HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:38:06 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec14.231008.14184@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> And remember how it was JFK and Johnson that promoted the space program
|> during the 60's that ultimately got the US to the moon.  Now, hopefully
|> Clinton is aware of this in case he starts thinking of cutting the current
|> space program.  With the right push we could have a manned mission to Mars
|> by the turn of the century.  The technology is there.  It would be a waste
|> of the highest magnitude if our space effort faltered for political reasons.

HAHAHAHAHA!  Turn of the century?   Get real.  We don't 
even have the space station up yet and every plan for a
manned mission to Mars includes construction of the ship
at a orbiting platform.  
You can thank Tricky Dick, Ford, and Carter for the fact 
that the US fell way behind in it's plans for a space 
station.  Nixon even cancelled on final Apollo mission.  
Reagan and Bush have turned the shuttle program into their 
military toy.  Clinton would have to work hard to do worse 
than these guys.

PS:  The technology is not there.  We couldn't go back to 
the moon right now if we wanted too.  Most of the plans
were destroyed in a fire at Nasa.  We would need to start
all over again.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:22:23 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>Hey, Bob baby--you LOST! Get it through your head: your shot
>at the title went down the drain with Bush. You, Kemp, Baker,

Kemp is hardly a loser.  I'd say he's a medium winner.  He'll likely
be the nominee in '96.

>and Marilyn are the biggest losers in the entire country,
>and you know it (who in the right mind would vote for
>yet another corroded old Republican hack in '96?), 

Kemp is hardly a corroded old Republican hack.

>and
>that's why you keep carping this ridiculous "Clinton doesn't
>have a mandate" bullsh*t.

He won the election.  He does NOT have a mandate.  **BIG* difference.

>Look, Clinton beat TWO contenders. Reagan and Bush barely
>beat ONE. 

Flat out wrong.  John Anderson got 7% of the vote.  Reagan/Bush got more
than 50%.

>Furthermore, this nonsense about needing 51% of
>the popular vote to win a mandate is simply cr*p: by that
>measure Bush and Reagan didn't have a mandate either--in fact,
Yes they did.  And in landslide proportions in '84.

>The way I read this mandate it goes: "The
>Republicans had better kick the Christian loons out of their party
>or we aren't EVER letting them get back in the White House".
Hah!  "The economy sucks, so we're changing drivers." is the truth.

>Basically, Bush
>and the neo-fascists went down so hard and ugly they're only
>claim is that at least they didn't come in dead last this century.
Fascist?  Please...Bush is hardly a fascist.  Call Buchanan a fascist and
I'll have more trouble showing that you're wrong.  But Bush???

>Hoover did better than Bush.
So what.  There are LOSERS like Dukakis who did better than Clinton!

>A prediction: In '96, Clinton will do as well as Reagan did in '80.
Wrong.  Economy back/still in the dumper...Clinton is a one termer.

>And then, of course, we have Gore waiting in the wings. Nyah nyah
>nyah.
Gore???   Mr. Redwood?

>Right. I'd like to see him try. How much of a presidential
>hopeful is Dole going to be if Clinton goes on TV to announce
>that Dole is the only thing standing between the electorate
>and health care reform? Dole gets in line or gets out of
>politics forever is the way I figure this works out.

Then you know nothing about politics, do you?  Dole has only to answer
to the people of Kansas.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:47:31 GMT

In <a frivolous snit> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>>}I do not agree with you at all. Helmsley didn't pay her taxes.  She suffered 
>>}for it.  Her drive was greed.  I don't feel for her at all. 
>>I have no doubt that you don't care about the poor woman.  So much for your
>>vaunted compassion.
>Poor woman.  Poor criminal.

You have a weird idea of what constitutes a criminal.  Who did she harm by
her actions?


>>How much taxes did she not pay?  How much should she have?  How come Alan
>>Dershowitz disagrees with you?  Could it be because he's a man of principle?
>It could be that he is a lawyer (hers, I think?)  It is his job to say such 
>things.  Doesn't make him dishonest.  It makes him a good servant of his client.

Very good.  Now answer the rest of his questions.  How much taxes did she
not pay?  How much should she have?

>
>>(about Michael Milken)
>No.  He was never denied any of those things prior to conviction of a felony
>offense.  Blacks in this nation were.  Some still are.

Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice, whether it be because of race or
religion or class.  You're not interested in justice, you just seem
interested in vengeance, just like those militant blacks who would like to
see whites kicked around for 200 years "just to even things up".  By your
rules, we could just lynch rich people and take all their belongings and
skip the government middleman.  After all, they have too much money to
deserve anything else, like rights.


>>With the tool of civil seizure and forfeiture, going after the rich is now
>>as easy as going after the poor in the American Empire.
>Hogwash.  Utter crap.  You go after some of the daddies and mommies of my high
>school classmates.  They'll chew you up, because they're not doing anything
>illegal (well, not all, but most).

That millionaire dude in Ventura County, California wasn't doing anything
illegal either.  But he's still dead.  Daddy's and mommy's heads splatter
behind police bullets as easily as that poor dead millionaire.  Get your
head out of the clouds.


-- 
 davE.   Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
########## David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
    "The opposite of love is not hate but indifference." -- Sigmund Freud
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:50:32 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>|You don't need a motorcycle.  You need food.  To feed you, I honestly wouldn't
>|mind having my money taken away.  Honestly.

>Good for you, If more people were like you there wouldn't be so many flame
>wars.
Thanks.
>But, anyway, how do you feel about taking away someone else's money to
>feed the hungry.
Well, if they have quite a bit of money, I wouldn't mind much at all.  I mean, 
as unpopular as this may be with some, I have no problem taking the money that
some rich person was gonna use to buy a second Ferrari and soend it on feeding,
clothing, and housing people.  I guess the Libertarians and I can't debate on
this one.  I understand their objections, but I just don't agree.

I am open to debate it, but am not optimistic that we'll ever agree.  

Matt I.
>-- 
>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,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:34:09 GMT

In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># 
># But there are two different definition of homosexuality in that "proof":
># 
>#   Definition 1: A homosexual is anyone who has any sexual contact with
>#      with his/her own sex. (Used to generate the supposed number of
>#      homosexual molesters)
># 
>#   Definition 2: A homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact 
>#      *exclusively* with members of his/her own sex. (Used to generate
>#      the supposed percentage of homosexual molesters.)
>
>No, a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
>his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
>
>
>You obviously don't read very carefully.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.

Oh boy!  Thanks, Clay ol' Pal, let's see what conclusions we can  draw from
that whopper.

One out of ten people are gay (popular stat, don't know what it is based
on).

One out of three children has their first sexual contact with the same sex
("doctor" games, before they know the difference)

With this vast number of gays (one out of three by ol' Clay's numbers), a
tiny minority of them are child molesters.  How do we define that group?
Well, they are normally mid-aged white men who are openly heterosexual (but
of course they're really gay, right Clay?), masculine, and the last person
anyone would have thought of as gay.  Actually, they are the stereotype
manly, "big daddy" as much as they are anything.  Usually quite vocal about
their manhood...

You don't think...


Clay!  You big old closet-queen you.  Oh, Girl!  Get on thu' wich ya'l!

Nothing personal, ma'am, but stay away from my kids, eh?

-chris blask
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING)
Subject: Re: Democrat Wars? (was Re: Democrat == Loony Left???)
Summary: Clarification  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa, world
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.020657.10977@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)                writes...
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec16141149@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>MIn article <liqce2INNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>><   LBJ's hawkishness is also not a liberal or conservative issue.  I hadn't
>><   noticed that all wars were started and fought by Republicans.  
> 
>>	Oh, really? Let's look at the record:

>>	DEMOCRAT President Johnson campaigned for President
>>	in 1964 on the platform, "I will never send American
>>	boys to fight on the Asian mainland". Almost immediately
>>	after taking the oath of office, he dispatched thousands
>>	of troops to South Viet Nam (located on the Asian mainland).
> 
Clarification here. Eisenhower was the first one to send "advisors"
to Vietnam.
> 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64874 soc.motss:53071 alt.sex:39922
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:04:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1go3r6INN8m7@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
# #Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that one in
# #ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives are
# #exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of the adult men and less
# #than 2% of adult women.
# 
# Arthur, don't you ever listen?  The Kinsey study that the number 10% 
# comes from says the exact same thing: 4% of men experience lifelong
# exclusive homosexuality, another 6% (totalling 10%) experience a 
# strong preference for men that lasts for at least one 5-year period of
# their lives.

You mean, while locked up in prison?  No wonder Kinsey got such 
numbers.

# #If it's so darned unimportant, then why keep repeating an obviously 
# #erronous and politically motivated 10 percent?
# 
# 1) It is not obviously erroneous, you're deliberately misunderstanding it so
#    you can say it's wrong.
# 
# 2) Because Clayton is dancing around the net twisting these statistics to
#    erroneously prove that I am a child molestor.

Liar.  I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that most homosexuals are NOT
molesters, but the disproportionate involvement of homosexuals in
child molestation is reason, at least in some jobs, for discrimination.
I have NEVER claimed that Paul Ryan is a child molester.  

I will claim that Paul Ryan is a liar, but that just seems to be part
and parcel of being a homoseuxal.

# 3) Because it is one part of an important point: we are not a group of 
#    freaks, we are a randomly chosen cross-section of America, and most
#    people know one of us.  If you think you don't, you might want to
#    ask yourself why he's afraid to tell you.

You ARE a group of freaks, as soc.motss demonstrates regularly.
As the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade demonstrates regularly.  As
the absurd promiscuity that caused AIDS to spread like wildfire 
through the gay community demonstrates.  As the very high drug abuse
rates among homosexuals demonstrates.

# Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:09:40 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <13598@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.160610.19193@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>> In article <13514@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:


A few days ago someone posted requesting information about gay youth
support groups. I responded with a list of such groups which appear in
the Gayellow Pages. The following was Cramer's reaction.

MY QUESTION TO CRAMER IS- WHAT SHOULD:  1) MY RESPONSE, 2) THE GAY
AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE, 3) NAMBLA'S RESPONSE, AND 4) YOUR
RESPONSE BE TO GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH WHO REQUEST ASSISTANCE, SUPPORT 
AND INFORMATION?



># #Every wonder why I'm a little suspicious of the so-called "gay youth
># #outreach" programs?  Maybe it's postings like the one below, from
># #soc.motss.  Look who is heavily interested in "helping" those poor
># #kids that don't yet "know" they are gay:
># 
># First of all, I don't see _anything_ wrong with the posting. For a
># child growing up in a country where anti-gay attitudes are so powerful
># nand so prevalent, I think that it's a very good thing that a gay
># teenager, trying to come to terms with who s/he is, can find someone
># sympathetic to talk to.

>Yes, someone to talk to, and to persuade a confused, hormonally
>driven teenaged boy to engage in sex with an adult.  If there were
>not so many scum like Roy Radow or NAMBLA clearly very interested
>in promoting such programs, I might not be so cynical.

># Second, I don't think that there is _any_ grounds for suspicion
># against such an organization. There are dozens upon dozens of support
># groups for every imaginable kind of person, from christian youth
># groups, to groups for abused children, and so on. Why is a gay group
># automatically bad? Why can't gay teenagers have a sympathetic group of
># peers?

>Because it's clear that people like Roy Radow or NAMBLA is VERY
>interested in such programs.  Does that make you even a teeny
>bit suspicious?

># The guy who replied to the post was a member of nambla. But the groups
># that he gave references to are _not_ nambla! They are support groups,
># whose numbers he found *in the phone book*! Why are they automatically
># as bad as nambla?
># 
># || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     || "I'm not dumb, 

>Why won't the gay community tell NAMBLA where to go?

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:50:19 GMT

In article <13671@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Liar.  I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that most homosexuals are NOT
>molesters, but the disproportionate involvement of homosexuals in
>child molestation is reason, at least in some jobs, for discrimination.
>I have NEVER claimed that Paul Ryan is a child molester.  
>
>I will claim that Paul Ryan is a liar, but that just seems to be part
>and parcel of being a homoseuxal.


"...the disproportionate involvement of homosexuals in child molestation..."
Well, Clayton, this, as I mentioned to you before, is patently UNTRUE.  
Percentage wise, gays do not molest children as frequently as hetero-
sexuals do.  And, while I might be wrong, I've _never_ heard of a lesbian
molesting a child.  I am _very_ curious what mythology you believe in
that makes you say this.


As for my being a liar - or for gays somehow being more likely to lie than
anyone else - again, what mythology makes you believe this?


======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Communism is Dead?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:47:44 GMT

In article <Bz9utx.1xA@udecc.engr.udayton.edu> jli@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Jinghong Li) writes:
>> The collapse of communism and the role of the U.S.
>
>More accurately, communism is not yet dead.  Please remember there
>is still the red China and N. Kereo.

Actually, the PRC is closer to being a traditional authoritarian society
than a Communist one.  It has been since the death of Mao, especially
with economic liberalization.

I don't know about N. Korea, though perhaps what we see in these
countries is similar dying patient's heart beat, after the brain has
died.  The driving core ideology is dead.

The January issue of Harper's has an interesting article entitled _The
End of the Twentieth Century_, which has interesting reflections on
world historic trends.  The death of Communism is one reason to mark
1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, as the end of this century
(which began in 1914, with the commencement of the First World War).


_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Summary: Finishing up  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.084802.27471@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)       writes...
>In article <1992Dec14.214750.17386@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
>}No. Inflation was at it's worst in 78 and 79. The short 1980 recession took
>}the momentum out of inflation. By 82' inflation was pretty much under control.
> 
>By what measure?  Interest rates reached 20% after 1979.  The price of gold
>was in the $800/oz. range after then, too.

By the consumer price index.
> 
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:58:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Dec18.231739.25570@panix.com> by roy@panix.com (Roy Radow):

> Dear Phil,
> 
>     I applaud and join you in support of our Constitutional right 
> to freedom of speech, press and assemble.

I'm sure you do.  It's a DAMNED shame that loathsome parasites such as you
benefit from the 1st Amendment, but that's unavoidable.  Still nobody has to
like or respect YOU.  Very few DO.  You have that in common with Frank Colin
and the Nazis.

>     Regarding the slogan "Sex by age eight or else it's too late!"
> This was the slogan of the Rene Guyon Society back in the 1970's.
> THIS IS NOT, NOR WAS IT EVER, A POSITION OF NAMBLA.
> 
Maybe not, but I'm sure you can live with it.

>     For many people the issue of youth sexuality is an emotional laden
> one which can transcend rational thought. NAMBLA does NOT say that ALL
> children should have sex with adults. We merely advocate that the law 
> should respect those individuals involved in such relationships and make 
> a distinction between mutually consensual beneficial relationships and
> coercive sexual assualt.
> 
ANY adult who knowingly has sex with a child should have a head on collision
with a bullet.  "Consensual" sex with a child is as much bullshit as 
"consensual rape".  Child molestation is no more beneficial than child
dismemberment.  There IS no disctinction between your candy coated 
platitudes and rape.  NONE AT ALL.  Few people are buying the bullshit.  Not
straight, not gay, NOT AT ALL.

>     May you and yours have a joyous holiday season and a happy and 
> healthy New Year. Peace On Earth, Good Will Toward Men.
> 
May a large meteor strike yours.

> Yours in Liberation,
> 
Yours is exploitation, destruction and degradation.

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc