HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Recall Willie Brown (was Recall Gov. Pete Wilson)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:08:47 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <55671@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, Darlene Weidman writes:

>>There seems to be a lack of leadership in Sacramento (witness the budget
>>fiasco), so I am considering starting a petition drive to recall Gov.
>>Pete Wilson.  I have called the Secretary of State and I will be receiving
>>all the info I need in a few days.

Get some info for recalling the Assembly, too.  We'd be better served by
removing Willie Brown.

>>What are your views on this matter.  Is it worth my time to try to get this
>>initiative under way?

Blaming Wilson for all of the problems is a cop-out.  To be sure, he hasn't
exactly been a great governor, but IMNSHO, Wilson is finally fighting back.
Wilson has capitulated to Willie Brown (remember our tax increases last year?
The Assembly got their wish) in the past.  The Assembly is used to having a
governor just go along with their budget--much like Congress has come to rely
on Bush capitulating to them.  Wilson is *fighting* tax hikes.  Wilson is
*fighting* tricky accounting which would result in a budget deficit (the state
Constitution requires a balanced budget, and Assembly Dems are trying to
circumvent that with crazy "roll-overs" to pay for this year's goodies next
year).  Wilson is fighting for the taxpayer this time.  And while I may not
like *where* the money is going, at least he is trying to prevent Willie Brown
from asking for *more*.

Pete Wilson has finally stood up to the Democrats and said "no more taxes."
The Assembly needs to be recalled (unless you want more taxes, of course...)

>>If so, anyone interested in helping out?

Work on recalling Assembly Democrats, and I'm with you.  The Republicans are
only marginally better, but at least they aren't trying to pick our pockets
any more than they already are.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:08:04 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug19.170114.6707@jack.sns.com>, jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
|> 
|>  Well then how about marriages between a man and three or four women,

Why not?

|>  or a woman and three or four men,

Why not?

|>  or a man and a goat, or a woman and a dog,
|>  or you know I have this old ford I * really * love ! Humm maybe.....
|> 
Because beasts cannot consent or enter into a contract.


|>  The point here is if you want to destroy the institution of marriage then
|>  why place any limit on it at all? Or do you just wish to press for you own
|>  personal agenda?
|> 
And the "institution of marriage" isn't on your personal agenda?

|>  This is just a another example of an abnormal fringe group trying to get
|>  the rest of society to consider them normal!!!!!!!!!

No, this is an example of people getting tired of being treated
as second class citizens.  I know several "gay" marriages that
have lasted as long, or longer, than any "strayt" marriage.

The gender of the participants in a relationship has no bearing
whatsoever on their commitment to their union.  


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:45:27 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <ohbj36c@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <11724@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
>>... I am tired of homosexuals telling lies, repeatedly.
> 
> The child resorts to his final tactic, when losing an argument.  "You are
> lying" screams the child as he stamps his feet.

God, I hope that's his final tactic.  I'm very much afraid, though, that
Clayton is not through spewing hatred and lies onto the net.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6961 ba.politics:4684
From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty postings
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:43:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.050848.8082@boy.com> pat@boy.com (It's just Pat!) writes:
>Does anyone else share my opinion that posting _anything_ from your
>company's site is tantamount to sending a letter on your company's letterhead.

Read all of my signature line... you will find a similar one
on just about everyone's...

-- 
Tom Barrett (TDBear)    tdbear@tandon.com                 voice 805-378-6207
Tandon Corporation      tdbear@p6.f1006.n102.z1.fidonet.org fax 805-529-8895
Sr. HW Design Engineer  "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!" 
[The views expressed herein may not be shared by the organization of origin]
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6692 ba.politics:4434 talk.politics.misc:39230 alt.activism:14707
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty postings
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:27:17 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 <1992Aug10.235938.15833@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.224031.27781@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Anyway, what about "Die whitey die!" or  "Die Jew die!"?

>>Better yet, what about "Die murderers die!" in a pro-death penalty
>>rant?

>None of those are political speech either.  They are hate.

Mind defining the difference between political speech and hate speech?

Also, what about "Kill a Commie for Mommy"?  Or better yet, "Die,
Revolutionary Guards Scum, Die!!!" when the US invaded Iraq?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:04:00 GMT
            <1992Aug12.053528.3263@Cadence.COM>
            <1992Aug13.030755.24573@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

You people keep bandying about the word "fair" as though it was even in
the same galaxy as the word "tax."  Sorry, no, the two have nothing to
do with each other.  They're not even on speaking terms.

Written in article <1992Aug13.030755.24573@oracle.us.oracle.com>
 by mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman):

: Is it fair for two people living in two
: identical houses next door to each other to pay wildly different
: property taxes because one bought low and one bought high?

I'm still waiting for someone to propose that we back the high tax down
to match the low tax.  That should be about as "fair" as fair can get,
whilst still being used in the same paragraph as "tax."

I'll happily support such a change.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Pro is to con as progress is to Congress.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: media
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:44:12 GMT

George Neville-Neil
>
> In article <11818@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> In article <l8m2j5INN1r1@spim.mips.com>, thomas@mips.com (Chris Thomas) writes:
> |> > -  And someone from Queer Nation apparently speaks for the gay community
>
>
> --
> If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
> you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
> fault lies with the manufacturer.
>                                       Lenny Bruce
>
 If you believe that there is a maker, a maker that made your car, and yet
 you think you can do anything with that car that's dirty, evil, or wrong,
 then the fault lies with the manufacturer.

The liberal way of avoiding any responsibility for anything they do or say.
From: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Willie Brown
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:05:16 GMT
Reply-To: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg9.corp.sun.com

Right on the money!

>Blaming Wilson for all of the problems is a cop-out.  To be sure, he hasn't
>exactly been a great governor, but IMNSHO, Wilson is finally fighting back.
>Wilson has capitulated to Willie Brown (remember our tax increases last year?
>The Assembly got their wish) in the past.  The Assembly is used to having a
>governor just go along with their budget--much like Congress has come to rely
>on Bush capitulating to them.  Wilson is *fighting* tax hikes.  Wilson is
>*fighting* tricky accounting which would result in a budget deficit (the state
>Constitution requires a balanced budget, and Assembly Dems are trying to
>circumvent that with crazy "roll-overs" to pay for this year's goodies next
>year).  Wilson is fighting for the taxpayer this time.  And while I may not
>like *where* the money is going, at least he is trying to prevent Willie Brown
>from asking for *more*.
>
>Pete Wilson has finally stood up to the Democrats and said "no more taxes."
>The Assembly needs to be recalled (unless you want more taxes, of course...)
>

Let get it together here. Recall? Talk about idoitic. How many of you 
are actually registered to vote?

Willie Brown's ass is up for relection this September. I've only got one
stone to cast but you can bet I'm pulling the other lever.

Our elected officials are in fact the most popular of registered voters.
If you're pissed, and you should be if you pay taxes in this state, just
get out and vote. Or call you idiot representatives. We all pay to have
some staffer waiting for our call to hear out opinion.

However, if there is a serious drive to remove the source of all California's
fiscal problems, the anti-Christ himself, Willie Brown, I want my signature
first on the list!

Willie Brown and most of the democrats are out to lunch! And it's your fault,
either you didn't vote or you voted for the wrong person.

A recall is admitting that you've let the problem go so far that it is
out of control. Are you ready to admit that?



Dem - Your money,
Rep - or your rights!
Newsgroups: ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:06:17 GMT

In article <193525@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>,
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>(I happen to believe
>that bigamy is one of the dumbest crimes ever invented by man.)

If someone enters into a marriage contract with two or more people
while leading all of those people to believe they have been granted
an exclusive franchise then an act of fraud is involved and should
be criminally punishable.  This is a very different situation from
consensual polygamy.

/June
From: dbailey@wk49.nas.nasa.gov (David H. Bailey)
Subject: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:53:43 GMT
Distribution: ca

Much of the defense of Prop. 13 so ardently advanced in this column
and elsewhere focuses on the following premise:

PREMISE: Only Prop. 13 can protect limited income homeowners such as
the elderly from unexpected increases in property tax, increases that
they may not be able to afford.

This is not true.  After all, in the civilized world only California
has a Prop. 13 system!  Consider the following:

PROPOSAL 1: All property shall be assessed at a uniform rate (such as
1%) based on current market value.  However, the amount of tax for an
individual property that is actually due and payable in a given year
shall not increase more than 2% from the amount paid in the previous
year, and the difference between the amount assessed and the amount
due each year may optionally be postponed until the property is sold.

Note that this proposal is very similar to a program already in place
for California's elderly.  In effect, it allows homeowners to tap
their growing equity to pay their property taxes.  If desired, this
proposal could be modified to exclude certain property from the
postponement option, such as business property or homes of persons
with incomes above a certain level.

PROPOSAL 2: All property shall be assessed at a uniform rate (such as
1%) based on current market value.  However, this tax rate shall
automatically be adjusted each year so that the average tax for
existing property in a given county increases only by the percentage
of increase in the cost-of-living index for that county (even if
property values increase faster).

If desired, proposal 2 could include a provision, such as a
postponement option mentioned above, to protect current long-term
property owners.

The point is this: It is entirely possible to fashion a property tax
system that protects low- and moderate-income homeowners from steep
increases in tax based on paper profits, while at the same time
providing enough funds to protect our education system from collapse.
Our current system satisfies only the first requirement, and utterly
fails in the second.  It further is outrageously inequitable,
punishing homeonwers for the "crimes" of being young, being an Asian
immigrant, being a "newcomer" from another state, having a growing
family, or for being in a line of work that requires residence changes
from time to time.

If a time of desperate fiscal crisis is not the time to change our
crazy property tax system, when is?

David H. Bailey




Xref: sparky ca.politics:6841 talk.politics.misc:39962 misc.legal:16060
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: ABA membership is voluntary, right?
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:06:53 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Aug15.181304.28278@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>
>In article <63892@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com said:
>
>> How can the ABA call themselves non-partisan?  How are the rest of
>> us supposed to feel when we know any lawyer we hire is sworn to
>> uphold the principles of political correctness?
>
>Given that I'm in my last year of law school, I'm a bit embarrassed to
>have to admit that I don't know this for sure, but I _believe_ that
>membership in the American Bar Association is voluntary, not
>mandatory, for lawyers in the United States.  Misc.legal added to this
>thread in the hopes of eliciting a definitive answer from somebody...

It's entirely optional.  Arthur Hu's comment proceeds from a certain
boundless ignorance.

-- 
	      Psst, George: your Big Tent's fly is open.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty postings
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 21:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.224211.13110@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.050848.8082@boy.com> pat@boy.com (It's just Pat!) writes:
>>Does anyone else share my opinion that posting _anything_ from your
>>company's site is tantamount to sending a letter on your company's letterhead.
>
>No.  Read news.announce.newusers.
>
>Note that most of us disagree with your letterhead analogy.

Note that most companies do not, however.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: ses@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:30:23 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Distribution: ca

There seems to be a lack of leadership in Sacramento (witness the budget
fiasco), so I am considering starting a petition drive to recall Gov.
Pete Wilson.  I have called the Secretary of State and I will be receiving
all the info I need in a few days.

What are your views on this matter.  Is it worth my time to try to get this
initiative under way?

If so, anyone interested in helping out?



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Darlene Wiedman                  "If you're not part of the solution, +
+ darlene@flash.ATC.Olivetti.COM      you're part of the problem."      +  
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:39:14 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <193239@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>In article <11726@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> I referred to a posting a while back as "typical lying homosexual."
>> One of my colleagues here pointed out that the lying homosexuals
>> involved are a relatively small number 

Let me clarify, as the colleague, that I did not say these people
were liars.

Ok, now we get to the current statement:

>>                                        -- unlike the number of
>> homosexuals defending child molestation.

I missed this at first, but it just hit me in the face:

This statement implies of course that *unlike* the *small* number of
'lying homosexuals' there are *large* numbers of homosexuals, might I
even say, "typical homosexuals" that defend child molestation. 

I guess I need to say it again:

What you have found is that some of those 'homosexuals on the net' WHO
CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY AND HAVE BEEN BOTHERED ENOUGH TO RESPOND TO
YOU have defended changing or removing age of consent laws to allow
sex with either children or, more likely, adolescents. If I remember
correctly the number of homosexuals who explicitly advocated sex with
children was quite small. How many were there?  Is it a large, unlike
small, number?  Additionally, you are not mentioning the number of
homosexuals who denounced child molestation.  (Did you count those?)

With out getting into the morality of these concepts and the ability
of minors to consent, I again find it difficult to accept the
implications of your current statement based on the evidence you have
presented. 

This may seem like nit-picking to you.  I don't think it is.
I think it important to properly qualify statements to avoid
generalizations and slurs.

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
From: howard@titan.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 23 Aug 92 16:09:28 GMT
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.hal.com
In-reply-to: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)

In article <l98652INNj76@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb (David Chase) writes:
>Actually, where I learned about most of this was helping a student
>(Jerry Davis) at Stanford process data to study the spread of takeover
>defenses through the corporate network.  He was rather amused by the
>way otherwise conservative anti-regulation sorts on corporate boards
>suddenly felt that government regulation was necessary to stem the
>tide of "destructive takeovers".

I think this relates to a belief I see expressed occasionally:
that libertarians are actually just agents of big business.  I
suspect that what contributes to this belief is that both
libertarians and big business use the same rhetoric of free
enterprise, free markets, free trade, etc.  The difference is
that libertarians really mean it.  While big businesses talk
about the evils of government regulations, they don't waste any
time taking advantage of those regulations.


>One real-world example illustrating this is pollution credits; if it
>weren't for the costs of transaction and verification, this works.
>However, if much of your pollution is caused by hundreds of thousands
>of mobile sources (like cars), it looks like you've got to be fairly
>clever if you are going to get economic efficiency (i.e., a fairly
>direct correlation between money and pollution) without being swamped
>in (expensive) paperwork.

I see this as an argument in favor of private highways.  It's
easier to sue, say, Highway 101, Inc. than hundred of thousands
of individual drivers.
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
howard@hal.com
Phone: 408-379-7000 ext. 1080
FAX  : 408-379-5022
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:10:24 GMT

In article <193525@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.170114.6707@jack.sns.com>, jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
>
>There are many benefits granted by society upon recognition of marital
>status.  There may be tax breaks at both the state and local level;
>insurance protection may be available for a spouse which is not available
>for a live-in lover; disposal of property when one party dies; the right
>to make decisions about health care and such for a loved one when that
>one is incapable of making decisions; and so on.  Why should these bene-
>fits not apply to other forms of marriages?

I suggest, instead of asking to expand the scope of applicability,
asking for the elimination of most of these 'benefits'.  Is there any
reason why those who choose not to enter into a legal contract of this
type should subsidize those who do?

(note that not all of these are really candidates for elimination, for
example distribution of jointly owned property at expiration of either
member, and certain provisions for children of such a union)

(ps. Paul B. is setting a very nice example of discussion)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6897 ba.politics:4613
From: futor@llnl.gov
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty postings
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:05:03 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.
Originator: futor@diego.llnl.gov


 pat@boy.com (It's just Pat!) writes:
>Does anyone else share my opinion that posting _anything_ from your
>company's site is tantamount to sending a letter on your company's letterhead.

Not even slightly!  Nor slighly.  Nor aught else.

& I wish you would use more appropriate punctuation when asking a
question.  rantrantrantraveraverave . . .

-- 
__
\/  -+-  randy  -+-  all generalizations are flawed  -+-  futor@llnl.gov  -+-
Newsgroups: ca.politics