HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>These analogies to the holocaust are dangerous.  With respect to the
>"gay community" (and I use the term loosely) in this country, there are
>no concentration camps; there are no death camps; the leadership is
>*not* actively encouraging people to hunt down and abuse/kill
>homosexuals.  

Go listen to some of the fundies.  Go listen to some of the hate from
Pat Robertson, light of the republican party who has a group working for
him who plot to overthrow the constitution and replace it with a 
christian theocracy.  This rhetoric matches much of the early nazi 
rhetoric about "cleansing" the nation, and "returning" it to purity.

>
>
>Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
>the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground,

Then you obviously weren't paying attention when the department of justice
released their report on hate crimes (well, actually, somebody leaked it,
they didn't like what came out, so they weren't going to), and it concluded
that the most violent hate crimes were those based on the victim's
perceived sexual orientation.  People are beaten to death.  This is not
about getting beat up on the playground.  This is about KILLING.



Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:33:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.182647.27390@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.113614.29185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>[stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>Commoner Jeff.
>>
>>If one party had a monopoly on integrity then it might be an issue. However,
>>this is not the case. There is obviously an integrity gap with Bush over
>>Iran-Contra.
>
>It is _not_ obvious at all.  If there was anything obvious about this 
>case then we would have had many convictions (which hasn't happened)
>>
>  [stuff deleted]
>Look, anybody can _say_ anything to get elected.  The real indicator of
>how they really will react is by examining their past behavior.  Take the
>Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas debate.  Both people had radically different
>stories and no evidence to back them up.  So the only thing we can do is
>to examine how they behaved in the past and the fact that Anita behaved
>in an incongruous manner to which a sexually harrassed person would toward
>the harrasser leads us to conclude that she is a liar.
>
>Clinton has a very real history that indicates his character.  
>
>e.g.  He was just as priveledged as Quayle, a Rhodes (sp?) scholar who
>      wiggled out of the draft, and promised to join the ROTC when he
>      returned (but didn't).
>
>Please explain the duplicity in explanations which you claim Bush has
>used to describe why he signed the tax increase.  If you are saying that
>the fact that he did it even though he had said he wouldn't is equivalent
>to the draft dodging issue then I submit that you are wrong.  One is a
>personal decision and the other involves the common good (bad in this case).

No. Bush just flat out LIED. He is as human as you me or Clinton.
Look, Bush has no more credibility or less credibility than Clinton
in my eyes. But this draft thing is RIDICULOUS. The important
issue in this campaign is the ECONOMY. Who cares if Clinton
dodged the draft or was even for or opposed to the war. That is 
past. 

Bush did something much more relevant to the major issue...the economy.
He raised my taxes. He lied.


anne

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:52:34 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>In article <BuD5GD.IHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
>encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
>witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992

His highness Robertson forget to blame feminists for:
world hunger, the war in Yugoslavia, famine in Somalia and the hole in the ozone
layer. Am I forgetting something?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians do not have a problem
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:58:10 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Helping business, health care costs
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
 <1992Sep14.113746.1@vxdesy.desy.de> <1992Sep14.164955.831@sma2.rain.com>

In article <1992Sep14.164955.831@sma2.rain.com>, fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred
Brooks) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep14.113746.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>>
>>As far as the German health care system goes, I think that it
>>offers more at a cheaper rate than the US. My wife had
>>a baby in Germany for $1000.00. I can't believe that anyone in the
>>US could do that.
>
>My health cost is $25 per month with my company Kaiser Health Plan. The
>total cost for the birth of my last child was $7.50.

That's very relevant.  Compare the total costs in the German system to the
out-of-pocket price for a well-insured American.  Do you really think it
only cost the hospital $7.50 to deliver?  I'll lay you money the total
cost of the delivery was at least twice the German rate.  That will either show
up in the portion of the premium you pay or your employer pays.  If your
employer pays it, your employer either has to raise prices, lower wages,
or lower profits.  The cost may be shifted to different parties, but you can
bet your bippy that it doesn't cost $7.50 to deliver a baby in America.


>Most of the cost was for the television in her room. Price per visit is $1.00
>to her doctor during the 9 month period. She had at least 3 ultrasonic exams

There's no doubt that people like you (and probably me) could be worse off
under a NHI system.  Of course, right now we are being subsidized through
the tax deductibility of our health insurance.  That subsidy, in effect, takes
money from low-wage workers at small companies and gives it to high wage
workers at large companies.
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:55:49 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

: A history lesson:
: 
: In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
: administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
: (substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
: conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
: Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
: the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
: raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
: The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
: signed by President Bush.

Bush could have not signed it.  He could have let it pass without
signing it ("I'm not going to sign my name to that piece of cow
droppings!"), or (*gasp*) he could have vetoed it.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:51:25 GMT

tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.113604.27314@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>I wouldn't use that as an example.  The government's (at all levels)
>>handling of our highway system is the *worst*.  It is the epitome of
>>why the government should not run things that should be efficient.  A
>>private corporation would immediately start using all the best
>>materials in order to make the road last as long as possible without

>Really?, then why was the average American made car only made to last
>about 5 to 6 years in the late 70's?  

How about, because the auto makers weren't responsible for the repair
costs.  Common sense here?  And that is exactly what is lacking in the
maintenance of our highway system--common sense.  They *are* responsible
for the maintenance costs and they *still* don't use the best materials
and techniques.

>To put it very quickly, there is NOTHING which insures that the market
>will enforce a Corperation to be extremely efficient.  To survive, the 
>Corperation will ensure that it makes a profit, but profit and efficiency
>are not always the same thing.  

And you have just pointed the biggest reason why the government should
not be in the health care business.  There is *no* profit motive.
Nothing will ensure that a business will be efficient, but the profit
motive is about as close to sure as you'll get.  Look no further than
the military for an example.  It is most likely the most carefully
regulated and analyzed government agency around and it is still grossly
mismanaged from a bottom line perspective.  
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: hine@netcom.com (Graham L. Hine)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Where can I get a summary of Clinton's resume and proposals?
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:28:47 GMT
Followup-To: sender
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


	Well, the subject says it all.  I am a little tired of getting a
partial, and perhaps biased set of facts from the media.  I want to get
something like a resume of his past accomplishments, and some kind of
summary of his historical stand on issues along with a summary of his 
stand on issues as he voices it now.
	If there is not something of this sort out there, might I 
suggest that it would be an extremely valuable document that any member of
our mediacould be praised for producing.

	Of course, I would want to see a similar document about Bush.
Preferably prepared by the same person or group. If I just get one response
from one politically aligned party I would be nervous about bias.

Thanks!
	-Graham
From: garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:19:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

dmr@medicated.Corp.Sun.COM (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes:

>In article 21190@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>> In article <n1ln#0c.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>> >
>> >I am Gary Stollman, the person who pulled the toy gun on Tv Consumer
>> >Advocate David Horowitz on live television at the set of KNBC in 1987,
>> >forcing him to read a statement on the air about how the CIA and aliens
>> ....
>> [major weirdness about aliens, clones, Reagan deleted]
>> >-- 
>> >Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN
>> 
>> 	Please let this be a VERY bad joke!  If not, this fellow
>> REALLY needs help.  Anybody who's read the postings on sci.research
>> by V.I. Fabrikant just before he started shooting people knows what I
>> mean.


>Gary's got all the outward markings of
>full-blown paranoid schizophrenia, a disease (or group of the diseases)
>that is about as well-understood as it is treatable -- that's to say, not very.

>If it's any consolation --
>One thing we do know is that the incidence of violent crime among
>schizophrenic folks is actually lower than the general population.

>Gary, if you're reading this, you should check and see if any of those
>voices in your head are telling you to find a psychologist you can
>trust. I'm pretty sure not all of them are clones.

>[ Don't look at me, man, I've only got an A.B. in psych. ]

>---
># Daniel M. Rosenberg        Dan.Rosenberg@Corp.Sun.COM   +1 415 688 9580
># Opinions expressed above aren't Sun's.
*****
Dan,

	Thanks for your concern, but I can assure you that I have never
needed a shrink.  My problems were created from without, by a government
as corrupt as I know it to truely be now.  For your and everyone elses
info on here, I DO have a AA degree (general), have taken Computer Science
at FSU (junior), I know about 20 computer languages, some fairly well,
some very well, and have an almost photographic memory and an IQ above
150, or so I was told by a shrink my parents were seeing when I was 17.  I
took a course in high school in speed reading and read (not kidding!) at
over 10,000 words per minute with something like 75% comprehension.  I am
currently enrolled at Lively Vo-Tech in Tallahassee taking Computer
Electronics, and finished the first two sections faster than anyone in the
history of the school.  Hope that elucidates for ya a little!

	Gary

-- 
Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
          The world is your playground.  Keep it clean! 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:27:57 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
>All of which brings up an interesting point: if you are going to invoke
>Bible passages as reasons for "why things should be," or if you are going
>to attempt to take the Bible literally, at least consider the context
>in which much of this was written.  God gave us brains; if She had
>meant for us to follow Her blindly without thought, then why do we
>have so much grey matter in our heads?
*----
I think you have it backwards.  How have humans managed to survive so
well without a diety guiding our destiny, while using our brains so
little?!
--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Sep15114846@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep15.191835.2482@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:46:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.191835.2482@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

   In article <ART.92Sep15114846@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   > 
   > In article <1992Sep14.141525.16077@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
   > 
   >    In article <1992Sep12.014657.19620@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
   >    > 
   >    > In article <1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
   >    > 
   >    > |> We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
   >    > |> them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
   >    > |> bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
   >    > |> ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
   >    > |> these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
   >    > |> a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).
   > 
   > Dr. You write statements like that and then turn right around and howl
   > when we say you look down your nose at people less educated.  Those who
   > don't agree with you are sheep, indeed.
   > 
   > 
   > 

   Jeez, you guys are thick....

Thick?  Aren't you condescending again?  I suppose you're going to deny
this later.

   If you would READ my postings you would see that I have already said that
   this phenomenon is not a matter of intelligence or education, but
attitude.

Not only did I read your posting, I copied it for the benefit of all
concerned and now you're telling us it isn't what you meant.  You have a
real history of this.  Oh, I know you didn't really write that did you?

   Furthermore, it has nothing to do with whether they agree with me. If they
   study the issues and decide that they still want ot vote for Bush, I can
   respect that. However, it is our patriotic duty to vote, and part of that
   duty is to educate oneself and become informed. If you are too apathetic
   or lazy to take this responsibility seriously, then you have earned the
   label of "sheep".

But you labelled those who voted for Reagan as sheep.  By your statement
above and this paragraph it is quite clear mouth the idea of informed
disagreement but when it happens those who don't see your way are sheep.

   I lived with this portion of the electorate and grew up with
   them. Many of them were so sure that they knew everything, they just couldn't
   be bothered. You may think this is harsh, but I challenge you to check it out
   for yourself before you throw stones at me.

But you exhibit exactly the same characteristics.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:03:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep09.030102.6012@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>...
>>As for the preachers, let me clear up one thing.  No Biblical Christian 
>>who has a firm conviction that the Bible is the word of God can ignore what 
>>it says:
>
>>"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
>>what is detestable"
>>	--Leviticus 18:22
>...
>>This doesn't mean I'm telling anybody 
>>to hate [or fear] homosexuals, so don't bash me for homophobia or hate 
>>tactics or something equally silly.
>
>But you ignoring part of what Leviticus says; Leviticus prescibes the
>death penalty for homosexual acts.
>So, do you ignore word of your god, or do you advocate death for gays?
>Merlyn LeRoy

	Yes, there is also a societally executed death penalty
for adultery.  However, in the `New Testament,' when a woman is
about to be stoned for breaking such a law, Jesus says something
to the effect of 'you who is not-guilty of breaking the law, cast
the first stone.' And no one could admit to not having broken the
law, and so the woman was not stoned to death.
	What is the goal of these laws? Could it be that it was to
preserve a way of life centered about the idea of the single God?
In that sense, if the Jews considered this belief, this way of life
central to life itself, as they did, then they necessarily had
to take certain actions to preserve that life.  Such as war.
Such as laws against adultery, homosexuality, etc.  These laws, however,
were meant for the jews themselves.  You will note that jews didn't go
around in the old testament to non-Jewish areas and kill homosexuals
because they were homosexual.  They may have killed the homosexuals
if they were threatening the Jews, but they did not go out of their way.
	If you are a killer, or a warrior, and live by death and bloodshed,
should I necessarily recognize your behavior, if it is threatening to my
way of life?  Some of us would consider adultery, homosexuality, some
even forced sexuality of an type to be threatening to our goal of
enlightenment free of any Earthly or finite control.
	Jesus would have done what was necessary to protect and encourage
his idea of life. Many people think that Jesus was trying to derive
life from people who were 'dead' or 'murderous' in the sense that
they were adulterers, homosexuals, etc. Thus, his goal would not have
been to kill at that time but to provide enlightenment such that
the 'dead' could have 'life.'
	Later, if someone requests it, I will post an article concerning
the 'sword of Christ' and the 'Christian soldiers.'

				J. Wagner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush