HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:22:49 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec16.064619.59957@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.214519.9900@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01.midland.c
>hevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>>> {idiotic praise of Rush deleted}
>>
>>What?!?  Did this get posted here by mistake instead of in talk.bizarre?
>>Or maybe
>>talk.I'm.so.stupid.that.I.can't.think.for.myself.and.need.Rush.to.tell.
>>me.how.to.think.and.which.facts.to.conveniently.ignore
>>
>   No John. Rush tells it the way it is and should be. This is the perfect
>   example of what idiocy runs rampant in this country. Rush EXPLAINS what the
>   liberals and Demonazis want to "do for me". They want to provide me with
>   health care, car insurance, health insurance, etc, etc, etc. Why can't I
>   keep the plans I have now? Am I incapable of retaining my OWN plan?
>   Certainly not. Are you? Well.... Makes me think that I'm icapable of it.
>     What facts does he ignore? The fact that H. Ross Perot wanted to tax the
>   shit out of you and me? The fact that B. Clinton is liar and cheats
>   (allegedly, but NOT denied) on his wife, Hillary von Hitlerhousen? The fact
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   that he has absolutely NO CLUE as to what he's doing in the terms of foreign
>   affairs (except demonstrations) and the military? The fact that B.C. said
>   that if he can't get the revenue for his programs, he'll either postpone
>   their entry or nix them all together. If he can't do it, (and he won't),
>   WHY VOTE FOR HIM???
>
>
> Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
>>Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
>>Midland TX
>>

Like I need to reply to this guy to prove to the world that he's a
lunatic.
Rush presents as one-sided a case as he can (hmm, just like lawyers).
I won't replay my earlier pre-election post, but Rush derided the
presidential debate commission, implying that it wasn't really
bipartisan ('Who knows who's on this commission') when it was public
knowledge that among others, Republicans such as Gerald Ford were.  But
it wouldn't make his case if he admitted that the commission was fair,
so he just misled the 5% of Americans who listen to him.  No wonder your
view of the world is so skewed.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:15:08 GMT

In article <SMITH.92Dec15103530@minerva.harvard.edu> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>
>When Ted Kennedy introduced Brian Mulroney at the Kennedy School last
>Thursday night, included among his praises for Canada was:
>
>     Canada is one of the few countries in which I can be considered
>     a conservative.
>
>Assuming that he was not referring to his personal behavior, may we
>conclude that being a Canadian conservative does not preclude one from
>also being a socialist?
>

The mainline parties are not as ideologically pure as they are in the
US and the labels "conservative" and "liberal" and even "new democrat"
mean different thing...regionalism and class play a factor in the
political parties...thus, both the Progressive Conservative party
and the Liberal Party have a wide ideological dispersion...on the
economic spectrum, the PC's are center-right, and the Liberals are
center-left, but their are flaming socialists in the Conservative
Party and flaming big business capitalists in the Liberal Party...
but both parties have been historically controlled by the elite
classes, whose economics ultimately are somewhat centrist, because
they basically have governed to enrich and protect themselves.

Basically, Canada has had a statist business and elite classes,
who have enriched themselves through government patronage, hence
the "mixed" economy, and the history of bouts of "economic nationalism"...
which proved effective tools for the enrichment of our elites.


Gerald

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64286 soc.motss:52337 ca.politics:10332 ba.politics:7721
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:29:34 GMT

In article <BzJ70q.5Dr@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>What OTHER purpose is there behind ELIMINATING age of consent?

Would you care to explain what magic thing happened to me when I turned
16 that suddenly made me capable of driving a car?  What magic thing
happened at 18 that made me suddenly competent to decide who I would have
sex with and made me competent to vote?  And explain the biological
changes that my body suddenly underwent on my 21st birthday that made
it able to consume alcohol?  Also explain why on my 7th and 14th
birthdays I underwent sudden mental changes affecting my ability to
perform intentional torts and beyhave negligently -- and other kids in
other states did not undergo these changes.

Also explain why the ages for these various things are different in
some other countries, with no apparent harm.

Age of consent is an approximation, intended to protect the average person
from harm that they are not competent to protect themselves from.  Do you
find it inconcievable there there may be other ways to do this?  For example,
suppose a test could be devised that a person could take, and if they pass
they are declared legally an adult?  Wouldn't this be better than an
arbitrary age of consent?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:48:22 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex

In article <71739@cup.portal.com>, Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com wrote:

> Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

Because many of the 2-4 percent are size queens.

*X*
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:10:39 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Dec15.094044.94512@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>Well people, you have all proven to me that I WAS RIGHT!!! From the last two
>postings I've made,

Er, minor question: what posts?  I just did a search for "ritter" and
didn't find anything for 500 articles.




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That dead horse
Date: 15 Dec 1992 13:18:06 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Ignorance, of course, is a homosexual's stock in trade.

But Clayton *isn't* a prejudiced, stereotype-laden bigot, that is NOT
a sweeping generalization across a wide, diverse group of people, Clayton
has NOT spent years earning a reputation for hating gays ... and monkeys
might fly out of my butt.  NOT.

Paul

-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:51:53 GMT

In article <RHAYDEN.92Dec16012605@hqsun2.oracle.com> rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec13.165937.8310@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
    >Jim.Shirreffs writes:
    >
    >| The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a civil
    >rights/ | political organization. We support men and boys in
    >CONSENSUAL | relationships with one another and help educate
    >society about | the true nature of such relationships. . . .
    >| NAMBLA does not provide referrals or assistance for people
    >| seeking sexual contacts, nor do we engage in activities
    >that | violate the law. We unequivocally condemn all coersive
    >acts, | sexual or otherwise.
    >
    >You might want to know a little more about what gets them
    >into trouble: NAMBLA (or some of its members) promotes the
    >removal of age-of-consent laws.
    >
    >Roy can correct this if it's not their official position.
    >Official or not, it's what gets people upset. --
    >
    >- Ronald Hayden
    >
    >----------------------------------------------------------------
    >| Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group | | Co-chair of
    >Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group | |
    >Writer, magician, and various other things |
    >----------------------------------------------------------------

Ugh, let's get this straight. NAMBLA members want to fuck little
children. They use the word consent, but does offering a lollipop to
a 5-year old so you can touch their "pee-pee" constitute consent?

I think not.

Mr Hayden -- your lack of anger and disapproval for NAMBLA is of concern.
Either you don't understand what they are for, which I doubt gievn you
signature (which indicates strong concern with issues of sexuality) or
you have defacto approval for this group.

*TO ME*, your statement is the same as "Well, all I know baout the NAZIs
is they feel that certain religious groups should not have too much
power over Germans -- but you'll have to ask Mr. Hitler about that.".

Come on now Mr. Hayden, do you REALLY not know what NAMBLA is about???


Go ahead, prove Clayton right ......
-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:03:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <71387@cup.portal.com>, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
# #The Libertarians aern't right-wingers? I've looked over your agenda.
# #You seem to be radically right-wing (that's not a knock, just my 
# #observation). If I am wrong then please explain.
# 
# Imagine my surprise.
# 
# Advocating the legalization of marijuana, amphetamine, cocaine, crack,
# morphine, heroin, MDMA, LSD, and the rest is a "radically right-wing"
# position.

Keep in mind that drug prohibition is a fruit of the Progressive Era,
as was national Prohibition.

# Advocating the legalization of prostitution is  a "radically right-wing"
# position.

Prostitution laws achieving national coverage was another fruit of
the Progressive Era, with completion achieved during World War I.

# Advocating the legalization of gambling is a "radically right-wing"
# position.

When was gambling prohibited in the various states?  It was still legal
in the 19th century in most Western states.

# Advocating the legality of all forms of sexual intercourse between
# consenting adults is a "radically right-wing" position.
# 
# Advocating the legality of all forms of pornography produced by
# consenting adults is a "radically right-wing" position.
# 
# Advocating a noninterventionist foreign policy is a "radically
# right-wing" position.

This was the traditional right-wing position until the beginning
of this century -- and there was still a strong conservative
opposition to intervention abroad right into the 1950s.

# Advocating the elimination of military conscription is a "radically
# right-wing" position.
# 
# Imagine my surprise.
# 
# 
#     Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian

Of seven points you tried to make, you blew it on four.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc 
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 12:06:06 GMT

 cramer@bigotlink.COM (Clayton Cramer) tries to make a funny...

 CC> I used to wonder why people were so hostile to homosexuals.
 CC> Now I know.

        Yah.  Right.  Used to wonder what planet you were on too I'll bet...
and what your name was...and which way is up...

        Pull the other one...
 
 
-Bruce Garrett

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:46:01 GMT

In article <1gr9seINN3fu@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu> pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>>If it doesn't matter, why do homosexuals keep insisting on the 10%
>>figure?  Why are homosexual clubs at universities frequently named
>>"The 10% Society"?
>
>The chief interest I have in the percentage debate is rebutting your
>dishonest use of multi-definition based statistics to fake the 
>conclusion that gays are more likely to molest children.
>
>Gay clubs are often named "The 10% Society" as part of their efforts
>to drive home a basic truth: we are everywhere, a randomly chosen
>cross-section of society.  Everyone knows someone gay.  We are not
>a negligible group of fringe wierdo freaks you can write off as
>"other."  We are your brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, your
>children.
>
>I am quite disturbed by your (and other's) insistence that the number
>is smaller than we say, mostly because I perceive it to be only part
>of your agenda to marginalize me.  Shout all you like, Clayton - I'm
>not going away. 
>
>It's going to take a bigger man than you to pound me and the rest of
>the 10% into the ground.

I do not know Clayton's agenda or purpose, but mine is certainly not to
beat you into the ground.  I am only curious if that 10% figure is true.  
This in no way makes me a gay basher, IMHO.  If 10% is the true figure, 
fine.  If not, I want to know what is in the interest of truth.  I despise
political use of cooked numbers to sway my opinion, and I just wish to make 
absolutely sure that this number isn't cooked.  Sorry for raining on your
parade, but if you feel that you must trump up your numbers to force your
agenda, I can't have much sympathy for you, or support. 

From the looks of the previous posts, all we know is that the minimum
percentage in urban areas is 4%.  Perhaps 10% is true, I won't rule it out.
Still, someone has to show me.  From the looks of the previous posts, that 
is going to be damned near impossible to do.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Keywords: hate
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:00:27 GMT

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>Heh.  He he.  Yeah.  I'll admit one thing; Gritz is patriotic.  He also
>>thinks he is right.  He isn't, of course, having at least *acted* like a
>>biggot in public.

>Please document.

Well, I didn't read it in the American Journal of Political Science.  I just
saw a tape and some campaign stuff distributed by his campaign here at the U of
Illinois.  I wasn't stating that he IS a biggot.  I just feel he acted like one.

Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: max@queernet.org (Max J. Rochlin)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:00:11 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>No, a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
>his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.

Sounds pretty simplistic.  Does this mean that if you (a male) were sexually
molested once as a child by your father, then you're a homosexual?


-- 
+-----------------------------------------+
|  max@queernet.org  |   Max J. Rochlin   |
+-----------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:02:30 GMT

In <SMITH.92Dec15103530@minerva.harvard.edu> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:

>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

>> Just a clarification: I do NOT consider myself a socialist. . .
>> I'm currently a Conservative supporter.

>When Ted Kennedy introduced Brian Mulroney at the Kennedy School last
>Thursday night, included among his praises for Canada was:

>     Canada is one of the few countries in which I can be considered
>     a conservative.

>Assuming that he was not referring to his personal behavior, may we
>conclude that being a Canadian conservative does not preclude one from
>also being a socialist?

No, being a conservative in Canada does not preclude one from adopting
pragmatic social programs. There is a difference. I chuckle every time
I see folks here quoting the AMA propoganda line about Canada's health
care system and screaming socialism. Under my company's health plan I
get to pick my doctor out of the insurance companies little book (God
knows where most of them trained). When I lived in Ottawa I got to
pick my doctor out of a different book - the telephone directory. I'm
62 and in better shape than most 40 year old men, whether that speaks
for my genes or the care I received, I'm not sure.

As one who used to be considered somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan,
I have no problem with national health care such as Canada's, some
other plans I not too sure of. If ensuring that costs are kept in line
with inflation and that all citizens are in good health is socialism
in some peoples mind, so be it. To my way of thinking it is just
common sense. Oh and BTW, from a recent report (can't remember where
I saw it) it seems that Medicare is run more efficiently than the
private plans as far as admin costs are concerned. Funny!

>Steven Smith

Bob.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: "We have the technology."  - St. Hera of the Incarnate Mind
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:26:13 GMT

In article <17DEC199218251606@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu> srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven Rush Fennell) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes...

>>> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
 
>>Well, we can all sit here on Earth and stagnate I guess.  I would say that 
>>without some edge of society, or frontier, we will begin to wallow in our own 
>>filth (unless we turn to zero pop. growth).  How much more is there to learn 
>>on this planet?  Do we abandon technology and turn inwards as a species?  I 
>>prefer to stay with the cutting edge...even if it means paying a few dollars 
>>more in taxes.  And BTW, the space program consumes about 1% of the federal 
>>budget - it was around 4% I believe in the '60s.  Not exactly what I would 
>>call a huge amount of money relatively speaking, compared to welfare or 
>>defense. 

>>The space shuttle costs a little under 1 billion dollars per mission, and it 
>>takes up about half of NASA's budget.  NASA is already investigating the next 
>>generation launch vehicle, which should hopefully cost less per mission that 
>>the shuttle (or there's really no justification).  This is necessary in any 
>>event because the shuttle's are nearing their projected mission design life 
>>maximum.

>Imagine what a billion dollars would do toward the development of the
>"personal digital assistant" or "brain research" or "ascii encoding 
>written texts" or any other frontier....

>Now imagine that every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar which your 
>family loses from the bank or investment, which could have been used
>to put the children through college, or pay for retirement, or as a
>buffer against misfortune, (and used by the bank for lending to local
>enterpise, employing people in the private sector, who also come together
>to support charities, churches, and collective efforts which each values).

>And finally imagine, that each tax dollar is going to crooks and 
>power mongers, mostly intent on the same type of abuse in which a 
>drug-pusher ensnares their ``clientele.''

You mean, by giving them what they want?  Wow.  I wish that each tax
dollar was like that.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64390 alt.rush-limbaugh:11709
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:11:15 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Distribution: usa
 <1992Dec14.143529.9759@news.acns.nwu.edu>
 <1992Dec15.050842.6183@microsoft.com> <92350.071740KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <92350.071740KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> says:

>You are too kind.  Really.  Do you realize that most of the Bible is FAR
>MORE than 2000 years old?  Really.  Come on, if you're going to slander the
>Word of God, you can do better than that!

NOTICE:  ANYONE who FLAMES me for overuse of the word "really" in the previous
post is a really, really, really (and truly) stupid idiotic loser with no
life and no brain.  I mean, really.  It's finals week, lighten up.  I really
mean it.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
> kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

...ditto!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: How to Prevent AIDS
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:23:02 GMT

In article <Dec.9.07.36.20.1992.26805@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Oversight, I guess.  But the above statement is nevertheless sound.
>The problem is that homosexuals like to pretend that the acts which
>they engage in (some of which are _FELONIES_ in a number os states)
>also in some way represent "sex".
>-- 
>Theodore A. Kaldis

I guess it's the sexual feelings and orgasms that confuse them.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64943 alt.rush-limbaugh:11998