HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:24:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92011@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11394@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) talks
> >The homosexual community brought AIDS on themselves, by their
> >promiscuity and complete lack of concern about STDs.
> 
> Don't blame me for the mistakes made by the gay community 15 years ago.

How about the mistakes being made by the gay community today?  I've
started collecting postings from soc.motss about the problems of
unsafe promiscuous sex -- and there have been quite a few.

> And I don't give a flying SHIT what Ayn Rand would say.

Neither do I.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism,soc.motss
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: A New Boom and Bust Theory
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:40:45 GMT

From the August issue of Harper's, p. 19

[Radio Transcript]
A NEW BOOM AND BUST THEORY

From a discussion in March between radio talk-show host Chris Clark
and a caller named Gregory, on KGO's Chris Clark Show, in San
Francisco.  The transcript appeared in the Anderson Valley Advertiser,
a weekly paper published in Boonville, CA.

Gregory: I have a friend who recently had breast reconstruction after
having undergone a mastectomy for breast cancer.  She was upset
because, for the time being, she was not allowed to get the silicone
implant and had to stick with the saline.
	As it turned out, she is very pleased with the saline.  But
this gave rise to an interesting point.  Another friend pointed out
that in politically conservative, repressive times big breasts on
women become popular and in liberal, free-wheeling times small breasts
become popular.

Chris Clark: What are we entering into now?

Gregory: Well, clearly we are in a repressive age.

Clark: So there are going to be larger breasts.

Gregory: Yes, based on my friend's theory.  For example, the Fifties
were a very repressive age, and we had Marilyn Monroe, Jayne
Mansfield.  The Twenties were a very wild age, and small breasts were
popular.  You see, his theory is that in a repressive age people feel
the need for nurturing.  That's why big breasts become popular.

Clark: Yes.

Gregory: Now, my theory is that my friend is confusing cause and
effect.  Rather than political thought determining breast size, it's
the other way around.

Clark: You mean breast size determines political thought?

Gregory: Yeah.  Big breasts are popular, people look around, they say,
"Oh, there's lots of big breasts, they're very big, they're scary,
somebody might get their eye put out.  I'm going to vote for
Buchanan."

Clark: Yes.

Gregory: It's not that "political times are repressive, ergo we like
big breasts" but that there are a lot of big breasts around, ergo we
get scared and we get conservative.  And, conversely, like in the
Sixties you had people like Penelope Tree and Twiggy, and people
looked around and said, "Oh, there's lots of small breasts around,
it's okay, it's safe.  I'm going to join a commune and take drugs."


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:40:05 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>But if you have decided your children are not yet responsible enough, to
>you support the right of the local sleeze following your child around and
>giving/selling them alcohol?  Let's say it is your 13 year old daughter.

I wouldn't have any problem with that, other than that if she abused
it then my introducing her to responsible drinking had failed, and
that she was disobeying me.  That's our problem, not his.  In either
case, legislation isn't going to stop it.


>How do you protect your daughter from alcohol and drugs long enough for
>you to instill your values?  Have you tried raising kids yet?

Actually, I have no experience with daughters, but, in this kind of
situation, would assume that sons would be a similar experience.  The
question still holds regardless of the legalization of it - how do you
protect your daughter from alcohol and drugs long enough for you to
instill your values.  Alcohol and drugs are both illegal for children,
but that hasn't stopped it.  What shouldn't be illegal is for me to
follow the euopean model here and introduce them to responsible
drinking.  Not that I care about the law in that regard, but it is
potential trouble that shouldn't be there. 
-- 
May all your boils, sores, scabs, scrufs, and carbuncles be little ones.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Real Estate News Summary, Part 108
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:23:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <19073@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>Written in article <1992Jul23.002508.6386@adobe.com>
> by hamachi@adobe.com (Gordon Hamachi):
>
>: The Bush administration and many in Congress want to tighten controls on
>: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The reason:  The billions in mortgage
>: securities the 2 companies have issued represent a potential liability to
>: the U.S. taxpayer of more than $800 billion.  But the profits from the 2
>: companies go to private investors.  The volume of mortgage-backed
>: securities has grown explosively, from $100 billion a decade ago to $1
>: trillion today. [Wall Street Journal]
>
>Sounds like we're waiting for another S&L crisis to hit!
>
>Thinking about it, this IS a rather interesting situation ... the risk
>is burdened by the US taxpayer, but the profits go to private investors.

Yep, just like the "defense budget" ...

>Wouldn't it be more "fair" to either let the private investors shoulder
>the risk, or take some of that profit as a means of reducing the budget
>deficit, and/or reducing taxes?

"fair" isn't the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is
transfering wealth from the general population to the very rich.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.history,soc.culture.usa
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Greatest President Since Teddy Roosevelt
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:22:41 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul20.145036.26124@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
]Gorbachev's reforms in terms of military policy -- particularly with regards
]to nuclear strategy -- can be attributed to SDI.  I would have a very hard
]time believing that Gorbachev's statement should apply to glasnost and peristroika,
]or even that HE intended that they should.

Well, he said this in the context of perestroika and glasnost, not military
reform. He was referring to more than SDI.... it was Reagan's overall arms
buildup, including SDI, that forced him to reform. Go look it up!


-- 
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
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Republican Party Platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:18:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

Here it is:

          1) Talk vaguely about family values.
          2) Blame the Democrats.
          3) Start a war with Saddam so that the resulting spasm of
             patriotic fervor peaks on November 3.
          4) Visit at least one flag factory in late October.
          5) Work toward removing a woman's right to vote.

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:00:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.152044.1557@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

[abortion opinion history deleted]

>Which leads me to wonder if George, in his second term, will 
>do another flip-flop on abortion.  He won't have to worry
>about keeping the right wing happy.  He'll be free to do
>what he really believes.

>Comments?

There are a number of firearms enthusiasts who are saying the same thing.  
George Bush is a political reed, and will bend with the polls.  Perhaps once 
he becomes a lame duck, he will develop a backbone.

Personally, I doubt it.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34954 talk.politics.theory:2962 alt.discrimination:3708
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 21 Jul 1992 16:40:50 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Ken Arromdee writes:
|> This is one area where I disagree with the libertarians, even though I have a
|> lot of sympathies with them.  (On the other hand, I've also seen lots of bad
|> arguments against the same idea.)
|> 
|> The general libertarian response seems to be that if everybody refuses to sell
|> to blacks, libertarian governments could not prevent problems to blacks--but
|> neither could a government which has the power to ban discrimination; if
|> everyone is a bigot, there's no way that government is going to enact anti-
|> discrimination laws anyway; libertarian law would thus be no worse than what we
|> already have.
|> 
|> And if there are _some_ people who don't discriminate, these people should be
|> able to prosper on the extra business.  Since discriminating against blacks
|> causes a loss of business (to blacks), and doesn't provide any monetary gain,
|> those who don't discriminate should be able to make more profit than those who
|> do, and thus outcompete them.
|> 
This is supply side philosopy.  The problem is not selling to blacks, but hiring
them so they will have money too buy.  The Libertarian position would be that
if there is an economic benefit to hiring blacks (meaning they would work for
less) that the company that hires them would have an economic advantage.  This
only works if we accept blacks as a second class society who's labor is worth
less.

Libertarians are not bigots.  They just have level of faith in human beings
to be honorable and unbiased.  Others of us believe that the phrase "all men
are created equal" suggests we have a repsonsibility to help thing along when
the citizenry slip a little in their honor.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dole attack backfires
Date: 25 Jul 1992 18:12:08 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul25.174605.23258@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul25.155500.13833@cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
|> >	Political panic sometimes brings out Senator Dole's dark side.
|> 
|> On Evans & Novak today, he assumed his attack dog role:
|> 
|> 	1) Clinton was "disingenuous" about his handling of the Vietnam
|>            draft issue.
|> 
|> 	2) Gore's support for the Gulf war resolution was self-serving.

Dole has sunk LOW, real LOW. If he had bothered to read the Wall Street Journal
of a few weeks back (just after Clinton chose Gore), he would have found out
that NOBODY, not even Gore's aides knew which way he was going to swing on the
war resolution even the night before. If the GOP can make a claim like this, why 
can't the Democrats claim that Bush's hyping of the Iraq issue in 1990 was merely 
a reaction to his dropping in the polls after breaking his no-new taxes pledge? 

|> 
|> 	3) Gore was only a journalist in Vietnam anyway.

The operative words there are "in Vietnam," as opposed to New Haven, Ct.
(Clinton) or <somewhere>, Indiana (Quayle).

|> 	4) Gore is a Ted Kennedy clone. 
|> 
|> 	5) Dan Quayle helps the ticket because he's a good conservative
|>            whereas the Dem ticket is liberal, liberal, liberal...
|> 
|>         6) The liberal media has adopted the Clinton/Gore ticket and
|>            unfairly attacked Bush/Quayle.

If this is all that the GOP can come up with, they should simply surrender
the election now and let the Clinton disaster take over right away. Maybe what
Bush should do is resign, let Quayle take over, nominate Clinton for
VP, wait till he is confirmed, and himself resign. Why go through the charade 
(humiliation??) of an election?

|> Even Evans and Novak weren't buying it.

And can you blame them? They didn't survive in the column-writing business
for 30 years by being stupid. I am pro-Bush (oops, anti-Clinton), and I didn't
buy it either when I saw excerpts of it yesterday (on CNN's Inside Politics '92).

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Demopublican or Republicrat ?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:00:11 GMT

In article <Brsn0p.BDK@apollo.hp.com>,
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.021646.4576@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>>From article <BrrCyK.AEz@wrs.com>, by gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven):
>>>
>>> Why is this so hard for people to understand?  NO NON-DEMOPUBLICAN WILL
>>> WIN THE PRESIDENCY IF EVERYONE VOTES DEMOPUBLICAN!  That goes for
>>> elections at any level, really...the very very low number of
>>> independent, Libertarian, or any other third-party holders of partisan
>>> offices is a testament of that.
>
>
>  This is simply wrong.   Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a
>  socialist independent.

However, Mr. Sanders had previously been very active in Vermont
politics as a Democrat and had developed much name recognition as
such prior to deciding to seek the Senate seat as an independent.
Libertarians are not willing to pretend they're Republicrats just to
get elected to lower office first.

/June

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Jul19.184625.7729@infonode.ingr.com> <36881@ttidca.TTI.COM>
	<3967@news.duke.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:56:37 GMT

Pure Fantasy Land.

I'll eat a bug if Perot runs again this year.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Tularosa: tullies, roses, lava, white sands, and home of THEM! (atomic ants).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: Re: Vacation Time!
Keywords: Ditch Day, vanishing room
Reply-To: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:04:15 GMT

In article <BruGv9.2B7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   I'm glad I got through college without ever having to deal with any
>   of this infantile bullshit.   Nevermind the way it reinforces, and 

[deleted]

>   mob, the tribe, the church, etc.   It is always *something* -- 
>   individualism just doesn't seem to be compatible with basic human
>   nature.

Boy!  And I thought _I_ was socially maladjusted.

Lay down on the couch.  Tell me why you hate your father. . . .

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:46:24 GMT

In article <3398@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.225428.25403@afterlife.ncsc.mil> glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong... aren't we ALREADY in the biggest
>>recession since the 1930's?
>>
>>Jerry Reno (Nobody N. Nowan) glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil
>
>Well Jerry I'll correct you.  First of all we are NOT in a recession at all,
>yes the media likes to use that word but if you pick up an economics book you'll
>see the reality. 
>
>Recessions are typically marked by high inflation, interest rates, low consumer
>spending, high unemployement.  Our economy has NONE of those traits.  7.2%
>unemployement rates are not high, they could be lower but they are not high at
>all by historical standards and we have low interest rates, low inflation,
>consumer spending, what we have is not a recession.

I think you better go take a look at that economics text you mention,
Paul, because all the things you mention have nothing to do with
whether we are in a recession or not.  There is one, AND ONLY ONE
thing that indicates whether an economy is in a recession or not; two
consecutive quarters with no growth in Gross Domestic Product.  Hence,
you can't know that you are in one until you've been in it at least 6
months (and what we just had most certainly was one).  I'm not
positive, but I believe it also takes two quarters of growth to
declare that you are 'out' of one.

>
>How soon they forget, but I won't.

Looks like you already did.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:23:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Jul23.022427.1893@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Not only that, the republicans are responsible for the floods caused
>by El Nino, the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo, and the California
>Earthquakes. Hey - let's face it - everything is the fault of
>Ronald Reagan and George Bush!

Not everything, Danny-boye was probably the result of a defective condom.
(Republicans didn't fund enough money for quality control, but relied in-
stead on "trickle down" which is just what happened :-)

(flames to Pt. Barrow, please, it's still cold up there.)

Larry J

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu     # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Presidential Line-Item Veto Power
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:08:49 GMT

In article <veal.148@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.203530.19756@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>>     The Constitution does not provide for a line-item veto.  Everything
>>>else is wishful thinking.  (Not that anyone, even the President who swears
>>>to defend the damn thing, bothers to read it.  It's all "elastic clauses"
>>>and "general welfare" clauses.  If that's a recipe for limited government 
>>>I'd hate to see an unlimited one...)
>
>>The idea is to strike a balance between a government which can protect
>>individual rights without getting out of balance and harming these rights.
>>The Constitution is intended to be a living document which allows us to
>>govern ourselves, to make laws to suit the times.  This is one reason
>>why a constitutional right to an abortion is considered imaginary, the 
>>proper course is to make legislation allowing it. 
>
>     We must confine ourselves to what the Constitution *says* as oppose
>to what it *should* say.  Where the Constitution is lacking, it should
>be amended.  "Interpreting" a line-item veto because "it is necessary"
>defeats the purpose of writing the law down in the first place.
>
I appreciate and agree somewhat with your attitude toward the Constitution.
I am not suggesting that the Constitution be interpreted on what it 
should say but rather what it means in the eyes of those who wrote it.
The Founders wrote at length about what the document means and it is
from these writings that we can understand what they intended a Bill
to be and how they intended a veto to be implemented.   These men argued
over the veto and they intended it to be used frequently to cause 
serious review of legislation.  Today, at least in terms of the
yearly appropriations Bill, individual appropriations cannot be 
reviewed and voted upon.

Much of what our "representatives" pass would not pass on its own merrits.


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:23:52 GMT

In article <1508@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>,
king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>If I thought that modern day minimum wage jobs helped you acquire useful
>skills, I would agree with you.  But I don't think that they do; have
>you ever seen anybody hired for a real job because of their ice cream
>scooping experience?  Or hired for anything but another no-future job
>for their cash register experience?  The only thing these jobs really
>seem to do is provide some form of bogus "credentialing"; they could
>help give you a continuous work history.  What a skill.

What a minimum wage job should give you a chance to do is:

1) show you're reliable, that is, that you show up on time and work
hard while you're there.

2) that you can learn new skills, even if it's only how to scoop
ice-cream

3) that you can get along with co-workers

Taking on and training a new employee represents a significant
investment for most employers.  They want assurance, to the extent
of the above, that you're worth investing in.  They probably don't
really care about the particular skills you learned on that job if
you're just looking to move up another rung on the wag ladder.

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36206 ca.politics:6060