HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Morally Right (Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Point/counterpoint
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:14:04 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov13.234420.27670@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)                    writes...
>References: <1992Nov11.035031.22437@pony.Ingres.COM> <1992Nov13.215545.13729@pony.Ingres.COM>
>In article <1992Nov13.215545.13729@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>> In article <1689E685.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)                        writes...
>> >In article <1992Nov13.020626.16654@pony.Ingres.COM>
>> >garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
 If the
>> >rich man has refused to give the bread to the starving man then, as far
>> >as I'm concerned he is morally in the right and if *I* was on the jurt
>> >I wouldn't vote to convict him, regardless of the law.  (But that gets
>> >into FIJA.)
>> > 
>> Legally right? Yes. Morally right? Definantly not. If you look in the
>> Bible you will find in Matthew 25:41
> 
>That is *a* source of morality.  It is hardly the only one.
> 
True. Just check any religion, or for that matter, any of the famous
philosophers and civil rights leaders. They will tell you pretty much
the same thing. Compassion for the down-and-out is a strength, not a 
weakness.

 I re-thought what I posted
>> last night and decided that you can't legislate morality, so therefore
>> I withdraw my comment from before. But to withhold help from someone who
>> needs it, cannot be morally defended.
> 
>I wouldn't be that sure.  If you found Hitler starving--would you feed
>him?

Depends. Before, or after he he committed atrocities? We are getting very
hypothetical here. 

  You flat statement also begs the question:  What other data is
>available?  If you feed this one person, will you be condemning
>others?  If Fleming had found a starving person while he was carrying
>the melon that had the commercially viable strain of penicillium on
>it, would feeding that melon to a starving person be the right thing
>to do?  How many others would have died from lack of penicillin for
>that single person to eat?

I'm sure Fleming had something else in his ice-box.
> 
>	--Hal
> 
>Hal Heydt               
>510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
>whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6994 talk.politics.misc:59558
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inheritance taxes
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:51:05 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Nov9.183037.24728@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:

>Oh I see.  This is like George Bush claiming a hotel in Houston, Texas
>as his home since Texas does not have an income tax while maintaining
>a "second home" in Kennebunkport, Maine?

In yesterday's news, there was a report that Barbara Bush was in Houston
shopping for houses. I thought this very strange, since one of the excuses
the Bushes used when they were being criticized for the above impropriety
was that they had a 40' x 160' lot in Houston where they planned to build
a home once they left Washington in '96 (miscalculation #1). I guess
Barbara decided that a 40' wide lot just wasn't going to be big enough
for a double-wide AND a an oil derrick (miscalculation #2 ;-).

								  MPA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6717 ca.politics:9346 talk.politics.misc:58043
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:30:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <lfisqoINN6u4@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> In article <13062@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I left it out because it wasn't relevant.  We can't measure latent
# #tendencies, in denial, etc.  We can measure behavior, though.
# 
# My point exactly.  So, why did you quote researchers claiming that
# molestors-of-male-children also displayed latent (adult) homosexual
# tendencies?  That is, after all, something that cannot be measured
# with any certainty.

Did any of the quotes I used say that they were "latent" homosexuals?
No.  They did indicate that such molesters maintain a cover of a
heterosexual marriage.

# If you are measuring behavior, then you must measure the *other*
# behavior of molestors of boys.  In particular, you must measure what
# fraction of them also has sex with men.  You cannot claim that both
# are homosexual behavior, and hence therefore the same.  Try this on

Yet Abel's study did that.  He found that 21% of the ones that
went after little boys were *exclusively* homosexual (and
conveniently, bisexuals and heterosexuals were lumped together,
presumably to hide the bisexual percentage).  Unless we
assume that <20% of child molestation is little boys, that means
that homosexuals are disproportionately represented.

# Your belief that gay rights is somehow equivalent to child-molestors'
# rights is especially weird.  How on earth do you justify this?  Do you

Perhaps because there are homosexuals who have agreed that
"sexual orientation" includes pedophilia?  As well as any use of
a dictionary?

# think this is the legislative intent?  If, perish the thought, some
# court interpreted a gay rights bill to also guarantee molestors'
# rights, how long do you think it would take for the bill to be
# repealed?  
# 
# David Chase

In California, it wouldn't be.  We have a Democratic legislature.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:08:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.085619.2106@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>Despite your obvious bias for the rich, you have a point.
>>How is arguing that everyone, rich and poor alike, deserve equal
>>treatment, an "obvious bias for the rich"?

>Why does this remind me of the quote: "the law treats the rich and poor
>equally.  It forbids both of them to steal bread or to sleep in the park."

Are you arguing that the rich, by definition, deserve to be discriminated
against by the government? If you think there should be be treated
inequaly, that would seem to be the case.

>>No, the question is, "How can we _fairly_ pay for it?" Taking someone's
>>money, for no better reason than "he can afford it", is not even close 
>>to fair.

>But taking someone's money on the grounds that he has benefitted more
>already from society might be fair.

Fine, but that assertion must be proven first. Since these is over 
$100 billion per year going directly to the poor (indirect benifits
of government asside), without counting AFDC and unempolyment, I
don't think it is unreasonable to ask for an accounting of
$100 billion per year going directly to benifit the rich. Even
counting profits on government contracts, I haven't seen any
concrete numbers exceeding $15 billion. If the benifits of 
government are going so heavily to the rich (as you seem to
think) why can't anyone offer an accounting of even a faction of
this money?

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: drug siezures
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:41:20 GMT

In article <BxA57y.AMI@chinet.chi.il.us> ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) writes:
>I mean, think of it--we actually condone seizure of property on
>*arrest* and *charges*, before the accused ever has a chance to go to court!
  ^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^
I wish that this was the case.  In many of these cases NO arrest is made and
NO charges are ever filed.  They simply take your property, and it is up to
you to prove your innocence.  Kind of turns the Constitution on its head, huh ?



Guido
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:58:33 GMT

In article <5820@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>But a Democrat President and a
>rubber-stamp Congress?  I've never been happier I've got that nice, safe,
>fixed-rate mortgage.  I figure inflation will be around 6-8% this time
>next year and hitting 10% the year after...

Wanna bet ?  In inflation adjusted dollars of course, to be fair ;^)
Everyone assumes that Clinton is going to pull another Jimmy
Carter.  Well, I think Clinton is smarter than that.  I know he
would like to serve two full terms, and Jimmy Carter provides a
blueprint of what NOT to do if that is your goal.

Guido




Xref: sparky ba.politics:7085 ca.politics:9554 talk.politics.misc:59978
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Summary: Making fun of Phil again
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:58:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Nov12.230416.16881@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>... 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.

Sushi-eaters eat RAW FISH.  Many people find that disgusting and
revolting.  But, what sushi-eaters do IS TRUE.

I often find that it helps to keep a sense of proportion about what is
"disgusting".  As a rule, I prefer my fish cooked, but some of my best
friends are sushi-eaters.  Perhaps I am just exceptionally tolerant.

David Chase
Sun
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: 1996
Date: 5 Nov 1992 09:28:23 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

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!!
Sure, go ahead be my guest.  Actually I think the Dems owe Jerry Brown
a huge debt.  By sticking in there even when there was no hope and
keeping the attack going on Clinton he may have won us the election.
Jerry helped get a lot of the anti-Clinton dirt out during the
primaries so it was old boring news for the general election.  Without
him Bush's negative campaign strategy might have worked.  But old news
is no news.

Andy
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6921 ca.politics:9461 talk.politics.misc:59152
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:37:56 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <lftd0aINNh4o@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:

>In article <13080@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>Yet Abel's study did that.  He found that 21% of the ones that
>>went after little boys were *exclusively* homosexual 

>What exactly did Abel mean by "exclusively homosexual"?

It's hard to say, since apparently his wife, Nora Harlow, attempted to
present the data in layman's terms for her _Redbook_ readership, and
may have misinterpreted her husband's data.

But I've concluded this:

Saying a pedophile is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual applies
only to REGRESSED pedophiles, who have previously demonstrated an
adult sexual orientation and have since regressed to pedophilia.

For fixated pedophiles, who have never had their sexual orientations
mature beyond interest other children, tagging them with an adult
sexual orientation is completely meaningless.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7099 talk.politics.misc:60010 alt.politics.elections:23715 co.politics:1963 alt.politics.clinton:17085 alt.politics.democrats.d:531
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Morally Right (Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:44:20 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


In article <1992Nov13.215545.13729@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
> In article <1689E685.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)                        writes...
> >In article <1992Nov13.020626.16654@pony.Ingres.COM>
> >garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
> >       For a starving man to take the bread of a rich man without his
> >permission *is* theft, and should be considered so under the law.  If the
> >rich man has refused to give the bread to the starving man then, as far
> >as I'm concerned he is morally in the right and if *I* was on the jurt
> >I wouldn't vote to convict him, regardless of the law.  (But that gets
> >into FIJA.)
> > 
> Legally right? Yes. Morally right? Definantly not. If you look in the
> Bible you will find in Matthew 25:41

That is *a* source of morality.  It is hardly the only one.

>       I prefer to stay away from any religious discussion, but I never
> discount Jesus just becuase he is religious. I re-thought what I posted
> last night and decided that you can't legislate morality, so therefore
> I withdraw my comment from before. But to withhold help from someone who
> needs it, cannot be morally defended.

I wouldn't be that sure.  If you found Hitler starving--would you feed
him?  You flat statement also begs the question:  What other data is
available?  If you feed this one person, will you be condemning
others?  If Fleming had found a starving person while he was carrying
the melon that had the commercially viable strain of penicillium on
it, would feeding that melon to a starving person be the right thing
to do?  How many others would have died from lack of penicillin for
that single person to eat?

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6846 alt.activism:18448 talk.politics.drugs:7347
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: drug siezures
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:52:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov6.174120.3082@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>In article <BxA57y.AMI@chinet.chi.il.us> ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) writes:
>>I mean, think of it--we actually condone seizure of property on
>>*arrest* and *charges*, before the accused ever has a chance to go to court!
>  ^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^
>I wish that this was the case.  In many of these cases NO arrest is made and
>NO charges are ever filed.  They simply take your property, and it is up to
>you to prove your innocence.  Kind of turns the Constitution on its head, huh ?

In *many* of these cases no arrest is made?  A better word is "most".  When
Pittsburgh Press's "Presumed Guilty" series went to press in February of 1991,
the figure was 80%.

The cost of suing to get seized property back is so high that lawyers say
it's not worth it unless the value of the property seized is > $100,000.
And this is for the best case scenerio, the case where there is no evidence
that the person was *ever* involved with drugs.

Commonly, if you look like you're going to "make trouble" by trying to get
your stuff back, the cops will cut a deal.  You pay them a few thousand
and sign a paper promising not to talk to the press, and you get your 
$10,000 car back.  Of course, they only do this with innocent people, as
there's no need if the person is guilty.

They also sometimes engage in 'predatory seizure', where if they find out
you are going to fight the seizure they just keep coming back and seizing the
assets you were going to use to finance the fight.

Oh, yes: let's not forget that it costs $950 just to get the "right" to
file suit.  So, the cop's best bet is to seize the property of the 
lower and lower-middle classes, who might have something worth seizing, but
who are just about tapped out after simply filing the suit to get it back.

The net effect, by and large, is that any cop in the U.S. can seize any
private property he wants, any time he wants.  All he has to do is utter
the word "drugs", and the whole world is on his side.

Nasty things, these drugs.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:53:28 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Nov6.011322.27337@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.053914.29388@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.161616.21762@netcom.com+ mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>>+In article <1992Nov3.232047.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
>>+>(ahem)
>>+>YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!
>>+>Thank you Illinois.
>>+>Thank you California.
>>+>Thank you, America.
>>+>blissed-out.max
>>+
>>+I hope you're a big fan of deficit spending, censorship and all the
>>+other things that made this country so great.
>>
>>Ahem, "censorship"?  You're expecting *more* censorship with Democrats
>>in power?!?  Oops, I forgot, Jesse Helms, Edwin Meese, Phyliss Schlafly - 
>>all those Republicans who are champions of free speech.  Right.
>
>I guess you didn't catch Al Gore's defense of his woman's crusade to
>censor (and limit the availability of) certain kinds of music to which
>she's averse.  His rationale was that they were going after only the
>really offensive stuff.  Sounds like another example of someone in
>power putting his values into my life.  
>
>And I don't even *like* rap.
>
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.

Except, of course, for Ronzone, who doesn't have one to change (Hiya Phil!  It
was a real pleasure coercing you this last Tuesday!)

The oddball thing about this music censorship business can be found in the
movie industry.  There was a great hue and cry about censorship when the
movie industry instituted the ratings system back in the early 70s.  The
REAL result was that movies became far more explicit in the mainstream than
they had ever been (and this includes the pre-Hays code era).

So, between Tipper's recanting and the parallel to the motion picture world,
this crying 'censorship' is akin to crying wolf.

George Lambert
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
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!
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:00:12 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

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

You are very much mistaken. The post Civil War period through the
beginning of the Second World War saw the greatest expansion of
American industrial might ever seen.

We surpassed Great Britain then Germany in steel production.

We surpassed Germany in all chemical production by 1925.

We became THE world leaders in metallurgy, gasoline production, oil
drilling technology, automative design and production, aircraft D&P,
electronics, railroad locomotive production, earth moving machinery,
food packaging technology, very large scale construction (Hoover Dam
etc.), medicine, nuclear science, astronomy, farming (we began from
the 60%+ of people living on farms to 10% by WWII to 3% today),
housing (ballon framing), electrical production, indoor plumbing,
and so on.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc