HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:25:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <11723@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> In article <11713@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <11710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> >> In article <11683@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> >In article <11682@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
# ## But let's back up to your previous phrase: "typical homosexual lying fashion". 
# 
# [...examples of racism deleted...]
# 
# ## Isn't "typical homosexual lying fashion" a generalization, a slur,  
# ## just as bad, just as ugly, and just as stupid, as the ones I have given?
# ## 
# ## --
# ## dave
# ## manley@optilink.com
# #
# #One difference: I have found "homosexual = liar" to be true far more 
# #often than not.  I have repeatedly made it clear that not all 
# #homosexuals are child molesters, and some are quite hostile to 
# #child molestation, and yet many of the homosexuals on the net keep
#                             ^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# #claiming that I said that all homosexuals are child molesters.  I
# #keep correcting them, and they keep saying it.  
# 
# What you have found is that those 'homosexuals on the net' WHO CARE
# ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY AND HAVE BEEN ENOUGH BOTHERED TO RESPOND TO YOU
# are (in your (humble) opinion) liars. 
# 
# I greped/seded/sorted the From: lines in soc.motss.  I found 143 different
# posters to that group.  The number of people that I know by their own
# admission to be homosexuals who have repeatedly responded to your
# postings number at most a dozen or two.  The most prominent being
# Brian Kane, Jeff Dauber, Roger B.A. Klorese, and Tim Pierce.
# 
# 143 vs. ~12-24 vs. 4.
# 
# You must admit this is probably a smaller number than would be
# indicated by either your 'typical homosexual' or 'homosexuals on the net'
# phrasing.
# 
# Your "typical homosexual lying fashion" phrase is obviously an
# ugly slur.  You have no means of supporting the generality it
# implies.  
# 
# If you made a similiar statement about blacks based on the same
# evidence I would say you are a racist.  Since you instead
# made the statement about homosexuals what should I deduce
# about your thought processes?
# 
# --
# dave
# manley@optilink.com

After reflecting on this, you're right, I am overreacting.
Most homosexuals on USENET haven't taken a position of any sort.
It is the scum listed above who have colored my perceptions of
homosexuality, along with a number of homosexuals who have told
the lie described above once, and usually have not argued when
I pointed out that the statement they were making about my
position was false.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:39:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



# If you could perform an accurate study, where
# all of the homosexuals who aren't out were counted as homosexuals,
# you'd get very different results.

(clayton)
/ You are ignoring the possibility the other direction -- that higher
/ paid, successful homosexuals have a lot more to lose by being out.


No.

1.  The higher paid folks are usually in a position where they
control their own futures, and are not at the mercy of some individual's
whim of bigotry which might get them fired.  

2   Many openly gay (and better paid) folks are in sectors of the 
economy that are insulated (often by govt decree) from discrimination.
Unfortunately for us taxpayers, govt service pays pretty well in 
terms of salary and benefits.

3.  There are many gays in hi-tech areas as well; hi-tech companies have 
discovered that it doesn't matter if people are green and have three 
eyes as long as they can cut code.

4.  The higher up you go in income level (as a direct corollary) you 
also discover that educational levels go up.  People with higher educational
levels (yourself excepted) generally tend to be less bigoted and rednecked.
A gay autoworker or construction laborer has more to lose by being out,
because he is very replaceable (more so than a gay doctor or programmer) 
and the chances of being accepted by his Joe Sixpack buddies is pretty thin.

5.  Finally, the effect of all those who did NOT admit their sexual
orientation would definitely affect the overall shape of the statistical
curve.  There really 


(clayton)
/ I've seen far more "swishy" waiters than "swishy" doctors.  

Clayton, I hate to be the one to point it out, but your private life's
experiences hardly constitute a scientific sample.


(clayton)
/Now, "swish" isn't necessarily a sign of being out -- but it's hard to
/believe that the person engaging in such stereotypical behavior
/is going to pretend to be straight.

No, it isn't.  It depends on how sincere their fear of being fired is.
Folks will pretend whatever is necessary to hang on to their jobs.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:20:35 GMT

In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>>In article <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>>>who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>>>need one.
>>>
>
>>But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>>have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>>positions where abortion does not become an alternative?
>
>Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?

But didn'tcha know, Rocker...

The Y chromosome clearly confers unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge.
That's why we should listen and obey our men sans questions.
Similarly, all those female hormones that wash through pre-menopausal
women interferes with her clear thinking and right judgement.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bt23ov.CA3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) write
> >
> >I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
> >another human being.  This is still true if the human being is
> >a fetus.  If that human being is a fetus in the first two
> >trimesters it will not survive without the assistance of the
> >mother.  If that assistance is witheld the fetal human being
> >will die, but no murder will have been committed.  If that is
> >not an argument based on the appropriate assumptions I guess
> >we should just drop it.
>
> I think that you are correct.  It can be a serious crime but I doubt
> that it would be considered murder (at least not first degree).

"Witholding assistance" a serious crime?  What can you be charged with
for not applying the Heimlich maneuver to a person that chokes to death?
For not rendering CPR to someone who collapses from a heart attack?  For
not donating an organ to someone who will die without it?

> However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
> the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
> she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
> something?

Would you then have no objection if the doctor were to detach it without
killing it?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39552 ca.politics:6758
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: The Bush Record
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:14:21 CDT


The Bush Record
---------------

1) The longest period of stagnation since the Great Depression.[1]
	Real GDP growth for the last three years is .8%. [2]

2) According to Warren Rudman, the middle class standard of living
	is frozen or dropping. [1]

3) The typical unemployed worker in Illinois is a white male, over
	35 that was last a white collar office worker.[1]

4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during Bush's term.[1]
	Bush promised 30 million new jobs.

5) June unemployment (7.8%) was the highest in 8 years [1], up
	from 5.5% in 1988 and 7.1 in 1980 [3].

6) 1 of 10 Americans are on food stamps, the highest level in 30 
	years. [1]

7) 5 million Americans are on welfare, the highest number ever. [1]

8) 1 of 10 full-time workers earn below the poverty level (nearly
	twice the number of a decade ago). [1]

9) Income of middle class college educated & professionals has 
	dropped, the first time since the Great Depression. [1]

10) Businesses have failed in record numbers in Bush's first 
	four years. [1]

11) The deficit doubled. [1]  Bush proposed a budget with a $399 Billion 
	deficit for FY 1993 and his 5 year plan shows a ~$200 Billion
	deficit in FY 1997.

12) Bush signed the second largest tax increase in US history.
	(Reagan signed the largest.)

13) Bush has increased Federal domestic spending at a faster rate 
	than any post-WWII president (including Carter and LBJohnson).[4]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
[1] The ABC Evening News, Mon, Aug 17, 1992.
[2] George Will on "This Week with David Brinkley", Sun, Aug 9,1992.
[3] Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[4] CBO, "The 1990 Budget Agreement: An Interim Assesment," December
    1990; OMB, Historical_Tables_of_the_United_States_Budget:_Fiscal_1990.

-- 
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
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:16:03 GMT

In article <64289@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>One of the speakers at the Republican convention was rather emphatic about
>blaming Jimmy Carter for having a high inflation rate.

When Carter took office, inflation was 4%.
When Carter left office, inflation was 12%.

>Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
>inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
>Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").
>Am I misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
>as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.

Ford (or perhaps the Fed Reserve) brought inflation down.
This was apparently unacceptable to Carter.

>By the way, someone should tell the Republicans that Bill Clinton is
>the Democratic candidate.

Are you sure? The only decent ideas out of Clinton (line-item veto,
cut Congressional staff, etc.) were in the Republican platform for years.
Meanwhile, we keep hearing "family values" chanted back and forth
from both sides.  Clinton seems to want to masquerade as a Republican.

>They seem to think that they are running
>against Carter and Dukakis...

And the Democrats seem to think they are running against Reagan.
Amazing how much they despise the man who engineered
the longest peacetime expansion in our history.

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:45:43 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <16ehl2INN6iv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
    >... and how about adding war mongering (hetero males) and our
    >presidents responsibility for the death of many Iraqi
    >childern. I am afraid that your arguments pale in comparison
    >with what the 80-90 % straight male adults have done to
    >everyone.

ooohh, weee. How thrillingly Politically Correct. Alas, so sorry to say
that your rantings are oh so wrong.

Good old Hitler -- what a bunch of really evil guys. But even Hitler
had his limits. Seems his worst bunch of bad guys, too bad for even the
German military to stomach, had to be eliminated. I.e., Hitler had to clean
up his act to maintain his power base.

So he had Roehm and his henchmen eliminated. Roehm, you see, was the
founder more or less of the Brown Shirts. He and his henchmen committed
the worst of atrocities, and began (or discovered) the power of Jew
baiting for the NAZI party.

When it came to time to eliminate Roehm and top 100 or
so of the Borwn Shirts, it was relatively easy (in terms of support
from the other non-NAZI power groups).

You se, Roehm and his cohorts were homosexuals.

And they liked the 18-year old Aryan boys a lot.

Of course, politics being what is was, they didn't kill all
the homosexuals. And they kept the files on the cream of the German
youth thus corrupted, somne of which were later used to blackmail
the Germans after WWI, especially by the Russians.

The Germans (bizarrely it seems now) kept meticulous records. The pretty
girls at the concentration camps were sent to be field whores (~20,000
of them). However, some inmate were kept for use by the prison camp guards
and officers. Where a 70/30 (female/male) mix was kept for "use".


If you accept the 1% or even the very high 4% estimate (of males that are
homosexual), then the 30% figure above would certainly say that a FAR above
average percentage of NAZI prison camp guards and officers were
homosexuals.


Get real, read your history.



-- 
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: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Algeria: Much Ado About Democracy...
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:50:46 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Algeria: Democracy No Matter What ?

 Recent events in Algeria highlight one of those philosophical
conundrums concerning the nature of democracy. The problem could
be stated as follows:  given that  certain elements of the
Islamic fundamentalist movement in Algeria pose a threat to the
basic values of western democracy, is the state justified in
using any means at its disposal  (i.e., the suppression of
democratic rights) in order to protect the overall public
interest ? Despite the real threat posed by certain radical
elements in the FIS (political wing), the short answer is no. Why
?
 There are several reasons. First, if the FIS, who won the
election, were obligated to back up their promises with action,
they may indeed prove without a doubt that they are no better
than the previous government. As on prominent English journal
noted, "...if the rulers of the Islamic world were to open up
their political systems , their opponents might lose much of
their appeal." Secondly, if empowerment via free elections is a
sacred democratic principle , what is the point in having a
democracy if the fundamental concept of binding elections is
ignored ? One may argue that the alternative is unacceptable.
However, given that not all Islamic fundamentalists are hopeless
radicals, this argument and the corresponding conclusion: the end
justifies the means, is indeed suspect.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40920 talk.abortion:32719 alt.politics.bush:2317
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:33:40 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug18095645@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>   How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
>   Paul.
>
>
>In much the same way as pulling life-support from a recovering
>patient is 'withholding assistance'.
>
>Roy

Roy, you seem to be new around t.a so I am going to give you the benefit of
the doubt and assume you made this terribly insulting comment out of ignorance
rather than malice.  Rather than blasting you for your mysoginistic attitude,
I will try to explain to you gently what I find so offensive.

I am a grown woman.  I spend many hours a day cogitating on how to make 
non-linear systems safer and more productive for you, the consumer.  I feel
a sense of joy when the sun breaks through the clouds on a gloomy day and
a profound sense of sorrow when I say goodbye to a dear friend.  In short, 
I am a thinking, feeling human being with loves and friends and enemies and 
accomplishments and disappointments.  I am much more than a walking womb and 
I do not at all appreciate being equated with a machine which you have the 
capability to turn on and off at will.  

In case you were wondering, I also do not appreciate being equated with 
a "container", "location", or "house" as others are wont to do.  

Sarah McCabe
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deja Vu All Over Again (Was: Clinton becomes vulnerable)
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:05:16 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article esprit@netcom.com, esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug10154949@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>	Yeah, and all we had to do was send a few jets to
>>	Viet Nam to win.
>
>I really don't know if this is true, but I was under the impression
>that the military was fighting in Viet Nam with politics tying one
>hand behind its back.

Actually, this argument seems to rest on the assumption that Vietnam and Yugoslavia
are similar situations.  I don't think that they are, but I really disagree with the
assumption that the military was held back from victory in Vietnam.  The fact 
is that the military was given most of what it felt was needed to achieve the
major US objective.  And what was the objective?  To get the North to negotiate
on US terms.  It was never to "win" the war in the classic sense, but just to
legitimize the southern remnant of French colonial occupation.  We consciously went
for a war of attrition, and we miscalculated.  We lost.  We weren't fighting to end
oppression in Vietnam, but merely to stop the spread of Communism in that region of
the world.

The objective in Yugoslavia is quite different.  It is one of separating the warring
parties, of supplying people with food and medicine.  Politics will always bind the
hands of the military to some degree (as it should), but we are not facing a situation
in Bosnia where two superpowers are fighting a war through surrogates.  We need to
stabilize peace there so that the warring parties have a chance to recover their
senses.

-----
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dfoster@ils.nwu.edu (David Foster)
Subject: advocacy group for Fiscal Responsibility?
Reply-To: dfoster@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:29:11 GMT

A request for info:

I heard on the news a week or two ago about a new political-action
organization of sorts which is dedicated to letting Washington
know that it will be held accountable for its budget deficit 
problems.  I seem to recall that the current organization membership
consists mainly of younger people (e.g. in their 20s and 30s), and
than Tsongas and Gramm strongly endorsed the organization's efforts.
Unfortunately I don't know its name.

Being a person with a huge angst about the federal budget deficit, I
would like to get involved with an organization about this.  Does
anyone know how I could get in contact with this organization, e.g.
an address, e-mail address, or phone number?  I would be very grateful
for this info.

Please e-mail me directly.  And thanks.

- David Foster


 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 06:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.205750.8790@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>Is this the same George Herbert Walker Bush who said that he would stand by
>his granddaughter if she were to have an abortion?  Wouldn't you want him to
>be ragging on her parents to throw her out of the house?

Hell, if he thinks abortion is murder and wants to have a
Constitutional amendment to say that, he should be willing to call the
police to prevent a crime from being committed.  "Lock up my
granddaughter, she's planning a murder!"  

Of course, contrary to Reagan's and Bush's best efforts, abortion is
still legal in the US, so granddaddy Bush can be tolerant for the time
being.

>Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of their
>female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that they would
>remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or granddaughter; all 
>equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents' support of their right
>to choose.

You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Wildly regressive taxes
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:53:31 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug18.224445.22258@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
]In article <1992Aug16.154408.29720@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>I don't think it is unfair for one to pay a premium proportional to a
]>guranteed benefit - that is what insurance is all about.
]
]How can you guarantee me that I will get ANYTHING out of Social Security.
]For all you or anyone knows, it could be abolished by the time that I'm
]55 (or whatever).  The whole point of the system is that we pay now and
]hope that someone is in our shoes in the future to keep on paying so that
]we can get out of the system what we put into it.  Personally, I'd rather
]keep all of my money now and make my own plans for retirement.  I'm not
]even 30 yet, and have several thousand dollars socked away for something
]that won't happen for another 30 years.  If I had the other multiple
]thousands of dollars that have been going into the SS system, I'd be
]happier, my employer would be happier (he pays part of it too, no?),

Hey, I don't disagree with you for a moment. I wasn't defending Social
Security, I was just pointing out that it is reasonable to put a cap
on FICA payments (ie, making it "regressive" makes sense). I also pointed
out that in any case, SS is a pyramid scheme, with those who got in
early (our parents) taking out far more than they put in, while those
of us late into the scheme are being screwed.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran