HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:16:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep29.183353.979@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
# (me)
# # Clayton, stay on the subject.  We are talking about AIDS & STDs here,
# # and your claim that "sodomy in private becomes a public matter".
# #   
# 
# /(cramer)
# /I haven't made an error.  The relationship between sodomy and AIDS
# /is purely statistical.  
# 
# No; it is not.  You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the
# data if you believe that.  The statistical relationship is between risky 
# behavior patterns and AIDS.  Period.  End of argument. 

Your ignorance is showing.  Also, the risky behavior hasn't changed.
For starters, the risks from sodomy are dramatically higher than
from vaginal sex -- this is why there are so few cases of vaginal
sex transmitting the disease, except from prostitutes with vaginal
lesions.

# But even so, that was not your point.  Your ORIGINAL point was 
# (here, let me):
# 
# 	 ## Sodomy
# 	 ## in private suddenly becomes a "public" matter because it affects
# 	 ## the society as a whole (transmission of STDs).  
#  
# 
# You still have not proven how gay sex is a public threat.

Because homosexual sex has played a major part (along with IV
drug abuse) in transmitting AIDS.
 
# Even if that were true, you have also not demonstrated how the AIDS 
# argument should permit employers / landlords to discriminate.

You are so stupid I can't believe it.  I am NOT arguing that this
is a good reason to ban homosexual sex, but that the argument is
parallel to your argument for banning private discrimination --
that in both cases, there is a statistical basis for establishing
"public harm," and therefore the government has nearly unlimited
authority to run people's lives.  You are setting up a dangerous
precedent for the government to tell you who you can have sex with,
and how.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: Priorities (III)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:00:12 GMT

The Decline of America: Priorities (III)

"In a Time/CNN poll 2 weeks ago, 3/4 of Americans said they favored an
increase in the income tax rate of the wealthiest in America...
similar percentages were opposed to a freeze in Social Security
benefits or to increasing the gas tax"

Non Social Security domestic spending, as a percentage of GNP,
declined during the Reagan years from 9.8% to 7.3%

[Source: Citizens for Tax Justice]
[Above are from: In These Times, 3/28-4/3, 1990]



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Center for Policy Alternatives Reacts to Bush Family Leave Veto
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 06:08:37 GMT

In article <BvEE1D.I5B@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>                            
>  This gets back to the jobs issue I posted about a few minutes ago.
>  In a sort utopian view, it would be nice if all companies offered
>  their employees leave for raising young children.  But any additional
>  restrictions and regulations we place on companies cost money and 
>  add to the burden of the company hiring someone.  We can't divorce
>  issues like "family leave" from larger economic issues.   Decisions
>  have to be made in as considered and rational a way as possible.
>  This applies both to the decision of what regulations to apply to
>  business and what their likely impacts will be, and ALSO the decisions
>  we make as individuals about whether to have children.  

Oregon has had a family leave bill for 18 months.  It came into the economy
during a recession.  It has been highly successful in the opinion of both
the state Republican and Democratic parties.

The premier business lobby in Oregon is called the Associated Oregon
Industries.  After living with the bill for 18 months, it announced that it
supported the bill and that it was not costing jobs or profits.  Several
companies noted a reduction in expenses since the bill took effect.

The local paper is *very* Republican.  It's comment on Bush's veto for
economic reasons:  "Family values for workers, according to the Republican
Party, are reflected in the following rules:  Never have a baby.  Never
adopt a child.  If you do have a child, never let it get sick.  Never have
an elderly parent.  If you do have an elderly parent, never let him or her
get sick. ...It is a mystery how this ever came to be such a pertisan issue
in the first place.  Both parties claim to be pro-worker and pro-family.
There is nothing inherently Republican or Democratic about laws that
provide for adequate workplace safety, fair pay for overtime, etc.
...There is no chance the requirements of this bill could prove onerous or
excessively costly to American business.  Protests to the contrary are
either uninformed or willfully blind to the studies that have been done on
the aspect of cost and the experience of the 11 states and the
District of Columbia which have passed family leave legislation."

This from a paper the serves half the state and that has been Republican in
every Presidential election I can recall since Jerry Ford ran against
Carter.

eyes
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yes on 9 (was Re: William F. Buckley opposes anti-gay ballot measure)
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:23:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct1.122846.24929@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> I just want to take this opportunity to announce that if I were an
>> Oregon voter, I would vote "YES" on Prop. 9

> Meddlesome foreigner.

And if I were a German, my rallying cry would probably be "Auflander
Frei!"
-- 
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???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49057 alt.rush-limbaugh:6367 alt.politics.elections:14904 talk.abortion:39956
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:38:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <sykz3!b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>Ok...who volunteers to run for federal office so we can show pictures
>of the women who died from illegal abortion and tell their stories?
>(Tagline: "Illegal Abortion Kills Women!"?)
>
Geez! Catch up.  Both kinds of abortion kill kids!

Ted


-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:29:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>		FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT PEROT TO SHUT UP...
>
>    One simple fact remains:  You'll have to bend over to the establishment
>again.  If or after Perot is defeated, he will be forgotten by the lawmakers,
>who won't do anything of the sort that he sees to help bring the deficit down.
>

What is with the "bend over" virus attacking this group?
Could someone come up with another fresh and witty analogy?

>    You want $500bn deficits??
>    You want an $8-10tr debt??
>    How far do you want this to go before someone has to step in??

A whole lot farther than this before I'd vote for
a shady authoritarian billionaire.
 >
>    Perot, by his "ill thought-out" plans, is the only realistic choice to get
>the economy on track.  Although Clinton's plans are good, he'll deficit this
>country into oblivion with his infrastructures.  And we all know about Bush.

OK, how is it that someone who doesn't have a 
snowball's-chance-in-hell of getting elected President
can be considered a "realistic" choice?

As to HRP's "plan", he is willing to balance the budget in
a few years by massive tax increases and draconian budget cuts.
Doing this in such a short time frame would likely send the
US into a major depression.  Most of the economics professionals
in this country could come up with a better "plan" than this;
but since they don't have massive personal fortunes,
they won't be heard.
To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
>
>    You may not like him, but when you get right down to it, he may be the only
>true choice for change you have.  With a Dem. total win in November imminent,
>just remember what Clinton is asking for, because he'll get it with no 
>problem. 
>Does the country want that??
>
>						Mike Falkner
>

We will know in November.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49211 alt.politics.perot:1802 alt.politics.elections:14986
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:10:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T

korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
>sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
>
>The national debt is 4 Trillion dollars. Each year we add about
>300 billion to this figure with no end in sight. Wake up and
>smell the coffee.

I smell something, and it's not French Roast...

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:25:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Bvn0yE.Fqz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes...

>It is crucial that ALL libertarians call the following
>news organizations, OVER AND OVER, starting on Monday, October 5,
>at 9AM EDT:

>        ABC TV Network News     (212)   456-1000
> 
>        CBS TV Network News     (212)   975-4321
> 
>        NBC TV Network News     (212)   664-4971
> 
> 	 CNN			 (404)	 827-1500

If you should prefer to be persuasive rather than "angry," please
ask for additional phone numbers and pass them back to the rest
of us here. 

The Libertarians have worthwhile criticisms of the present political
system, they are on the ballot in all states, and they definitely
deserve to be heard -- because all viewpoints are vital to a robust 
and thriving nation. 

And you might remind them that the soviets *tried* to silence the
voice of diversity too.

>Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326

-- Stephen  "I'll stand up for libertarians to be in the debates,
             and try to gain support from the UWS movement and
             other independents."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Center for Communications, MCNC; RTP, NC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:25:33 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct6105814@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
>> But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
>> he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 

	Greetings,

	I also heard that George Bush acted as the "front man" for
Richard Nixon during the early 70s in RED China!!! That`s
right he even paved the way for then PRESIDENT Nixon to visit
RED China!!! Bush also maintained a home in RED COMMUNIST
China during this period

        The Press has also revealed that George Bush even
entered into various agreements with COMMUNIST China and
then COMMUNIST Russia.

	I can never, ever vote for Bush after hearing these
stories.

			One shocked American,

			Carter


--
 "The oak sleeps in the acorn, the gaint sequoia sleeps in it`s tiny seed,
  the bird waits in the egg and God waits for his unfolding in man."
       Funkadelic                       bing@concert.net
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:40:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <Oct.2.07.18.26.1992.28614@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.000158.7058@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>
>>> It is not necessary to always appeal only to logic when trying to
>>> convince a jury.
>
>> But it is necessary to use logic to convince this jury (the average
>> USENet reader).
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
>Got any more good ones?
>
My guess is that Mr. Kaldis doesn't understand what I wrote.  I did not
state that usenet readers were logical.  Rather, it is necessary to use
logic in order to make them change their positions.  I'm well aware that
most usenet readers have opinions set in concrete such that many so
called discussions here are little more than jargon spewing matches.  But
I have yet to see any evidence that anyone's opinion is changed by
illogical arguments.  If Mr. Kaldis has any such evidence perhaps he
could share it with us all.

>> If you aren't going to try and be logical you might as well just stop
>> posting now.
>
>Because logical people generally don't post to the net.

That may be.  Nevertheless they TRY to be logical, unlike Mr. Kaldis.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:27:40 GMT

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>In article 1508 yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>If you think Abraham Lincoln did something wrong by "invading"
>>the southern states, then I have to say that we have very different moral
>>standards, also I am not sure how many people around the world
>>would share your view on this topic, I wish your view is not
>>too good to be practical.
> 
>I suppose you supported the Japanese when they invaded China too. 
>You can't have it both ways. 
> 
>>"self determination" can only be applied to colonies, can those illegal
>>imigrants decide whether or not they can be a citizen of the united
>>states? or can they cirle a piece of land in the united states, then
>>declare independence? No!
> 
>Tibet *is* a colony.  I have already stated that. 
> 
>>Mr. richter must be a communist, at least his metality is very
>>close to those communists. He hasn't shown a little bit of 
>>respect of other people's lawful right. He forces
>>others to accept his utopian idealogy. (he said the North States shouldn't
>>have "invaded" the Southern States.)
> 
>I am not a communist.  
> 
>>Tibet has been part of China for a long time, keeping our country's
>>integrity is our lawful right, I don't see why Mr. richter can 
>>force us accept his idealology. 
> 
>I am not trying to force you to accept anything.  If you have something
>constructive to add to the debate, please do so.  Do have any facts?
> 
> 
Now, the question becomes: is Tibet a colony or not? If you have made
your point clear that you only support self determination of colonies,
I think nobody will argue with you, because we all support this, and
has been supported this.

Now, I am wondering if our definitions on colony are different, if a
group of people has joined into a country for hundreds of years, and all
the people has been enjoyed all the rights of the citizens of that 
country, can we call the land of those people as a colony?

Or Mr. rither just want to more evidence on that Tibet has been part
of China for hundreds of years and enjoyed equal rights?

Ze Yang


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ZWENG@SBBIOVM.BITNET
Subject:      Rumor about the bill.
Reply-To: ZWENG@SBBIOVM.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:10:01 GMT

       Someone posted a letter in CCNL.  Here it is:

           ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
From:         "(Tang Jian-Liu)" <tang@VANZETTI.CS.NYU.EDU>

    It may be a good sign. A news in title:" President will sign the Chinese
student protection bill in ten days" in a international Chines paper--Sing Tao
Daily last Friday,on page 7, by Alan Lee who is a famous lawer in New York.
It said the
news from a vise assistant in legislation in White House. I called the office
Yesterday and today. No one answered the phone because it's weekend, I think.
	The phone nuber is 212-564-9496, Alan Lee Attorney at Law.

             ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: WU@nevisk.nevis.columbia.edu (Qiuwenwu Wu)
Subject: Re: Do Something For Yourself, Guys--Protection Bill.
Organization: NEVIS LABS, COLUMBIA UNIV.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
Distribution: local,world
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:43:42 GMT
X-Posted-From: nevism.nevis.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In <1992Oct5.180841.3062@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 writes:

> In article <1992Oct5.122915.13035@ms.uky.edu>, gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
> writes:
> > 
> > 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
> > 
> > >the reason I came to here.  Du4 Fu3 (Tang dynasty poet) said "where I can
> > >find millions houses to shelter all poor CSS in the world." (an1 de2 da4
> > >xia4 qian1 wan4 jian1, guang3 pi4 tien1 xia4 han2 shi4 jin4 huan1 yan2).  I
> >  ^^^^ should this be sha4?
> > 	Some netters said this kind of thought in the culture made China
> > 	poor. I guess you must not agree with them.
> > >like this poet, and this is what I want to say.  Do not distort my point. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Very interesting!  In Taiwan, most people read this character as "xia". I
> heard some people read it as "sha", but not very frequently.  Similar to
> ShenZhen - a new city new HongKong, people pronounce it as ShenJun in
> Taiwan. Any other
> examples?

  Was that written by Li3 Bai2 instead of Du4 Fu3 ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Weixin Cheng <cheng@ATHENA.CS.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Testing of list functioning
Reply-To: Weixin Cheng <cheng@ATHENA.CS.UGA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:58:06 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

This is a test for list maintaining purpose.
Please ignore this.

I have received several note that they did receive any message for a few days.

sorry for this trouble.
This is a test
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Please ignore this.
This is a test.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Forward for Mr. Anonymous, Part 2 of Sikkim
Reply-To: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:48:50 GMT
Comments: cc: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Great articles forwarded by Li, Xiaowen! I wish I had the time to tape in
similar articles I had read. Every country in the international community
does everything directly or indirectly out of its interest consideration.
All those beautiful principles such as "self-determination", "culture-
preservation" and "human rights" are usually served as useful tools for
greedy ends. It's sad, but unfortunately, it's the reality.

I am aware that there are some Tibetans on this net because I recieved
messages from them before. Why do they keep silent on these two articles?

If the Chinese presence in Tibet is so offensive to Americans, to avoid
double standard, most Americans will have to go back to their original
countries to leave the land back to native Indians. And it will be more
fun by picturing that CSS get protection from native Indians. :-)


William Deng
From: mpound@astro.umd.edu (Marc Pound)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:20:50 GMT
Organization: U. of Maryland @ College Park, Astronomy

In article <liqiang.717961798@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>
>Again, as I have repeated, Tibetans are Chinese. Don't try to stir up
>hatred among different Chinese groups. In the remote areas of China, everybody
>has to live under harsh conditions. After all, China is still a developing
>country.
>
If Tibetans are Chinese, why has the Chinese government systematically
worked to wipe out all traces of native Tibetan culture?  (For, instance
destroying 99.8% of Tibetan temples, destroying religious documents,
works of art, books...)

Tibetans are NOT Chinese. Their language is as distinct from
Chinese as their culture is. In fact, linguists divide the
Sino-Tibetan languages in to at least two groups: Chinese and
Tibeto-Burmese. The Tibetan language is very different from
Chinese in its use of particles, sentence structure and even
in the honorific language. Furthermore, Tibetan script comes from 
northern Kashmir.

(My info on Tibetan language comes from a 1991 post to soc.culture.china
by Mark A. Sheldon.)

Marc Pound 		--  "Don't forget, free Tibet!"
mpound@astro.umd.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china