HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:55:31 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Oct10.015953.6480@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> Of course, this is the same bozo who a few years back proclaimed that
> "Flag-burning is wrong, dead wrong," but never actually said exactly
> what was wrong with it.  If Bush was about fifty or sixty years
> younger I might hold out some hope that he'd grow out of this
> assholic, brainless form of "patriotism," but today...

  You mean there is a sliver of hope even for T*d? Or is he just Bush
in the (pre?) pubescent stage?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:47:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct13.101316.25454@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>Let me see if I follow the way you're thinking.  You don't think there
>is a conspiracy or a way of thinking that discounts (perhaps even
>hides) the work women do, yet you do think that women scientists have
>"gotten the shitty end of the stick a lot"?  So, when women scientists
>get the shitty end of the stick a lot, it isn't because of sexism or
>misogyny, it's just that shit happens?

While I agree that women, and women scientists have gotten the shitty
end of the stick, rewriting history will not change that.

Pretending that the flat bottomed paper bag is of equal importance to the
light bulb does nothing to enhance the reputation of women.

Truth, throughout history women have not had the educational opportunities
that were available to men.  This is not sufficient reason to denigrate the
contributions of the men of those eras.  It is reason to doubly celebrate
the contributions of women of those eras, both for their work and for the
obsticles that they had to overcome.

In another light, if there are (made up numbers inserted here.) 100 men
whose contributions are worth remembering and 10 women, we should
remember the men and the women in proportion to both their numbers
and the weight that we now assign to their contributions.
NOTE: for the women, overcoming obsticles can be considered a contribution
in that it inspires others to overcome their obsticles.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51366 alt.politics.elections:16454 alt.politics.bush:8885 alt.politics.clinton:10065 alt.politics.perot:2053
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:48:22 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


I'm not 100% sure I've got the attribution figured out correctly, but
I think that in article <1992Oct10.034616.29319@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) said:

> From an article entitled "The Real Mothers of Invention" by
> Pamela Warrick of the LA Times (repeated portions without
> permission):
> 
> The telphone. The light bulb. The automobile.
> 
> Quick. Name the inventors. Of course you can.
> 
> How about flat-bottomed paper bags, bullet-proof vests and
> Scotchgard? The dishwasher, the fire escape, AZT?
> 
> Of course you can't.
> 
> Why? Because these inventors are women, says historian Anne
> Macdonald. That's why they're hard to find in history books.
> Or in any books.

To which I have to say: "Giggle."  Leaving aside the fact that I, at
least, _can't_ name the inventor of the automobile (I can name Henry
Ford as the first automobile manufacturer to use the assembly-line
process, of course, but that wasn't the question), the simple fact
remains that the telephone, in conjunction with its predecessor the
telegraph, spawned a revolution in communications, the light bulb
changed people's lives by making them far less dependent upon sunlight
and/or open-flame lighting, and the automobile, once it got into mass
production, gave people greater freedom of movement and travel than
had ever existed before.  All of those inventions and the subsequent
inventions and developments they spawned changed civilization.
Flat-bottomed paper bags?  Bullet-proof vests?  Scotchgard?  The
dishwasher?  The fire escape?  Nope.  (The jury's still out on AZT, of
course, but from my [limited] knowledge it seems to limited in
application to delaying, rather than preventing, death due to HIV...
I'll bet that when someone invents a _cure_ for that disease, that
person's name _will_ be remembered, regardless of gender.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:07:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.195203.15406@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena) writes:
>Apparently you don't listen to Rush.  In a recession with ~7% unemployment
>the thing we DON'T need is three months of unemployment promised to a
>worker.  This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
>mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
>I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.

How nice that you have worked for so many kindly ol' employers.
In the real world, there is no shortage of employers who
are more than ready to dismiss employees for any number of
reasons, only one of which is the well known "bottom line".
Were you watching any of the news stories in recent months
of people who were fired merely for asking for leave for
family emergencies.

The last time I was laid off from a job, I was given
ONE HOUR'S notice; not a lot of concern for my family here.

>When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
>will only result in greater unemployment.

The family leave bill exempts small businesses.

>These bosses know their
>employees well enough to allow "slack" for emergencies.

This assumption is totally fantastic, not to mention wrong.

>What good is
>an unemployed worker in paying bills, providing food and welfare for
>her/his family?  If this bill would have passed, it would have required
>"Aid to temporarily unemployed workers who have sick children and who
>don't have to work".  Get real, family values is working for your children/
>spouse.

The family leave involved here is UNPAID leave.

And, I'm sure a family leave bill will be brought back soon for
consideration by Congress, and sent on to President Clinton
for approval.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:20:55 GMT

In article <BvzoD3.Gou@ddsw1.mcs.com>,
Jack Schmidling (arf@ddsw1.mcs.com) wrote:


	First of all, you are going to have to prove to me that he 
	preached hatred.  You are simply parroting  media hype.  I 
	defy you to come up with a single quote wherein he preached 
	hatred.

from peacenet conference: justice.us

Topic 74	Duke, Quayle, & Racism
cberlet	justice.us	 8:38 pm  Nov 20, 1991


David Duke:  The Messenger and His Message 

by Chip Berlet and Margaret Quigley 

..Just this past spring on WBZ Radio, Duke was 
more candid than usual. "I think the basic 
culture of this country is European and 
Christian," said Duke, "and I think if we lose 
that, we lose America....I don't think we should 
suppress other races, but I think that if we lose 
that white--what's the word for it--dominance in 
America, with it we lose America." While he 
repudiated a 1989 statement that Judaism was  
"vile" and "anti-Christian," he maintained that 
there were aspects of Judaism that were, 
including "passages in the Talmud which say that 
Christians should be strangulated [sic] and that 
Christ was a bastard and Mary was a whore."

=================================================
Chip Berlet and Margaret Quigley are analysts 
with Political Research Associates in Cambridge, 
Mass., an organization that has monitored the 
political right wing for the past ten years. 
PRA, 678 Mass. Ave., #205 Cambridge, MA 02139

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:04:09 GMT

In article <BvnGwt.5LC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

     First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
     of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
     and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
     well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".

     Second, the polls I've seen show Perot to be in the 10-14% range.


Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.165306.20274@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
    >Neither a police detective nor a psychiatric social worker
    >nor a psychoanalyst is qualified by reason of what they do or
    >know to give an informed opinion on the statistical
    >relationship, if any, between homosexuality and child
    >molestation. Having said that, I also take note of the fact
    >that the evidence offered by both you and Clayton Cramer
    >shows, if anything, the *lack* of such a relationship.
    >Deducing it from this evidence therefore shows that you are
    >both ignorant of what real evidence would be and unable to
    >reason correctly with what you consider to be evidence.

Considering that a police officer working with abused children is the
first line of encounter, I'd say that such a police officer has a much
better, more accurate, and clearer picture of such a relationship
that any one else.




    >I'm afraid the nerve it hit was the funnybone. You and
    >Clayton sit and talk about stuff ("bears" and "twinks") with
    >little or no idea what it means. If you want to find out, get
    >a copy of Bear Magazine or something. I have no particular
    >interest in giving a course in intro gay studies to a couple
    >of moronic homophobes. What I am really curious about now is
    >the question of whether your really think you've scored some
    >kind of a rhetorical triumph here. Do you think Clayton knows
    >more about the gay lexicon than I do, or do you think I am
    >deliberatly covering up the awful truth?

No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs
and you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that
disagrees with your beliefs and preconceptions.

You are typical in this regard.

You assert that others are "wrong".

Rather than enlightened us and show use where we are wrong, 
state that you have no particular interest in giving a course
on gay studies to a couple of moronic homophobes.

You lie.

1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?

2. The people you denigrate are neither moronic nor homophobic.

And to state that someone else is wrong, but that you are just
too "about it all" to give the "correct" facts is an arrogant
elitist pig-headed Politically Correct(tm) fascist approach
given off by intellectually dishonest people cornered by their
own contradictions.


If you were right, you would have no problem is telling it.





-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Americans believe Anita Hill
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:20:51 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <ld696rINNr8u@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> James L. Heilman) writes:
> |> > The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
> |> > majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
> |> > Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?
> |> > 
> |> 
> |> 	2) The media as "Willie Hortonized" the affair so that every mention
> |> casts Clarence Thomas as a liar.
> |> 
> Where?  I must not watch or read enough news (hard to imagine) to have
> seen these "mentions."  Most of the coverage I have seen in the last
> year that mentions him is talking about current Supreme Court issues
> and is not characterising him either way.

	Designing Women is the best example.  All the smart, intelligent,
honest characters wore "he lied" shirts, while the buffoons and fools wore the
"she lied" shirts, and caved in to the others by show's end.
	SNL (Saturday Night Live) has been pretty gross about this (and other)
issue.  Devoting an entire 5 minute segment to Quayle bashing was extremely
unprofesional, and unecessary.  The old 70s SNL would have done a great parody,
with subtle pointers as to the target.  It seems that all the current cast can
do is shout "yeah, well take this, you ass".

	In addition, the media brings up stories as "Anita Hill, badgered by an
all male Senate-panel..." or "Clarence Thomas, who many believed lied,..." etc. 
Even our local Democratic rag of a paper did better, by stating that Clarence
Thomas should be rejected because of his record/inexperience, and not for
unsubstantiatied allegations.

	Unfortunately, the media never corrects itself.  We'll always see Anita
Hill as a badgered, but courageous woman fighting sexism while Clarence Thomas
will be shown as a "dubious" character who (probably) lied.

	Carol Mosley Braun ran her entire campaign on Anita Hill sympathy. 
It's starting to come crashing own around her as the medicare-scam scandal hits
the public.  Lynne Yeakal did the same thing.  Only by promoting Anita Hill as
a victim could they win.  It thus became necessary to ensure that everyone saw
Anita Hill as a victim.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.elections
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: [FWD]: Libertarian candidate arrested, beaten
Aparently-From: Tom Isenberg <tomis@microsoft.com>
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:08:15 GMT



* To: Release Distribution

NEWS RELEASE
St. Louis, Missouri

Local Contact: Steve Dasbach, David Carr - 314-330-2018

October 11, 1992
4:30 PM CST

                  LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE ARRESTED, BEATEN


St. Louis -- Robert Stockhausen, District 3 Congressional Candidate of the
Libertarian Party, was arrested at approximately 4pm CST for taking
pictures of Marrou supporters from beyond a police line.

Nearly a dozen armed officers brutalized Mr. Stockhausen spraying him
with mace, kicking him and dragging him across the ground.

Stockhausen, a family man with a wife and five children, considers himself a
pacifist and did not resist.

Over two hundred supporters of Libertarian Presidential Candidate Andre
Marrou are participating in a demonstration in St. Louis to protest
Marrou's exclusion from the debates.  Marrou is on the ballot in all fifty
states DC and Guam.

                                - END -

--
Joe Dehn - via FidoNet node 1:104/418
INTERNET: jwd3@dehnbase.fidonet.org

--

 delisle@eskimo.celestial.com | Nothing is fool-proof, fools are too ingenious.
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:51:04 GMT

>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
...
>Spike Burkhardt

Where is this states in the Bill of Rights?

--Tim Smith
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Hillary Rodham Clinton - the unauthorized biography
Keywords: Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, biography
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:33:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


For a less sanitized, more politically useful description of her career,
try reading the article "The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock," by Daniel
Wattenberg in the August, 1992 issue of The_American_Spectator (pp 25-
320).  Her career in far-left politics is impressive.

------------------------- posted AUTHORIZED bio -------------------------

                From: U56503@uicvm.uic.edu
                Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
                Subject: ==> Hillary Clinton Biographic Info
                Message-ID: <92290.004322U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
                Date: 16 Oct 92 05:43:22 GMT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it is the 
opinion of UIC. Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Hillary Rodham Clinton Biography

 Hillary Rodham Clinton, named one of "The 100 Most Influential
 Lawyers in America" in 1988 and 1991 by The National Law Journal, is
 a nationally recognized advocate of children's rights, the public
 education system and is an expert in the changing roles of women in
 our society............ 

                   remainder of AUTHORIZED bio deleted

-- 
MANDOCK,R.
Internet: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: WHAT indigenous people?
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:53:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct14.205513.4801@pb2esac.uucp> rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez) writes:
>Columbus was a CONQUEROR not
>a discoverer. 

If it makes you feel better, many do celebrate him as a CONQUEROR.
His landing and the subsequent conquest of this continent set the stage
for the country we live in today; arguably, the finest in the world!
This is worthy of celebration.

-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton '92 - "Read my lips: NEW TAXES"
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton will clarify
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:24:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mitre Corporation


Just like the drug-use question of the same period...

"I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
organize."


And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
Nixon?


-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:50:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <Bw0vt3.E6E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>: >>shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford) whines:
>: >>What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
>: >>doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay

>Funny....  If the family leave concept works in Germany, another one
>of the world's economic superpowers, why can't it work in the US?

  Define "works".   

  (West) Germany has a higher unemployment rate than the US. (source:
  BW)  Their productivity per man hour is lower than ours. (source:
  Economist)  They have a lower productivity growth rate than ours
  (source: BW).  The EC, which has such policies in most countries,
  has a 9.5% overall unemployment rate, and an aggregate productivity
  growth rate even lower than (West) Germany's (source: Wall Street
  Journal).                                                        

  So if you're going to make a claim like you did, I again ask you to
  define "works".


>Marrou/Lord in '92

  Jeezus!   Y'know, I'm going to vote for Marrou/Lord, too, really
  more as a protest than because I long for the sort of minarchy
  they believe in.  But just as I was asking several Perot supporters
  here to explain their self-styled libertarianism, so too must
  I ask *you* to explain how your support of family leave policies 
  squares with the above!    Am I the *only* person here who actually
  understands what libertarianism is?


---peter


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51651 alt.rush-limbaugh:7375 alt.politics.bush:9092 alt.politics.clinton:10335 alt.politics.elections:16692 talk.abortion:42587