HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Not Voting & proud of it?  Ronzone the clueless.
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:34:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <f0dnz!q.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.054342.17605@wolves.uucp> wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:
>    >If you are so proudly a non-participant in the process, you
>    >have no right to criticise the process. Even if you have a
>    >philosophical opposition to the way that the system is set up
>    >and run, if you fail to work within the system for its
>    >reform, you have no right to criticize it.
>    >
>    >You've proved that you don't really think about what you are
>    >saying several times over, this is just proof of it. -- G.
>
>Let's hit this again.
>
>So, I don't like the (now ex) USSR? I have to joing the USSR Communist Party
>and become an apparatichik to change the system? Yeah, right.
>
>I don't like Hitler, so in the 1930's I wouyld have had to become a NAZI
>to make changes? Yeah, right.
>
>Or maybe I don't like seeing students massacred, so I have to the join
>the cadres of the PRC? Uh-huh, sure baby.
>
>Or even better, I don't want tobe a rapist (non-participant in the process)
>so I can't criticize rapists (no right to criticise the process)? Tell
>me more.

It may be best you don't vote bud....fanaticism is what IMHO
has gotten us to this point...that coupled with apathy as
demonstrated by you.
>
>
>
>Kind of co-opted and unhappy about it, eh? Don't worry, many people are angry
>upon beginning to see their participation in an inherently immoral

First Phil......you have to get your terms straight. "Moral"
is best applied to a personal action committed by a human
being. "Ethical" is best applied to a process .. set up and
structured by human beings. We are talking about voting...the
process, therefore it may be "unethical" but in terms of
marallity, which is completely subjective and non-applicable
from one person to the next, it is neither moral nor immoral.
>process.
>
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
>"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
>"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
I keep trying to tell you noone is interested!

Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions...not my employer's.


--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:47:15 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Bu24no.Lp9@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>You deleted my citation on PR work (where a woman stands to lose $1
>>million on gender).  Surely men and women working in this one industry
>>would have comparable salaries.
>
>  Why "surely"?  Again, if they are doing different work, have 
>  different experience, or different training then there's no 
>  basis for comparison.

My impression was that a statement like, "over a 40-year career" would
include such things as experience, etc.  In any case, I'll look up
Faludi's original sources when I get back on campus next week.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:57:49 GMT

In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>I'm sure of my sexuality -- but I would prefer that adults leave
>children alone about theirs.  Unfortunately, there is a loud and
>vicious faction of the homosexual community that keeps asserting that
>pedophilia is not child molestation, and that adults having sex
>with prepubescent children isn't necessarily wrong.

There is a loud and vicious faction of the straight communitee which
commits violent terrorist acts against GBL's. 

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44970 ca.politics:7664 ba.politics:5216
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:21:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep10.204740.11450@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #All the liberals on the national scene today want to raise taxes.
# 
# Please define "all" and "liberals".
# 
# Or refrain from such mind-bogglingly senile statements.
# 
# -- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411

Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Cranston.

In fact, I doubt you can name a single prominent Democrat who opposes
tax increases, now that Sen. Proxmire has retired.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43952 talk.politics.mideast:19666 misc.headlines:6228
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:15:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep6.041521.6448
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Sep04.181321.2461616@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.035918.13993@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:

>>Neither is stolen territory.  Israel reclaimed it in a purely defensive
>>war.  And Israel was not the agressor in '48, either.

>First, you rob my house, I go to reclaim it from you, you are stronger,

Bought, John, bought.  Land was *bought* from Arabs landlords.
According to the Peel Commision report, from 1933-35, Jews paid
4,202,180 British pounds to Arab landowners for purchases of land.

>you take my car in addition. Does that make you defensive?

Yes, defending land that people bought is a defensive war.  Jews were
a majority in land allocated them in the UN partition.

>Besides, israel came to forcefull existence on May, 15 '48.  Before
>that the term israel was only biblical pointing to an extinct tribe.

No, John, you racist pig, Jews have, despite your wishes, never become
extinct.  Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years.  Extinct
means the dodo bird, the passenger pigeon, etc.  You cant find any
living species.  There have been Jews around for thousands tof years.
We're not extinct, and we're not about to become extinct.

Adam




Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:02:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep15.190206.24922
Organization: insert anything here

In article <dvxncwq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>I am against any so-called "rights" which are really coercive interference
>into the right of Freedom Of Association.

	There is no such thing as "freedom of association".

	The closest thing that comes to it is "freedom of
privacy".  That's something that everyone has, unless you happen
to be someone in Georgia giving a blowjob to someone else in your
own home, in which case, the Supreme Court says that you don't 
have any privacy rights.

	When people say "freedom of association" they usually
mean "freedom to arbitrarily discriminate".

	Your freedom of association ends at your jurisdiction.
Despite what some religious cults what to believe, that is about
the limit of your house and the off swtiched of your radio, TV< etc.

BBC
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yes to line item veto
Date: 10 Sep 1992 21:29:10 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Bri Farenell) writes:
|> I think that Bush made one (or two) good points in his acceptance speech.
|> 
|> The one I agree with most is about the line item veto. It has been proved
|> that the Prez and Congress can not work together on a budget efficiently
|> (is government efficiency an oxymoron). It's about time that the prez
|> has the power to slice out pork programs that only one or a few Congressmen
|> want. If something important enough to enough Congressmen, they will vote
|> to override that line item veto.
|> 
|> It couldn't be any worse than it is now.

It's all a matter of opinion.  In the last budget, Bush could have lined out
all of the social programs and kept all of the military programs.  Since his
party controls >1/3 of congress, you would move effective control of 
government to the president.  The president sets the agenda, allocates the
money, and controls the expenses.

Not exactly my idea of checks and balances.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 13298@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <lbcajlINNf7c@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> 
> > Theodore A. Kaldis:
> 
> >> The last time we had a veritable scumbag as President was when LBJ
> >> held that office -- and he (and his legacy) has very nearly destroyed
> >> this country.
> 
> > So, I suppose that you consider Nixon to be an honorable man?
> 
> Hardly honorable, but (as far as I'm concerned) not nearly as bad as
> LBJ (though, in my estimation, not good either).

Spoken like a true Republican.  Never mind that he trashed the Constitution.

> 
> > Please!!  Give me a break!  Nixon was *THE* most dispicable [sic]
> > person ever to hold the office of President.
> 
> No, that dubious honor should rightly go to LBJ (though clearly the
> point is arguable).

Yes, I bring up the point: did LBJ have to resign from office before
he was impeached?  I don't think there's much to argue here.  Nixon was
by *FAR* the worst President we have ever had.

> 
> > Also, be so kind as to document how LBJ "nearly destroyed this
> > country."
> 
> Ever hear of "The Great Society"?  Ever hear of "entitlement
> programs"?  It is these programs which are responsible for a good
> portion of the national debt and the deficit.

Gee, when LBJ left office we had a budget surplus.  Could it have
been the mismanagement of the budget over the next 24 years
(20 of them held by Republican Presidents).  But then, I suppose
that you'd blame the LA riots on Johnson (geez, even the Bush 
administration couldn't get anyone to buy that crap).

Question:  Who was the last President to submit a balanced budget?

Question #2:  What is the *closest* that Reagan/Bush has ever come
to submitting a balanced budget?

If you look beyond the Republican rethoric on the budget, you will
find that their record speaks for itself, and it isn't very pretty!

> 
> >> The last thing we need now is Bill Clinton to finish the job.
> 
> > You'd rather have four more years just like the past four years?
> 
> I'd rather have 4 more years of Reagan-era prosperity,

Sorry, that credit card has been maxed out!


> but I'll gladly
> put up with 4 more years of Bush than with what Clinton will have to
> dish up.  

I don't think that Clinton can do a worse job than Bush.  I think that
even Carter did a better job than Bush has done!  Your mileage may vary.

> How do you suppose he's going to be able to pay for all the
> promises he's making other than by greatly increasing the already
> onerous tax burden imposed upon the American public?

Yeah, you're right.  Based on Bush's record of SPENDING at a rate of
five times the rate of Reagan and three times the rate of Carter, he's
much better for the job.  :^D


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Real estate decline
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:19:54 CDT


In article <1992Sep11.155235.12359@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.150150.4035@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> >In article <BuCHED.En6@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> >> 
> >> Both wrong, gentlemen; the S&L crisis was caused by changes in the tax
> >> lasw relating to real estate development. Congress did it. Fraud accounted
> >> for less than 1 percent, even by the MAXIMUM estimates. 
> >
> >	Yeah, but what did those tax changes result in?  Real estate
> >speculation was no longer economically viable.  All those empty buildings could
> >no longer be used as "junk equity".
> >
> You've missed the point.  As an example for you, try this during the 
> winter months:
> 
> a.  Buy bird seed and begin feeding birds when the snow has covered 
>     the ground and is likely to for the next several months (if you
>     get any snow there).
> 
> b.  Continue to feed them for at least 2 months.
> 
> c.  Suddenly, and without warning, stop putting bird seed out for
>     the birds to eat.
> 
> Obviously this is going to cause havoc in the bird world and you may
> see some savage behavior on their behalf.  This is exactly what we
> are talking about in the S&L crisis.  In this case the bird seed is
> the tax deduction and the birds and the citizens of this country who
> invested.  Congress, in a fit of Wealth-Envy, cut off the bird seed
> and starved the S&Ls.

Don't forget that the 1986 tax reform was Reagan's idea (acually Don Regan
in the Treasury), passed by a Republican controlled Senate, a Democrat
controlled House, and signed by Reagan.

> So now those buildings are no longer junk equity, they are merely junk.
> Are you happy?

No.  The Reagan legacy, to put it mildly, sucks.

-- 
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
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 14:49:46 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.190347.17207@tamsun.tamu.edu> me@aeroj.tamu.edu (My Account) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.104248.3910@desire.wright.edu>  
>>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep3.154025.27348@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu  
>>(James L. Heilman) writes:
>@ > Yesterday, George "Santa Claus" Bush announced wheat
>@ > export subsidies in South Dakota, relief for cotton
>@ > farmers in west Texas, and the sale of F16 fighters
>@ > to Taiwan in Fort Worth.  Things must be getting
>@ > desperate for the man who promised to do anything
>@ > to get re-elected if he's handing out goodies in 
>@ > South Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a 
>@ > democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and
>@ > selling planes to the enemies of his bosom buddies,
>@ > the butchers of Tianeman Square.

>	One big geographical boo-boo here: Taiwan is not Mainland
>(Communist) China, no matter how accurate your characterization of the
>reliationship between Bush and Mainland China's rulers are.

Where is the boo-boo? In the paragraph quoted above Taiwan is not called 
"the butchers of Tianeman square" but rather the enemies of these. This is
the second poster who cannot read (simple) English text.

Does anyone on the net have a good reference for English grammar and
the English language for the netters?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44973 ca.politics:7667 ba.politics:5219 soc.motss:38869 ba.motss:1587
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: 11 Sep 92 16:31:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <v=vn+#m.rich@netcom.com>, rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
> In article <12211@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #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.
# 
# You're absolutely right, this is a grave danger.  Why, look what
# happened in the sixties.  The negro fascist lobby used the government's
# power to force people to hire and rent to negroes against their will,
# and look where it's taken us.  People treat them as though they were
# human!  Boy, Clayton, I wish you had been around then.  You could have
# helped us prevent special rights for negroes.
# 
# --Rich, who can no longer contain his disgust

There is a difference, of course.  There aren't large numbers of
blacks trying to justify child molestation.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45731 ca.politics:7863 ba.politics:5383
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:44:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

Another homosexual admits that adults who like to have sex 
with kids is a "sexual orientation," and why they should be
protected when they go to apply for employment in a day care
center:

In article <1992Sep12.023800.1765@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes:
> Better yet, why not restrict "discrimination" to actual antisocial acts?  
> Gay sex is not antisocial, since it is consensual and doesn't affect  
> anyone but the parties involved. I don't want to get into an argument on  
> bestiality, but I know several bestialists who engage in consensual  
> interspecies sex that is, again, not antisocial. Pedophiles, as we all  
> know, are a matter of some contention, but surely a pedophile who does not  
                             ^^^^^^^^^^
Yup.  Mr. Berno is admitting that the homosexual community is a
little unsure of the correct response.

> engage in sex with minors is not antisocial; it is actions, not desires,  
> which count.
> 
> -Anthony Berno

So don't let that NAMBLA T-shirt stop you from hiring the wearer
to watch your 5 year old son.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
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 01:05:09 GMT

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?
>

Both are bad...the difference is that some musicians still are
interested in artistic freedom whereas Hollywood is interested 
only in money and not in art, so they don't really mind censorship,
and impose it on themselves.

What's ironic is that noone had much problem with Arnie, the member
of the Republican Administration, mowing down cops by the dozen in
T2, while they have a problem with Ice-T!

What's ironic is what gets censored by Hollywood is anything with
a sexual theme, but violence, almost no matter how extremseemed
to be just fine with everyone!

The proper non-censorship system is to get rid of any labelling
systems, and those people who are truly concerned should set up
reviewing systems where people worried about content can subscribe
to, to get reviews.  It also makes more sense...because they you
can get a "rating" from someone whose values you share or have
checked out, rather than some anonymous industry or government
reviewer who for all you know could be an "agent of Satan".

Gerald

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: "liberal bias"? (Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:49:23 CDT


In jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

> I still maintain that no honest person can objectively watch or read the
> majority of the news and *not* see a liberal bias. 

What is the definitian of "liberal bias"?  It seems to me that any story
left of the "700 Club" is used as examples.

What about a show like "David Brinkley" as an example of "conservative bias"?
They have accoplished conservative columnist George Will to provide the 
conservative view, but who do they have to support the liberal view?  They
have Sam Donaldson, who is at best a second rate reporter.  Then again, I
woubt that the shows sponsors, GE and ADM, would pay for a real debate (but
they will pay for a stacked debate).

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45598 ca.politics:7817 ba.politics:5342 soc.motss:39107 ba.motss:1633