HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Brian Kane claims pedophilia != child molestation (Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...))
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:49:08 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BuHLoI.9ps@queernet.org>, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
> In article <12209@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# |# Oh that's right, pedophilia (adults having sex with children) 
# |# isn't child molestation.  I keep forgetting that.  Tell me,
# |# why do you insist that adults having sex with children isn't
# |# child molestation, then get upset with me for asking the gay
# |# community to shun NAMBLA?
# 
# Pedophilia is not child molestation.  Pedophilia is sexual attraction toward
# children, not sex with children.  Thinking about sex is not sex, Clayton; you,
# of all people, should know that thinking about it and getting it are two
# different things...
# -- 
# ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF

Can someone get this man a dictionary?

    pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred
    sexual object

That's the ONLY definition in the dictionary.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:09:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU>, 
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> Well, there tain't anything in there to suggest he does [have the right to 
> line-item veto].
> 
> Article I, Section 7:
> 	Every bill which shall have passed the HoR and Senate, shall,
> before it becomes law, be presented to the president of the US; if he
> approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his
> objections, to the house in which it shall have originated...
> 
> Doesn't seem to be anything suggested he gets to keep part of a bill only.

That's not the wording.  Try this:

"Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of 
the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary 
(except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to 
the President of the United States; and before the same shall 
take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by 
him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of 
Representatives, according to the rules and limitations 
prescribed in the case of a bill."

Sounds a lot like it would support striking individual items added by an 
"order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House 
of Representatives may be necessary", doesn't it?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Are Liberals tax lovers?(was Re: Run conservatives, run away!)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:14:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.195307.10935@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>>Any nationally recognized liberals out there calling for less
>>taxation? Aren't they pretty much lining up behind Clinton and
>>his tax (increase) plans?
>
>June Genis ...

Ha! She's a Libertarian, not a Liberal, silly.
Doubtless she rejects the folly of Clinton's tax and spend plans,
and is supporting her party's candidate, Marrou.
Anyway, although she may deserve the limelight or office, I've never
seen her on national TV or in national office (yet).

Your answer was so far off the mark, that it strengthens the original
suspicion that there are no nationally recognized 'lower taxes'
Liberals out there. Egalitarians need to fund their ideas
from somewhere.

Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43993 talk.politics.mideast:19681 misc.headlines:6237
From: gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:50:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: gene@cs

In article <1992Sep04.181321.2461616@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>Besides, israel came to forcefull existence on May, 15 '48.  Before
>that the term israel was only biblical pointing to an extinct tribe.
						       ^^^^^^^
You wish...

Besides I'd like to point out that Elghani is quite careful in capitalizing all
proper names except Israel.
-- 
 ---
	Gene Itkis		(gene@cs.bu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:44:56 GMT

In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
> but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
> yes, it does confer de facto special rights.

Amazing.

Duh, Phool.  The phrase 'sexual orientation' covers 
heterosexuals and bisexuals, too.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45265 alt.politics.elections:13045
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Time Magazine's grasp of higher mathematics
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:32:05 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Sep14.144951.14112@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep12.185104.24502@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> >
|> >Found this winning piece of journalism on p.28 of the 9-14-92 edition
|> >of Time:
|> >
|> >  In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 74% of the respondents said their votes
|> >  would not be affected by their views of Hillary [Clinton]; but among
|> >  the remainder, almost twice as many said they would vote against
|> >  Clinton (14%) as for him (9%) based on their opinion of his wife.
|> >
|> >You heard it here first, folks -- 14% is "almost twice as many" as 9%...
|> 
|> Also, 74+14+9 = 97. Where do the remainding 3% stand on this?
|> The three categories cover the entire spectrum I would think.

Maybe they didn't know she existed...

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:00:29 GMT

In <1992Sep14.112414.5994@eskimo.celestial.com> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:

>Hmmm. Are you impressed with the way Bush has responded to questions
>about Jennifer Fitzgerald (I think that's her name)? Seems like he
>got pretty testy when Mary Tillotson asked the question as tactfully
>as she could - now I hear that Fitzwater has made the statement that
>she's more or less personna-non-grata around the White house. In an
>interview, his response was something like "HOW DARE you ask that
>question of me in the Oval office?". Pretty impressive!

To take an overly simplistic view, it seems that if either could have
denied the allegations, he would have.

It's the old line of questioning: 
Lawyer: "Did you sleep with the man in Miami?"
Woman: "I refuse to answer the question."
Lawyer: "Did you sleep with the man in San Antonio?"
Woman: "I refuse to answer the question."
Lawyer: "Did you sleep with the man in Bejing?"
Woman: "No."
Oops.
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:16:04 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep4.235020.19042@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><1992Sep1.172707.10759@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>> -> What annoys me is that, although the
>> -> "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem to think that
>> -> their arguments are superior, they evidently do not
>> -> trust women to see this for themselves.
>
>Of course not.  Not with 1.5 million of them aborting their babies a year.

Babies are not aborted, Suzanne.  Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

>> which is why many consider them misogynists.
>
>Crap and malarky.  Every one of those babies had a male father as well as
>a female mother.  There is nothing misogynist at all in the observation that,
>evidently, parents need to be restrained from killing their children.

Yes, I agree that parents may need, and should be, restrained from killing
their children.  What does this have to do with abortion?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:45:02 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <lat620INNbj3@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
]It appears that none of you were college age at the time of the viet nam
]war.  For those in college it was a sign of success and planning to avoid
]being drafted.  There were student deferements, occupational deferments,
Except for those who volunteered!
]medical deferments, family hardship deferments, etc.  All legal, and all
]used.  Even joining the Guard, signing up with a reserve unit (to lower
]the odds of involvment), or opting into a military vocation unlikely to
]lead to war-zone excitement (like computer programmer) were preferable
]to the real thing.
]
]Both Clinton and Quayle accomplished the goal of every male I knew,
]though each in a different way.  The fact that this system was biased
]toward the wealthy, the educated, the white ... led to the lottery
]system.

There are two fundamental differences: (1) Clinton has been lying and
changing his story about what happened, rather than simply telling
it like it is. That says a lot about his character today, as opposed
to what it might have been 20 years ago; (2) Clinton used a government
program (ROTC) to avoid the draft, but then failed to live up to his
obligations on that program. Quayle at least lived up to his obligations.

As far as what happened to Quayle (being a PR dude)... that is the
way the military works... some people get screwed, some don't, and
it is random. At least he subjected himself to that lottery.

When a friend and I joined the Naval Air Reserve on the same day (12/16/1966),
we had widely different fates: I ended up an aircrew member in a combat
aircraft (which, it turns out, never actually went into combat, although
we did fly to Viet Nam); He ended up a plane captain on an aircraft carrier 
just off the coast of Viet Nam. Both of us ended up in quite hazardous 
jobs as a result of joining the much-derided reserves, and both of us lost 
friends to death on duty.

Dan Quayle's unit could have been called up; Dan Quayle could have
ended up peeling potatoes 18 hours a day in Indiana; Dan Quayle could
have ended up being a PR flack. Luck is the most likely cause of the
latter.

Contrast this to Bill Clinton. He never was subject to any sort of
random whim of the military. He arranged to always be in control of
his fate, while putting the military in a position where they thought
he had an obligation to him. He recently has been dishonest about the
facts in this case. 
-- 
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
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:45:23 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep15.190206.24922@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
    >There is no such thing as "freedom of association".
    >
    >The closest thing that comes to it is "freedom of privacy".
    >That's something that everyone has, unless you happen to be
    >someone in Georgia giving a blowjob to someone else in your
    >own home, in which case, the Supreme Court says that you
    >don't have any privacy rights.
    >
    >When people say "freedom of association" they usually mean
    >"freedom to arbitrarily discriminate".
    >
    >Your freedom of association ends at your jurisdiction.
    >Despite what some religious cults what to believe, that is
    >about the limit of your house and the off swtiched of your
    >radio, TV


Hmm, left the hair dryer on too long again, eh?

Most certainly, "[my] freedom of association ends at [my] jurisdiction".

And so does yours. That's the WHOLE point. Of course, if you don't
think people should have the Freedom to Associate with those they want
(and not associate with those they don't), why, come right on out and
clearly say you.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: The Old City
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 22:13:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.183356.1384@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.223515.9796@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
>makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>|>In article <1992Aug31.184758.21468@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
>|>writes:

>Jakes claim is made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Of course their are
>Arabs who are crooks, just as there are Jews who are crooks. Jake however made
>the claim that "In many cases", thus his claim is about numbers, since his
>research in this area is as his research in every area zerothe claim is not
>really worthy of consideration.

There is no need for deep research when the evidence is right under
your nose.  The Old City of Jerusalem, i.e. that area that is within
the ancient walls, was under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967.  It is
divided into 4 "quarters" of unequal size: Christian, Moslem, Armenian
and Jewish quarters.  Each of these had been established long, long
ago and their occupants generally pursued their religious practices
under the various occupations.  Do you care to propose that the Jewish
Quarter was held empty and preserved by the Jordanians during those
years? 

In fact, you will have to admit, in this tiny area alone there were
hundreds, and perhaps several thousand residences that belonged to
Jews and were then taken by the Jordanian/Palestineans.  The
Jordanians carefully destroyed almost every sign of Jewish habitation,
blowing up synagogues, destroying cemeteries and building homes and
dumping trash on Jewish Holy Sites.  There is a museum in the Jewish
Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem today that displays this rather
graphically, with the assistance of photos shot by, I believe, a
British photographer.

When the Israelis recovered this area, it was in ruination.  For the
archeologists, this was a boon because it meant that they could dig up
the area before any new structures were built; this effort took about
13 years.  After the Israelis had rebuilt the neighborhood, apartment
rights went first to people who had lived in the very same neigborhood
and to their families.  I heartily recommend a visit to this rather
small museum in the Old City, the name of which escapes me now.

So much for your unfounded accusation of "zero research".


-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
From: dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot Bumper Sticker
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:40:41 GMT

A local pickup truck driver, apparently a bit distraught over his
candidate's withdrawal from the race, taped over the "for President"
part of his "Perot" bumper sticker and hand lettered in his new
sentiments. The sticker now reads:

                                Perot
                         All Hat, No Cattle

Kent, the man from xanth.
"The Birthright of humankind is the stars!"
--
Ignore the header, and don't expect me to see a news reply.  Use email to:
<dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil> or <dolan@192.138.87.240>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: General conservative lunacy (was: Arrogant Indians...)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:09:01 GMT
 <18dnraINNjt4@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> <1992Sep7.025427.18224@wdl.loral.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>``Gee thanks, Mr. Bush, for your promise to pick up the tab for
>cleaning up after Andrew, but we think we can handle it ourselves.
>Haven't you got an evil empire to be defending us against?''

No, but he has a deficit to defend my CHILDREN against.  My comment when I
heard the $30Billion tag on this was, "Just where is this money coming
from?"  Borrowing.  Argh.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: tnelson@bellahs.com (Tom Nelson RD)
Subject: Re: I want Line-Item Tax Allocations for me (Was: Run conservatives, run..)
Organization: Bell Atlantic Healthcare Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:17:21 GMT

In article <12283@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>I would scream at them funding any church, including one that I
>attended.
>

What about the tax-exempt status of the church in this country?  That might
not be a direct funding, but it is sure one hell of a perk.

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
>prohibition won't work.

Thomas Nelson
---------------------------------
My opinions... not my employer's (I don't want to put the long one in now)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43926 ca.politics:7480 ba.politics:5064 soc.motss:38335 ba.motss:1548
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 07:14:32 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep4.040226.23999@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>     >What's your phone number again? I couldn't make it out
>     >scrawled on the bathroom wall.
> 
> Tsk tsk tsk. Looking for a date AGAIN!?!?!
> 
> Really -- flinging mud on the net is one thing, but don't be such an asshole.
> 
> Whether it is Clayton or Melinda, we all should cold shoulder any asshole
> (if we know of 'em) that does obscene phone calls. And we all should make it
> clear that it is disapproved of, even if the calls are directed to someone
> we disagree with.

I want to hear a recording made by the phone company before I will
believe anyone has called him.

Until then... yawn.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:14:43 CDT


In article <1992Sep11.160245.17447@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <65520@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
> >> What's really extraordinary is that the same day Bush announced the 
> >> increased wheat subsidies he made a speech praising free trade!   The
> >> man has to be one of the biggest hypocrites there is, in a profession
> >> (politics) that has produced some real champions!  
> >
> >If it weren't an election year, I wouldn't find this hypocritical.  Isn't
> >it just good policy for a country to make sure that it can produce its own
> >critical products, like food?  If another country is more efficient in
> >these areas, either tax the imports or subsidize our producers, so that
> >if the imports are ever cut off, we still have domestic production.
> 
> That's the excuse the Japanese use for their subsidized food policies.
> 
> I believe, like the President, that free trade is best.

Bush is for free trade?  Oh yea, Bush *says* he's for free trade, and
then goes around handing out farm subsidies and sugar import restrictions.

It's not unlike the way Bush *talks* about less government (cut taxes 
$132 Billion without saying where) while promising spending left and 
right ($2 Billion for job training, more farm subsidies, rebuild the 
airbase in FL).

Read his lips.  Then read his record.  They're not the same.

>                                                          By making 
> nations critically dependent on each other, the risk of war is
> reduced. Are you going to start a war with the country that feeds
> you, or supplies you with spare parts for your F16s?  However, the
> President is also right to fight subsidy with subsidy in a world
> where free trade is the exception rather than the rule. Ultimate
> goals, and present tactics, sometimes seem at odds, but there's a
> logic behind them.

The logic is "get re-elected".

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc