HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:40:18 GMT

In <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.103515.8607@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>    >No, the answer is: the government of Germany, using
>    >pseudoscience to attempt to portray a minority as inferior
>    >degenerate people in order to justify discrimination and
>    >abuse and, of course, eventually mass murder, of them.

>    >It's funny, though. They used to say that one of the things
>    >Jews did was kidnap children and use them for their own
>    >nefarious purposes (to make matzah, in that case). See any
>    >similarities, Clayton? Of course not.

>    >After all, Clayton, the pogroms weren't actually government
>    >action, right? They simply incited the people by claiming
>    >that Jews did all these evil things to their children, and
>    >then let the mobs run their course.

>    >I mean, just because they went around teaching that Jews were
>    >inferior "perverse and abnormal" (or whatever that quote is
>    >from the Oregon initiative) doesn't mean that they actually
>    >*caused* the pogroms, right?

>Correct. The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing such things
>as murdering children for religious rituals.

>That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of course was not true.

>Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people find that
>disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do IS TRUE.

>Big difference.

>To hate/dislike/shun/whatever some group because of things they are supposed
>to do but in reality don't, is one thing. To hate/dislike/shun/whatever a
>group because of things they actually do is another case.

>Even you can see the difference.

As Clayton would say, you're really sick if you can't see the difference
between hating someone for killing children and hating someone for
sleeping with someone of the same sex.  If you think those have *any*
moral equivalence, you are perverted and sick and disgusting and a
pathetic excuse for a human being.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Catholic church subsidizes male homosexuals
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:57:00 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

Well, actually not (the title). But from some use of "logic" by idiot
posters on the net, it makes "sense".

Yesterdays SJMN - the Catholic church has paid out $400,000,000 so far
in child molestation settlements. And is estimated to face at least
3 or 4 times that in pending lawsuits. That is, expected to PAY 3 or
4 times more!

Now, there are 79,000,000 adults in this country (this figure from memory
and not verified).

Half of those are male. 39,000,000 or so.

If we use a (IMHO) high figure of 4% of all males are homosexual, then
we have 1,560,000 male homosexuals in this country.

Thus, on a per capita basis, the Catholic church ALONE has "paid" $256
per male homosexual so far, and may end up paying over $1,000 per/for
each and every homosexual "capita".

Some figures show that actual homosexual percentages are less than 1%.

In which case we are talking about over $4,000 per male homosexual.

And that is just the Catholic church.

Talk about "social cost"!!!
(I don't believe in that type of terminology,
but if you want to use it, let this argument sink in).

What would one estimate the non-Catholic "costs" to be? Equal to
the Catholic church? $8,000 per head?

If hetereosexual white males indulged in some practice that cost the
insurance companies thousands of dollars per head (per capita) AND
traumatized others, I think there would be a HUGE outcry.

If there existed a very tiny majority of HWM (hetereosexual white males)
that did some ROT (really outrageous thing) that cost this thousands of
dollars per capita per HWM head, then I sure think that most HWM would
shun them and not them march in any HWM parades ...


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:19:35 GMT

In article <BxAAoB.587@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
    >Doubtful. The poor generally spend less on any category you
    >choose to name, including food, clothing, building materials,
    >and discretionary purchases. The transportation of most of

No -- they are the biggest consumers of cigarettes and alcolhol and junk foods.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7103 talk.politics.misc:60016 alt.politics.elections:23719 co.politics:1967 ne.politics:2967 alt.politics.clinton:17090 alt.politics.democrats.d:534
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: Perfect world
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:58:24 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov13.223157.26460@claven.ucar.edu>, woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)                          writes...
>In article <1992Nov12.082806.15389@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>  We
>>  are a society of people who are supposed to care about our fellow
>>  man
> 
>If we care about our fellow man (and I agree that as a rule, we do), then
>why do you feel that it is necessary to use force to obtain this care?
>Do you believe that people wouldn't voluntarily help each other in their
>hour of need? If you do, how do you reconcile that with caring about
>one's fellow man?
> 
Hope you don't mind if I jump in. I think the key word is "supposed" to
care. If we were helping each other in our hour of need then the private
charities wouldn't be in such distress. There also wouldn't be such a 
large quantity of people that are mentally disabled that are living
on the street. But all you have to do is drive down a California freeway
to know that people don't really care what condition their fellow man
is in. Sad, but true. 

>--Greg
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6732 ne.politics:2689 talk.politics.misc:58120
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:06:41 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.


	
In article <8+h1+1=@rpi.edu>, mancur@vccsouth13.its.rpi.edu (Rick Mancuso) writes:
>In this case, I'll bet my hat (to quote Perot) that Clinton
>raises taxes on people with incomes far lower than $200,000.

You can bet that the 50 cent a gallon gas tax, Willie has such a hard-on for
will hit people in the less than 200K bracket pretty damn hard, I'm here to
tell you.  And Gore wants it even higher...

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: 1996
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:34:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.002146.701@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>Now that that clown from Arkansas has won, tis time to start
>organising the troops for 1996. Thus, allow me to be the first
>to draft Jerry Brown for President in 1996!!

Yeah !!!  We want the flake from California instead of the
clown from Arkansas.


Guido
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: A thought
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:14:16 GMT
Distribution: us
Organization: Stanford University


A few thoughts about the *UGH* Clinton presidency:

5000 years ago, Moses came to the Hebrews and said:
"Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I shall 
lead you to the promised land."

50 years ago, FDR came to the Americans and said:
"Put down your shovels, sit on your asses, light up a camel.
This IS the promised land."

50 days from now, Bill Clinton is going to steal our shovels,
kick us in the asses, raise the price of camels, and mortgage
the promised land.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7109 talk.politics.misc:60042 alt.politics.elections:23738 co.politics:1982 ne.politics:2969 alt.politics.clinton:17101 alt.politics.democrats.d:540
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
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
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:23:16 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

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.) Also, many
people today feel that they are helping the poor through their tax
dollars. As such their charitable desires are satisfied (e.g. they
feel they are doing their part.) This also reduces the amount
currently going into charity. Finally, if people _aren't_ willing
to give as much to charities as you think appropriate, why do you
(and people like you) 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.)

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:50:32 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov12.015128.20902@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
    >What I am saying is that we have certain responsibilities to
    >our fellow man, whether we like it or not.

We do? On what basis do you say this? Whether you like it or not,
no man has a claim on another.

    >What are we, as a society, to do when some people can't make
    >on their own no matter what they try to do? Let them starve?
    >What kind of society is it, that would let someone starve
    >when there is wealth all around them?

Have you ever seen a starving person? I haven't. If you have actually
seen a starving person, then I have one question for you - WHY DIDN'T
YOU GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO EAT?

Put a tape in your VCR and record something like CNN for hours. Do this for
days. Play the tapes back and watch for footage of people getting free
food. Look at them carefully. You'll see very very few people that are
even slim -- most will be at least a few visible pounds overweight. Not
my definition of starving. Read an article in the WSJ (~4 weeks ago) on
getting free meals in 8 major US cities. Not a problem.

Of course, people ARE starving in places like Somalia. What kind of person
are YOU (to use your "logic") to not be giving most of your disposable
income to the starving people in Somolia? Pretty callous by your reasoning
I'd say ...
    
    >Without the social services we have California would be
    >depopulating right now (there aern't even minimum wage jobs
    >available). Basically, I'm saying that I don't believe in
    >Social Darwinism. I think it is a huge step back on the
    >evolutionary scale. And to remove the sad excuse we have for
    >a safety-net in this country is to return to a dog-eat-dog
    >society that was rejected once already.

Every McDonalds I've been to lately has a help-wanted sign.

Dog-eat-dog? How stereotypical. Except for people trapped by climates
or lost in wildernesses and other unusual emergency type situations,
we've never had starvation in this country except for those emergency
very small scale situations.

-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Stopping us from forcing the Mafia to subsidize parents with children
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:27:39 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov11.182511.19086@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
    >No one is suggesting (that I have seen) that anyone be
    >prevented from having children. What is being objected to is
    >that we are all forced to subsidize this decision over which
    >we had no control. I don't care how many children someone
    >decides to have, but I see no valid reason why *I* should be
    >forced to pay for them. I'm not opposed to charity, I am
    >opposed to government-forced charity, and forced charity that
    >encourages bad judgment to boot.

Today, a spokeswoman for the Mafia reiterated with anger the Mafia's
opposition to a new plan that would, in their words, "force the Mafia
to subsidize parents with children".

The controversial plan calls for those small business and individuals
that are currently paying extortion, or "racket/protection" money to
the Mafia to pay less if they have children to support.

The more children the extortee has, the less money paid to the Mafia.

The Mafia spokeswoman described this plan as just another attamept to
get the Mafia to subsidize the cost of children by the parents from
the Mafia.



In other words, to describe the lessening of involuntary & coerced taxes
as a "subsidy" borders on inane & stupid.


It's not a subsidy, it is a lessening of theft.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court direction
Date: 5 Nov 1992 09:37:00 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.

In article <1992Nov5.063439.29556@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>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.

But once the Freedom of Choice Act is signed it really won't matter
what the Supreme Court does.  Obviously the issue is very borderline
from a legal standpoint (or it would have been settled by now).  So
if Congress passes a law and it gets signed the courts will uphold it
(IMHO).

The local pro-choice forces expect the gag rule lifted by the day
after the innauguration (this will stop any appeals of the current
injunction against it) and the Freedom of Choice Act during the
first session of Congress.

Also once choice is the law of the land I predict all but the extreme
right wing of the Rep. party will drop the issue.  Most mainstream
politicians view this as a blight on our system that has driven us
toward dominance by single issue voters.  The whole system will be
better off with this behind us.  Also, the moderate Republicans
are smart enough to realize how much it lost them this time.  Not
all of us vote based on the economy.

BTW, I did see one analysis that Clinton could get up to 4
appointments this term and almost certainly 5 if he gets re-elected.
You start with Blackmun and O'Connor has been having health problems
so she probably will retire soon.  I forget who the other two most
likely are (not Thomas though).

Andy
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:14:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <184174@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.011322.27337@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>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.

>Well, Michael, times have changed, and so has Tipper.  This campaign 
>occurred 5 to 7 years ago.  Back in 1990, she recanted her position and
>now does NOT support warning labels on music packaging.  People do have a
>right to change their minds.

OK -- the article I was on Al's defending his wife appeared about
three months ago.  The author gave no impression that his information
was so old.

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:27:47 GMT

In article <13131@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Those decisions
#may be good, they may be bad, but when the government says that a
#group with either a disproportionate number of victims, or a 
#disproportionate number of molesters in it, MUST be given protected
#minority status, I get very upset.

And interesting statement to be made on the aniversary of
"Kristalnacht". 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: This Place is NUTS!
Keywords: California = Cuckoo's Nest
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:27:33 GMT
Distribution: us
Organization: Stanford University


I don't know. Perhaps there IS some truth to the charges that there
is too much lead in the water here.

Saturday night, I was listening to the radio (I think it was KCBS).
There was some English guy using his talk show to spout the most
ridiculous assertions since chicken little.

He and his mindless minions of callers were commenting on the
"theory" that the republicans might be hatching a plan to assassinate
Bill Clinton. Come off of it. 
The guy was nuts. He began with weak accusations that the republicans
were "plotting" to hatch some scheme to subvert the duly elected govt.
The shrill voices of the mush minds gradually rose to a crescendo
with the Oliver Stone-esque ravings about mayhem

When ONE caller actually had the gaul to challenge this pied piper
he was immediately shouted down, accused of being a bigot, and
hung up on.

Strike another victory for free speech.
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taxes? What have the Romans done for us ...
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:44:57 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Pyramid Technology

Gee, Phil.  How sad.  Since you don't vote, you can't do anything about it.

I suppose you could run for office, but given your popularity here, you'd
probably lose (and I'm sure your pride wouldn't allow you participate in 
what you term the coercive process anyway.)

You could move (Nevada has no state income tax, and there are several countries
that don't, either.)

Or do you just prefer to sit there and whine?

George Lambert
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7031 talk.politics.misc:59719 alt.politics.elections:23549 co.politics:1831 ne.politics:2912 alt.politics.clinton:16923 alt.politics.democrats.d:471
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: 1996
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:21:46 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

Now that that clown from Arkansas has won, tis time to start
organising the troops for 1996. Thus, allow me to be the first
to draft Jerry Brown for President in 1996!!
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7054 ca.politics:9544 talk.politics.misc:59826
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:04:16 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov12.103515.8607@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
    >No, the answer is: the government of Germany, using
    >pseudoscience to attempt to portray a minority as inferior
    >degenerate people in order to justify discrimination and
    >abuse and, of course, eventually mass murder, of them.
    >
    >It's funny, though. They used to say that one of the things
    >Jews did was kidnap children and use them for their own
    >nefarious purposes (to make matzah, in that case). See any
    >similarities, Clayton? Of course not.
    >
    >After all, Clayton, the pogroms weren't actually government
    >action, right? They simply incited the people by claiming
    >that Jews did all these evil things to their children, and
    >then let the mobs run their course.
    >
    >I mean, just because they went around teaching that Jews were
    >inferior "perverse and abnormal" (or whatever that quote is
    >from the Oregon initiative) doesn't mean that they actually
    >*caused* the pogroms, right?

Correct. The German State tried to protray the Jews as doing such things
as murdering children for religious rituals.

That would be horrible and disgusting if true. But it of course was not true.

Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex. Many people find that
disgusting and revolting. But, what homosexuals do IS TRUE.

Big difference.

To hate/dislike/shun/whatever some group because of things they are supposed
to do but in reality don't, is one thing. To hate/dislike/shun/whatever a
group because of things they actually do is another case.

Even you can see the difference.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7067 talk.politics.misc:59875 alt.politics.elections:23643 co.politics:1887 ne.politics:2942 alt.politics.clinton:17004 alt.politics.democrats.d:502