HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
XXXDate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:26:51 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A732B43B20010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:33:48 GMT

In article <19NOV199221305485@vxcrna.cern.ch> CASPER, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
writes:
>>Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
>>higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
>>fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
>>rate is HIGHER than ours.
>
>
>Just thought I'd point out a few missing facts about the Switzerland claim.
>It is slightly misleading as stated.
>
>First, Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world.  Hence the
>motive for violent crime is rather less than in, say, South Central.

That is exactly the point, if gun ownership was all it took to create violent
criminal, then Switzerland should have thousands of murders a week. They
don't, therefore the argument that widespread ownership is not the only factor
in our country.

>Second, all those weapons are "owned" by people in the army or reserves (part
>of the "wellregulated militia" which the Bill of Rights mentions, but which
>gun control opponents always seem to ignore).

The Bill of rights mentions that on one hand and private gun ownership on the
other. Read the AntiFederalist papers. The original wordings from some
of the states made it clear that personal protection as well as the defense
of the country was on the minds of the folks who drafted the Bill of Rights.

In other words the right to keep and bear arms is a means to a militia, but
it is not the only reason that private ownership must not be infringed.

>If you use your military issue weapon to commit a crime in Switzerland, they
>courtmartial you (i.e. in a military court) and then execute you by a firing
>squad when found guilty.

I like this idea a lot!

Problem is that in some parts of our screwed up country they have declared 
it illegal to defend yourself in your own home with a weapon! So does that 
mean if you come home and find some thugs raping your wife and daughter
and you shoot them that you have to be put in front of a firing squad?

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61023 ba.politics:7281 ca.politics:9730
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:38:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov19.051112.18314@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13240@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Those laws are already there, and therefore impossible to stop.
# 
# You have posted hundreds of articles against anti-discrimination laws
# against homosexual rights. Last year there was debate about
# anti-discrimination laws for the handicapped. I did not see a single
# post of yours against those laws.

You missed such postings, then.  I have also recently posted about
the absurdity of a deaf person taking orders in a fast-food restaurant,
as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60447 alt.politics.elections:23953 alt.rush-limbaugh:9823 talk.rumors:1314 alt.activism:18885
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:29:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

Excuse me for asking, but I just subscribed to this newsgroup.  What
is the charter for this.  After several days of reading, it seems
apparent that the correct title should be talk.thomas_hill.  Maybe this
is just the only thread now occurring.  Anyway, if no one has any
"scoop", I think I'll just unsubscribe.  I'll give it a couple more
days though.
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ""Gay rights group files complaint""
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:54:56 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.

In article <13305@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
=Then why is it that I have no problem finding recent scholarly
=works on the subject of child sexual abuse that recognize that
=adult homosexuality is sometimes a response to child sexual
=abuse?
  Define 'scholarly'.
  Explain the following... You claim to be concerned about child
abuse.  You keep trying to prove that a majority of homosexuals
are so due to child abuse.  If that is true then they are the 
victims of the crime that you wish to prevent.  Why do you show
no concern for those you view as victims?

=Isn't it amazing that we as a society are concerned about 
=exposure to violence imprinting values and attitudes on children,
=but somehow, the same thing doesn't happen with sexuality?
  It is obvious to me that you're views about sexuality are the
result of imprinting that you recieved as a child.  What you
want to do is ensure that those values aren't changed.


=Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!


-- 

		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Fri Nov 20 15:54:52 WET 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61215 misc.legal:20264
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Term Limits & "Encumbant Ballot Access Limits"
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:07:17 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov19.045644.10843@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, 
n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) said:

> > If you think that the current system is riddled with abuses, the
> > proper solution is to put forth, and support, proposals which
> > reduce or eliminate those abuses.<*> Term limits don't do that;
> > all they do is take away from the voters the right to cast a valid
> > vote for the candidate of their choice.  That isn't democracy.
> > [wdstarr]
>
> Then both of you guys will like Washington State's new "Term
> Limits", which are actualy just ballot access limits.
>
> There are no term limits.  You may serve as many times as you
> want...  ...but, you have to run as a write-in.  If you are a real
> good bozo, then the voters do have a right to keep sending you back
> year after year as a write-in.

Sorry, but I'm an inveterate enemy of ballot-access restrictions.  Or,
more accurately, I'm an inveterate enemy of _unequal_ ballot-access
restrictions.  The state has absolutely no business giving some
candidates the advantage of having their names printed on the ballot
while other have to labor under the handicap of write-in-only status.
It just plain isn't fair.

(In case anyone's wondering, my proposed "fair" solution is to flush
_all_ candidate's names from the ballot and have everyone run as
write-ins.  It would take longer to run the voting process -- ballots
might have to be open for several days, which wouldn't necessarily be
a bad thing -- and to tabulate the votes, but it would create a much
more level playing field.)

> I don't think this can be struck down.  A state may not add new
> requirements to become a US legislator, _but_, any state is free to
> set its own ballot access rules with whatever arbitrary and
> near-impossible requirements they see fit.  This new ballot access
> law is just another such requirement.

Yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court recently upheld a Hawaiian
ballot-access law that allowed the state to simply disallow write-in
votes and count only those votes which were cast for candidates whose
names were printed on the ballot.  I think that that decision was
simply wrong.  (Wouldn't be the first time.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61276 sci.econ:8801
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:34:31 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov21.050749.28105@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.180536.5664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	(1982-1990)
>>> Can you say, "selection bias"??
>>
>>	Sure I can say it, but it's not meaningful.  We're discussing
>>supply-side and Reaganomics.  Which were ineffect from 1982-1990.  Thus the
>>selection period.  Now if I wanted to talk Keynesian, I would pick a different
>>time frame.
> 
> Leaving aside that Reagan *was* Keynesian, I question your selection of

	Reagan was a Keynesian in the WWII era (about the same time he was a
Democrat).  When he stopped being Keynesian and starting being a neo-classic
isn't clear.  But certainly by 1980 he was firmly in the supply-side camp.

> dates.  Why does the period begin in 1982 instead of 1981?  If you're
> arguing that 1981 should be attributed to the residual effect of Carter,
> then why isn't 1991 attributed to the residual effect of Reagan-Bush?

	1982 is the inflection point for the economy.  Bush killed the
Reagan expansion in 1990 (the tax hike).  It had been wavering since the 1987
tax folly.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:20:06 GMT

In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#sodomy and
#oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
#protect the interests of the homosexual community.

Since the law is the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, how is
this (admittedly weird law) protecting the interests of homosexuals?

I may be confused about the details, since in Virginia, oral sex
qualifies as "sodomy", so it applies to both males and females.



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's health care plan
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:38:53
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU's message of 16 Nov 1992 21:23:17 -0600

In article <921116212020.2060b14b@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU> RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU writes:
-> 
-> Would someone please send me a copy of Clinton's health care plan/proposal?
-> I have seen it posted before but didn't save it.
-> 
-> Thanks!  
-> 
-> Stefan Radloff
-> University of Tulsa
-> rse32195@vax1.utulsa.edu

	Don't waste time reading it, since Clinton has already pretty
much said it isn't going to happen.  He has said that he is putting it
on hold while he works on reducing the cost of health care.  On hold
is the political word for dropped.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:53:59 GMT

9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

>In article <adams.720997951@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>
>>>To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
>>>of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
>>>is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
>>>present condition.
>>>
>>To say that society has a right to seize a significant portion of the 
>>lifetime gain of a man simply because he died is anti-investment and a 
>>disincentive to building capital and wealth.  It asks that the wealth be 
>>squandered instead of invested.

>Your soooo blind Steve! Where would the money go if spent (which is
>really the whole idea)? It would buy things, LOTS of things. This
>means lots of jobs, wether they be on Disney rides, hot dogs
>or several video recorders it still means LOTS of jobs, each of
>these gets income tax so the government WILL see more of it AND more
>people make money. Not to mention less people off the dole!
This spending will do nothing to fund new ventures or new businesses.
Spending capital picemeal is not investment.  In addition, you are setting
up a system where you ask people to spend all of their money before they
die, and will end up with many more people dependant on the govt for
support when the die 'too late.'

>The real problem is rich assholes inheriting millions instead of
>earning it. All they do is direct investment. I'd rather see indirect
>investment, a response to an increased market by many small shareholders,
>not one or two rich pricks.
Your 'outrage' over 'rich pricks' seems to be a clear case of jeallousy.

And, you seem to feel that the government has some ingrained right to
seize capital upon a person's death.  Nothing belongs to the government.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60431 alt.rush-limbaugh:9819 talk.rumors:1312 alt.activism:18879 alt.politics.elections:23944
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:19:56 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov14.002448.8072@unlv.edu> edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:

|>The around 68 cent figure is accurate But.... If you compare women
|>and men with equal jobs when get paid from 95-100% of what men do.
|>The lower figure comes from having more men in upper management.
|>And that isnt neccassarily a bias either. Women have only
|>been in some fields for a couple of years now, and in
|>many business it takes a long time to move up the latter. (hence
|>all the old guys at the top)

Even using the old biased test, the 68% number is no longer accurate.

I don't remember the new number but recently it was announced that the
average wage of women was now in the mid to upper 70's when compared
with the average wage of men.  All of this gain came during the 80's
when those evil republicans were supposedly trashing women and
minority opportunities.

-- 
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,soc.motss
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: POLL: Newsweek shows support for lifting gay miltary ban at 48%
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:56:58 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA23163; Mon, 23 Nov 92 13:57:07 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA10793; Mon, 23 Nov 92 13:57:04 -0800
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (vccsouth14.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB39);
	id AA09375; Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:57:02 EST for soc.motss.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: from  by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB16);
	id AB07643; Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:57:01 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Apparently-To: <soc.motss.usenet>
X-Apparently-To: <talk.politics.misc.usenet>

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy

To: drum@concert.net
cc: glbpoc@geri.ucs.dec.com
Subject: POLL: Newsweek shows support for lifting gay miltary ban at 48%
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:56:58 EST
From: Ron Buckmire <buckmr>


   WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed say
President-elect Clinton should delay his promise to lift
restrictions on gays in the military, Newsweek reported Saturday. 

   Support for the proposal to permit homosexuals in the armed
forces dropped from 59 percent in August to 48 percent currently,
said the magazine's Nov. 30 issue, which goes on sale Monday.  
   That's the first time since 1977 that support to end the ban on
homosexuals in the military has dropped below 50 percent, Newsweek
said.  
   More than half of those surveyed, 56 percent, did say gays
should be permitted to serve in a presidential cabinet. 
   The Gallup Organization interviewed 764 adults Nov. 19-20 for
the Newsweek poll, which has a sampling error of plus or minus four
percent.

- ---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. "D.C. in '93!"
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
 Chances that a US female having an abortion will describe herself as
a "born again" Christian :  1 in 6. --August 1992 HARPER'S INDEX

------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60624 alt.politics.homosexuality:7319 soc.veterans:1295
From: olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.veterans
Subject: Re: Compensation for Gays Ousted from Government Employ
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:45:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1ec06nINNmc0
Distribution: world
Organization: OSU Extension Service
NNTP-Posting-Host: reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A72EC48F6101A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:47:27 GMT

In article <16NOV199201375310@utarlg.uta.edu> General
Boycott, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu writes:
>I think anyone who has ever been ousted or outed from the
military 
>*or* other-branch-of-government for just being gay,
deserves monetary 
>compensation for pay loss.
>
>As to how much is appropriate, let's make it $1 million
dollars 
>each (likely consistent with similar damages being
awarded these
>days). Anyone care to `up' the figure? It's hardly
adequate considering
>the benefits lost, psychological impact, career blow, and
such. 
>

I am not taking a stand on whether gays should be in the
military. This is strictly a response to the above
statement. It flat out wouldn't work. To have joined the
military, gays would have had to lie on their application.
Doing so would negate any chance at compensation.

Monte Olsen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61483 ba.politics:7354 ca.politics:9831
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:59:33 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1ejtifINNks5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
> >In article <13278@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ##You missed such postings, then.  I have also recently posted about
# ##the absurdity of a deaf person taking orders in a fast-food restaurant,
# ##as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
# 
# So which paragraph and article of the Act says that someone has to hire a
# deaf person to take orders in a fast-food restaurant?

The part that says that all reasonable accommodations must be made
by an employer, including purchase of special equipment, to enable
a disabled person to be employed in any position for which they are
otherwise qualified.

# Anyway it shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge that you cannot use
# sign language.  What is wrong with you learning sign language?  You want to
# keep them out of the work force according to your own limitations.

What is wrong with requiring you to learn English, German, French,
Russian, Japanese, Mongolian, and Hindustani, so that an employer
doesn't impose YOUR limitations on hiring workers? :-)

# I think that a deaf person can perform many jobs in a fast-food restaurant
# quite well and probably better than you.

No question about it.  But taking orders isn't one of those jobs.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off...
Keywords: Please pass the word. In other words: X-post this message.
Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - Chicago Div.
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:06:08 GMT

In article <17NOV199215350428@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>{ Subj:  = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off... }
>
>Skip work or school. Take a sick day. Take part of the day off.
>Cut out early. Take a long lunch. Come in late ...whatever works for ya.

No, don't do any of this.  Go about your  business as usual, save your
money and don't give  it  to the producers  of this hyped-up movie. If
you're going to  make a movie  about someone why  leave  out  most all
negative aspects of the person?

>Any of the following reasons will do:
>
[list deleted]

>10. To worry the Government. 

Now *that* is a good reason!!!
					reb
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: read the book (Malcolm X).
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:22:47 GMT


 the movie is grand and wonderful.
 but read the book. 
 read alex haley's autobiography
 of malcolm x.

 it's a great book,
 he was a great man.

 read the book.

 mark.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:30:48 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.

In article <87312@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 18392@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.080701.15087@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
>>>earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?

>>Because, of course, she isn't.

>>Hill's conservativism was a convenient lie at the time of the Thomas
>>hearings.  Now that it is no longer necessary it is being dropped.

>What evidence do you have that this was a lie?  

Her own statements.  The people who are pushing her for head of EEOC
are also aware that this is a lie.  Why don't you ask them?  Do you
really think that they would be pushing her if she was a conservative
Republican?  (Of course you may just think that they are ignorant
idiots, but if so why don't you come out and say so?)

>Why do you say that it is
>now "being dropped"? 

Because people are now pushing her for a position in the Clinton
Administration.  This would be pretty stupid unless the general
consensus was that it was no longer necessary to lie about her beliefs.

>Who is dropping it?

The people who are pushing her for an administration post.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc