HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:03:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug15.175048.28188@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <11782@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug13.235549.8542@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> @ In article <11727@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# @ #The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
# @ #Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
# @ #themselves as influence your perception of them?"
# 
# @ More likely the psychiatrist would lean over and ask:  "Tell me,
# @ Clayton, how long have you had this obsession with homosexuality?"
# 
# #Since it became clear that the homosexual community can't bear
# #to tell NAMBLA where to go.
# 
# 	The shrink would now say: "Clayton, you have this obsession
# with connecting homosexuality with NAMBLA. I wonder what childhood

I've already posted an item from a homosexual activist about how
painful it was to take a position against pedophilia when organizing
against OCA's initiative in Oregon.  Go read it, and tell me that
homosexuals don't connect homosexuality with NAMBLA.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The Bush Record
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:20:18 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Aug19105923@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.151421.26912@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>The Bush Record
>>
>>4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during Bush's term.[1]
>>	Bush promised 30 million new jobs.
>
>But he promised them for *two* terms, and this makes his reelection all the
>more attractive. Just imagine, 29 million new jobs in the next four years.

Wow, you're right.  Hmm.  How many would be late night talk show
hosts, given another 4 year lease on life?



--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Subject: RE: Kulturkampf
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:17:26 GMT

>From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
>Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
>     Sorry to say this, but you're wrong.  It is NOT the money.
>     Think:  If it was indeed the $$$, then how do you explain the constant
>free-speechers defense of such rotten expressions of free speech such as
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>2 Live Crew and BodyCount??  Can't be the money, since these groups 
>had low-selling albums BEFORE the attacks from the right.  

	So, it is free speech.  Thanks for clearing that up.

>     It's more power than anything.  Either way, the NEA is supporting
>someone's culture, just whose culture will it support is what's being argued.
>Other cultures don't rely on the threat of force; they pay their own way.
>     Don't be so sure about this.

>Kamchatka Charlie          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu

	There is only one real culture, foax.

	It is not the white culture.  Not the black culture.  Not the
	brown culture.  Not the yellow culture.  No, it's not even the
	human culture.

	The only culture which truly exists is called the green 
	culture.  For conservatives, this culture represents the color
	of money...business, greed, I-pledge-20-dollars-ism (evangelism),
	Savings-and-Loan-ism...and pseudo-innocence...
	"Come on Eve, I know this place in Indianapolis, where pies are
	 made from little green apples...."

	For liberals, on the other hand, the green culture represents
	the color of Nature...maple trees, rosebuds, cornfields, 
	botanical gardens, lovers on the green grass of Paris...and
	the color of political conscience...art, Greenpeace.


		Kumar

ps:	...I can't believe that ultra-conservative, racist, authoritarian
	bigot named Jesse Helms is still in office!  He makes 
	Claytoon look like a decent fellow.
-- 
                                  *******************************************
   Kumar Yelubandi                 **  I don't believe in a lot           **
   (good wines > good times!)      **  of things. And I quit thinking     **
   ...in the year 2525...          **  six years ago, so...DON'T BOTHER ME!!!
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive Auto-Poster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE: June '91: Ex-hostages to Congress: Investigate
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:22:08 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


                                [Joan Mower, Associated Press] 


WASHINGTON -- Eight Americans who were held hostage at the U.S. 
Embassy in Iran asked Congress today to investigate allegations that 
[The Reagan/Bush] presidential campaign worked to delay their 
release until after the 1980 election. 

The ex-hostages joined a chorus of critics, including former President 
Carter, who want Congress to look into events leading to the election 
in which Reagan ousted Carter. 

The 52 hostages were freed minutes after Reagan was inaugurated in 
January 1981 -- after 444 days in captivity. 

"For the last 10 years there have been rumors, reports and 
allegations of foul play in the 1980 presidential election," the 
hostages said in an open letter to members of Congress. 

"Until recently, these allegations have been dismissed as 
unsubstantiated," the letter said. "But substantial enough information 
ha been presented by respected and persistent investigators to 
warrant a thorough examination of this matter." 

Recently, Gary Sick, a respected expert on Iran and a member of 
Carter's national Security Council staff, said he determined the 
[Reagan/Bush] campaign promised weapons to the Iranian government in 
exchange for postponing the hostage release. 

        [In fact it is substantiated that weapons were shipped to Iran 
        many years before Iran-Contra; see the article from Z magazine 
        posted earlier in this series, and see also the _Coverup:
	Behind the Iran-Contra Affair_ video for documention of this
	by former Iranian President Bani-Sadr -- HB]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
[From: Valley News, June 13, 1991. See page 13 small box under the 
title "Ex-Hostages Seek Inquiry." By Joan Mower, Associated Press] 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40494 misc.legal:16127
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Speaking of the death penalty...
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:47:07 GMT
Organization: Hickory Ridge - Lisle, IL

Tim W Smith writes:
:The various death penalty debates that surface from time to time on Usenet
:usually end up involving an argument over the value or lack thereof of the
:death penalty as a deterrent.
:
:One thing I've never seen discussed is its value as persuasion.  ...
:
:Does anyone have information on how useful the death penalty is as a
:bargaining tool for prosecutors?

As compared with the cattle prod, the bastinado, or the rack?

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrccb.att.com
	      (effective Aug 1, 1992:  tjc@hrcce.att.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:42:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.020524.22862@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>the hall/chaney creature, posting as
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>-> Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to
>-> George Herbert Walker Bush.
>
>i urge you, dennisstephen, to repeat this statement in
>as many newsgroups as possible. i think your net.rep
>will influence people. really.
>
>-- 
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Does this mean that poeple who vote for Bush do so because they think that other 
people will?  That is, they can't think for themselves?  I guess that's why
republicans like to plaster the airwaves with banners like "Vote Republican"
without offering any reasons.

Peter Lauren.



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39247 ca.politics:6703 ba.politics:4445
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:18:57 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
>yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
>Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
>homosexuality.  To say that you subscribe to either religion,
>while engaging in homosexuality, is rather like claiming to be
>a Marxist, while capitalizing a company.

Not really.  People often pick what they like in a religion and ignore
what they don't.  For example, my parents raised my brothers and me as
Roman Catholics.  While the Pope (capital P for pompous) decreed that
only the rhythm method of birth control is acceptable - this did and
does not stop my parents or my brothers from using other forms of
contraception while being active members of their church.

It is not that difficult for me to believe there are homosexuals
who accept many of the tenets of Judaism or Christianity but discard
those they find personally offensive.  Likewise I'm sure there
are ministers or priests (or whatever) who are accepting of homosexual
parishioners in defiance of their parent church stated policy.

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40290 talk.abortion:32198 alt.politics.bush:1915
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:36:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <Bt4BnM.C3u@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

>David, you make some very thoughtful arguments.  I firmly believe as you
>do that our government is designed to protect all our rights whenever
>possible.  It is only when circumstances warrant that one right takes
>precedence over another.  For example, the right to free speech does not
>take precedence over the effects that could occur when a spy gives
>information to another country.  The protection of the country takes
>precedence.  Similarly, one cannot yell "Fire!" (when no fire is
>present) in a crowded theatre because it could imperil the lives of
>those within.  We must balance our rights as best we can; giving the maximum
>freedom possible.  Yet, we really do have a hierarchy that comes into
>play when important conflicts arise.
>
     While there are certainly situations where rights come into conflict,
you can't say that any right is more important than any other right.  To
to do effectively eliminates the "inferior" right in favor of the "superior"
one.
     However, I am curious as to what sort of situations you are thinking
of when you say think of two rights conflicting and the "inferior" one
bowing to the "superior" right to life.

>Tim

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:06:04 GMT

deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>> I  believe there is a slight confusion.  I took Bush's statement on
>> Dateline to be support AFTER THE FACT.  The media and others twist it 
>> around and use the logic to something BEFORE THE FACT.  There is a BIG
>> difference, and I hope people see the difference.
>> 
>Nope, the way the question was put to Bush (and to Quyale) was if your
>[grand]daugther came to you saying she was pregnant and wanted an 
>abortion, what would you do.

from the interview:

Q. Mr. President, how would you answer the question that was put to Vice
   President Dan Quayle by Larry King, if your granddaughter, let's say, 
   came to you and said, in a few years, I'm pregnant, I want to have an 
   abortion?

A. I would talk her out of it, try to.

   [reference to an after-the-fact scenario deleted]

   But do I, would I support my child? I'd put my arm around her and say, 
   if she were trying to make that decision, encourage her not to do that, 
   but of course I'd stand by my child. ...

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:44:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.002430.3663@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.192934.29839@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug20.021305.3644@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>
>>>	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>>do not automatically translate into more money.
>>>
>> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
>> something to do with it.
>
>	Lower taxes at first.  Congress pulled a fast one by suggesting that a
>raise in taxes could then be applied to the debt to wipe that out (or at least
>put a dent in it).
>
>	Funny how the money never was applied to the debt, and was simply
>spent....
>
>> For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
>> tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.
>
>	For those who want to put the blame at Reagan's feet, show where
>congress lived up to their part of the bargain and quit spending so much.

I specifically said only a few lines up that I blame both Reagan _and_
the congress.  They are just as bad, though no worse.  Didn't Reagan
sign those spending bills?  Again, Brett, I ask you, which _spending_
bills werer passed over Reagan's veto.  While we are at it, you might
tell me which budgets he proposed that would balance the budget that
congress refused.  I believe that Republican politicians like
deficits as much as Democrats, they just spend it on other things.
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:55:44 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bt0JvF.46G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.040109.38620@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >>
> >> Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
> >> the assumption that the fetus is a human being.
> >
> >The Model Penal Code, upon which many states base their criminal codes,
> >defines "human being" as "a person who has been born and is alive."
> >(Section 210.0(1))
> >
> >Does the argument now fall apart?  Or are you discussing moral rather
> >than legal issues?
>
> Larry, you are one of the more erudite members of this group

You seem to be a perceptive chap.  :-)

> We were not discussing any current legal considerations.  This
> discussion dealt with the consistency of arguments given certain
> assumptions.  Some have come into this in midstream but this is not
> now and has not been a pro/con abortion discussion.

That was the purpose of my question.  As long as people aren't going to
attempt to turn their personal moral beliefs into law, I'm not
interested in pointing out inconsistencies in their personal beliefs.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: John.Tipton@iphase.UUCP (John Tipton)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: clinton's economic pl
Date: 12 Aug 92  07:05:00 EST

It seems like the `Rich' always want to grab all the marbles.  They have accountants and lawyers to make sure they don't pay taxes but make a killing off the `Government'.  They have security teams to monitor the common man from dirtying there schedule.  You not only want the `Uncle Sam' to enforce contracts but protect your rights to lasse faire but you want even more to take your `aide to America program' and take your com- panies to Mexico so you can rape two birds with one stone, and now you want a saf
e haven where you don't have to give back to the system that raised you.  Sounds like this `All American' would cheat his own mother. Maybe he supports the Bush-Iraq scam because publicly `John Bull' is a patriot, but privately he has made `big bucks' from all the money he and Uncle George have procurred from sells of sensative arms to Saddam Hussen.  Of course he waves `old glory' and preaches God Bless America, but has he or any of his ever done more then that famous bastion of Con servative Americanism;
 Ronald Reagan?  No not ever.  Maybe his uniform was some cosmetic make-up. My belief is that there comes a time when even the towers of Bastile must come down.  I say build this country, and stop flim-flaming your mother!

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:16:29 GMT

In article <11809@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Until I discovered the widespread support for child molestation
>in the gay community, and the recent efforts at oppressing straight
>people with measures like AB 101, I didn't care, particularly.  I 
>didn't like what they did, but it was really irrelevant to my life.
>The discovery that NAMBLA has a lot of support in the gay community,
>and the efforts of parts of the gay community to use the government
>as a tool of oppression, means that I no longer have to choice
>to just ignore their behavior.
>

What widespread support for child molestation? That's a very strong,
libelous claim against the homosexual community. If you're going to
make accusations like that, you'd better provide some evidence. And
grabbing posts off of soc.motss does _not_ count.

I've got friends and family who have been molested as children. Every
one of them was molested by a straight person, and in the majority of
cases, the community did their best to *hide* the molestation and
protect the molester. Can I extrapolate from this and say that the
community at large supports child molestation?

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "I'm not dumb, 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  I just have a command of thoroughly 
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  useless information."
|| carroll@udel.edu             || 	-Calvin
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush the hypocrite
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:45:47 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing

Bush's acceptance speech:

>   That will especially help small businesses.  They create
>Two-thirds of the new jobs in America.  But my opponent's plan for
>small business is clear, present--and dangerous.  Besides new income
>taxes, his plan will lead to a new payroll tax to pay for a government
>takeover of health care, and another new tax to pay for training.
                                                         ^^^^^^^^
  And not 5 minutes later....

>   Here's what I'm fighting for...
>   --Job training.

Huh?
------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |   you doing what your doing, and I'm
                                        |   president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: A Simple Thought Experiment (was Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:10:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.224302.2246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>I understand, and accept, the idea that lower taxes can be an incentive
>for economic activity.  I am challenging the claim that there will be
>_enough_ activity to increase revenues.  The activity may increase by
>a marginal amount and that increase may also be transient, as has been
>shown for studies for the case of capital gains reductions.  Such a
>reduction will lead to a short-term increase as people cash in on
>paper profits, but after the sell-out, the lower tax rate becomes the
>dominant factor.

Let's perform a thought experiment. Suppose, just suppose, that the
tax rate were 100% (taxes have, at various time in this century
approached that point).  Question: What idiot is going to engage in
taxable economic activity? Answer: Noone. Question: How much tax
REVENUE is generated?  Answer: ZILCH!

Now suppose this socialist paradise decides to reduce the tax rate
(pick a number less than 100%, say the current tax rate). What
happens? Taxable economic activity begins to occur. And as taxable
economic activity increases, tax revenues are created. Now, since any
revenue generated is going to be more than was collected under the
100% tax rate, it follows that, in this instance, a reduction in tax
rates has generated an increase in tax revenues.

QED

The only real question among serious economists is at what point, not
whether, lower tax rates stop producing higher revenues. However,
lower tax rates will ALWAYS generate greater economic activity even
beyond the point where the increase in economic activity is
insufficient to offset the loss of tax revenue due to the lower rate.

That is, lower tax rates are ALWAYS better for the economy and OFTEN
will be better for the government`s budget (especially in overtaxed
nations like the US).