HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: Ronzone Illogic Typical
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:57:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.000739.3172@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.192918.23108@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>     >Yes, but you have to take action (ie join) the republican
>     >party. As far as I know, you still don't have to send away
>     >for your Queer Card. --
> 
> Oh? Well, if you don't vote in the primaries, then what? Since I don't
> vote, I could be mistaken, but I am not aware of any method of
> "joining" either political parties. I know that you can contribute
> money & time to various groups affiliate with either party, but,
> is there an actual legitimate meaningful way to join either party?

  Yes, dolt.
 
> Like David Duke and his definite, swift, and strong denunciation by the
> Rupblican party when he "became" a Republican, I am unaware of any equivalent
> reaction by, if not the legions of homosexuals, at least the other
> homosexual organizations.

  Blinders do that for you.
-- 

		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)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: double standards 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<C0pB81.6tC@inews.Intel.COM> <1993Jan11.202621.13483@bsu-ucs>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:31:13 GMT

<In article <1993Jan11.202621.13483@bsu-ucs> 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington) writes:
<   In article <C0pB81.6tC@inews.Intel.COM>, ighosh@frx715.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG) writes:
<   > 
<   >  Dan Quayle : Its ok for my daughter to have the right to choose but
<   >               abortion is illegal for your daughter.
<   > 
<   >  Bill Clinton : My daughter should have the right to choose between  
<   >                 public and private schools but children of ordinary
<   >                 folks (those who will get vouchers) dont have that right.
<   > 

<   I don't understand how you infer that because Bill doesn't support using
<   public funds for private schools he won't allow people to send their kids
<   to private schools.  Plain and simple if you have the money go ahead and
<   send them to private schools, but don't expect me to help pay.  

	Oh, you'd rather pay to have them sent to public schools
	where they learn little or nothing?

<   Do you realize what would happen in the daughter of the President was
<   in public school?  Secret service would be tearing their hair out...

	Huh. This wasn't a problem with Amy Carter; why would it
	be a problem with Chelsea Clinton?

<   Just because the gov't doesn't pay to send your kids to a private school
<   doesn't mean they _can't_ go.

	No, it just means that limosine liberals such as Clinton 
	can send *their* kids to private schools while making sure
	that poor folks kids cannot get a decent education.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:02:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.065448.37439@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>: In article <C0JJ56.69n@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>: >In article <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>: >>>It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
>: >>>actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
>: >>>one another.
>: >>	Love or perversion?  Who makes the call?
>: >Do you think you can make that call, with respect to your own self?
>: 	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
>: 	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
>: 	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.
>
>It's 1:51 am, and I'm watching "1984" on the late movie as I read this. It
>seems eerily appropriate.
>Don't you find that this statement has fascist overtones? And I don't throw
>the term about loosely.


	Not in the least.  It is mearly observation.

	If you hold views that people don't agree with, they
	_will_ pester you about it.  Unless you have good arguments	
	to support your view, they will keep it up.  If you _do_ have
	a good argument, they will leave you alone, because they don't want
	the embarassment of being shown tobe wrong.

	For instance, I no longer haveto deal withmost people I know who are
	Christians because I've soundly trumped their bible-knowledge
	and their knowledge of the history of Christianity.


>: >How about at the age of, say, twenty-five?  Then you'd damn well
>: >better be ready to say than a gay man who's twenty-five could make
>: >that call.
>: 	I don't think most people are competent to control their 
>: 	credit card spending, let alone interpersonal acts like
>: 	sexuality.  
>
>But, of course, you are. And to pontificate about it on Usenet. We should
>all get down on our knees and give thanks for your guidance.


	Do you disagree with the statement?  

	No one ever lost money underestimating the stupidity of the
	American public.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67442 alt.activism:20522
From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Communism is SO hideous that we must shudder with dread...
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:40:43 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1993Jan9.040753.3016@cis.ohio-state.edu>  <73269@cup.portal.com>
  <1993Jan11.133153.14973@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66322 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11637 alt.rush-limbaugh:13093 alt.politics.bush:15587
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:39:34 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan1.191535.10267@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.182912.14426@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.154816.1446@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>
>>>	This is a matter of contention.  Being black--it is not even
>>>	a possibility that it's a choice.  Being gay, it is still 
>>>	up in the air as to whether it's inborn or learned behavior 
>>
>>    Right, but if it's leanred, it's learned so early in life so as to have
>>the result be indistinguishable from being inborn.  Neither scenario
>>legitimizes bigotry.
>
>	
>	Never said it did.  However, consider:
>
>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
>		anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
>		thieves.
>	3.  I can't think of a *single* moral stand, that--given
>		the two assertions above are true--says people should
>		just leave homosexuals alone.  If you choose to 
>		argue the two assertions above, try the second one, 
>		becausethe first is unarguable.(see def. "deviant")

Sorry, number 1 is wrong.  Deviant in the sense of that which needs to be
cured does not apply to homosexuality.  (I also don't see how is applies
to being reclusive or anti-social.  Anti-social?  Does that mean unfriendly?
Well, I don't much like such people, but they can hardly be called "deviant".)
Homosexuality is one possible state of existence, just as heterosexuality is
one possible state of existence.  That's the only objective, unbigoted way
to look at it.  Serial killers may perhaps be called deviant.  But we don't
object to serial killers because they're deviant, we object to them because
they kill people.  Gays don't hurt anybody, any more than straights and perhaps
less.  What's the problem?  The problem is that some people can't get it
through their thick skulls that what they are not comfortable with may be
perfectly natural and yes, normal, for someone else.  It's really baffling how
many people just can't understand that.  "Deviant" is your subjective
description; it has absolutely no objective meaning or worth applied in that
way.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67431 ca.politics:10573 ba.politics:8168
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:30:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <randall.726539121@seashore>, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
 ##And homosexuals wonder why most of public "doesn't like them".
# 
# Some gays "flaunt" their homosexuality in the Gay Freedom Day Parade.
# Some straight men "flaunt" their heterosexuality by bragging of their
# sexual conquests and how many women they've slept with.

For some odd reason, this sort of juvenility seems to have declined
the last few years.  Maybe because our society isn't so tolerant
of this nonsense as it used to be -- except for homosexuals.

# Some gays and gay organizations openly advocated promescuity in the
# 70's.  Some heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations did the
# same thing.  The difference is that some heterosexuals are still
# singing the same tune despite AIDS.  The San Jose Mercury News
# magazine had an excellent article a few months back about
# an organization that promotes partner-swapping among straight
# couples.  They even have conventions with seminars entitled
# "The Myth of AIDS and Heterosexuals."
# 
# Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 

In fact, their risks from AIDS are small, for a variety of reasons.
But they will bear the consequences of their stupidity, just as
homosexuals are doing now.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67257 alt.president.clinton:1508
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:06:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <randall.726535889@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:

|It is true that TV and newspaper reporters tend to be liberal.  A reporter 
|friend of mine says: "Reports are more liberal. That's because we're the 
|best informed."    Whether this leads to bias in reporting is another
|question.  Reporters usually don't choose their own stories: they
|are assigned them.

A reporter makes a statement like that, and then wonders why others think
that reporters are biased.

|1) In every Presidental election since 1944, more newspapers endorsed
|the Republican than endorsed the Democrat.  (I do not know what the figures
|are for 1992.)  

This may be true if count every paper published in the US.  Personally 
though I don't think comparing a small town weekly paper with a circulation
of 10,000 to 20,000 to a big city daily with circulation in the millions
is legitimate.

|3) Most TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers are owned by
|Republicans.

Doesn't matter who owns them, what matters is who runs them.

|4) Editorial writers in major newspapers, as well as TV editorial
|commentators, tend to be conservative.

Admittedly my observations do not constitute an accurate poll or anything,
but my experience has been just the opposite.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmb@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (David M. Brumley)
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? 
Organization: University of Louisiana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:13:32 GMT

In article <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

   I know this is just one data point, but it is an influential one at
   that. Examine Time magazine for the year before the election, and then
   look at their selection for 'man of the year.' Count column inches
   devoted to each candidate. Make your own list of 'key words' to
   categorize story slant as upbeat or downbeat. Then compare and
   contrast the stories devoted to each of the major three major
   candidates. You make the list. Anyone who does this will be quite
   amused by the positive slant given to Clinton. Since Time has gone to
   more of a "USA Today - America's High School Newspaper" look, you also
   have to look at the graphics and pictures. Almost all photos of Clinton
   or his spouse are taken from a low angle looking up. Clinton is, of
   course, usually smiling, upbeat, arm probably extended, exuding that
   'good ol' boy' charm. Bush photos are taken with a level angle, with
   him usually grimacing or frowning. Interesting choices, but effective.

Come on.  Wasn't Time magazine the one that ran the cover with Clinton
in "reverse video?"  He looked like an alien that had just been shot
with a death beam from an old Dr. Who episode.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:11:49 GMT

Dale Cook (cdm@pmafire.inel.gov) wrote:
: An interesting footnote:  a colleague of mine was replacing the CPU board
: on our SGI system last night.  He just mentioned to me a few minutes ago
: that there were more chips on the board from US companies than from
: anywhere else.  The fat lady hasn't sung yet.  (Of course, this does
: NOT mean that the chips were *manufactured* in the US).

Just for fun:  My Dell computer was built in Texas by honest to god americans.
It has an INTEL cpu and almost all of the parts (except RAM chips) are made
in america.  My 2 Amiga computers are built in Pennsylvania using Motorola
chips (except for RAM) and American designed/built custom chips.

: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
:                  room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
: The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66674 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11895 alt.rush-limbaugh:13299 alt.politics.bush:15691
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:06:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan5.204740.17522@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>
>[the topic is nuclear power plants]
>
>>Comment if you like, but on TV just now, a documentary on scientists
>>studying Mount St. Helens claimed that the blast was the equivalent of
>>40,000 atomic bombs - more than all the nukes we've ever built as a human
>>race...
>
>1992 World Almanac, p. 700:  Estimated current number of deployed and
>spare nuclear warheads.  Soviet Union's current total:  27,300.  United
>States' current total:  19,000.
>
>Do I need to point out that 46,300 > 40,000?  And this is presently-
>existing warheads;  certainly many thousands have been destroyed.

Mike said that there were less than 40,000 bombs.  You show that there 
are more than 40,000 warheads.  Have you ever heard of MIRVS?  You know, 
where they put up to 16 warheads on each missle?

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:55:59 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan11.172537.5098@hellgate.utah.edu>  
thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) writes:
> Sam Walton started out in business by selling lemonade at a street
> corner.  He built his business incrementally until he became one of
> the richest men in the USA.  To suggest that Sam Walton go out and  
buy
> all of his stores on the first day he decided to go into business  
for
> himself would be ludicrous.  However, to suggest that by starting
> small noone can build their own resort, airline, etc., is just as
> ludicrous.
> 

Ah, Sam Walton, the libertarians dream. The man who could get
away with hiring people part time at low wages and thus
not provide health care (which the government may or may not
pick up). But at least his many of his part timers made little
enough that they could get food stamps.  Walton did well, in part,
because he relied on the various welfare and support systems
that he and others so decry. (In fact, he abused the systems.)


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:10:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.212006.6424@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:
> > 4. Please provide an argument based on xtian morals that homosexuality
> >	is not wrong.
> 		No.  That's _NOT_ what I'm asking.  I am asking for 
> 		an argument that can be given to xtians, based on their
> 		own philosophy, that would force them (if they are going to
> 		be consistent about their beliefs) to cease anti-homosexual
> 		discrimination.  
> 
> 		I will not accept arguments in the forms of:
> 		1.  I do not need to do so.  
> 		2.  It's not wrong/deviant/whatever.
> 		3.  "The bible says not to judge others"

Because the First Amendment says that government shall not enforce one
religion over another, and hence will not enforce one religion's morals
over another's.  And therefore discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation falls into the same category of discrimination on the basis
of race or gender: it does not matter whether your religion dictates
that one race is inferior to another--the government must grant equal
rights to all citizens in those areas regulated by the government.  If
you grant the government the right to ban discrimination on the basis
of race (or gender or religion, for that matter), then you must grant
them the same right on the basis of sexual orientation.

Please read what I said carefully.  What *I* am asking for is some
justification from those who would claim the right to discriminate on
the basis of sexual orientation as to why someone else couldn't claim
the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender *because THEIR
religion says so*.  If they cannot provide such justification for the
latter, they cannot defend the former.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:44:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.073351.27541@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	Some kinds of monopoly are difficult to avoid, it must be
>conceded.

There are such things as "natural monopolies", if you look sufficiently
narrowly at an industry. But...

1) Such monopolies are the exception, not the rule. It is pattently absurd to
base public policy on the exceptional; to treat the exception as the rule.

2) Such monopolies are extremely rare, historically, as compared to the
monopolies created by government regulation.

3) Such monopolies are increasingly on the defensive as technology destroys
the natural basis of the monopolies.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:04:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 9955@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> 
> Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
> allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
> it much better than virtually all of his detractors.

That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
system is going to be repaid right?  Please, give me a break.  North
stole the money for his own use.  He had to answer (or get permission)
from NO ONE.  He is a thief, a liar *and* a criminal.  This is just from
his testimony before congress.


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Straw Heaven (Was: Libertarian heaven)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:44:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.215940.13559@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>Did anyone else notice that the total number of votes for the Libertarian
>presidential candidate in November was rather less than the daily number
>of Libertarian rantings on usenet?

       Y'know, I thought we'd finally stopped hearing "Stupid Number Tricks,"
for the election.

       If there *are* three hundred thousand Libertarian messages on Usenet
a day, *I'd* be surprised.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc