HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:31:06 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>Do you REALLY think that 53% of the people in Colorado are bigoted 
>against gays, and want to see them discriminated against?  
>
>If not, what percentage do you think really are?  

I suggest looking at results of Oregon vote for an approximation
of the answer to this question. Roughly 43% of Oregonians voted on a very
harshly worded amemdment denouncing gays and gay behavior. There was
no tricky language like in CO so I think you get a pretty
clear picture of who voted and why. So, I suspect there is approx. 
43% of CO folks who are bigoted against gays unless someone can convince
me that CO and OR differ significantly. In fact, a Wall Street Journal
article I read suggested the reason these two states were targeted (my word) 
is because of their similar makeup--a mix of liberal progressives and
died-in-the-wool old time conservatives. 

Rob
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:04:32 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>A couple thoughts...
>
>1. A "pardon" implies that the person(s) being pardoned did something
>wrong.
 
	Good analogy!

>2. Bush, who is very concerned about his place in history, must be
>in very much fear that his actions in the Iran-contra case would
>have been exposed to issue this pardon, which will undoubtedly
>tarnish him in the history books.
 
	Well, the history books will write about the
	Silverado bank scandal, the arms deals, the oil
	deals, Desert Storm (how much money did Saudi Arabia
	give Bush to bring in the USA's policemen of the world?);
	too bad the Prez couldn't pardon himSELF!

>3. How can Bush (or anybody for that matter) consider it patriotic
>to violate one's sacred oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?
 
	Err, how 'bout "how can Bush (or anybody)
	consider it patriotic to perjure one's self
	before Congress?

>Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
>are *traitors* to the United States of America and should be
>punished as such. Unfortunately, they never will be.
 
	Hang around in the wings awhile, this isn't over until
	the ______ person sings, especially with Special Prosecutor
	Walsh on watch!

	"The law is a jealous mistress and an exacting 
	taskmaster."  (someone give me the name of the person
			who said this, please)


-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
This quote borrowed from: Gary.Petraccaro@f12.n2610.z1.fidonet.org 
... "It matters not so much what you sing, but why..." J.S. Bach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:49:24 GMT

Yamanari writes:
#	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
#	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
#		their behavior.

Playing baseball is deviant. Should we seek to cure baseball players?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:06:38 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) writes:
>> 
>> ... I still
>> fail to see why you spend so much time harrassing [homosexuals].
>
>Because they won't exclude child molestation advocacy groups from
>their parades.

Clayton, was this a flip answer, or the real reason?

Let me put a question to you, for the second time.

Assume, for the sake of argument (although it happens to be true), that
I think sexual relations between adults and teenagers is of dubious
morality at best.  Assume that I consider adult-child sexual
relationships to be a very bad idea, that I consider this to be
exploitive of the child in every case, and that it's only one notch
below outright child molestation, in my book.  Assume that I think
NAMBLA, or any organization that expressly promotes adult-child sexual
relationships, to be despicable.

The question is:  does your opinion of me in any way depend upon whether
or not I am homosexual?

If not, I might ask why you expend so much verbiage on homosexuals,
rather than child molesters.  There are many non-profit organizations to
help abused children that, I'm sure, appreciate any volunteer effort
they can get.  You've obviously spent many hours researching and
Usenetting about homosexuals;  if you instead donated that time to such
an organization, I'm sure the children would be helped much more.

If so, I might ask why you rationalize your prejudice against
homosexuals by lumping them in with child molesters.

If, as before, you don't answer the question, I might ask whether you
are interested in discussing your ideas, or whether you simply see the
'net as a place to spread propaganda and not answer for it.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "The most dishonest, lying people I've ever met are homosexuals.  There
  probably are some honest homosexuals out there -- but so few as to be
  irrelevant."     - Clayton E. Cramer, three days after Christmas, 1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65868 misc.legal:21890
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:14:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec31.171446.8312
Organization: Western Washington University

tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:

>>Gulity or not guilty.  Once you get a jury or court to say not 
>>guilty you are not guilty, end of story.

>      Well in a technical legal sense that may be true, but if you use
>      the more common everyday definition (did he actually commit the 
>      crime or not) North is obviously guilty.

	In every sense the common every day definition is irrelevent,
	except for armchair discussions, editorials, and rants on usenet.

Jim D
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 29 Dec 1992 22:17:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Bill Anderson) writes:
|> Nosy) writes:
|> : John Viveiros) writes:
|> : <   chris@mcnc.org writes:
|> : <   >
|> : <   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
|> : <   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
|> : <   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
|> : <   >result are kinda scary.  
|> : <   >
|> : <   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
|> : <   Rights, those scoundrels.
|> :  
|> : 	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
|> : 	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
|> 
|> Well, certainly the 9th counts; it just doesn't apply to this 
|> situation.  I think that hinging government funding of the arts
|> dependent on the political content of those arts is a violation
|> of the spirit (though perhaps not the letter) of the 1st 
|> amendment.  Of course there is no requirement that the gov't
|> provide money for the arts; but if it does so, it should do so
|> without regard to politics.  
|> 
This comes to the crux of the matter.  It is true that the Bill of rights
does not guarantee money for "obscene (as in the mind of the beholder)"
art, any more than it does for any other kind of art.  But everything the 
government does do, in this case it does support the arts, it must do
without regard for religious or political bias.

There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush sends Walsh packing (practically)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 18:10:58 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu


Just heard on CBS Radio:

Bush has officially pardoned all the Iran-Contra defendants and prospective
defendants for any crimes that they may have committed in that affair.

The people pardoned include: Cap Weinberger (ex-Defense Secy. and now Publisher
of Forbes) -- reason given was "...not to spare the 75-year old the torment
and pain of a trial, but so that he may receive the honor that he deserves"
for his service to the nation; Clair George, ex-Chief of Operations (??) for
the CIA; Eliot Abrams, ex-Asst. Secy. of State (he called it the "best Hannukah
present" he ever got); Robert McFarlane (ex-Natl. Security Adviser), Dwayne
Claridge and Alan Fiers (ex-CIA).

Yippee!! (for now). There is time for somber reflection about the good/bad
precedent that this sets later.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:14:27 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

James Meritt (m23364@mwunix) wrote:
: In article  d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
: 
: So he himself said it.  Golly gee, and sorry if that doesn't agree with
: your preconceptions.  After all, he only lived there, and they were
: his kids.  Why should he know what the situation, as it related to him
: personally, was.  It MUST agree with your scenario!

You are such a twerp, this was pure propaganda, look up the documentary
"selling a war" by the CBC and you'll see that what is said is not 
always the thruth. And I guess you have never heard of bias, that 
would surely influence the way that the guy was talking about Cuba.
By the way, why do you think that amnesty international or the red cross 
always interviews hundreds of people before declaring that torture or any
other wrong doing has taken place : BECAUSE PEOPLE MANY TIMES INVENT 
OR WORSEN STORIES.

: And naturally, she will have a much better picture than those who grew up
: there, and just managed to get away a week ago.
: 
: sheesh.

No but she knows people there and she can speak spanish so she can talk 
to them.  Besides, I don't need another "we are right" man to respond to,
one Mr Morton is quite anough.                                

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush
From: patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Patt Bromberger)
Subject: Re: Arms-for-Hostages
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush
Keywords: illegal transfer
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:50:04 GMT

In article <1cvgloINNkac@aludra.usc.edu> rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan) writes:
>
>From the New Yorker's Nov. 2 article "In the Loop:Bush's Secret Mission,"
>page 73, column 1:
>
>     Meanwhile, negotaiations to trade arms for the remaining
>     hostages continued to have bureaucratic life.  On December
>     6th, in the White House, Reagan discussed the iniative...
>     Weinberger has said that he bluntly warned the President
>     that tha arms transfers were illegal under the Arms Export
>     Control Act.....
>
>     According to Shultz, the President had answered, "Well,
>     the American people would never forgive me if I failed
>     to get these hostages out over this legal question."  The
>     President also made a joke: "Visiting hours are on Thursday."
>
>
>And when you come by next week, can you bring some more of those
>chocolate chip cookie Mom baked?  The guys in Cell Block 9 loved them.
>
>The entire article is one of the best medium-length investigations of
>the entire Iran-Iraq debacle I've come across.  Every American should
>be given a copy of this issue of the New Yorker to read before they
>vote.  Kick out the jams on Tuesday, people!

	The American people did the right thing on
	Tuesday!  :-)  

	Somalia = one last photo opportunity.

>
-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                      patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu  
	           	        	or	patth@ccnysci.BITNET
"There's no place like home!"  -- Dorothy, "The Wizard of Oz"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:09:25 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>}I certainly don't object to troops firing on a suspicious vehicle.  In
>}a war zone, they should be able to take measures to defend themselves
>}(including pre-emptive action, if the political context warrents it).
>}That the Pentagon decided to fudge the press-release, however, doesn't
>}sit well with me.
>
>Then perhaps you recall what might have been termed "fog of war"?
>(Not greatest terminology, but it might stick)  Might it be the case
>that what they said WAS what they believed to be the truth, and that there
>was no (deliberate) misinformation?

Other than the fact that you have to strain credulity to the limit to
believe that the misinformation is not deliberate, John Poindexter's
"disinformation memo" shows that it's government policy to lie. I also
thank the Reagan Administration for bringing "plausible deniability"
into popular use, although they certainly didn't invent it. In my
memory, government whoppers start with the Tonkin incident and it goes
downhill from there.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Date: 22 Dec 1992 17:47:11 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
|> 
|> Has anyone noticed references in the media (paper, radio, TV) to blacks
|> as "people of color"?  I started noticing this about 6-8 weeks ago and
|> now I hear it all the time.  I've got four questions regarding this:
|> 
The term is certainly years old, not weeks old.  My understanding is that
it refers to all non-white's in general, not to blacks specifically.

|> 1) What's wrong with "black"?
|> 
|> 2) How was this change affected?
|> 
|> 3) What's the distinction between "people of color" and "colored
|> person" such that the latter is racist and the former isn't?
|> 
|> 4) Who decided that this should happen?
|> 

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:23:11 GMT

In article <ART.93Jan1120915@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.213440.216@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>   Where was North exonerated? His convictions weren't overturned because of
>   any flaw in the trial court's factual determinations about North's
>   conduct.
>
>A few months back there was an interview in the Globe with one of the
>North jurors.  She said she felt he was innocent on all counts but voted
>to convict on three of the lesser charges because, "...how could I go
>home and face my neighbors if I didn't convict him of something?"  Nice
>impartial jury there.

This comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point I made,
which was about the basis on which the appellate court overturned North's
convictions. The issue on appeal was not jury bias, nor was it the
adequacy of the evidence. Instead, it was the adequacy of the
procedures used to avoiding "tainting" the prosecution's evidence
at trial.

Even if your recollection of the Globe interview is correct, it is
inapposite to the point being discussed here.



--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65353 soc.culture.african.american:13251
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Date: 25 Dec 1992 15:00:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1had2iINNfdn@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>I give up.  Where are these blacks from that do not have
>African heritage?  It was my understanding that even the
>Australian Aborigenees (spelling?) migrated from the
>African continent. 

As did the Asians, Europeans and the ancestors of every human being on this
planet.  We are all "African-Americans".  

The term "Italian-American", "Irish-American", "Greek-American", etc, refer to
country of origin, but if one were to refer to the race of the above-mentioned
hyphenated nationalities, the term would be "white people".  I have never met
anyone of any ethnic group who does not use the expression "white people".

The term "African-American" also refers to country of origin, though it is
of necessity more vague since the precise region of origin is usually 
unknown, and the political entities that controlled the region at the time
of departure for the most part no longer exist.  

There no longer exists a Politically Correct term for the race of the people
who were brought to the United States from Africa as slaves.  

- db
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:06:34 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <72586@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

>>>> You must have neglected to consider Article III, Section 3 of the U.S.
>>>> Constitution.

>>> The following is the *exact* content of said Article:

>>> 	"Treason against the United States, shall consist 
>>> only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their 
>>> enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  [...]
>>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  ^^^^^^^--[What about this?]

>> What "enemies" did Weinberger give aid and comfort to?  And how is
>> "enemies" to be defined, and who is to do the defining?

> I didn't say that Weinberger gave aid and comfort to any enemy.

Then Weinberger is not guilty of being a traitor.

>> Again, how is "enemies" defined?

> (Taken from some dusty ole dictionary on my shelf:)

And not from the U.S. Constitution.

> 	ENEMY - A person who strongly dislikes or wants to injure or attack.
>                 The armed forces of a nation, side, etc with which one's
> 		country, side, etc is at war.  Anything that harms or
> 		weakens.

The protections accorded one by the U.S. Constitution cannot be swept
away by an imprecise definition out of some dusty old dictionary.  You
are going to have to do better than this.

> Caspar Weinberger, the former defense secretary, was indicted in 1992
> on felony charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing
> congressional investigators.

On the last day before the statute of limitations on the charges
against him ran out.  Walsh was grasping for straws.

> This is not an "allegation."  It's a matter of record, no matter how
> much you wish to state otherwise.

But an indictment does not prove guilt.  The charges listed in the
indictment are no more than allegations until proven in court.

> "failed prosecutor?"  This scurrilous judgement of Mr. Walsh simply
> ignores his record.

Yes, failed prosecutor.  The only relevant portion of his record that
matters here is that since he was appointed special prosecutor.  Every
single one of the big fish he has gone after got away.

> Name a "rag" that you are even remotely respectful of, please.

Policy Review, published by the Heritage Foundation, but what does
that have to do with anything?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex