HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:51:49 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <13243@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.231032.11606@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> In article <13187@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <1992Nov14.171639.6061@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> >> In article <13162@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: : And yes, I find it not at all
: : #surprising that NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades, and has
: : #support from a surprisingly large number of homosexuals.
: : 
: : 	How many Gay Pride marches have you been to, O Master
: : Homosexologist?
: 
: #None.  I've seen NAMBLA's appearance in the S.F. parade.
: 
: 	Translation:
: 
: 	I didn't go to see the parade; I just saw some interesting
: tidbits about it on the local news. And the _only_ thing that
: interested me was what they did about NAMBLA.
>
>No, I saw some clips that could not have been shown on the local
>news -- the men masturbating on top of floats, naked men whipping
>other naked men, NAMBLA, etc.

	But that was the local news, right?

>Local TV news gives the best possible coverage (for gays) of this
>parade.  They don't show the depraved crap that is going on.

	Did you ever see a Gay Pride parade in person?

: : 	I challenge you to come down to San Francisco next year for
: : our annual Gay Pride march. It'll be on the last Sunday of June and
: : it'll be on Market Street between the Embarcadero and the Civic Center.
: 
: #Why?  You don't deny that NAMBLA marches.  Gay Perot supporters,
: #however, were prohibited.
: 
: 	And I saw what happened when the NAMBLA contingent marched by.
: They were booed.
: 
: 	They were only a couple of people in the hundreds that
: marched.

>The parade usually has thousands of participants, not hundreds.

	Like?

>The tape I saw of the 1990 parade had at least a dozen people 
>just holding up the NAMBLA banner.  No one was throwing anything
>at them or booing them in 1990.  Why suddenly, in 1992?  Sudden
>realization that NAMBLA was bad PR?

	Ask them about it some time :-)

	Why are you _so_ obsessed with the gay community and NAMBLA?
Why don't you pick on someone else for a change? Like the Catholic
Church for some its priests being pedophiles (what are altar boys
for? :-).

>You still haven't answered the question: why were the Gay
>Perotistas not permitted, but NAMBLA was in 1992?

	The Perotistas were endorsing a candidate, while NAMBLA was
not. But various political groups marched anyway, like the Socialists
and the Libertarians.

	That was a decision that caused controversy in the gay community
itself, it seems to me. So I think it unfair to scapegoat the gay
community because of less-than-justified decisions like this one.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:25:18 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.185822.14868@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com said:

> > I disagree... term limits merely ban one player from the playing
> > field; there is no leveling effect.  [wdstarr]
>
> huh?  incumbant vs. non-incumbant ==> non-incumbant vs.
> non-incumbant!  that is certainly a "leveling effect".

I'm having trouble parsing the symbols you're using.  If you mean that
two non-incumbents face each other on a more level playing field than
an incumbent and a non-incumbent, then I have to point out that the
proposed solution, term limits, just means that the incumbent would
face a field so vastly tilted against him as to be, by definition,
unclimbable.  If you want a level playing field, you should work to
create a field that's level for _all_ candidates, not just for
non-incumbents.

(Side note on the "level playing field" analogy: it does not, or at
least should not mean that in order for an election to be fair, every
candidate must have exactly the same chance of winning.  It only means
that no candidate should have an unfair advantage.  We must take care
to remember that _fair_ advantages, such as the fact that Candidate A
is a lot more popular with the voters than Candidate B, are perfectly
legitimate)

> > all [term limits] 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]
>
> being that there is no groundswell of support to repeal the 22nd on
> grounds of democratic principle, i would say that the democratic
> principle argument is totally bogus.

Your logic is faulty.  The presence or absence of popular support for
a given rules change is irrelevant to how that rules change would
affect the democratic process.

> i can't see what people are so afraid of?  term limits are
> completely insignificant when compared with the day-to-day impacts
> of the 18th amendment.

True.  But that doesn't make term limits a good idea.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:41:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.153555.20038@osf.org> buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:
>In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith,
>ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those
>whose
>>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make
>alumni
>>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>>discrimination.
>
>So you're in favor of quotas for rich white people.  Quotas are okay
>if the recipients give a kick back to the organization?  I don't
>know, sounds like a case were the RICCO laws should be invoked.

	Okay, Legacies are people who are given a slight edge due to being 
related to alumni. This does not allow them to be accepted despite obviously
being unprepared. This is in contrast to affirmative action which allows
clearly unacceptable candidates to be accepted because of their color.
	Read _Il-liberal_Education_, you'd be surprised.
 
>Toodles
>
>TerriB>

	*********************************************************
	*  William Everett		Tan, Rested, and ready  *
	*  Harvey Mudd College		     NIXON in '96       *
	*                                                       *   
	*  These opinions are mine- you can't have them         *   
	*********************************************************

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61467 alt.sex:37418 alt.politics.correct:5874
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:31:55 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <7vrq31d@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu () writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.181243.9865@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:
>>>That is why AIDS will not reach epidemic proportions in heterosexual
>>>populations. It's too unlikely for women to pass it on.
>
>I wish I had such confidence. Then I would know to tell those
>5,983 American men who contracted AIDS (not HIV, AIDS) from
>sex with women that they are, well, just statistical aberrations.

First of all, how many of those 6000 include Haitian male prostitutes who
were reclassified as "heterosexual" under political pressure that disapproved
of the "Category-II country origin" classification?

Second of all, there's good reason to believe that a large number of those men
lied about their acquisition.  Studies that are more in depth than the CDC's
classification system inevitably turn up "heterosexual" AIDS cases that turned
out to have other risk factors that they were ashamed to admit.  The New York
City Deparment of Health study, run in 1989 on *every* AIDS victim in the city
at that time, found a grand total of eight heterosexually-transmitted AIDS
cases.  One of which they had to reclassify after the study was released.

Finally, that total is 4% of all AIDS cases.  Four percent.  That's about a
twentieth of the rate in non-heterosexuals.

>Been to Uganda lately? Zaire? How `bout Burma or Thailand?
>The rates of heterosexual AIDS there might open your eyes,
>if not give you a heart.

When American heterosexuals live in the same health conditions as African
heterosexuals, then one can claim that Africa's experience with AIDS is
relevant to the American experience.  But since female circumcision, genital
ulcers, and unsterile needle-sharing in medical facilities is much less
widespread in the US than in Africa, I suggest that one cannot predict
epidemology in this country based on what has happened in Africa.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: ssturgis@netcom.com (Scott Sturgis)
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:30:27 GMT

>
>I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.

Perhaps in the U.S. at the moment yes. But that will change


>The homosexual community needs to be more serious about AIDS prevention
>than the heterosexual community because they're much much more at risk.
>-- 

Again Ted that may be true for the present but the future is a different
story. There will be many THOUSANDS more to die before the cure is found. 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycot
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:14:17 GMT

In article 111980@zeus.calpoly.edu, dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>Many of those against a boycott have mentioned the following:
>	   A boycott is likely to mostly hurt the large urban
>	   areas, which voted against the measure and which are
>	   now filing suit to overturn it.
one could argue that the "large urban areas" should be boycotted,
because they did not put in "enough" effort to defeat CO-2.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Sluggo " Horne")
Subject:      Re: " Why Bother? ", The Movie
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:31:11 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14001; Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:09:12 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA20513; Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:34:31 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0671; Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:37:10 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 9652; Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:37:09 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Why Bother? (Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON)
Summary: Amazing huh -- "Democratic Totalitarianism"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Keywords:  make a list...
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington


>Several points explain such behavior:

>1. There is little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

         EXACTLY!

>2. Both Presidente Clinto'n and President Bush are basically wimps, and
>   as such are a pushover for congressional/bureaucratic spending. The
>   inevitable result of party politics.

        EXACTLY!

>3. The Secret Service and other such tools are basically apolitical and
>   mercenary, thus becoming the tool of whoever is in charge. In other
>   words, "When it's my SS -- its OK."

       EXACTLY!

>The sad thing is that anyone thinks that killing Clinton would make
>any difference, since Clinton is only a cosmetic change at best. Which
>seems like a far more rational basis for the discussion.

      EXACTLY!

      " Pick a Puppet for Pres "
      It will make you feel better.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: Re: americans dont really believe in term lim
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:30:22 GMT

dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

>In article 722007801@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
>>
>>I found the stat i was looking for:
>>
>>14 states passed term limit initiatives.
>>In those 14 states, the re-elected 71 (seventy one) members of Congress
>>	who exceeded their limit just passed.
>>
>>
>ONE MORE TIME....   there is *no* contradiction between re-electing
>your representative and supporting term limits.  the latter says that
>you want to change the system whereby reps. spend their time sending
>pork home without regard to national need and the former merely 
>acknowledges the system that rewards re-elected reps with more power
>and $$$$.  ther is no contradiction in wanting to get the most of
>your tax dollars back and wanting an effective congress.  FYI 90%
>of congresspersons running for re-election in Nov. won.

Maybe it's not a contradiction to support term limits and re-elect
your rep but it IS a contradiction to support term limits and re-elect
your rep to a term EXCEEDING the limit you just passed. I just doesnt
make sense.

The sick part is that 90% of reps were returned and that was extraordinarily
low. If people REALLY believe that their congressman (or congresswoman for
that matter) is a bum, then people should vote him/her out.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
HOBBES: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60257 sci.econ:8671 alt.activism:18824 misc.headlines:7045
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov14.172226.5605@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	GDP growth rate, 1982-1990: 3.5%  Up 102% from 1980--equivalent to an
>economy the size of Germany was created.  Even after infation, GDP was up by an
>astounding 31% from 1982-1990.

The first number, of course, is meaningless.  As for the second, it's
a tribute to three trillion dollars of Keynesian deficit spending, no?

>	Captial gains receipts increased every year until the tax was increased
>(1986) again proving the merit of tax cuts.

Brett, this canard of yours was refuted last time you brought it forward.
Receipts went down in 1986 because they were abnormally high in 1985.  They
were abnormally high in 1985 because investors are intelligent enough to
sell and then rebuy so that their capital gains are taxed at 1985 rates and
not 1986 rates.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andyp@admiral.uucp (Andy Patrizio)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Reply-To: andyp@admiral.uucp (Andy Patrizio)
Organization: The Grid/Waffle BBS, 203-661-2873, -1279, -0450, -2967
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:54:41 GMT

This is my first time on this relay, and after 50 messages, the man this 
topic is named after hasn't been named once. Unreal... maybe this should 
be "Alt.Rush-Limbaugh-followers-vs-liberals/femininazis/THEM
 
Anyway, I agree with the notion about the religiour right taking over the 
party. One would have to be blind or wearing blinders not to see that. 
They were there in 1980, too. I think George Bush, candidate in 1980, saw 
how effective these people were in putting Reagan in power and that's why 
he coddles them. His past indicates he's more moderate than they are. 
That was one of his problems; he played lip-service to the people he 
thought would keep him in power, which conflicted with the few core 
beliefs he has.
 
The national convention proved one thing; he is a wimp. He let the party 
and the convention get away from him. He shouldn't have let Buchanan go 
up there to do anything more than grovel. He needed people like William 
Weld and Jack Kemp front and center and on the front pages. At least 
those two men have common sense. I'm hoping they team up in '96...
 
Anyway, I'm not a follower of Clinton at all. Didn't vote for him. My 
first choice was Bob Kerry. Second choice was none of the above.  But at 
least we have someone who wants to take the country in a direction. Bush 
didn't have a direction, because he doesn't act, he reacts. He needs 
something to make him move. Clinton is willing to make the first move, 
and he's pretty quick on his feet, so if he's wrong, he can step back, 
sideways, or in another direction. 
 
Now what I'd REALLY like to see is Ross Perot as Chief of Staff. He could 
clean house like he promised.

--
andyp%admiral.uucp@yale.edu (Andy Patrizio) <yale!admiral!andyp>
The Admiral's Public UNIX - Greenwich, CT - System Administrator: Doug Fields
(HST/V32) (203)661-2873 -- (PEP/V32) -1279 -- (V32) -0450 -- (V29/MNP6) -2967
>FREE!< Unix shell accounts, Usenet access, and Internet-style mail available
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov17.223106.25284@news.vanderbilt.edu>  
mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion) writes:
> In article <BxvG4r.K03@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  
(Matt Hucke) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov16.053547.984@news.acns.nwu.edu>  
dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
> >)-- 
> >)Douglas C. Meier		| Read the Democratic party platform,  
then      
> >)Northwestern University, ACNS 	| the 1933 Nazi Germany platform.   
Now note 
> >)This University is too Commie-	| the similarities.
> >
> >Such as?
> >
> >Hitler was strongly anti-abortion, btw... which party takes that  
same
> >position?
> 
> Hitler was anti-abortion for people he labelled as Aryans.   
Non-aryans 
> were encouraged to have abortions paid for by the goverment.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^
> I also question the validity of Mr. Meier's implication, but I'm  
not
> sure that abortion is the best counter-example.

I don't think you NEED a counter-example. The whole chain
of reasoning is flawed.  It's sort of like "Stalin was
nice to his mother.  Bill Clinton is nice to his mother.
Therefore, a) being nice to your mother is bad, and
b) Bill Clinton is like Stalin."


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: TALK.POLITICS.MODEL-UN
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1992 10:25:43 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    If you support the creation of talk.politics.model-un,
    please post to news.groups.  For more info, f36si@cunyvm
    or f36si@cunyvm.cuny.edu.  Peace,
                                     Matt
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60421 alt.politics.elections:23936 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8688 talk.rumors:1311 alt.activism:18878
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Bork is a good judge? (NOT!) (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:43:48 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov16.181947.12451@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.201048.23212@novell.com>, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>> From what I've read of it, Bork strikes me as a strict literalist
>> who 1) ignores admendment #9, and b) has a view of government such that
>> the gov't has the moral power to do ANYTHING unless it is prohibited by
>> doing so by the Constitution.
>> 
>> On the contrary I 1) do not ignore admendment #9, 2) believe that the
>> gov't has the moral power to do ONLY what has been explictly granted to
>> it in the Constitution, and 3) believe it is important to try to
>> understand what the founder's view of gov't was at the time they
>> created it when attempting to use #9 to "create" a new right.
>> Consequently, Bork scares the hell out of me.
>> 
>
>  What scares me more is a Court which acts in a legislative manner,
>  one which looks at the issues of the day and decides them not on the
>  written words of the Constitution but rather on imagined 'penumbras'
>  which can be expanded so as to make government, rather than the
>  individual, the sole judge of our moral values.  The main problem
>  expressed by those opposed to the Bork nomination was that he would
>  impose 'his moral values' on America.  Personally, it comes down
>  to a choice between a pair of diametrically opposed value sets:
>  Bork's, which would call on America to get its act together, or
>  the Left's, which would place our morals in a gutter.  I prefer the
>  former.

Sorry Kevin, but if you are interested in leaving value judgements
up to individual's and not the government, then Bork is the wrong
guy to have on your side.

Also, if in "placing our morals in a gutter" you are referring to cases
where the Supremes have been criticized by Bork for being immoral
(abortion, contraception) then they are effectively NOT making moral
judgments, thus leaving the responsibility up to the individual.  Bork
on the other hand is making moral judgements (as is his right) BUT he
wants to impose those views on us as the law of the land.  Seems to
sound like what you say you DON'T want.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61482 ca.politics:9830