HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:12:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <BuMBH6.5BJ@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> In article <12276@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:

>>He came out years ago.  He is gainfully employed by a disk
>>drive manufacturer because of his engineering talents, not
>>because of his sexual preference.  Companies that do actively
>>discriminate eventually go the way of the dinosaur as they
>>lose not only the talents of those that they actually
>>discriminate against, but also of those who don't care for such
>>practices. 

>   Japanese companies routinely discriminate against half the
>   population (I have no idea what they do about gays) and it
>   doesn't seem to have hurt them.  US companies during the 
>   60's and 60's, i.e., the greatest period of growth for US
>   corporations in history, routinely discriminated against 
>   anybody who wasn't a white, heterosexual male.

All true, though one must remember that the world didn't
begin when we were born.  Blacks, women, and gays were
denied priveledges and rights until this time.  For many,
this meant little or no education, and as a result, these
people were not as well educated as straight white males,
so there often was no reason for an employer to hire them
for skilled work.

Fortunately, in some ways our government is becoming more
civilized, and this includes less and less governmental
discrimination.  Unfortunately, this trend is slowing, and
in some ways reversing itself.  There is a tremendous lag
to the repair of this damage; only recently have there been
significant numbers of blacks with college degrees, and it
takes time for them to be part of the experienced workforce.

Japan is improving in this regard.  So is South Africa.
They are only about one hundred years behind the USA.  :-(

>   Often
>   on the net we hear that discrimination is self-defeating,
>   but I think this is  mainly religion -- I don't see lots of
>   empirical evidence for it.

I respectfully disagree.  Just imagine how much easier
military recruitment would be if gays were not discriminated
against by the government in this regard?  And if the company
that I work for were to fire its non-"straight/white/male"
employees, despite its presently strong standing, it would go
down the tubes in a heck of a hurry.  As for my religious
adgenda, I'm about as religious as Wavy Gravy.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
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 18:51:59 GMT

liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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 
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>yes, for some bizzare unknown reasons some Amercians would like to believe
>Canadians hosipitals are the equivalent of Soviet KGB.  

Actually, Prez Bush said that Bill Clinton's plan would have "the
efficiency of the House post office and the compassion of the KGB."

In other words, about 10 times better than our current system. Some people
have posted examples of the inefficiency of the Canadian system (one MRI
machine in all of Montreal), but that system is still better to that person's
sister (or whomever) than it would be to an American with zippo insurance. Now
under Clinton's plan, any employer who provides insurance would not have to
pay the payroll tax. Any person who wants to have and can afford private
insurance would not be required to use public insurance. Clinton's plan
helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43868 talk.politics.mideast:19636 misc.headlines:6213
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:24:16 GMT
	<1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Sep4121103@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep4.185303.10094@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Sep4.185303.10094@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4121103@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>
>   >This is a simple nonsequitur.  There was no Israeli presence in
>   >Jerusalem in 1947, as there was no Israel.  International law does not
>   >mandate against Jews in Jerusalem, but rather against the Israeli
>   >occupation of East Jerusalem.
>   >
>   >You shouldn't confuse the occupation of houses by residents with the
>   >occupation of foreigh territory by nations. 
>
>   Then neither should the Jordanians, who drove out or murdered just
>   about every individual Jew in Jerusalem when it captured the place.

Indeed.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44729 ca.politics:7606 ba.politics:5179 soc.motss:38755 ba.motss:1574
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:05:24 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.175454.14962@odin.corp.sgi.com>, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
> You may be a jerk and you may have a screw loose, Clayton, but that's the extent
> of it.  I want to add my voice to those calling for any private harassment of you 
> to stop immediately.  I would like to suggest to you, though, that sending off 
> net discussions to the CCTV (Cal. Coalition for Traditional Values) and related 
> organizations is a terrible thing to do, as was your suggestion that you may go
> off (along with unnamed others) and join the various organizations devoted to 
> stifling freedom in this country.  Isn't that a prostitution of everything you have
> claimed to stand for? 
> 
> JZ 

The homosexual fascist lobby is creating a situation where the choice
is "the devil and the deep blue sea."  If you were told that you could
preserve your right to free speech by giving up your right to not be
searched at random by the police, and that these were your ONLY
choices, what would you do?  You would have to decide which right was
more important, and hold your nose.  I would prefer to not make that
choice -- but the homosexual fascist lobby seems intent on using the
government's power to force people to hire and rent to homosexuals
against their will -- and the only realistic way to stop it is by
assisting another group that I don't like.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:33:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.214509.14914@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <farenebt.716423991@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>
>>I am no fan of censorship but I am wondering how the stickering of
>>record albums ("Parental advisory: explicit lyrics") is any different
>>from the movie industry rating its movies, G, PG, Pg-13 and R (and NC-17)?
>>Why is one ok but the other elicits fervert opposition?
>
>They're both exactly the same -- a voluntary warning label on a product.
>
>What people were objecting to was Tipper using government coercion to
>scare the record companies into putting labels on albums.  If a company
>thinks a product should have a warning to parents and puts it on, that's
>fine.  If the company is only doing it under threat of government
>action, that's borderline censorship.
>

No...it is only fine if the creative artist labels (defaces) their own
work.  If the company, or publisher, or government, or anyone other
than the artist does it, it is censorship.

Gerald
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Congress is VERY representitive
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:33:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Clarkson University

There, I got your attention. I maintain that the main reason Americans
think Congress is unrepresetitive is the pathetic voter turnout. Congress
may not represent the will of the majority of Americans but it does an
ok job of representing those who vote. Those who don't vote don't  have
any moral right to complain about the government.

Americans say they want honest politicians. But they vote for the person
who tells them what they want to hear.

Americans say they want tough choices to be made (ie balanced budget) but
only if someone else has to suffer.

Americans say they are the greatest democracy in the world but only 50%
of REGISTERED (not all) voters participated in the last prez election;
much less  % in state and local elections. Voter turnouts in Canada and
much of Europe is in the 80-90%. Germany turns out 98%  (largely because
NOT voting is illegal).

In conclusion, Congress represents the people who vote. If you want it
to be made more representitive, you should vote. It is the most basic
way to make your voice heard. If Congress knows that the younger (18-24)
vote doesn't turn out, it won't care about screwing them. And vice versa.
That goes for any group. If you are part of a group who is getting shafted
(in your opinion), make your voice heard. Make Congress listen to you.

If you don't vote, you don't count.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:34:22 GMT

In article <65379@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com>, 
>katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) said:
>
>> Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even
>> charging you with a crime! Our wonderful (NOT!) conservative supreme
>> court has upheld this.
>
>It is my understanding that BATF and the IRS routinely did this,
>in the name of "gun control" and "making sure the wealthy paid their
>Fair Share of taxes", well before prohibitioNazis like Reagan caught
>on.  Our wonderful (NOT!) social democrats started it all.
>
	Wasn't the wonderful social democrat that started this Nixon in
the early '70s, as part of an anti-raceteering bill?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 09:35:13 GMT

In article <12273@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>The good news is that the number of gays pushing for this brand
>of governmental discrimination is relatively small.  The bad
>news is that they are good at being vocal (though I will support
>their freedom of speech without reservation) about it, kind of
>like those white supremacist neaderthals.

I think you're wrong about this.  In fact, right after Wilson vetoed
AB101, a poll showed that two thirds of Californian voters supported
AB101.  Sounds to me like many people, not just vocal lesbigays,
support anti-discrimination laws.

>I guess my problem is that I don't see gays as disadvantaged.
>My best man is gay, and he is every bit as competent in the
>workplace as I am, so why does he need to be protected?  This
>kind of legislation results in resentment between the have's
>(the protected) and the have not's, and removes the rights of
>what one can and cannot do with their business.

What happens if your best man's boss sees this and says to
her/himself, "Isn't John Doe Mark Walsh's best man?  I never knew he
was gay."  And John Doe starts getting the worst work assignments, his
job performance evaluations go down...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Anyone done a recent Usenet Poll?
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:23:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.042345.29727@eskimo.celestial.com>
delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>> Has anyone performed a recent usenet poll on Bush/Quayl and Clinton/Gore?
>	
>	You are forgetting that there are others running for 
>President of The United States Of America.
>We must include at least the top 5 or so of the third parties to
>be fair and accurate. There are better people than Bush or Clinton.
>	Be sure to include Marrou/Lord of the Libertarians!
>But there are people from the populist party ( Bo Gritz )
>New Alliance Party, Workers World, the real Republican party 
>(pre relegious fanatic takeover), Chef Ra! and others.
>	I want to know how the others fare, differnt people bring
>alternative ideas. That can effect many factors including how
>the mainstreamers will act.
>
Thanks for this response to a very simple question. I tend to forget that
"others" are running for a very good reason, but that doesnt really have
anything to do with the post which is about a poll and not who is running and
who is not.



>--
> +-(c)--------------------------+   Freedom is to the soul is what  
> | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |   fresh air is to the lungs, and  
> +------------------------------+   knowledge is to the mind.  
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:19:14 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu writes:
>]    He's obstructed the work of my elected Congressional representatives.
>]Yes, that's certainly a mark in his favor...

>Are you implying that YOUR elected congressional representative should
>NOT be balanced by YOUR elected president?

    Not at all. They can balance each other all they want as long as they 
manage to put aside their differences long enough to make the government 
work smoothly. If "balance" means vetoing every bill Congress passes then 
I'm not sure just how much "balance" we can take and still continue to 
function as a nation. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: russo@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Thomas Russo)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
	<1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:37:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>   The danger I see with a line item veto, is the president
>could, scrach out the word   'not' from the sentence fragment 
>'is not permitted' making it into 'is permitted' thus totaly changing
> the meaning of a new bill.
>   Just by the removal of one or more words from a sentence or 
>paragraph could
>change the bill. If a president opposes a bill
>and wants the reverse to be enacted, this is all it takes to provide 
>him with the opportunity.   
>  It is probably wise to limit the line item veto
>for the president to buget matters only; to scratching out 
>things to be purchaced or financed.   

>--
>  delisle@eskimo.celestial.com | Nothing is fool-proof, fools are too ingenous.

I agree, this would be a valid concern IF the line item veto meant
that the president could edit individual line items to suit any given
purpose.  But no account of a line-item veto power that I've read
about says that.  The line-item veto, as I understand it, is the
ability to apply veto power to individual acts within a piece of
legislation, and individual expenditures within a budget.  Thus a bill
which was an aggregate of some appropriations and one single piece of
legislation which would ordinarily have to be signed or rejected as a
whole could instead have the appropriations signed and the legislation
vetoed.  Or vica-versa.

The idea is to return to the original notion of a bill -- a single
purpose piece of legislation that can be vetoed or signed on its own
merits, not the massive aggregate bills we see today in which
amendments can be tacked on which bear no relation to the other parts.
And of course to allow the president to veto individual items on a
budget.

I'm not sure whether I approve or disapprove of the line item veto or
some variant which restricts it to budget bills.  But I am reasonably
sure that no executive officer (i.e. governors, many of whom have the
line-item veto already) gets to edit bills and then approve them as
you describe.  The governor gets to veto a "line-item" in the bill
instead of the whole thing.  A line-item would be a part of the bill
which got a separate vote in the legislature.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.  Please do.

-- 
Thomas Russo			russo@nile.chem.columbia.edu
Department of Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Simulation
Columbia Univerity
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:10:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.


Censorship applies only to government banning of a work. A company not
willing to distribute a work is not engaged in censorship--the author
is free to attempt to distribute his material in other ways, i.e., he is
not banned from doing so by law.

In a free society you are free to publish what you like, but no one *has*
to listen or like it or distribute it. (I suppose that's even true here in 
the US.)

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:54:35 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

John R. Moore) writes:
|> Keywords: 
|> 
|> William December Starr) writes:
|> ]john@anasazi.com said:
|> ]
|> ]> What Clinton did was participate in an activity where he was draft
|> ]> exempt because that program required him to enter the armed services
|> ]> later. I guarantee you that he had to keep his anti-war sentiments
|> ]> quiet during that program. What he then did was renege on that duty
|> ]> and slip out entirely.
|> ]
|> ]Why did Clinton have to "keep his anti-war sentiments quiet during
|> ]that program"?  Seems to me that he didn't give up his First Amendment
|> ]right of free speech at any time in the process.
|> 
|> If he had stated anti-war sentiments in a ROTC program, he would have
|> probably been kicked out, and would certainly have been hassled. Since
|> we haven't heard Clinton complain about this, I think it is fair to
|> assume that he had to keep his anti-war views from his ROTC instructors
|> (which is what I meant about keeping them quiet). In other words, if
|> he were anti-war, he should not have been in ROTC. 
|> 
When I started College (Berkeley, 1961) ROTC was not optional.  It was a
mandatory program for all males in federal land grant schools (nearly all).
If expressing "anti-war" sentiments would have gotten anyone kicked out of
ROTC, there would have been a rush on picket signs.

Also, anti-Viet Nam war and anti-war are not the same thing.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44319 talk.abortion:35707 alt.politics.bush:4448 alt.politics.homosexuality:5843 alt.drugs:15517 alt.conspiracy:10518
From: keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Possible Connection...
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:48:02 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep8.214605.1727@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>] In article <1992Sep3.124045.8199@wetware.com>
>] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>] >] >drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >] >> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>] >]
>] >] > AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!
>] >] > HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!
>] >]
>] >] > As Long as Hetro's Are Allowed to Wallow in their Sin and Degradation
>] >] > what Will Protect the MORALS and SCRUPPLES and WholeSomeFamilyValues!!!!!
>] >]
>] >] > I Agree Brother! OutLaw Hetro's NOW!!!!!
>] >] > Its Not enough to "Just Say NO! to Hetro!"
>] >] > We Must OUTLAW THEM! We Must Make THEM find The CURE!!!!!
>] >]
>] >] I *hope* drieux (, just drieux) is joking, for his petty war against
>] >] heterosexuality (not to mention proper cApitalIzatioN) is inane.
>] >] Suppose we outlaw heterosexuality. Then the human race is extinct in
>] >] one generation. Think about it.



There are other ways in which to create new children!  Besides which, 
even if you did go around and cure all the heterosexuals, there'd still
be some closeted ones, and as birth control would be unecessary, they'd
be multiplying like bunnies!


>] >
>] >think about the Fact that all the BRUTAL MASS MURDERES
>] >and MORAL DEGENERATE SICKO's on this planet were born
>] >by Flagrant HeteroSexuality!!!!!
>] 
>]      *And* the breathed oxygen, *and* they we subject to gravity, *and*
>] they all had DNA, *and* they all had circulatory systems.

>I never Noticed THAT!!!!!

>Obviously as a Part of the War On Drugs we MUST
>outlaw this 'oxygen' stuff, as OBVIOUSLY it is
>a leading cause of SO MANY DANGEROUS social Problems,

>Like HeteroSexuality....

>ciao
>drieux

>ps: is there some sort of 'oxygen lobby' in DC that
>has been suppressing all of this or what?


>-- 
>If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
>To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
>Put them back in the Refrigerator.
>This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
-- 
--Karin
keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections