.democrats.d:457
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Supreme court direction
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:34:39 GMT

In article <lfgrsmINNli@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>RvW and other rights are safe, not because there's going to be a
>liberal court any time soon, but because there's no longer an
>anti-civil-rights administration bringing cases.

I don't think the picture is quite so rosy as that - just because the
administration won't be pushing these cases up to the Supreme Court
does not mean there aren't plenty of others who will.  Various states
or the legal arm of Pat Robertson's gang (Jay Sekulow and co.) will
continue to be very active in attacking Roe V. Wade.  Just ask them
if you doubt it.

jb
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:07:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.060050.14101@eng.ufl.edu> seed@joker.mil.ufl.edu (Steven Seed) writes:
>>>>>Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
>>>>>on the RICH!($200,000 or more)
>>>>
>>>>Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
>>>>a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
>>>>tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.
>>>>
>>>>                                                Frank Crary
>>>>                                                CU Boulder
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is another typical tactic: when confronted with indisputable facts,
>>>change the subject.
>>>
>>>-- 
>>> Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>>> From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
>>
>>
>>
>>How has he changed the subject at all? He is introducing a comparison.
>>The quesiton is, is it right to raise the taxes on an arbitrary segment
>>of the population? He is introducing another arbitrary group, for
>>whom the question is it right to raise THEIR taxes would mostly
>>elicit a "no" from most people. I think the comparison is both fair and
>>enlightening.
>
>Excuse me! But the "rich" are not an arbitrary group. They are the ones that
>have been living it up for the past 12 years with the tax cuts. It's time that
>they pay their fair share! The minorities (what ever you mean by that) have
>suffered along with everone else except for the rich elite.
>
>  Just because you cut taxes on the wealth is no guarentee that they'll invest
>in the country.
>
>Steve---------"I'm outa here!"
>


I beg to differ. When you say "tax the rich," you are targeting a segment
of the population based upon a chosen demographic criterion, i.e. a
certain amount of money earned in income. You're bitter claim that they 
have been "living it up" certainly doesn't really do much to dissuade
this argument. In fact, a segment of the population which made very
large gains over the ~Reagan years was the women, whose income rose
considerably. Should we raise the income taxes on women simply because
they are women? What we are doing here is selecting another demographic,
sex rather than income, as our basis for the income tax. And, just because
their is no guarantee that the wealthy, if not taxed, will invest in the 
country is a weak and nefarious argument. Just because they might not
invest in the us, we ought to tax the sons of bitches? I think that people
have the right to invest their money however they wish. We do not enter
business to offer employment. Rather, we enter business to provide as
good a living for our families as we can.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 15:55:58 GMT

In <1992Nov5.192301.4780@island.COM>, Guido Marx writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.020252.11192@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimm
>>In the first place, if you think that Quayle's gonna be a GOP player,
>>you're on drugs.  Bob Dole is the only name you'll hear in '96.

>I agree that Danny Quayle has about as much chance as I do of being
>the GOP's nominee in '96, but there are going to be a lot of other
>names besides Bob Dole being kicked around.  Just for starters I
>can think of Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Jim Baker.

Dole's name is heard every year since 1980.  He hasn't exactly electrified the
Republicans.  I was a registered Republican (until the Buchanan and Robertson
speeches in Houston, which made me re-register as a Libertarian) and I have
watched the "horses jockey for position."  I think that Kemp has the inside
track for '96.  Kemp is one of the few current Republicans whom I would
heartily endorse.  His message is always positive, and he has worked for much
of his life to empower the underclass.  The Bush Administration ignored him,
which I feel was one of their biggest mistakes.

>I am sure there will be others, how many of us would have bet on
>Bill Clinton to win this election in 1988 ?

Phil Gramm.  Bill Weld.  Weld would be a refreshing contrast to the Religious
Right which reared its ugly head in Houston.  Weld is one of the few current
Republicans who was willing to stand up to the far right, and I have nothing
but respect for him (note to Democrats who say that the Republicans practice
"the politics of exclusion":  I saw pro-choicers Weld and Lynn Martin speak
in Houston.  Did I see the Democrats let pro-life Pennsylvania governor Casey
speak?).  And as you said, there will probably be others.

>>Secondly, by the time that '96 rolls around, I expect that most people
>>will have become so displeased with Clinton that he'll have a tough
>>time surviving the Democratic challengers.  He's so poised for failure
>>it's almost funny.

>Well, we'll have to see about this.  Personally, I would liken his
>position to Ronald Reagans first term.  Only time will tell.

Conditions are similar to Reagan's first term (except for inflation and
interest rates).  Reagan did revive the economy, but part of what he was able
to do was just luck, being elected as we were ending the weak part of a normal
business cycle.  Clinton has inherited a slowly recovering but still weak
economy.  If the economy revives in a couple of years, we'll just have to see
how much of it was due to Clinton and how much was due to the normal business
cycle.  In any event, the economy should almost certainly be better by '96
(unless Clinton and/or Congress creates another tax blunder, or if the deficit
is allowed to grow unchecked) due to normal cyclical activity, and that will
make Clinton look good.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.