HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:36:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Jul18.034458.520@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> In article <1992Jul17.224648.15709@mdd.comm.mot.com> mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) writes:
> >in alt.censorship, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) said:
> >
> >>[... regarding the SC recent decision holding a St.Paul "Hate Crime"
> >> ordinance unconstitutional in a case involving a cross burning  ...]
> >>
> >>It certainly encourages assaults on my black neighbors, my gay
> >>neighbors, my feminist neighbors, etc., for it removes a much-needed
> >>legal protection.
> >>
> >
> >Exactly the opposite, actually.  Particularly with regard to your
> 
> Scalia was feigning concern for gay people and his reference to union
> members was especially offensive in view of the way this court treats
> working people.  It was merely convenient to Scalia that the ordnance
> did not mention these groups.  Had it done so, he would still have
> opposed the law because he's a racist and a sexist concerned lest
> groups other than white men gain enough power to pass laws.  But because
> this conviction is of course unexpressible in polite company, he would
> have still maintained that the behavior banned by the St. Paul law was
> an expression of an opinion and therefore deserving of protection.  

And you're feigning concern for freedom of expression and the law.  You've 
given abundant proof that you don't give a damn for either.  What you REALLY
hate is consistent, rational legal interpretation.  The most ASSININE, anti-
rational laws are ok, so long as they have the effect you want.  Any law which
could EVER give a result you don't like, is anathema to you.  In short LAW as
it's known in western civilization is ANATHEMA to you.

> I am aware, because I've read the passages where Scalia focused so
> disingenuously on the law's blind spots, that it does not address 
> attacks on gays.  But the law makes it far less likely that communities
> will pass laws against bashing gays, and this is the removal of
> much-needed legal protection.  Scalia's hypocrisy is therefore
> nauseating, as nauseating as Clarence Thomas' claiming before the Senate
> Judiciary Committee that he was being "lynched."  The fact that even
> conservative SC justices like Scalia feel the need to feign "political
> correctness" merely demonstrates how wrong they are.

Brown v. Board of Education ALSO focused on the "blind spots" in Jim Crow.  Is
it "disengenous" also?   You have no need to feign PC, since you are a forth-
right enemy of normal jurisprudence and the rule of law.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:31:37 GMT

In article <lzfmyk.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>Others like me consider homosexuality to be immoral, illegal and 
>disgusting. I believe the majority of Americans agree with me.

I wouldn't be so sure.  I think a mild majority of Americans in recent
polls have indicated a belief that legal discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation should not exist.  No, I do not have references
handy, but even if this is true, Bush's un-overridable veto makes
corrective legislation nearly impossible to pass.  

I'm sure you think this a good thing.  I don't.  Fine.  We'll settle
it at the polls.  (Actually, my vote is nearly irrelevant, since
Hawai'i is just about guaranteed to go to Clinton anyway...)

--John

-- 
John Flanagan                          ||
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           ||"Don't worry, honey, 
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| our skirts are clean."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Clinton Economic Plan (was Re: Clinton and Taxes)
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:47:07 GMT



There are some things about this plan that really bug me.  These are a
few:

During his campaign and in his acceptance speech, he kept saying that
he would "ask the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes".  "Ask".  As
if he would give them a choice.  I guess that was just for public
consumption, because in his plan he replaced "ask" with the words "force",
"require", and "make" instead.

And what exact level is "fair"?  And "fair" to whom?  Nowhere does he mention
what that is.


As to education, he says:

# We will give every parent the right to choose
# the public school his or her child attends, as we have done in
# Arkansas.

Note the term "public school".  Anyone doubt that he is in the NEA's hip
pocket?


I find his health care plan not just stupid, but even frightening:

#     2. Universal coverage. Affordable, quality health care will
# be a right, not a privilege. ...
# ...Every American not covered by
# an employer will receive the core benefits package set by the
# health standards board.

Receive from whom?  And who's going to pay for those benefits?  Everyone?
If so, then he is saying that a human right is something that must be
bought.  Only the "rich"?  If so, then he is basing this "right", not on
being human, but on the contents of a bank account (or the lack of one).

#     5. ...
# Any insurance company that wants to do
# business will have to take all comers and charge every business
# in a community the same rate. No company will be able to deny
# coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions.

Since the biggest contributor to the collapsing S&Ls was the FSLIC
charging the same rate to all S&Ls regardless of their risk, it sounds
to me like under Clinton's plan, government would do to the health care
industry what it did to the S&L industry.

#     6. ...
# Everyone will carry
# "smart cards" coded with his or her personal medical information.

This smacks of some fascist requiring that everyone carry with them
their identity papers.

#     8. Equal costs. All businesses, regardless of size, will pay
# a set amount per person they employ. This system, known as
# "community rating," will protect small businesses and spread the
# risk evenly among all companies.

So, a Mom&Pop book store would be forced to pay the same health insurance
rate as a MegaCorp chemical plant that generates toxic wastes.  This is
fair?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Against Our Will
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:33:05 GMT

In article <11400@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <14nhu1INN238@agate.berkeley.edu>, jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>Then again, no one is running around, trying to get laws passed to
>FORCE us to eat lima beans.  I supported the repeal of California's
>sodomy law.  I argued vigorously for repeal of such laws elsewhere.
>I remember a particularly memorable discussion with my father-in-law
>about 1981 on this subject, in which he argued that any political
>party that made an issue of gay rights was doomed to failure, and
>I failed to understand his anger against homosexuals.

No, no one is trying to force you to eat lima beans, we're just trying
to force you to respect the rights of lima beans eaters.  If you
showed the same bigotry towards lima beans eaters as you do towards
lesbigay people, you'd be laughed off the map.

>1. Homosexuals are no longer an "oppressed minority" (at least in
>California) -- most of them are aggressively pursuing a campaign to
>force the rest of us to associate with them against our will.

You're wrong here, Clayton.  A poll right after Wilson vetoed AB101
suggests that something like 2/3 of Californians think sexual
orientation should be treated the same way that race, religion, and
sex are (i.e., protected under anti-discrimination laws).

>4. Nor is this just in books and articles.  I have acquaintances
>who were molested as kids.  One guy I know who was molested by his
>Scoutmaster at 10 would consider me and Phil Ronzone to be flaming
>liberals.  What causes gay-bashing?  Is it perhaps angry victims, 
>all grown up, and too inarticulate to express their fury except
>by violence?  It doesn't make it right, because they are doubtless
>attacking homosexuals who haven't molested anyone, but it should
>not be surprising that gay-bashing is on the increase now in 
>areas where homosexuality hasn't been a crime for many years.

Most child molesters are heterosexual men. 

If gay bashing is an understandable response to being molested by gay
men, would bands of women who were molested as children by
heterosexual men attacking heterosexual men be equally understandable?

I seriously doubt that most gay bashers are victims of sexual abuse by
gay men.  More likely, they know that gay bashing is not taken very
seriously by a lot of people and so lesbigay people are easy targets.
The same mentality that enabled young white men in the South to beat
up and/or rape African Americans without much fear of getting caught.

>5. I have seen too much anecdotal evidence, and some poor quality
>statistical evidence, that homosexuality and child sexual and
>physical abuse are correlated.  It's not a big leap from, "molested
>as a child" to "confused sexuality."

Heaven only knows how so many women are molested as children but end
up heterosexual.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35134 soc.men:13532 soc.women:13903 misc.legal:14641
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:41:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul20.160917.12069@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.145034.2402@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
# #I mention the word, ace (the quotes transform use to mention.)  You're
# #going  to have to do better than this.  Posner's passage USES the word
# #with absolutely no indication of irony, let alone quotation marks,
# 
# The word also appears in most dictionaries, sans irony and quotation
# marks. Does this make the dictionaries racist?
# 
# The notion that Posner's use of the phrase makes him a racist is, perhaps,
# the stupidest single conclusion I have ever seen posted in misc.legal.
# That is saying something.
# 
# Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   

You are doing a good job of poking holes in Nilges' arguments.
But you should be aware that a "liberal", at least in California,
is Ed Nilges.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: First 20 Spy reasons not to vote for Bush
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:54:13 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <adams.712604286@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>
>>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Jul30.141043.13124@cc.gatech.edu>, barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>>>> 2.  The JFK Thing.
>>>	What JFK thing?
>>His name was in the phone book of a Lee Harvey Oswald associate.
>So what?  My Senators names and numbers are in my phone book, along with my
>Congressman's, the White House switchboard, etc.  What the $#(*$#) does
>that prove?  Nothing.  Repeat, Nothing.

YOU were the one on the grassy knoll?????

:-)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36383 alt.individualism:4709 alt.activism:13671
From: rpwhite@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (rpwhite)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Gayspace
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:09:45 GMT
Reply-To: rpwhite@cs.nps.navy.mil (rpwhite)
Followup-To: alt.religion.kibology,misc.test,alt.politics.kibo,alt.exploding.kibo
Organization: Monterey Bay Yacht Club, Monterey CA

John Dorrance writes:

>Moron. Why do you put spaces after !'s and ?'s but not .'s? That's very
>distracting.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, John. You should know better. HappyNet rules require that all
typesetting flames be crossposted to alt.religion.kibology where Great
Leader Kibo may be amused by them at his leisure.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Murphy Brown's revenge
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:51:13 GMT
Reply-To: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

CBS has just announced that this falls premiere of Murphy Brown will be 
a special 1 hour episode entitled "Revenge". The show will "definately"
mention Vice President Dan Quayle by name.

Nothin' like kicking off the fall campaign with some free prime-time 
publicity for the VP. What timing; the Republicans will also be
holding their Aug 17 convention in Houston right after the govt
publishes the July unemployment stats....
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Gayspace
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism,soc.motss
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:16:24 GMT

Michael S. Pettersen writes
> Carl Edman writes:
> > Just out of curiosity, you might be able to answer my question.
> > 
> > Consider a hypothetical city 35% of the population of which oppose abortion  
> > want to see it banned. Would you consider it proper and appropriate use of
> > the taxpayers funds of that city if it decided to build a monument to
> > Operation Rescue protests at a local abortion clinic ? 
> 
> John Stuart Mill had a word for the system you seem to prefer.  He called 
> it tyranny of the majority.  

Why do you think so ? I've been accused of many things on this net, but I think  
this one is a first. What I tried to object to was the use of government funds  
for political uses. I tried to make my point by making an example of this which  
I'm quite certain the original poster would disapprove of. 

Do _you_ approve of both uses of taxpayer money for political ends (both his  
real one, and my hypothetical one) or do you disapprove of both ? You can't  
have it both ways.

BTW, I also tried to object to the "if you don't like it here, move somewhere  
else !" attitude which the original poster expressed (in those words). It seems  
to me that that is much closer to Tyranny of the Majority than anything I  
suggested. Don't you think so too ?

> No segment of the population should force its will on any other part of 
> the population, no matter what the size of the respective groups.

No, absolutely not. So what is your point ?

	Carl Edman
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36102 soc.men:13740 soc.women:14137 alt.censorship:6315 misc.legal:14895
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:37:31 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul24.135134.19669@Princeton.EDU>, 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
> In article <1992Jul23.231308.11598@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM> 
> scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul19.211814.3023@Princeton.EDU> 
> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> >>     monsters-as OTHELLO THE BLACK MISCEGENATOR [emphasis mine],
> >>     Shylock the Jewish usurer... [quote from Posner's LAW AND
> >>     LITERATURE]
> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >[...]
> >
> >>                        Although nauseating little statements like "the
> >>black miscegenator" display the racism at the heart of law and
> >>economics, 
> >
> >Just curious:
> >
> >	Why is it that you do not also call Posner an anti-Semite?
> 
> Because here the locus of anti-Semitism is in Shakespeare and in the
> book from which Shakespeare derived The Merchant of Venice.  Shakespeare
> portrays Shylock as a comic villain and although the portrayal is deeper
> and more nuanced than other Elizabethan portrayals of Jews, owing to
> Shakespeare's genius, a comic villain is different in kind from the
> tragic hero that Othello is.
> 
> Posner's racism causes him to believe that dramatic artistry is needed
> in Act 1 of Othello to redeem Othello from being a "monstrous black
> miscegenator" whereas the only sort of people who had problems with
> Othello's "miscegenation" were those with a proprietary interest in
> Desdemona: Desdemona's dad and her frustrated swain Cassio.  And, of
> course, latter-day crypto racists from America.

Gentlemen,

I note that, aside from the fact that "Law and Literature" includes the word 
"Law" in its title, and is written by a judge, the topic has not a single 
thing to do with law.  I cordially request that you remove "misc.legal" from 
the newsgroups header.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Ted Frank's Predictions for the election 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul13.124523.2534@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Jul13.224247.11617@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Jul13.235648.23026@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:14:09 GMT

<In article <1992Jul13.235648.23026@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

<   4. Perot drops out, deciding not to run after all.  Could happen, but I
<      doubt it, Perot's protestations to the contrary. 
 
	Crack in the old crystal ball, Ted?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35608 alt.politics.elections:9030
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:41:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gf:
[ discrimination also distributed by market; jobs as well as housing ]

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
| Mind justifying that?  After all, why won't the 60% who don't mind
| Tasmanians try to take advantage of the Tasmanian labor pool that the
| bigots won't hire?  Either the Tasmanian wage rises to the national
| average or the bigots lose money evey day they don't hire Tasmanians.

It's a similar process.  A substantial number of non-Tasmanian
bigots won't work with Tasmanians or will take lower wages to
not work with Tasmanians.  Unbigoted managers will either 
take advantage of their desires, or compete at a disadvantage.
Other bigots won't do business with company that hires
Tasmanians.  A free market constantly distributes utility;
that's its great advantage.  But some of that utility can
be undesirable from other points of view.  Bigotry is one
example.

| >However, since we can
| >see results in history which the theory would predict, we
| >can assume the theory at least approximates the behavior of
| >real communities.
| 
| You mean in places where discrimmination was not mandated by the
| government?  Where?

Suburbs of New York City, most of my adult life, which is
most of the last thirty years.

| If you look at real life it doesn't work that way.  For example, the
| government prevents block-busting.  Who gets screwed by block-busting?
| Bigots.  Who benefits?  Minorities who get good houses cheap and the
| real estate brokers who sell to them.  Who stops it?  The government.

A well-run blockbusting campaign does not result in
cheap housing for minorities.  The point is to get the
bigots and those non-bigots who fear for their real-
estate values to sell cheap, and then jack up the prices
for the minorities.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34875 alt.individualism:4376
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:56:53 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <1992Jul20.221851.2401@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>, perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
|> 
|> Hey, wasn't the old USSR sitting on more natural resources than the
|> USA? That's right! The USSR was the preeminant world power of its time!
|> The US couldn't hold a candle to it. Its people were the wealthiest
|> in the world. The Ukraine was such a breadbasket, the USSR didn't
|> know what to do with all that grain.
|> 
|> The above was just to point out the collossal fallacy of believing
|> that wealth=natural resources.
|> 

No, what the above shows is that no matter what or how much resources 
you have a government couched in corruption can still lead you to total 
collapse.

Anyone who believes that the USSR really practiced "communism" is very
naive.  They had a larger separation in classes than even the US.  They
had rich and poor, but no middle class.  You were either a member of the 
ruling class or you were a peasant.  This is what came of the lofty ideas
of communism and socialism.  

It's too bad the US didn't learn anything from the recent collapse of the
USSR.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36173 alt.politics.clinton:891
From: wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:53:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

In article <1992Jul23.135639.3610@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Jul18.202959.6262@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>
>>In article <-5am+ar.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>> Let's face it, the guy is a buffoon and is in way over his head. He simply
>>> isn't qualified ans sure as hell isn't polished enough to be prez. Governor
>>> of a backward state like Arkansas, yes, President of the US, NO!
>
>>It must be springtime in America, after all - the bigots are
>>in bloom.
>>-- 
>>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
>
>I'm with you, Melinda. Bet all the Arkansas newsreaders are priming
>their flame-throwers :-)

	No.  We may be weary as hell -- slinging mud at the "hillbillys"
has been a national pasttime for the last 50 years -- but I don't believe
Mr. Crisp's remarks are worth much in the way of rebuttal as he obviously
has an axe to grind.  Wait -- I've re-read his comments:  "isn't polished
enough to be prez".  So *that's* the major criterion for who should be
president;  his "polish".  Sigh.  I'd rather vote on content, thank you.

	As far as being a backward Arkansan;  comments like Mr. Crisp's
make me reflect back on the state, its history, and its children.
I believe we've held our own in the "real" world, and I find Mr. Crisp's
mud-slinging offensive.

	I have *no* idea what this has to do with Clinton.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton