HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:09:08 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> In article <1992Aug10.015137.16592@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amher
> # #I'm surprised you haven't started wallowing in the Gay Supremacist
> # #nonsense about the higher education levels showing that homosexuals
> # #are smarter than straights.
> # 
> # I'd be very interested where you saw this particular nonsense.  C'mon,
> # Clayton, I'm sure it's festering somewhere in that enormous archive
> # you keep.  Unless, of course, you're participating in Typical Optilink
> # Lying Fashion (tm).
> # 
> # -- 
> # ____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
> 
> In soc.motss.  I don't think you could have missed it.  I haven't
> been storing it, because there's so much of it.
> 
> Look.  We all know that homsoexuals are severely damaged people.
> You know it too.  That's why you engage in the continual efforts
> to persuade yourself that you are really OK, and why you insist
> on forcing other people to shut up about the subject.

Umm, I think Tim is pretty secure in his own "OK-ness."  It's you that
he has been trying to convince - at least he did once upon a time when
he thought you might possess some shred of rationality.  Now that he
knows better, he just tweeks you.  It appears to be what you want.

> The guy at Sun was almost certainly fired because homosexuals
> can't take criticism.

Why don't you resign your position at Optilink, get a job with Sun,
and test your hypothesis?



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Stoopendous Strategies
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 09:02:19 GMT


|>In article <1992Aug17.101411.21100@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> In article <1992Aug13.162918.3444@desire.wright.edu>,
|>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|>>... 
|>> |>> You will invite a unification of the Serbian cause and the obliteration
|>> |>> of the Serbian opposition, which still is Your best bet to check the
|>> |>> supplies to the partisans and the army. You invite a totally hazy
|>> |>imbroglio.
|>> |>> You invite getting into the crossfire of different groups loyal to
|>> |>different
|>> |>> warlords.
|>> |>
|>> |>	The Serbs are not united in the war effort.  There have been large
|>> |>anti-war demonstrations.  Units moving into Serbia are more likely to
|>> |>be met
|>> |>with parades than snipers.
|>> 
|>> Shear wishful thinking, no people greets an invading army with parades
|>> after they have blown half of it up. The Serbian opposition will
|>> disappear overnight the minute anyone starts bombing Serbia.
|>
|>	The French greeted the allies with parades, even after being bombed by
|>them for four years.

They were aware that the main allied target was the NAZIs, not the French.

|>	A sizeable portion of the Serbian population doesn't want war, and
|>understands that Serbia is behind the agression.

That is precisely why people are not going to blow the place to smithereens.
They hope that the opposition will topple Milosevich. They do not want to make
the Gulf war blunder a second time. Bomb Serbia and Milosevich will be as secure
as Saddam.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:32:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.193051.10298@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>If we are interested in investment, it seems that long-term investment
>is the most likely to be useful and something like the above would
>encourage lengthy investment over short-term investment.

It's unclear that there's a useful distinction, especially wrt one
of the most common investments, namely stock.  Suppose Allan and
I both buy 100 shares of Disney but I sell mine to my sister
at some point in time.  Why does it make sense to tax me and
my sister differently than Allan?  Our investment really isn't
any different.

Also, some projects don't take much time.  Consider investing in a
house to fix up and sell.  Is that investment really more socially
valuable if I take six years to do it than if I take six weeks, or
even six days?  Why should I be taxed differently?  (While there's a
lot I can do in six days, there's not much I can do in six hours, but
is there really any greater social utility involved with letting it
sit a while so that I get the six-day investment tax rate?)

This whole "long-term vs short-term" discussion seems to be about
abstract investments.  If kicking money into a real project for a few
days results in a significant increase in value, why should that
investment be taxed differently than one into a project that has
slower return?  What real investments underly this discussion?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:41:20 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <Bt8p51.DEv@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

|>     The budget deficit by itself is not a problem.  Goverment borrowing
|>     increases real interest rates and, in that sense, has had the same 
|>     (detrimental) effect on the economy as a tax on interest rates would 
|>     have.

The budget deficit is a problem because the government must pay interest out
of its revenues (and partly out of more debt that it has to pay interest on too).
This basically means there's lots of revenue that I have to pay that goes to paying
interest rather than servicing infrastructure, helping with education, or even
servicing defense and justice.

|> 
|>     Goverment spending is the real problem, because every dime goverment
|>     spends comes from taxes (remember, gov. borrowing=taxation).  Under Reagan,
|>     the rate of gov. spending growth went down significantly, and we could both 
|>     enjoy economic growth, and have a large (though shrinking) deficit.

One of the largest segments of current government spending is on the interest
rates that have to be payed for the debt.

|> 
|>     Under Mr.Bush, government spending has been going up more rapidly 
|>     than under any other president since FDR.  Not suprisingly, we are
|>     "enjoying" the lowest rate of economic growth since the Great Depression.
|>     Mind you that, unlike FDR, GHWB inhereted a growing economy...

Not to support GHWB, his economy had lots of holes in it (S&L, damaged domestic
oil production, damaged agriculture, damaged heavy industry -- namely most of
the industries that the US traditionally depended on for its GNP, and huge
securities market and real-estate market bubbles).  Even so, GWHB's responsiveness
was only matched by Hoover.



Dan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:19:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <80860@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 25676@midway.uchicago.edu, sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:

>>the new machines and robots that require some modicum of know how such as
>>the ability to read well.  This is a real problem in a lot of states where 
>>25% - 30% of the populace have problems reading.
>
>Patrick seems to agree with Peter, but goes on to ignore Peter's statistics
>about job losses.  If Patrick were right, then there should have been a net
>*increase* in jobs in the computer industry.

  I think Mr. Sugent's point is a kind of "trickle-up" theory of job
  creation:  that if there were more workers at the bottom qualified 
  to use robots, computers, etc, then we could sell more robots, com-
  puters, etc and this would boost the computer business (Is this right?
  Patrick?) 

  But this conclusion is demonstrably incorrect.  We don't have fewer
  jobs in the computer biz because we're selling fewer computers.
  We're selling *LOTS* more computers than ever before.  Even companies 
  that are having massive layoffs, such as DEC are doing fantastic
  business -- revenues are up, and since computer prices drop daily
  unit volume is WAY up.  Or consider profitable companies like my
  employer, HP:  in the last 4 years we've gone from $12 billion a
  year to $16 billion a year (again, with an even bigger jump in
  units) -- we're just doing it with 10% fewer workers!
                                         
  In the modern world (remember: robots, computers) selling more stuff
  does not mean hiring more workers!

  Now, this isn't the part I'm complaining about.  Efficiency is great;
  I'm not suggesting that companies should have to run inefficiently
  to keep people employed.  What I'm complaining about is that with
  the loss of these jobs, no NEW similar-quality jobs have come along
  to replace them, despite glowing predictions to the contrary from
  the right.

    
---peter
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:56:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <36956@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
>>opportunity for ALL to advance!  

>I've always had trouble with this. What else are investors going to do with
>their money?

>I suspect this is nothing but Reaganomic brainwashing.

>-- 
>Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
>	University of California, San Diego
>jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627


Instead of investing it and creating new jobs, they could just blow on
a vacation in Europe.

Profits are the bribe that the market uses to get people to defer spending
and to risk their capital.  Any tax that decreases the effectiveness of
this "bribe", will have the effect of decreasing the amount of money that
is invested.

-- 
--Mark
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40223 ca.politics:6876 ba.politics:4587
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:05:31 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: dauber@sgi.com's message of 13 Aug 92 16:31:05 GMT

In article <ohaj4tk@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

> In article <11726@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
>>shun child molesters?

> This question in and of itself is offensive.  It is like asking "When are
> italian americans going to start shunning organized crime." 

I agree that the question may be offensive, and your
analogy has some parallels.  But at the risk of stepping
in something unpleasant, I must point out that we don't
see people marching with "Up with Mafia" and "Support your
Local Chapter of the Cosa Nostra" marching in parades at
Italian-American festivals.  And many I-A groups do, in
fact, go to some lengths to distance themselves from the
misperception that their constituents are in some way
related to or engaged in the practice of organized crime.  

That said, I do not understand the evident appeal that this 
topic has for some correspondents on this news group, but 
it is true that past and present associations of NAMBLA
with SOME gay pride parades casts an unfortunate shadow
over these events, whether or not the crowd showers them
with abuse on the parade route.  I know virtually nothing 
about these parades, but if I had anything whatever to
do with organizing one, I would do everything in my
power, including if necessary the seeking of injunctive
and police restraint on representatives of NAMBLA, to keep 
them from marching in the parade.  I would do this for the 
obvious the reason of the very real political damage such an
association by viewers of the parade will surely do to the 
cause and to the purposes of such parades, such as I imagine
them to be.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:31:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug12.011130.4069@udel.edu> carroll@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:

[to Clayton Cramer]

> If you come back to reality, and look at the normal homosexuals [...]
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would submit, rather, that it is Mark C. Carroll who needs to return
to reality: the term "normal homosexual" is in fact an oxymoron.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 01:50:00 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug18.160749.25660@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>...possible between children and adults.  Any 'support' I've seen
>for NAMBLA has not been for NAMBLA per se, but of the right
>to free association (Phool Ronzone's sacred cow) and the right ...


Well, Melinda, my first name is spelled "Phil". Of course, anyone making
fun of Freedom Of Association is self-identified as to their, uh, politcal
& power seeking ways, but, that is another issue.

Other than your mangling of peoples names and such, and the truly witty
use of "lying pig", do you have ANYTHING of intellect to contribute.

In any case, I am proud to have people like you against FOA.



-- 
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
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:29:22 GMT

In article <JTURNER.92Aug13062537@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>,
 jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.014137.1076@access.digex.com>,
   steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
>
>>   Er, the development of new technologies *is* part of "the market".
>
>       Sure.  It's amazing how much comes out of government funded
>research and how little out of private R&D.  What's more amazing is
>how quickly libertarians forget or ignore this.
>
>                                       --Jeff Turner

Since government spending on R&D is something under $70 B, and private
sector spending on R&D is a great deal larger, what you're claiming is
that gov't-sponsored work is a great deal more efficient and/or
productive than private-sponsored work.  Since there is ample, even
overwhelming, anecdotal evidence to the contrary, your claim needs a
great deal more support than simply saying (in effect) that since
libertarians dispute it, it must be true.  How about some numbers?

You might keep in mind that we've studied the issues, and the numbers,
and reached our conclusions after long thought and consideration.

On the other hand, you could just keep posting the silly diatribes.
--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39560 ca.politics:6766 ba.politics:4496
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:27:20 GMT

orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})

> I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
> wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

Only if the newborn _died_, Wes.  Up to that point, the usual
charge is child neglect.

What's your point?

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:16:19 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

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.
|> 

The lower tax rates did not result in lower tax revenues.  Tax revenues
have remained at a fairly constant level of GNP for the past 20-30
years.  What has changed is rapidly increasing spending as a percentage
of GNP from about 1974.  The deficits are clearly a *spending* problem,
not a tax revenue problem.

|> For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
|> tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.

I agree, both are to blame.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39079 ca.politics:6670
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:43:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11706@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

># By not completely ostracizing NAMBLA, the "gay community" keeps the fringe
># of "acceptable" sexual expression on the fringe.  If NAMBLA is completely
># ostracized, then the people attacking the gay community will go after
># the people who are in the leather scene (or the drag queens or the
># transsexuals).  These groups are much more central to gay life, and by letting
># the fight enter that territory, it gets much closer to home.
>
>Imagine if the Republican Party Convention upcoming had people
>holding up signs for the KKK, or Aryan Nations.

How about David Duke and Patrick Buchanan?

>  "By not completely
>ostracizing racists, the Republican Party keeps the fringe of
>'acceptable' political expression on the fringe.  If racists are
>completely ostracized, then the people attacking racism will go
>after Christians (or pro-lifers or small business owners)."
>Do you see the silliness of this argument?  Would you consider the
>presence of such signs and groups at the RNC to be evidence of
>something terribly sick?

No, I would not.  I recognize fringe groups for what they are.  Also,
the republican party is much more homogenous that the gay "community".



># 4.  NAMBLA does not receive much actual support from the gay community
># in their goals.  If you actually read any of the gay weeklies, any time that
># NAMBLA appears or is in the news, you see many letters which attack NAMBLA.
># The primary way that they support NAMBLA is by attacking journalists who's
># "yellow journalism" is seem as homophobic.
># 
># FWA
>
>Just as KRON's coverage?  They kept emphasizing that the gay
>community didn't support NAMBLA, but showed that NAMBLA rented space 
>from one of the lesbian groups for their national convention.

The KRON report was almost entirely content free.  Most of their "facts"
were completely incorrect.  Absolutely, positively incorrect.  There has
been a paper (George, you were the one with the copy, right?) which 
reviewed all of the statements made my KRON.  Most were just incorrect.


Now, Clayton, you seem to have ignore points one and two from my argument.
You also seem to be saying, in your last paragraph, that you believe that
most of the gay community does not support NAMBLA.  If this is the case,
why do you keep bringing it up when you want to gay bash?



Jeff
-FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:32:49 GMT

In article <11706@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Imagine if the Republican Party Convention upcoming had people
> holding up signs for the KKK, or Aryan Nations.  "By not completely
> ostracizing racists, the Republican Party keeps the fringe of
> 'acceptable' political expression on the fringe.  If racists are
> completely ostracized, then the people attacking racism will go
> after Christians (or pro-lifers or small business owners)."
> Do you see the silliness of this argument?  Would you consider the
> presence of such signs and groups at the RNC to be evidence of
> something terribly sick?

  Um, just what exactly do you consider Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannan
to be? Where *have* those howls of protest been? And why hasn't Helms 
been ostracized? The religious right, my friend, *is* a fringe group 
which is virally fascist. Where is that indignity and outrage from the
Republican party that you so piously demand from the Gay community?
  Hypocrite.


-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39332 ca.politics:6722 ba.politics:4460