HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:35:46 GMT

In article <11900@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <94504@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <11830@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># That's just one interpretation. One might equally conclude that people
># who think drag queens are offensive are really saying that feminine
># qualities are bad for men to exhibit. Which is why I've been saying all
># along that misogyny and homophobia are more closely connected than most
># people would like to admit.

>The drag queens aren't "feminine" -- they are an insulting parody
>of femininity, in much the same way that bull dykes are an insulting
>parody of masculinity.
>
># protesting that some (NOT ALL) drag queens make a little satirical game
># of this, exaggerating makeup, costume, flirtation? That while biological

>It's an insulting parody of women.

Excuse me, but why does this bother you so much? I'm a woman, and I'm
not insulted at all by drag queens. If a few drag queens are parodying
women, fine by me. Some women need to be parodied (Phyllis Schlafly and 
Marilyn Quayle come to mind)  and drag queens can do it better than
anyone else.

btw, I *don't* agree that "bull dykes" (you mean to say, masculine
lesbians?) are an insulting parody of masculinity. My best friend is
a somewhat masculine lesbian, and I don't think she'd say she was
trying to parody anybody, or even trying to be masculine. She is the
way she is. I've known "masculine" women who aren't lesbians, and I've
known "feminine" men who are not gay. You can't tell for sure what
anybody is like, or what their sexual preference is, just by judging
their looks. I'm sure you know lots of gay people, even if you don't
know it, who look perfectly "normal." I came on this thread late,
but by the Subject line, that's what this thread is all about. 

Vickie


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:19:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <p15h614@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <11838@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Nothing's wrong with it -- it just illustrates my point -- that 
# #homosexuality isn't just a different sexual preference, but a group
# #of pathological problems, not all of which are shared by every
# #homosexual.
# 
# Many heterosexuals engage in S&M.  Why do you single out homosexuals?
# 
# FWA

Yeah, I meet straight people all the time who engage in S&M. :-)

Odd, I've never seen a straight S&M bar.  But you can't walk through
downtown San Francisco without running into gay S&M bars everywhere.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:40:45 GMT

mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
] >drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >>> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
] >>> Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
] >>> having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
] >>> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their will!!
] 
] > AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!
] > HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!
] 
] > As Long as Hetro's Are Allowed to Wallow in their Sin and Degradation
] > what Will Protect the MORALS and SCRUPPLES and WholeSomeFamilyValues!!!!!
] 
] > I Agree Brother! OutLaw Hetro's NOW!!!!!
] > Its Not enough to "Just Say NO! to Hetro!"
] > We Must OUTLAW THEM! We Must Make THEM find The CURE!!!!!
] 
] I *hope* drieux (, just drieux) is joking, for his petty war against
] heterosexuality (not to mention proper cApitalIzatioN) is inane.
] Suppose we outlaw heterosexuality. Then the human race is extinct in
] one generation. Think about it.

think about the Fact that all the BRUTAL MASS MURDERES
and MORAL DEGENERATE SICKO's on this planet were born
by Flagrant HeteroSexuality!!!!!

Hence it is Intuitively, Intrinsically, Self Evidently Obviously
that HeteroSexuality is the Cause of All things Dark and Evil!!!!


who KNOWs that we will all die out in one generation if
we can CURE ourselves of HETEROSEXUALITY! Has anyone
Really! Truly! Seriously Tried it before?????

HUM!!!!

The Course is Clear!

Just Say NO! to Hetro!

Or we are All bound for a Final Scene From Romeo and Juliet!

] Unless, of course, you support compulsory artificial
] insemination...;->

No Thank You, I like my compulsory insemination the
old fashion way.... Like God meant it to be!

By Divine Providence!!!!

ciao
drieux


ps: and it ain't no Petty War against HeteroSexuality,
I mean Be serious, would You leave this war to the
Guy who Brought you "Rebel without a Clue"??????


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Morality of Minimal Requirements on Health Insurance Payments (was: National Health Care)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:07:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.022909.9979@brownfield.glv.com> <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
>
>Maybe the fact that we have the *best* health care system in the world is  
>because we *don't* have a national health care system.
>

One might argue that the reason only SOME Americans may have the best
health care system in the world is because of incredible government
subsidization of health care in the US to the well off through the 
tax system.  And a research establishment paid for by the taxes of
all but whose benefits are restricted to those with the ability
to pay.

The US already has a national health care system...just an extremely
unjust one.  The so-called private health care system is subsidized
via the tax system and in reality what the private means is not that
it isn't government subsidized, but that it is exclusive.

What an unfair national health care system, that offers the rich
incredible tax subsidies so that they can go to their private doctors
but which force veterans to use the VA system.

The private health care industry is not unlike another massive S&L
scandal...the S&L's were able to raid the public treasury via public
deposit insurance, and the private health care industry is able to
raid the public treasury and undermine the competitiveness of
American industry by unlimited tax deductions for medical benefits.

Stopping the hemorraging of the public treasury by the private health
care industry in the US would go a long way to balancing the budget
in the US.  There are probably $100 billion dollars worth of savings
out there to be obtained.

The most basic market choice in the health care is the ability of
a person to choose their doctor...in most of the so-called "socialized"
systems in the rest of the world, most people probably have as much
if not more doctor choice than many Americans.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: The REAL Reagan Record
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:56:18 GMT

In article <3449@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

   In article <66831@hydra.gatech.EDU?? gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock) writes:
   ??For those who would like a detailed analysis of the Reagan era that is NOT
   ??filtered through Harel Barzilai's "Hate America" newsgroup or laundered by
   ??the BIG MEDIA, I highly recommend the 31 August 1992 issue of National
   ??Review magazine.  The entire issue is intended to address the lies and
   ??distortions of the popular and not-so-popular American press, concerning
   ??the Reagan era.  No apologies needed.

   Huh? National Review? Now there's a good example of objective reporting. 
   Their editors seem to yearn for a military government. Is Buckley still
   connected with that rag?

Have you ever read NR?  Would you be so kind as to enlighten with
facts proving their lack of objectivity?  How about some proof of your
preposterous claim that the editors yearn for a military government.  Oh,
now I see you cover your dishonest attack with the claim that the editors
"seem" to yearn.  Clever.

Buckley is marginally still associated with that magazine he founded 35
years ago.  He is no longer editor, but writes occasional articles and
three of his columns appear in each issue.

Please read a little and post the proof of your claims.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:58:32 GMT

In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:

>Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
>to anyone else on the net?

	It sure did to me. It is amazing to see a bunch of fat cats
and pampered pets claim that hard work is such a virtue, to see
Marilyn Quayle insinuate that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger when her
husband was an even bigger one (the worst danger in his National Guard
training would have been a hunter mistaking him for a deer), and so
forth.

	And Marilyn Quayle is something else -- if having a career
goes against a woman's fundamental nature, then why did she go to law
school? Why didn't she just drop out of high school?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:02:35 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <17pkclINNng6@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.173533.564@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Why?  After all, the vast majority of such people are retirees.  

>such = living off capital gains

Not quite.  Such = living off of capital gains and dividends without
working.  

>Documentation, please?

Don't need any.  The not working bit makes it pretty damned obvious,
except for young rich playboys, but you see more of them on TV than in
real life.

Also, where the heck do you think the money in a pension fund comes
from?  Capital gains and dividends.  If you are living on a pension
the above describes you.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: REPUBLICRAT/DEMOPUBLICAN TAX SUBSIDY
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:36:54 GMT

In article <exukjb.102.714943234@exu.ericsson.se>,
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>Does anyone know much about the Hoover Institution?  I think they put out a
>journal called Libertarian Review.  How can one contact this institution?

The Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace is located on the
campus of Stanford University and is node HOOVER on BITNET.
However, they were never the publishers of Libertarian Review, a
publication which folded a number of year ago.  Hoover is a think
tank with a conservative bent although they do count a fair number
of libertarians (and liberals) among their senior fellows including
Milten Friedman.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 13:36:24 GMT

In article <12002@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Homosexuals want the right to be offensive about
>what they do in private, but then want people to forget about that
>when they are busy whipping each other naked in the middle of 
>Market Street.

I've never whipped anyone naked in the middle of Market
Street.  I've never been naked in the middle of Market Street.
I've never been with anyone who was naked in the middle
of Market Street.

BTW, what consenting adults do in private is nobody's
business but their own.  You're the sorriest damned excuse
for a libertarian I've ever seen.  
-- 
"I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
me that my preference is fisting."  -- Theodore A. Kaldis

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
Date: 4 Sep 1992 18:53:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 3910@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.154025.27348@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
> >  and
> > selling planes to the enemies of his bosom buddies,
> > the butchers of Tianeman Square.
> 
> 	Before frothing at the mouth, one should check their maps.
> 
> 	Taiwan is not the PRC.

I believe that's what James was alluding to.  Taiwan and PRC are *not*
friends.  I would say that "enemies" is a fairer characterization of
their relationship.


Bob De Guc
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43122 ca.politics:7319 ba.politics:4948
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:25:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <12021@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Careful who you defend.  MPA is as close to an anti-Libertarian as
>there is on USENET -- except maybe Ed Nilges.

I voted for Ed Clark in 1980. Used to be one a' them Libertarians. Still
hold many libertarian beliefs. Since your reading comprehension and basic
cognitive skills seem to not exist--and labeling and name calling seem to
be your forte--here is my response to you:

I'm rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks
to you.
								      MPA
From: gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:34:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Politically Incorrect and Proud of It

In <1992Aug26.112319.15116@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:


>I suggest you take a look at some members of the Republican party
>who spew out hatred, fear, and intolerance.  Does that worry you?
[some other stuff deleted]

But nothing can compare to the Democratic party's handling of
Rep. Gus Savage. (Soon to be ex-Rep.)

Louis Farrakhan said that "Hitler was a great man" and that Judaism
is a "gutter religion".  Savage said that these statements are
"historically, culturally and politically accurate."

Anyone that even gives Farrakhan the time of day should be shunned.
But Savage agrees with him!

And what have the Democrats done about him?  In the 1990 Democratic
primary, Mel Reynolds (black, very liberal, and a Rhodes Scholar)
opposed Savage.  Did the Democratic House Leadership endorse
Reynolds? No.  Same in 1992, only Reynolds won this time.

The  Republicans supported Sen. Bennet Johnston and Edwin Edwards,
both Democrats, over David Duke.  The Democrats, by remaining silent,
tacitly supported Savage in the primary.

This is one more reason I can not vote Democratic.

(Sorry I had to remove the alt.* newgroups from this posting, but
 this computer doesn't subscribe to alt.*)

-- 
Jason Woodward | EE Graduate Student | Georgia Tech | Go Braves

Reason #461 to not vote for Bill Clinton: Justice Mario Cuomo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:30:27 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>> Reagan just put everything on a charge account and now
>> he's dying and *we* get to pay. Bush just inherited the mess.

>	If we charged our way into prosperity, why aren't we booming now?
>                                                

    Because eventually you have to pay. 


Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Shocking News About Clinton!!!!
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 07:55:51 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<ATAYLOR.92Sep2211744@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><<1992Aug31.204131.17546@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
><   <Bto7rt.GsJ@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) said:
><   ><l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
><   >>	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
><   >>American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
><   >>"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
><   >>kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
>
><   Can you provide evidence that Clinton wants to make it illegal for you to
><   choose your own doctor, or that he wants to make it illegal for you to
><   send your kids to a private school?
>
>	Some of the "national health insurance" schemes that
>	have been floated in the Democratic Party (and
>	the Brookings think-tank and the DLC)  over the
>	last 10 years would require everyone to enroll
>	in a kind of HMO; one would take the first available
>	doctor, no choice there. 

Let me understand you:  You are claiming that an insurance "scheme"
concocted by the Democrats would make it illegal for me to take my hard
earned cash and go to the doctor of my choice???  No, no, no.

If I want to use someone else's money (national health care) then I have
to abide by their rules.  But it is not, nor will it be, illegal for me to
attend the physician of my choice.

>	                         I do not know what Gov. 
>	Clinton's real plan for "national health insurance"
>	is, but after Congress and other interests get done
>	with it.....it won't be whatever he proposed, anyway.

Granted.

>	Governor Clinton is opposed to school choice inside
>	of school districts, according to an NEA "fact sheet".

So?    Where does it say that Clinton wants to make it illegal for me to
send my kids to a private school?

>	Governor Clinton is also opposed to women being free
>	to choose whether or not to own a firearm for self
>	defense. Now, he's not sexist; he also opposes 
>	the same right for men.....but men don't need to
>	defend themselves against rape nearly as often
>	as women do.

I disagree on the handgun issue.  Teach proper gun handling and safety,
but don't deprive people of their rights.

><I didn't think so.
>
>	Ahem. Try again.

Sorry, but you missed by a mile.

Talk.abortion added to the newsgroup again.  I don't read that other
group.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:06:30 CDT


In article <BtLx26.MMx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
> 
> Ah, but the polls can change quickly. Look what happened to a "reformed"
> Labour Party in the United Kingdom.  John Major STILL won, despite the
> worst recession since the 1930's.  AND all the polls said he would lose,
> right up to election day.

The UK Conservatives knew they had to dump Maggie to have a chance.

Had the Republicans replaced Bush with Kemp, they'd win.  
With Bush on the ticket, they'll loose.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42353 talk.abortion:33757 alt.politics.bush:3189
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:38:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug27.163341.16290@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
>that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.

This assumes, of course, that the unborn is just a scum sucking parasite
stuck in the mother's womb sucking the life out of the mohter, and therefore,
we should have the right to terminate that parasite.

]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:37:40 GMT

In article <BtLx26.MMx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>>The current standings in their poll are:
>
>>Clinton: 51%
>>Bush:    36%
>
>Ah, but the polls can change quickly. Look what happened to a "reformed"
>Labour Party in the United Kingdom.  John Major STILL won, despite the
>worst recession since the 1930's.  AND all the polls said he would lose,
>right up to election day.
>

The polls were not predicting that Major would lose but that it would
be a hung parliament...there is a big difference.  The polls were
predicting Maggie would lose so the Conservatives got themselves
a new leader who had a chance of winning.

I don't see Jack Kemp at the top of the Republican ticket...Bush
unlike Maggie would rather see his party go down in flames than 
prevent the Democrats from winning.

Gerald


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc