HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Selectivity vs Objectivity in the Media
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:54:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <95202@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) wrote:

> What the press here declined to mention, in order not to offend our delicate
> sensibilities, was that during the autopsy, researchers found human semen
> in "Otze's" rectum. The frozen sperm was dated at the same age as the man's
> body.

Ooookay.  Collapsed prostate?
--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 22:32:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

In talk.politics.misc, gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>   On what? That we agree that being an intellectual is no safeguard against
>   falling for totalitarian's propaganda? Or that being an intellectual is
>   no guarantee against being wrong, or just ignorant and stupid? Makes one
>   wonder why so many intellectuals are of leftist persuasion, doesn't it?
> 
>   Sometimes I think your average blue-collar Joe Steelworker has more sense
>   and wisdom than all the lefty intellectuals infesting academia and the
>   "elite".

Of course, to some degree, this smacks of an intellectual condescending
to admire those 'beneath' him.

The noble savage and all that....



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:41:22 GMT

In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>,
galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
>I have been working this summer as the Field Director for
>Jean T. White, one of only two women running for the US
>Senate in the country.

Sorry James, but there are a lot more than two of use running for
the the U.S.  Senate this year.  We have at least 4 in California
alone (2 Dems, 1 Lib, 1 P&F) I also know of two more from Illinois
and PA ans I'm sure I've missed some others.

/June
Libertarian for U.S. Senate, California (full term)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43438 ca.politics:7394 ba.politics:5006
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:06:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <la7odhINNgib@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> In article <12021@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # [someone else wrote:]
# ## Name me a law that tells you who to associate with, what charities to fund,
# ## or what ideas you can express.  For some reason, I don't seem to be able to
# ## find any in Texas...
# 
# #This is California, where liberals run everything.
# 
# Having lived about equal amounts of time in both states, I'd have to
# say that liberals "run everything" in neither one.  I certainly
# wouldn't call Pete Wilson more liberal than Ann Richards.  Both states
# have elected some fairly liberal people over the years, but both
# states also manage to elect quite a few people from well to the right
# of center.  In California, I'm thinking of people like Konnyu, Reagan,
# Dornan, Dannemayer, and Lungren.  In Texas, there's been Gramm, and
# Clements, and the almost-elected Clayton Williams.

Who runs our state legislature here?  Willie Brown and David
Roberti.  Is there anyone right of the Communist Party that
would call them anything but liberals?

# Perhaps your definitions of "liberal" and "center" differ from those
# in common use.  If you define Pats Buchanan and Robertson as
# "centrist", then, indeed "liberals" run the entire country.  If we

Nope.  Buchanan is a conservative; Robertson is a conservative
with phalangist tendencies.

# define "liberal" to mean "evil person who doesn't do things they way I
# would", then we'd both agree that "liberals run the country", and each
# of us (Clayton and me) would call the other a "liberal".

Liberal: someone that believes that the government should raise
taxes, engage in income redistribution, increase regulation 
on businesses, and actively use state power to discourage religious
belief.  Clear enough?

# I was about to say that this is all just a waste of time, but then I
# thought of Orwell.
# 
# David Chase
# Sun

I think of Orwell a lot.  Especially since the crap that he
described with respect to language is going on at most public
universities in this state.


-- 
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.
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:53:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

> > One type of financial aid is call a Work Study Grant.  Basically the
> > way it works is that I find a work-study eligable job and the Goverent 
> > then pays a very significant percentage of my pay check.  
> 
> This sounds too good to be true!  Why don't all employers and employees get 
> to do this?  Hey, wait a minute....where does the government get all this 
> money to give away?  Hmmm.

All employers do get to do this if they wish, from what I understand.

The reason why all students don't get to do this is because the student
must meet some requirements that they need the money to gain a college
education.  I realize that this may come as a supprise, but a college
education is expensive these days.
 
> >I get a great job (the
> > only real good jobs (unless you get lucky) are work-study ones) and my
> > employer gets a cheap employee.  It's a win-win situation.
> 
> I'm not sure how I'm winning in this situation. 

Not sure?  I find this rather suprising.  Like I said earlier, the only
good jobs available to most students are those that get work-study.  Now,
put aside for the moment that you may feel this is a problem in and of
itself.  By helping employers on campus hire workers, like myself, those
workers gain valuable work-experience which can only help them later in
life to get a better job and pay more taxes, which will help pay for your
social-security check when you start collecting...I could go on, but you
get the point, I'm sure.

> if the government is involved with the administration of 
> welfare programs (obviously it is today, but may not always be...), then
> it is certainly necessary to provide incentive for recipients to voluntarily
> withdraw at some point in the future.  

Ok, fine.  This sounds good.  So, why not also require that those people on
welfare also go out and find a real job where they won't be earning less
then they already make on welfare or at least where they can earn enough
money to support their family.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: More on Clinton's plan
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:11:23 GMT

In article <19885@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>
>Here is another item in Clinton's plan that has problems:
>
>#      6. National Service Trust Fund. To give every American the
># right to borrow money for college, we will scrap the existing
># student loan program and establish a National Service Trust Fund.
># Those who borrow from the fund will be able to choose how to
># repay the balance: either as a small percentage of their earnings
># over time, or by serving their communities for one or two years
># doing work their country needs as  teachers, law enforcement
># officers,  health care workers, or  peer counselors helping kids
># stay off drugs and in school.
>
>If students can repay their loan through such community services, what
>will they get paid?
>
>If they get paid the prevailing wage, then they would not be working off
>their loans -- they would just be paid the same rate as everyone else
>who's already doing that same kind of work.
>
>If they get paid less than the prevailing wage, how are people who are
>already doing those things for a living going to feel about a bunch of
>other people doing the same kind of work for less money?  Seems to me
>that the unions aren't going to be too happy about it.

How are Peace Corps volunteers paid?

In any case, there may be certain types of jobs that people don't
apply for.  I don't mean grunge type things, also.  Consider the
scarcity of rural doctors.  There's simply no money in being a general
practitioner in the middle of Montana, even if the local community
needs one.  Medical school graduates could be assigned to such jobs,
and paid at least the cost of living.  The newly minted doctor pays of
med school loans, and the community gains an urgently needed
physician.  Similarly, people could be assigned to teaching positions,
social service, etc, where educated and hopefully motivated
individuals are needed.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43307 ca.politics:7372 ba.politics:4993 talk.bizarre:28503 alt.flame:12504
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.bizarre,alt.flame
Subject: Selectivity vs Objectivity in the Media
Keywords: Bronze Age, anal sex, press cover up
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:37:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

This bizarre story out of recent reports from Austria:

Remeber "Otze"? The 5,500 old Bronze-Age hiker who froze to death during
a snowstorm in the Tirolean Alps in Italy, and was found almost completely
preserved last year?

Well, it seems that a part of the story that was originally reported in
Austria, Switzerland, and Italy, "somehow escaped attention" here in the
United States.

What the press here declined to mention, in order not to offend our delicate
sensibilities, was that during the autopsy, researchers found human semen
in "Otze's" rectum. The frozen sperm was dated at the same age as the man's
body.

The world's first known "bottom".

Perhaps the press wanted to avoid certain individuals jumping to conclusions.
After all, Otze was wearing a leather outfit, black jewelry, and had tattoos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:27:56 GMT

In article <81628@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>   1)  There is no good reason to believe that "well-regulated militia" only
>       referred to a "well-trained militia," and not the more usual sense
>       of a controlled body.

Fletcher's definition of the term and the 1790s usage doesn't seem to
qualify as a "good reason".

>   2)  The defenders of the so-called "RKBA" as an individual right rest their
>       case on the "original intent" doctrine, which many legal scholars reject
>       on the grounds that the doctrine itself is incompatible with the original
>       intent of the framers.

Actually, the individual right RKBA folk don't necessarily fit into
the original intent school.  It is clever for Wojcik to play on that
confusion, but dishonest.

Most of the individual right RKBA argument is over the meaning of the
words involved.  In Wojcik-land, if "trial" comes to mean "a fight
between champions", then the 4th amendment says that that's what the
accused is entitled to, as long as it's in public.  In Wojcik-land,
the constitution is amended by language change.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42963 ca.politics:7262 ba.politics:4903
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:55:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <11991@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>What an utter lie.  You are a liberal.  You support laws to tell me how
>to behave (antidiscrimination laws to protect homosexuals from the
>consequences of their parades), that tell me that I may not defend
>myself from criminal attack, that tell me that I MUST fund your
>pet art projects.

I am a liberal who equates sex and race descrimination, supports the Second
Ammendment, and believes in allowing tax payers the freedom to indicate
where they want their tax dollars spent. Nothing more or less. 

Stop putting words in my mouth you jerk.

>Who is starting the civil war?  It's liberals, with their constant
>need to run my life, tell me who to associate with, what charities
>to fund, and what ideas I am allowed to express.

No doubt some liberals support the idiotic notions you mention above. Not
me. Stop generalizing and stop calling people names. You and Rush Limbaugh
etc. have turned 'liberal' into a pejorative term. Why don't you and Rush
just get married and leave the rest of us alone?

>It's clear why liberals support laws to disarm the population --
>they know that when push comes to shove, the only way to get the
>population lined up for death camps is if they are disarmed.

It's clear that Clamer v. 2.1 has not stopped beating its wife.

								MPA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:26:22 GMT

dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:

> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>|Can you say 'Revolution'?  (or at least 'GoodBye' Electoral College?)

>NOT!  First the amendment required would get vetod.  Second since a majority
>of states elected the president (inspite of the sum) it would be very
>difficult to get a 2/3 majority of states to pass the amendment.
 	
A few factual errors to be corrected:

First off, Congress must pass an Constitutional amendment with 
a 2/3 majority of both houses anyways, making a prez veto meaningless. 
Secondly, an amendment needs 3/4 of the states not 2/3. If it were 2/3,
we'd have an equal rights amendment right now.

Although I think the electoral college is not just anachronistic, but it's
downright harmful. I think it endangers the concept of "one man, one vote".
This is facillitated by the news media declaring a winner with 5% of the
vote in 20 states at 10:30 PM. This says to Californians and everyone outside
of the East and Central time zones: 'Your vote doesn't mean anything.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	is a PC-hating, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU
CLARKSON '95	     			
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please 
send flames to the above address)
		
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41894 alt.activism:15430 misc.headlines:5947 sci.econ:7142
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: more predictions
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 06:36:05 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.150841.13262@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
> >     A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
> > first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does whatever
> > the hell they want.
> >
>
> During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.

Only for the first two years.  And the House hasn't been in GOP hands in almost
forty.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 23:28:17 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <8212.27234@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>To the net community at large I suggest that you all find a way to mail
>bomb this idiot's system administrator to have his posting rights
>removed. What he is doing IMO by his ceaseless attacks is fomenting civil unrest.

	Ease up, Len. Yes, Cramer is so neurotically twisted on the
subject of sex that I doubt he can even stand up straight, but he has as
much right to speak as you do. Don't poison the well by advocating
fascist tactics be used against him.

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43254 alt.rush-limbaugh:4172
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:40:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <92240.164045DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>
>Well you know what they say, if you read it in People Magazine, the
>National Enquirer, or hear it on Rush Limbaugh, then it must be true.

No Marty, if we hear it from you it must be true.

I'm getting sick of idealogues like you.  Come to think of it, I'm 
getting sick of idealogues like me, too.

>>>Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
>>>that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself.  If you can't
>
>(Well, that's not what was said or who said it, but I get your point.)
>Hey, why stop with his wife, why not go after their daughter, friends,
>other relatives and pets too!?  Sounds like a tough decision to make,
>it depends on who is most vulnerable "...hmmmm, what kind of grades did
>their daughter get last year? ...has she failed any spelling tests??".

Simple, because his dauter, friends, relatives and pets did not say things 
like, "Attorney General would not be enough, perhaps Secretary of State."

Before you ask me for a citation on that one, I will give it:  Rush 
Limbaugh show, Tuesday, August 25, 1992, during the second hour:

	Getting back to the May issue of Vanity Fair, Bill Clinton is
	quoted as saying that he would have "an unprecedented
	partnership" with his wife if elected. If this is really what
	Bill Clinton is intending for his administration, then isn't it
	valid to ask about the nature of this "partnership?"

	Hillary Clinton added "I want maneuverability in the
	administration." Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, said
	that the job of Attorney General was not sufficient for Hillary
	since it is only "local law-making." He suggested that "Secretary
	of State" would be a better position for his sister. To this day,
	neither Hillary or Bill have disputed the accuracy of these
	quotes.

>Marty L. Dart
>My opinions are mine and mine alone.

Ted


-- 
"I got my brain on hype-tonight'll be your night.  Die, die, die, pig, die.  
F--k the police!  I know your family's grievin'.  F--k 'em!" -- Ice-T
"Aw, that's just black street talk." -- Ice-T (about the above line)
         -----krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu-----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.112847.26346@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)  
writes:
> The reform of health care in this country shouldn't be limited to the
> ways of paying for the care which doctors and hospitals provide. A
> more democratic, lower cost way of providing for decent care could be
> achieved by opening up the process of providing care to permit more
> care givers. Nurse practitioners, for example. 
> 

I couldn't agree more.  Breaking up the established medical monopoly that the  
AMA (and the federal government -- without which no monopoly could exist) has  
over us would go a LONG way toward solving the problem of high medical costs.

[stuff deleted]
> -- 
> Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:08:11 GMT

In <1992Sep3.091333.7410@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) flames:

>In article <1992Sep2.191006.22831@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
># 
># 
># >drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
># >> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># 
># >>> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
># >>> Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
># >>> having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
># >>> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their will!!
># 
># > AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!
># > HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!
># 
># > As Long as Hetro's Are Allowed to Wallow in their Sin and Degradation
># > what Will Protect the MORALS and SCRUPPLES and WholeSomeFamilyValues!!!!!
># 
># > I Agree Brother! OutLaw Hetro's NOW!!!!!
># > Its Not enough to "Just Say NO! to Hetro!"
># > We Must OUTLAW THEM! We Must Make THEM find The CURE!!!!!
># 
># I *hope* drieux (, just drieux) is joking, for his petty war against
># heterosexuality (not to mention proper cApitalIzatioN) is inane.
># Suppose we outlaw heterosexuality. Then the human race is extinct in
># one generation. Think about it.

>Wimp.  I don't care if you're hetero, just don't bother me with it.

Thank you for your open-minded tolerance!

>There's no reason anyone needs to know you're a het, so as long as
>you're quiet about it, no one will know and you won't be hunted down
>like the traitorous counter-revolutionary subversive running dog
>breeder that you are.

Funny, my beagle was run over twelve years ago. Haven't owned a dog
since. Cute words, though. You ought to be in politics. Oh, maybe you
are. :->


>And we won't be extinct.  My, er, housemate just got a job working for
>a company that's involved in the technology that makes heterosexuality
>obsolete.

At LAST! Hooray! Oh, I can't wait until my tax dollars go to support
*this*! Then we will be able to outlaw heterosexuality! Everyone
celebrate the death not only of family values, but of families
themselves!

Now, back to your regularly scheduled unmoderated flamegroup...

-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc