HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:39:06 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Distribution: na
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <11991@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <5092@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>> Marked a liberal, the message I got from Houston was that if I don't conform
>> to their view of the world, there is no place for me in my own country. How
>> does that make me feel? Well, I'll tell you:

>> This is my country too. I'm not telling you how to behave or what to think.

>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.

The genii that run Sonoma County just decided to put a 12% bed tax
on 'improved campsites'.  So now, not only does someone who wants
to sleep on the ground, enjoying only the artistic works of nature,
have to pay a ludicrous $8 per night, they must pay an additional
96 cents to SUPPORT THE ARTS.  

(Ok, ok, not all of it goes to the arts).

Watch out for those artists.  To inept, lazy, and/or untalented to
support themselves, they suck like leeches on any passing body.

Your net-pal,

dave
manley@optilink.com

--
P.S. Do not construe this in any way as support for the RepubliGODic Party.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:16:13 GMT

I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
Democratic in the near future.

Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
               For those with short memories, go look at what
               the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
               He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
               they invaded Afghanistan. And then there were our
               hostages in Iran. And Cubans in Angola. And Soviet
               advisors in Central America. Libya's Qaddaffi was
               also openly supporting state-sponsored terrorism.
           
Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
               During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
                  "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
               Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
               increase for any state, in the entire history of our country, 
               all WITHIN SIX MONTHS. He never apologized or attempted to 
               say why. NJ residents are generally *furious* with Jim and 
               his party.

And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.

In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.

Just my opinion....

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers....



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41744 ca.politics:7028 ba.politics:4749
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:28:54 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11830@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> You can't understand.  That tells me a lot about how warped you and
|> the rest of the homosexual community are -- that you don't understand,
|> for example, how offensive the drag queens are.  The drag queens are
|> an insulting parody of femininity.  It's not even just an exaggeration
|> of it, but an insulting parody of it.  It is equivalent to Amos and
|> Andy, being done by white guys in blackface.
|> 

How would you know?  Do you know any drag queens?  Talked to any lately
about why they do what they do?


|> Fine.  The parade committe can do so.  Why don't they?
|> 
Call them and ask.

|> Let us have the freedom to express our disapproval by keeping our
|> distance.  YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!
|> 

You cannot keep your distance.  Unless of course you intent to become 
a hermit.  Even then you can't keep your distance.

|> They are "wonderful"?  I guess I should post some of them -- that will
|> certainly demonstrate that homosexuality, at least by your definition,
|> is sick, depraved, and warped.
|> 
Please do, I know many many people who enjoy them.  Perhaps people here
would as well.

|> Ditto, for AB 101.  Stop trying to force straights to associate with
|> you, and the crusade against homosexuality can stop.  Live and let
|> live.  Unfortunately, homosexuals don't really believe in that.
|> 

You have no choice.  You deal with us every day, whether you care to 
or not.  As a matter of fact, by posting this dreck you are inviting
us to a dialog.  If you really wish to live and let live why don't
you just drop the whole subject?

|> Because I don't know any Irishmen who are prepared to defend 
|> Sinn Fein.  (I know that they exist, I just don't have any 
|> interface with them).
|> 

Surely you can find a newsgroup with them in it.

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:56:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.164108.5057@nntp.uoregon.edu> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> One thing you have to remember is that a fair number of welfare
>> receivers are single mothers.  You have to include provisions for
>> daycare, or else the children, if they're young, may not be cared for
>> during the day.
>
>There are so many volunteer organizations out there, that this wouldn't be
>much of a problem.  Many people would be able to "work" at home, making
>phone calls, writing letters, etc.  Volunteer organizations can be much
>more flexable then regular businesses in working with people to solve these
>problems.  

  This poster is  . . . let me see . . . yup -- posting from a .edu
  site!   You can always tell by the degree of familiarity with the 
  real world.    People still have this weird idea that talking care
  of kids at home is a nice cushy job where you put your feet up and
  watch TV and have all kinds of free time.  CA-CA!   Child care keeps
  you VERY busy, especially if you have more than one kid.   If you
  want AFDC recipients to work you MUST make some provision for
  child-care, regardless of whether they do it in or outside the home.

  Most of the people posting on this topic have very little knowledge
  of the subject, indeed most of them don't know what the word "welfare"
  even means.   

  Let me propose a simple modification to existing AFDC rules which
  would make a big improvement.  Under current AFDC rules *any*
  outside income must be deducted from the recipient's AFDC benefit
  1:1.   If my wife and I gave our AFDC-relative $100 she would lose
  $100 of income.   If she took in some neighbor's wash for $10 she
  would lose $10 in AFDC income. 

  What is the result of this?  The recipient has no incentive to seek 
  financial help from relatives nor do the relatives have any rational
  basis to offer it.  The recipient has no incentive to seek outside 
  employment at minimum wage work (not that either AFDC OR minimum 
  wage provide a non-wretched quality of life).

  A simple solution is to reduce AFDC benefits by some % of the 
  outside income.  If the recipient lost $0.33 of AFDC for every
  $1 of outside income then they would have an incentive to work or
  seek help from relatives, AND the *taxpayer would save money*
  if they did so.  

  BTW, it was the conservatives in Congress who opposed this idea
  last time it came up.


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:41:15 GMT
 	<farenebt.714789787@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> 	<1992Aug26.183119.25937@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <NEERI.92Aug27181954@iis.ethz.ch>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.183119.25937@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> The only inconsistent
>>combination of abortion and death penalty positions is pro-abortion
>>and anti- death penalty.

>Not at all. "Unborn children" are more or less innocent (Depending on your
>theological position), and will end up in heaven after a finite time. Convicted
>murderers, on the other hand, unless given a chance to repent, will end up in
>hell. Every additional soul in hell will improve hells chances to win against
>heaven in the apocalyptic battle, therefore it makes sense *not* to execute
>murderers.

>Additionally, in the bible, God protects a murderer from execution:

>   And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain,
>   vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark
>   upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

>See? Wasn't that hard to defend that position.

Not.

You have taken a verse from Genesis (4:15), but have not said anything
about the verses found LATER in the text, to wit:

Gen 9:6
   "Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed."

Ex 21:12
   "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death."

Ex 21:16 (an example of capital punishment for other than murder)
   "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when
    he is caught must be put to death."

Ex 21:17 (even lesser 'crime' requiring capital punishment)
   "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

&c.  Try again.


>Matthias "I'm not a moral theologian but I play one on the net" Neeracher
Not a biblical theologian, either, I see.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the v
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:00:55 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <1992Aug25.171253.14938@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com writes:
>In article 5789@mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov, julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>|In article <1992Aug24.213922.1524@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>|>In article <66245@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>|>>In <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
>|>>>The Crisp-in-ator writes:
>|>
>|>>>Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
>|>>>guns?  
>|>
>|>Yes.
>|
>|No they didn't.  The people surrounding the White House were
>|unarmed and were told to move away if attacked.  Most of the people 
>|with the guns were the military that came over to Yeltsin's side
>|and Yeltsin's bodyguards.  The folks on the street were unarmed
>|(except for gasoline and old ladies yelling at young soldiers)
>
>
>You contradict your self.  The fact is that people with guns
>(soldiers etc) came over to Yeltsin.
>

Not really a contradiction.  What I'm saying is that although *some*
tanks and military personel went over Yeltsin, the large groups of
people outside the White House were unarmed.

It wasn't the fear of the tanks and soldiers on Yeltsin's side that
made the KGB Alpha group not attack.  They didn't want to kill
the large amounts of people that they would have had to.   
It is possible that they would have attacked if all those 
unarmed people hadn't been outside the White House.

But, just in case I come across as sounding like "unarmed people can
always put down coups - therefore we don't need guns", well,
I certainly don't believe that.  The Russian coup was so poorly
planned that it really can't be used as an arguement for any
side of the issue (except as an example on how not to plan a
coup.)


Julie
#include "std_disclaimer.h"
#include "witty_sig.h"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42748 misc.headlines:6067 ba.politics:4883 ca.politics:7234
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.elections
Subject: Clinton Commuting Rapists' Sentences?
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:34:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


A while ago, somebody whose name has long since fallen off the
back end of the attribution queue said something about:

> [Bush] was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch
> of rapists whose life sentences he commuted.
> 
> So hey, folks, does anyone know what the deal is?

Since then, the thread has meandered off in a few interesting
directions, but the original question has never been dealt with...
does anybody out there know any facts about whether Clinton has issued
any questionable pardons or commutations of sentences during his
tenure as the Chief Executive of the State of Arkansas?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:08:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
>>that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.
>
>This assumes, of course, that the unborn is just a scum sucking parasite
>stuck in the mother's womb sucking the life out of the mohter, and therefore,
>we should have the right to terminate that parasite.

Nonsense, it makes no such assumption.  Here is a question to ponder
and discuss (if you can do so rationally and without hatred):

Is requiring a woman to be pregant and give birth a form of bodily
servitude akin to slavery?

I lean towards a yes answer (although it is perhaps not as simple a
question as some believe).  If you disagree, I would be interested
in hearing your rationale.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:55:24 GMT

In article <12030@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Aug29.205234.22551@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> # Since when was talk.politics.misc declared straight space? Perhaps
> # you can dig up the charter.
  
> No, the straight space is that which AB 2601 seeks to abolish.

The marvelous thing about Claytoon's postings is that
they completely obviate the need for parody.
-- 
"I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
me that my preference is fisting."  -- Theodore A. Kaldis

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42155 talk.abortion:33613 alt.politics.bush:3061
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:03:11 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|In article <p2huf1c@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|>|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
|>|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
|>|be held accountable for your actions. 

|>And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
|>way of discharging that accountability.

|Yes, abortion is a way of discharging that accountability.  Or another
|way of putting it is abortion is flaking out.

In exactly the same way that getting open heart surgery is
"flaking out" on coping with years of poor diet.  In exactly
the same way that obtaining any medical care is "flaking out"
on coping with one's health.  Uhuh.

Bzzt!  Thanks for playing, Martin.  

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com          C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:19:54 GMT
	<farenebt.714789787@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
	<1992Aug26.183119.25937@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Aug26.183119.25937@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> The only inconsistent
>combination of abortion and death penalty positions is pro-abortion
>and anti- death penalty.

Not at all. "Unborn children" are more or less innocent (Depending on your
theological position), and will end up in heaven after a finite time. Convicted
murderers, on the other hand, unless given a chance to repent, will end up in
hell. Every additional soul in hell will improve hells chances to win against
heaven in the apocalyptic battle, therefore it makes sense *not* to execute
murderers.

Additionally, in the bible, God protects a murderer from execution:

   And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain,
   vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark
   upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

See? Wasn't that hard to defend that position.

Matthias "I'm not a moral theologian but I play one on the net" Neeracher

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "No, what he didn't like about heroes was that they were usually
    suicidally gloomy when sober and homicidally insane when drunk."
                          -- Terry Pratchett, _The Colour of Magic_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42622 alt.politics.elections:11868 alt.politics.bush:3350 alt.politics.clinton:3377
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:17:18 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1685080A8.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
> ... Do you have statistics that dispute the ones we've introduced?

The United States Census of 1990.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "Age and treachery will always conquer youth and skill."  - Anon.        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:47:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:

>When the point comes that we can no longer even cover the interest
>payment, the President and Congress have three choices, as I see it:

>1.  Default on the debt and simply say we aren't going to pay it.
Causing an instant, world-wide depression.  The debt is owned by
large banks, pension funds and individuals.  Removing those assets, AND
eliminating the interest would destroy the capital markets overnight,
bankrupt banks, etc.  Politically improbable.

>2.  Raise taxes on everyone to 50 percent of their income and cut
>spending across the board by no less than 40 percent.
Causing a huge decrease in the standard of living.  Causing deflation by
reducing the amount of disposable income.  Policitally impossible, as noone
will vote for 50% income taxes...not to mention the Social Security tax,
etc.

>3.  Monetized the debt.
Bingo!  Can be done by creeping growth in the money supply for a while,
thus putting off the day of reckoning.  But eventually, the currency is
devalued by foreign governments, hyper-inflation sets in and bye-bye US
economy.  Argentina anyone?  Weimar Germany?

>At that point, I would also expect that Congress and the President will
>figure out a way to attach all private retirement funds, all
>investments, and all savings accounts to help pay off a portion of the
>debt before printing enough money to cover the interest payment, and
>thereby, monetizing the debt.

Grabbing 401K plans and nationalizing pension funds will happen within 10
years.  Once boomers begin retiring in any great numbers, there just won't
be enough workers to cover Soc Sec, and the debt will expand.  Of course,
Soc Sec rates will rise to over 10%, too.

Interest on the debt already consumes more money than any line-item except Soc 
Sec.  And it just keeps on growing.

The only solution is massive, across the board cuts in governemnt spending,
turn Soc Sec into a needs based program, reduce the payroll tax, eliminate
most entitlements, etc.  Reduce the number of employees on the govt
payroll, etc.

  -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42003 misc.headlines:5972 alt.activism:15465 sci.econ:7157
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.activism,sci.econ
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: A better indicator of employment?  (was Re: Derailing the Reagan...)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.230848.3747@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>>>  If you want accuracy, the unemployment (or rather employment) shoud be
>>>  measured as "full time equivalent" positions.  With positions without 
>>>  benefits being worth only .7 of the same position with benefits. (Or 
>>>  some other mulitplier.)

>> The last provision seems pretty silly. I was once offerred the option
>> by my employer of receiving certain benefits, or several thousand dollars
>> more in salary. I took the later. Did that make me 30% unemployed?

>	Not exactly.  Several thousand more won't help if you have no insurance
>and get AIDS or inoperable cancer or need a marrow transplant.
>
>	No benefits indicates a hidden risk associated with the employment. 
>Thus the attempt to gauge "quality" of employ.


Well, this was in Canada, so your example isn't relevant. Even if it
was in the US, I might well have decided to purchase my own insurance,
rather than use the company plan, though, if I recall correctly, US tax 
laws discourage this, for some inexplicable reason.

In any case, the whole idea of judging the quality of the job seems based
on the idea that unemployment figures are some sort of "score card", to
use in deciding whether to re-elect the government. This is ridiculous.
You can't hope to put everything into one number. 

What is useful about the unemployement numbers is that they indicate
the amount of person-hours of labour being wasted. Counting someone
with a half-time job as half-unemployed therefore makes sense,
PROVIDED THEY WANT TO WORK FULL TIME. Switching to a system where
someone with a half-time job counts as half-unemployed even when they
only want a half-time job would be just as misleading as the present
system.

    Radford Neal
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc