HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:56:21 GMT

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
>	Think about this forced unpaid maturity leave.  Say you are a
	
I believe you mean, maternity leave.

>small business and have one employee.  The employee says they are taking
>time off, and you can't do anything about it, because it's federally
>mandated.  While that person is off, you have to put your business on
>hold, find someone else, and spend the money to train them.  Say that
>employee comes back, works a few months, and then takes more time off.
>You have to do it all again.  Usually, you would just find someone more
>reliable, but because of the federal law, you're stuck.  This already
>happens in big companies that mandate leave to their small franchise
>stores, and it would be a big mess on a federal government level.

>	I haven't heard of the second one.  You'll need to provide some
>more information.	

I think I need to provide you with some info on the first one. The bill
mandates up to 12 weeks of UNPAID maternity leave for workers who work
in businesses of MORE THAN 50 EMPLOYEES. Therefore, your example doesn't
hold water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians do not have a problem
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:19:05 GMT

In article <Sep.15.17.27.35.1992.13298@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <lbcajlINNf7c@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>>> The last time we had a veritable scumbag as President was when LBJ
>>> held that office -- and he (and his legacy) has very nearly destroyed
>>> this country.

>> So, I suppose that you consider Nixon to be an honorable man?

>Hardly honorable, but (as far as I'm concerned) not nearly as bad as
>LBJ (though, in my estimation, not good either).

>> Please!!  Give me a break!  Nixon was *THE* most dispicable [sic]
>> person ever to hold the office of President.

>No, that dubious honor should rightly go to LBJ (though clearly the
>point is arguable).

Why?  LBJ lied -- something which puts him in good company with
Reagan/Bush and probably every other president we've had.  Nixon tried
to destroy the Constitution.

>> Also, be so kind as to document how LBJ "nearly destroyed this
>> country."

>Ever hear of "The Great Society"?  Ever hear of "entitlement
>programs"?  It is these programs which are responsible for a good
>portion of the national debt and the deficit.

No, the Reagan tax cuts/defense increases are responsible for the
national debt.  When Reagan took office, the debt was ~ $1 trillion.
Now?  It's ~ $4 trillion.  Reagan campaigned against Carter's ~$60
billion deficits.  Reagan ran deficits in the $200 billion range.

The "entitlement programs" which are so talked about now, Ted, are 
Social Security and Medicare.  Neither of which have anything to do with
LBJ.  They've been around since FDR.

Name a program from the Great Society that is responsible for debt.
Head Start?  No, even the Republicans like this program.

>>> The last thing we need now is Bill Clinton to finish the job.

>> You'd rather have four more years just like the past four years?

>I'd rather have 4 more years of Reagan-era prosperity, but I'll gladly
>put up with 4 more years of Bush than with what Clinton will have to
>dish up.  How do you suppose he's going to be able to pay for all the
>promises he's making other than by greatly increasing the already
>onerous tax burden imposed upon the American public?

Onerous tax burden?  Please.  We have the lowest taxes in the world in
the US.   Maybe he's planning on paying by cutting out
Welfare-for-the-Rich Defense Pork.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:26:21 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep15.004413.27761@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
    >Also, cite three examples of homosexuals "trying to involve
    >the government in telling consenting adults what they may do
    >in private". Hint: non-religious employment and for-profit
    >rental situations are not private situations.

Sex you. Why? What's so special about religious employment and non-profit
rentals? I'm not religious, so I don't count and get to have my FOA
violated?
-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anyone done a recent Usenet Poll?
Summary: Who cares about T*d?  Not me...
Date: 11 Sep 1992 00:15:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: That little old school on S. Main

In article <Sep.10.08.33.04.1992.5230@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.162033.9340@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>> Has anyone performed a recent usenet poll on Bush/Quayl and
>> Clinton/Gore?
>
>What for?  We all know what the poll results are going to be without
>anyone even taking it.  (For example, polls revealed that in '84 users
>of usenet were overwhelmingly in favor of Mondale, and in '88 in favor
>of Dukakis.)  Why waste our time with what is obvious?

Amazing -- you've finally got a clue as to why no one pays attention to what
you have to say.  There's *hope* fer ya, son...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: "liberal bias"? (Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias)
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep7.110455.2113@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Sep8.144924.23515@hemlock.cray.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.144924.23515@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
-> In jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
-> 
-> > I still maintain that no honest person can objectively watch or read the
-> > majority of the news and *not* see a liberal bias. 
-> 
-> What is the definitian of "liberal bias"?  It seems to me that any story
-> left of the "700 Club" is used as examples.
-> 
-> What about a show like "David Brinkley" as an example of "conservative bias"?
-> They have accoplished conservative columnist George Will to provide the 
-> conservative view, but who do they have to support the liberal view?  They
-> have Sam Donaldson, who is at best a second rate reporter.  Then again, I
-> woubt that the shows sponsors, GE and ADM, would pay for a real debate (but
-> they will pay for a stacked debate).

	Organizations that promote themselves as news should present
it impartially; political bias belongs in opinion columns and shows.
If a story from a news source is left of the 700 Club, then it has a
political bias, since it should not be left or right of anywhere.
Actually doing this is not easy, but I believe most news organizations
could do a lot better.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: General conservative lunacy (was: Arrogant Indians...)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 21:02:41 GMT

In <1992Sep7.025427.18224@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
># Charitable and private organizations were doing a darned better job of
># cleaning up the place than was FEMA.

>I didn't notice that as soon as FEMA announced it would be bringing
>aid to the hurricane victims, that charitable and private
>organizations, and the victims themselves, rose up in righteous
>indignation to tell the Feds that their inefficient bumbling efforts
>to help people were an unnecessary waste of the taxpayers' money --
>better spent on reducing government debt, national defense, law
>enforcement, and tax refunds...

He didn't say FEMA's help was unwelcome, only that it was slow in
coming.  Of course, he could have made a stronger case than to pick
such a massive disaster where both private and governmental help
are necessary.  
>-----

>#                                                                   ... At the
># same time, pro-choicers who argue that fathers have no say in the decision of
># whether or not a fetus should be aborted should not yell from the rooftops to
># crack down on deadbeat dads who don't pay their child-support.

>God forbid that a *man* should have to take any responsibility for the
>consequences of his sexual behavior...

>I mean, after all, if abortion were safe and legal those deadbeat dads
>could have had their fetuses aborted rather than have to support those
>children, right?

If the woman wanted an abortion but did not have the money for it, they
could have given them the money.  On the other hand, if she did not...

God forbid that a *man* should pressure the bearer of his "potential 
child" into aborting by such unheard-of-by-Woodyatt
 tricks as saying, "if you don't
abort I'll leave you,"  and saying, if she does not abort, "You're
stuck with it now, baby.  After all, you could have had an abortion."

>What nerve.

That's what I'd say to such unheard-of tricks. 

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:10:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.220222.17568@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.034609.25077@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

@ 	Well, Slick Willie had a much better excuse for draft-dodging
@ than Danny Boy, who was a gung-ho hawk in his college and NG years. He
@ didn't like the war, while Danny Boy did.

>So it's OK for him to use his rich family connections so that someone
>else had to go?

	Just like Danny Boy?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 16:12:25 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep9.061734.9515@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
    >Ok. So if you want war maybe its time to declare war on
    >religion. After all why should I be forced to hire a raving
    >fundy? Why should religion be granted tax exempt status? Lets
    >get rid of all these special priviledges for "chosen
    >religious lifestyle". And I don't want religious people
    >congregating on the street, after all those are tax payer
    >funded. And schools really should teach the truth about the
    >destructive meme called religion...

Sounds good except for the congregating part. Religous fascists should have
the same rights as homosexual fascists -- if one group can congregate, then
all groups should be able to.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:48:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <12276@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>
>He came out years ago.  He is gainfully employed by a disk
>drive manufacturer because of his engineering talents, not
>because of his sexual preference.  Companies that do actively
>discriminate eventually go the way of the dinosaur as they
>lose not only the talents of those that they actually
>discriminate against, but also of those who don't care for such
>practices. 

  Japanese companies routinely discriminate against half the
  population (I have no idea what they do about gays) and it
  doesn't seem to have hurt them.  US companies during the 
  60's and 60's, i.e., the greatest period of growth for US
  corporations in history, routinely discriminated against 
  anybody who wasn't a white, heterosexual male.     Often
  on the net we hear that discrimination is self-defeating,
  but I think this is  mainly religion -- I don't see lots of
  empirical evidence for it.


---peter
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45252 ca.politics:7736 ba.politics:5276
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:11:53 GMT
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ

In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.061527.3113@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>    >In article <12272@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark
>    >Walsh) writes:
>    >>(talking about affirmitive action) I find it sad that some
>    >>gays are now trying to get their fingers into this pie. I
>    >>don't believe that gays are mentally disadvantaged, and as
>    >>such do not need bailout programs. I can see it now:
>    >>
>    >Huh? Are you actually paying attention? I don't know any gay
>    >or lesbian folks who are looking for affirmative action or
>    >"special rights", and I'm willing to bet big bucks that I
>    >know a LOT more of them than you do. All we'd like is the
>    >government to pass some laws saying we can't be fired just
>    >because we're not straight. Is that "special rights"? I sure
>    >don't think so.
>
>Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
>but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
>yes, it does confer de facto special rights.
>

Oh yes, the same special rights that women, people of color, handicapped
people, religious people, and the like have.  Gosh *HOW AWFUL* that
we might not want to be capriciously fired by some loony toon like
you.

Why I feel positively special just thinking about this *HUGE* right,
NOT!

Phil, are you sure you don't work at Optilink?

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44262 alt.politics.clinton:4451 alt.politics.bush:4420
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:20:50 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep3.085725.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu said:
><550HqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>> In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
...
>> According to AP, he (Clinton) was invited by Chiles.  Maybe Chiles figured that
>> if Bush got his photo-op, Clinton was entitled to his.  Clinton remarked last
>> week that he felt it was better for him to stay away.  I guess that, given how
>> useless Bush is, at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
>nail on the head with the issues either...)?

At least he didn't blame Congress when he missed the mark.


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.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:07:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <BuMxru.6uI@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

> Clayton Cramer:

>> You see, even the most fundamentalist people I know oppose gay
>> bashing.  I have yet to meet anyone that supports it.  (Then again, I
>> don't know anyone that supports violent attacks on peaceful people.
>> Do you?)

> Ask Ted Kaldis sometime about tire irons.

The only legitimate use for a tire iron is that for which it was
designed.  Anyone who brandishes a tire iron as a weapon -- against
whomever -- should be prosecuted for assault.  I thoroughly repudiate
the idea that aggressive violent behavior should somehow be excused
because it was directed against those who practice aberrant behavior,
regardless of how reprehensible such behavior might happen to be.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:41:50 GMT

rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>In article 10234@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>No.
>>
>>Next question?

>Funny.  You usually have more to say than that.  I presented a lengthy list
>of statements that support viewing Quayle as a "draft dodger" in precisely 
>the same sense that Clinton was.  It was common knowledge at the time of the
>Vietnam war that joining the National Guard was a fairly safe way to escape
>combat.  This is not to say that service in the National Guard was dishonorable

I know this is not what you are saying but this is what the media and public
are saying. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians don't have a problem with
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: HUD scandal (Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:21:17 CDT


In article <1992Sep12.153804.12303@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <ART.92Sep11142723@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
> >Are you sure about this.  I thought I read somewhere that the Treasury
> >covered any deficits in the House bank.
> 	
> 	This is true, the tresury contributed ~$8,000 between 1980 and 1990
> to cover accounting discrepancies. Wow - what a scandle!

Compare that to the HUD "We only give contracts to Republcan donors" scandal.
You don't hear many Republicans complaining about that fraud and abuse...

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:16:35 GMT

In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Sorry, but I have NEVER taped my classes back together, and the last time
>I wore a pocket protector was in high school.

That would be about three months ago, if my guess is right ...

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Accusations
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.172242.14636@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>Nah, I prefer to retain my impartiality.  Here in the US no one calls
>me a settler, a racist, or imperialist for living where I do.   :)

In the US, black people living in black neighborhoods or white people
in white neigborhoods might perhaps be called racist or discriminating
but could white people living in a black neigborhood ever be called 
discriminatory racists?  

Yet when it comes to Israelis, the opposite logic seems to be applied.
Are Arabs living inside Israel (by any definition you choose to
accept) or Christians living in the Disputed Territories ever called
settlers or imperialists?  Is there an explanation for this selective
logic?


-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care (was "ACM downgrades Catastrophe Medical Insurance")
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:57:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <2978@mdavcr.mda.ca>, hp@mdavcr.mda.ca (Hossein Parandeh) writes:
> The so called superior American medical system IS NOT for everyone, only
> the privileged few who can pay for it end up using it. Your sister should

The privileged few?  You mean the 85%+ of Americans who have health
insurance?  Even the <15% who don't have it, aren't necessarily
poor.

> have compared herself to many Americans who have to sell their house to
> find out what the meaning of getting medicare is all about.

Hmmm, if they have to "Sell their house" they are obviously poor
people, because only poor people own houses.  Do I have that right?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45282 ca.politics:7747