HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:38:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <l8l3nhINNhnl@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> In article <11715@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> In article <Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> |> > In article <1992Aug10.201246.2874@BofA.com> dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman) writes:
# |# # #|# Because subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic are about 80%
# |# # #|# of the population, and homosexuals are at MOST 3-6%?
# |# # #
# |# # #Methinks you overestimated the number of Judeo-Christians.
# |# # #Who do you include in the count?
# |# # 
# |# #   Methinks the original poster also fails to appreciate how
# |# #   amorphous a concept "Judeo-Christian" is.   If he thinks
# |# #   being gay and subscribing to Judeo-Christian culture are 
# |# #   mutually exclusive then he hasn't studied fuzzy set theory.
# |# # 
# |# # ---peter
# |# 
# |# There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
# |# yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
# |# Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
# |# homosexuality.  To say that you subscribe to either religion,
# |# while engaging in homosexuality, is rather like claiming to be
# |# a Marxist, while capitalizing a company.
# |# 
# Or to claim you are a Christian and not fight against discrimination
# against Jews, Blacks, etc.

Completely agreed.  I will not willingly do business with a firm
that discriminates based on race or ethnicity.  I also won't send
the Gestapo out to punish someone for failing to share my values,
though.  This distinction seems to be lost on liberals, though.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41368 talk.politics.theory:3811 soc.culture.usa:6795 alt.conspiracy:10238
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Summary: Pat's Catholic
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:29:47 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <PPESSI.92Aug23165423@vipunen.hut.fi> ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>The Nazis called the program _Kulturkampf_.  Is there any way in
>>which the Buchanan proposal differs from the _Kulturkampf_?  Or are
>>there defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his statement
>>otherwise?
>
>	I doubt that Pat Buchanan is planning any exhibition of
>	decadent art. Nor I think he wants to make any Landskirche,
>	but he might be obsessed with an idea to use catholic priests
>	as guinea pigs of the cosmetic industry.
>
>--
>Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi

Just to keep the record straight, this post might suggest that Pat
has made statements that could be considered anti-Catholic.  To my
knowledge, that's unlikely since he's a committed right wing
Catholic, himself.  On the other hand, his comments about American
Jews' support of Israel has convinced even William F. Buckley that
Buchanan has a significant anti-semitic streak.
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (JohnC)
Subject: Bush "above the law" (was Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Reply-To: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:31:48 GMT

In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>>Did you all hear that the original ads had to be pulled because they
>>voilated a federal law against using the presidential seal in any form
>>for endorsement?
>>
>>Bush has shown again and again that he
>>thinks he's above the law.
>>
>
>James, I'm not sure that you know what happened.  What does "original"
>mean.  These ads were never shown.

I'm pretty sure James was referring to Bush's most recent abortion quote,
not to the Presidential Seal mess-up in the ads.

The Republican platform advocates a constutional amendment outlawing all
abortions (whether or not there is to be allowed an exception for
rape/incest/life-of-the-mother isn't relevant here).

Both Quayle and Bush have said is that they would "support" the decision of
a daughter/granddaughter to have an abortion.

Doesn't such "support" advocate the breaking of the law?  (Or at least, the
law as Bush/Quayle have stated they would like it to be)

Would such a law not apply to members of the Presidential and
Vice-Presidential families?


-- 
John Cavallino                  |  EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Hospitals |         John_Cavallino@uchfm.bsd.uchicago.edu
Office of Facilities Management | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 0953
B0 f++ c+ g++ k s++ e+ h- pv    |         Chicago, IL  60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:45:46 GMT

In article <80861@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>
>Yes, we'll see if the grand experiment works this time.  Social scientists have
>come up with the theory that Americans are awful stupid.  This next election will
>be a good test of the theory.

Americans have come up with the theory that Social Scientists are
awful stupid.  They have been testing this hypothesis by ignoring
their prattling nonsense and making their own decisions in the
polling booth.

This next election will be a good test of their theory.
 
---
Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41024 sci.econ:6994
From: maxwell@fnalb.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Please fill the jar....  Drug testing is a two way street
Organization: What does *this* button do!?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:35:27 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalb.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug14.161300.3476@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

> 	Carry your own specimen jars with you, and if asked to fill something
> during the interviewing process, bring out your jars and say
> 
> 	"Have the president/CEO/my potential boss/etc fill these, then we can
> exchange samples."
> 
> 	It might be interesting to videotape the proceedings for "America's
> funniest home videos."
> 
>         Those doing the insisting usually don't want to submit to one
> themself....
> 

I've always thought that pissing on the interviewer's desk would be good for
some laughs...might be kinda difficult to get over the "stage fright" tho'.

Nearly as good: dump your specimen on the interviewer's desk [hint to the
net.stupid: use a local drug warrior's name on your application...]

:-).max

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.224120.4058@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>
>>Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>>is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>>precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
>>rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
>>fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
>>assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
>>human being.
>
>But should a woman give up her life for the fetus's, given your
>assumptions?  After all, it's alive.  Take this to the logical
>extreme.  Given that a woman's rights are "subservient to the right to
>life of the fetus", shouldn't we strap the woman down for the term of
>the pregnancy and anesthetize her, so there would be no danger of the
>fetus coming into contact with hazardous substances or various other
>accidents?  She'll be free to go after giving birth.  After all, the
>woman is the carrying case for the fetus, and no more than that.

Is this the "I have the right to have sex but I don't have the
responsibility for the consequences" argument?  Rights entail duties,
you have a right to your life and I have a duty not to take it and
vice versa.   Of course, one can argue that the fetus is not alive...

I like your example taken to the extreme but we see signs of this
today in our big'ol government which controlling our lives by telling
us what is and what isn't safe to do (breast implants, FAA regulations,
planning your own retirement, the list goes on).  People are to be 
trusted until they have broken that trust, the only alternative is
a form of slavery which you so aptly pointed out.  I understand the
pro-life argument that claims exactly this but I think it a puny
point when considering some innocent life is at stake.

Steady as she goes...

Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
I don't know why but I like sparring with Ms Levy!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:49:52 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.185536.16628@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>
>> PS : I'm solidly ensconced in set [1].
>
>Just curious, but why are you telling us this?  

To make it clear that Clayton does not represent the heterosexual community.

>Who asked?  Who cares?

I do, obviously ...

I take it this is the only thing you could find to attack in my whole post ?

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 14 Aug 1992 06:22:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: You wouldn't know.

In article <Aug.13.17.27.41.1992.7501@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <l8l7diINNfvb@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
>
>> I guess it all depends on how "connected" you think that Floyd Brown
>> is to the Bush campaign.......
>
>I have never met Floyd Brown, but I am acquainted with Brent Bozell
>(who has worked together with Brown on occasion on certain projects).
>I can tell you for a fact that, since they have put together
>independent pieces promoting certain political candidates, they are
>PROHIBITED BY LAW from having ANY contact with either the candidate
>himself or with his official campaign whenever they happen to be
>independently promoting said candidate.

Prohibited by law?  That'll really stop them, for sure -- just like it
ensured that not one American took a single drink of alcohol in any form
between 1921 and 1933...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:13:46 GMT

In article <1684514E2B.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>     Reread your Constitution.  Not once during the process is "the
>majority" given the opportunity to make a binding decision on the subject.
>They may scream at their legislators, and even vote them out in favor of
>ones they like better, but it is still them, and not the people, who make
>the decision.  The United States is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy.
>

When I wrote this I knew someone would take your position.  I stated
several times that this was a Democratic Republic.  It can be very
tiresome over email to delineate every possible way a situation can be
construed.  I said majority for a good reason.  People are elected to
office by a majority.  So even though the majority don't technically
vote themselves their representatives vote for them.  This is clearly a
form of majority rule though, of course, I agree with you that it is not
technically a majority.

Tim


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41209 sci.econ:7041
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.clinton
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 14:25:33 GMT

In article <26683@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.033505.7800@muddcs.claremont.edu>, sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu (007) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>> It probably has more to do with how fewer people carry semi-automatic rifles
>> around with them.  And those that do, will rarely need to use them.  (Would
>> YOU threaten someone carrying an M-16 over his shoulder?  I sure wouldn't!
>> "Hey man!  Gimee yer wallet!"  <Bang> )
>   Threaten him/her? No! I'd kill 'em first, then take the wallet.
>I.e.: <bang>  "Hey man! Thanx fer yer wallet! A-and I doan think
>you'll be needin' th' M-16 either!"
   Gee, then this must happen all the time in Israel.  People there walk the
streets with fully automatic Uzi submachineguns (not semi-autos we can get here
in the states) as a common everyday occurance.
  Oh, this doesn't happen?  There is a very low crime rate there as well?
What do you mean they don't strictly regulate handgun ownership over there?!?
All those guns and people aren't dropping dead from accidental shootings?

>> For a group who espouse personal liberties so much of the time, the democratic
>> party never has seen fit to extend this to gun ownership.  Americans love to
>> hunt.  Americans love to target shoot.  We invented sharpshooting, and we're
>> never going to give it up.
>I'm not asking you to give up your gun; just a little license &
>registration...
   This is how it started in New Jersery, California and Chicago.
>>   -- 007
>> (a democrat with a gun)
>					- Lee Campbell


-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:59:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.145435.6731@oakhill.sps.mot.com>,
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.093816.26183@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.231739.19261@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>>I still consider myself to be the only rational choice for people
>>>who are both pro-choice and fiscally sane.
>>
>>       How do you define "fiscally sane"? And in what way is Barbara
>>Boxer a "big spender"?
>
>Boxer was rated the House's biggest spender by the National Taxpayer's
>Union. They rated all the Congressmen and Senators on their spending
>votes and proposed legislation in the last term.
>
>She proposed or voted on over $400 billion dollars in new spending
>or new programs.  At the same time, her votes to reduce programs and
>spending amounted to only $10 billion.

Lets try to keep the record straight here.  NTU has done various
ratings in the past on how people vote in congress.  They have used
thees to hand out ratings of taxpayer friend or foe.  More resently
they have come up with something called the Congressional Budget
Tracking System which logs all proposed legislation.  Barabra Boxer
proposed, that is she either sponsored or co-sponsored, a net of
about 405 billion in new spending.  This was actually about 406
billion in new spending and 1 billion in cuts.

>Sounds like you should vote for June Genis then, shouldn't you?
>( I'm sure Bruce H. will likewise be in favor of slimming the USPS.)

Thanks for the plug, Pat.  BTW, one of the things I'm also proposing
is that each individual piece of legislation be fically balanced.
That is, I would like to make it socially unacceptable for any
congress-critter to propose a bill which incluided new spending
without also including what they propose to cut or what taxes they
want to raise so that the net fiscal impact is at most zero.

>Pat

/JUne
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39689 ca.politics:6777 ba.politics:4504
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>Get real, read your history.
>
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>

Sorry- I will run out and get my national enquirer right now
so as to be uptodate on all of the history of humankind.

Do you suppose it was a bunch of gay italians and japanese
that started all the trouble from their end?

That is probably next weeks nat. enq. headlines...

And other headlines---

Wife beaters are closet homosexuals.
Child abusers/molesters are closet homosexuals.
Gandhi murdered by underground Indian homosexual group.

Well just thought I would join in to the intelligence level
of this discussion.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Aug16.221932.1772@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<1992Aug17.212614.13366@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:15:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

   But one question I pose to you is this: When can you say a "fertilized
   ovum" becomes human?  At what point can you say this person becomes human?

Perhaps it is a gradual process?
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:28:38 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
#|> Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
#|> >
#|> >> It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos like Mary
#|> >> Matalin protest the New York Post article on George's alleged affair
#|> >> with a staff aide.  I wonder why the same indignation was not present
#|> >> when the Clinton allegations surfaced.
#|> >
#|> >Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
#|> >from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,
#|> 
#So the fact that he died, makes his earlier statements unreliable?

No, it makes his statements more difficult to confirm and verify. It
makes it more difficult to ask him more specifically about his role
and what he knew. And it makes it more difficult for a committee of
Congressmen to convene a session discussing whether George had been a
philanderer. :) (In essence, the Bill Casey problem.)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Flat Tax: Net vs Gross Income
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:31:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Aug.12.12.16.42.1992.5138@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>   I'm not sure this follows.  Jobs which have high up front 
>>   expenses typically also have either high pay (e.g., doctors) or
>>   at least potentially high r.o.i. (e.g., IC's, software, pharm-
>>   aceuticals). 
>
>Salesmen/women often have high travel expenses which are reimbursed by
>the company.  A flat tax on gross income would clearly be a
>disincentive to people in this line of work.  I'm sure that with a
>little thought, we can come up with some other examples where people
>with high expenses don't necessarily have high incomes.
  
  I would think the current graduated tax would be *more* of disincentive
  since under the current scheme the employee is artificially pushed into
  a higher bracket if he is paid more salary with the expectation that
  he's expected to pay for his own traveling and related expenses.  
                     
  In any case the company can pay for these things directly, say through
  a company credit card, or by providing a company car, so that it's not 
  income for the employee.   Also reimbursements for business expenses are
  not currently counted as income.   If I go to a trade show and pay for 
  the hotel on my personal credit card, and then fill out an expense re-
  port when I get back, and HP reimburses me, I don't have to declare the
  reimbursement as income.  

---peter
  
  

  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: BUSH: Acceptance speech text
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:52:48 CDT


>          Text of President Bush's Acceptance Speech
[...]
>     Let me tell you about a recent battle I fought with Congress.
> This spring, I worked day and night to get two-thirds of its members
> to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

What a joke.  Bush proposed a budget for FY 1993 with a $399 Billion 
deficit.

If Bush really believed in a balanced budget, he'd propose one.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc