HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Is Brian Kane just stupid?  Or a liar?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:07:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <100624@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13038@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> >In article <100223@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> 
> ># I searched through the section on possible causes of homosexuality, but
> ># not suprisingly, Hyde does not mention child molestation.
> 
> >It's covered in the section on child molestation.  Look in the index.
> 
> I don't think you understood my comment. Hyde does not mention that
> child molestation may cause homosexuality, as you assert. Given that

I asserted no such thing.  I posted quotes from two other authors
who did make that assertion.  Work on your reading skills.

> the treatment of the possible causes of homosexuality was exhaustive,
> one would think that an expert in the field would include your hypothesis
> if there were data to support it.
> 
> However, there are no such data.
> 
> Not even Abel's.

That's not who I quoted.  Here's what I quoted:

    It looks as though sexual abuse of boys acts for some as a
    kind of recruitment process into adult homosexuality:
    it is the conflicts surrounding the homosexual role rather
    than the childhood abuse *per se* which diminishes self-
    esteem and self-concept.[Bagley & King, 122]

and:

    She might adopt an asexual or homosexual lifestyle, as a
    method of coping with the original incestuous conflict,
    designed to protect her from the source of trauma in 
    possible future conflicts.[Everstine & Everstine, 101]

Stop lying about what I posted.  (Assuming that you can, stop
lying).

> >No one is claiming that every molestation victim becomes a pedophile --
> >and I quoted several sources in The Mother of All Flame Wars to that
> >effect.
> 
> That's just the least of your points to concede.

There is nothing to concede, because my posting made it clear:

$ Note, also, that I am NOT saying that every homosexual is a child
$ molester, or is likely to be one.  As will be discussed later, 
$ the circumstances that cause someone to become a "fixated pedophile,"
$ the most dangerous sort of child molester, appear to be a bit more
$ specific than the circumstances that merely result in a molestation
$ victim becoming a homosexual.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Seniority Power (Re: Back to Politics: Proposition 164)
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:56:54 PST

In article <540023@hprnd.rose.hp.com>, k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:
> Chris Hugins:
>> YES, I'm going to vote AGAINST Term Limits.
 
>> Look, do you really want this regulation to make it impossiblr
>> for you to vote for someone THAT YOU LIKE?
 
> I'm going to vote for term limit to make it impossible for someone else
> to vote for someone I hate.  Term limits would be much less of an issue
> of Willie Brown and David Roberti had not been reelected time after
> time.  I'm willing to vote for Congressional term limits because some
> districts in California are returning people to Congress whom I
> absolutely cannot stand.

Did the California measure specify term limits for state offices?
Or do we already have them (although looking at candidate bios,
if we do they're mighty long, no less than 16 years). The problem
I had with the measure was with the congressional term limits
since it means that we're at a losing end for seniority (although
I'm sure that's been hashed over and over here). Now a
constitutional ammendment would be a good idea and there are
congressbeings from 14 states with some incentive to pass such an
ammendment now.

-dh
From: vance@cco.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's armed rebellion (was:  CA REPUBLICAN PARTY)
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:35:08 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

In article <randall.721441066@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
 >Seriously ... on the Family channel yesterday, Pat and a guest
 >were giving financial/investment advice to callers.  (What qualifies
 >Pat to give investment advice, I don't know.)  They seemed
 >to think that the election results spelled doom.  One caller asked
 >about armed fortresses in the mountains.  The guest was giving
 >advice favoring buying gold to "head off the coming crisis."  
 >No kidding- these guys were getting apocalyptic.  

The real question is, were they as apocalyptic as the Clinton/Gore
campaign and the News Media during the campaign?

. <= microdot sig
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Distribution: ca
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:42:47 PST

In article <BxL1yA.E2@taligent.com>, Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly) writes:
> In article <e04H03x6b94U00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James
> Preston) writes:
 
>> If some of us have our way, he [Wilson] literally won't have a chance for
>> re-election because we'll have a recall election and throw him out
>> before that.  Does anyone know that status of the recall petition,
>> like how many more signatures they need?

It's not unheard of for recalled politicians to be reelected the
next election. Especially in California.
 
> The recall petition needs a little less than a million signatures.
> Secondhand information has it that only about 10,000 signatures have
> been collected so far.  The problem so far has not been a lack of people
> who are willing to sign the petitions, but rather that there are not
> nearly enough volunteers yet to collect the signatures.

Isn't there a time limit on the petitions for a recall? Or is
that on some other initiative?

In any event, now that the halfway point has been reached, I
suspect that it will become even harder to get the energy needed
for a Wilson recall. Barring some dramatic scandal, of course.
 
But good luck, I s'pose.

-dh
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Hersh and Seventh Veil
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:03:20 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1dcjniINN7ls@pollux.usc.edu> mholling@pollux.usc.edu (Michelle Hollinger) writes:
...
>
>** Boxer did debate Hersch. in an event sponsored by AARP. If you were truely
>educated as to this race, you would have either been there or watched it on TV.
>

I attended that debate. IMO Bruce concentrated on character assasination. 
Barbara concentrated on issues and the difference in her position on them
as contrasted with Bruce's.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer





>Face it, you have made several unsubstantiated,slanderous remarks about Bob
>Mulholland which are not going to have any effect on my feelings or the 
>feelings of people who have any true knowledge of this man and this issue.
>You have obviously learned the Republican/tabloid trick of preying on the
>uneducated.If anyone is guilty of mudslinging it is you.I really have no
>interest in pursuing an argument of this nature any further.
> 
>							Michelle Hollinger
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
From: jmarold@netlink.cts.com (Jeff Marold)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 21:50:41 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

In light of the Republican Party's Waterloo last Tuesday, I have some 
questions:
     * Does Pete Wilson stand a chance for reelection?
     * Will Willie Brown become the Emperor of California?
     * Will Pat Robertson lead an armed rebellion of Relgious Rightists?
     * Does anyone care?

     (Just Asking)


--                    
INTERNET:  jmarold@netlink.cts.com (Jeff Marold)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jmarold
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez)
Subject: Re: Hersh and Seventh Veil
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:48:54 GMT

In article <athos-111192102139@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

[Bunch of crap about conservatives supporting Clinton deleted]

>Most Republicans I know feel the same way.

Oh puleeeze!  I'm feeling sick.

>Now that I have said that, I want to point out that this is a major, major
>difference between Conservatives and Liberals.  Not one Liberal I know
>stood behind Bush in 1988.  Instead, they declared war on him.

As well they should, since he had declared war on us!  All those speeches
in the '88 campaign calling Dukakis "That little liberal from Boston", and
then just referring to the liberals as "The 'L' word".

>While Liberals are fully ready to tear down the country to achieve their
>goals, Conservatives are not.  Therin lies the difference.

Jeez.  I can't beleive you said that!

How about the crusades in progress in the United States right now ?
Led by the religious zealots that your "conservative" party are
in bed with, they are dividing this country like never before.
The '92 Rebulican national convention was disgusting, and was
part of the reason Bush lost the election.  Even some conservatives
criticized the convention calling it "The Convention of Hate".
I truly could not beleive some of the things that Buchannan and
Robertson was saying, but I was offended by them.  The message was
clear:

	If you are not white
	   and are not born-again,
	   and are not anti-abortion,
	   and are not republican,
	Then
	   you do not beleive in god,
	   you are a communist,
	   you are a homosexual,
	   and we have no use for you.

There is no doubt that above is the "Republican Platform" in pseudo-code.

If you are wondering what the difference between conservatives and liberals
is, it is this:

The conservatives say "I got mine, you get yours, and if you don't, too bad."
I.E. I never met a poor republican.

The liberals on the other hand CARE about their fellow man and beleive
in trying to help him rather than convert him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing wrong with the message, it's the messenger." -- Pat
Buchannan on David Duke

"David Duke is counting on the write-in vote, too bad none of his
supporters can write." -- Johnny Carson

Robert Rodriguez -- My opinions are worth what you paid for 'em
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:31:22 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <197071@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <13079@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> [re: working for a national gay rights bill]
# # Go ahead.  Guarantee a sweeping victory for Republicans in this
# # coming election.
# 
# Of course.  After all, their anti-gay campaign and platform gave them so
# many votes this election....
# 
# Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of

Keep in mind that many conservatives voted for Perot, not Bush, because
they recognized that getting a week at the convention was no 
substitute for 4 years (maybe 12 years?) of neglect and liberalism
in the White House.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
From: rr@chem.ucsd.edu (Roxanne Rohmann)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:38:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: chedccf0.ucsd.edu

In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
 > A news item this morning said that 20% of married men preferred to be home
 > alone. However, 50% of married women preferred to be home alone.
 > 
 > Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
 > women then men preferreing to be by themselves?
 > 
I suspect that the key here is *married* men and women vs. *all*
men and women.

It has been my experience, backed up by some studies I've seen
here and there, that husbands are generally comfortable coming
home from work and embarking on their evening activities regardless
of the presence of the wife.  This might include reading, watching
TV, doing hobbies; but the key is that they would be doing this
whether they were alone or not.  They tend to enjoy having their
wives around and doing things with them, but they figure the 
wives will take care of themselves, as they themselves do, and
the wife will let them know if she has other ideas.

In contrast, the wife tends to take the presence of the husband
into account when she plans her evening activities.  Either she
tries to include him (dinner preparation, selecting TV programs), 
or she works around him (let's see, he's watching football so
I'll...).  But in either case, she's thinking about someone else
as well as herself.

When the wife gets an "alone night", she gets to think about
herself only, and in a busy family, that can be a rare luxury.

   ---Roxanne Rohmann
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:56:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13079@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[re: working for a national gay rights bill]
> Go ahead.  Guarantee a sweeping victory for Republicans in this
> coming election.

Of course.  After all, their anti-gay campaign and platform gave them so
many votes this election....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Hersh and Seventh Veil
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:05:24 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

Get over it, Rick. Boxer is your senator now. Are you gonna whine for
six years? Jeeez, plant a garden or something...
								MPA
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly)
Subject: Re: CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:06:10 GMT

In article <e04H03x6b94U00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James
Preston) writes:
> 
> If some of us have our way, he [Wilson] literally won't have a chance for
> re-election because we'll have a recall election and throw him out
> before that.  Does anyone know that status of the recall petition,
> like how many more signatures they need?
> 

The recall petition needs a little less than a million signatures.
Secondhand information has it that only about 10,000 signatures have
been collected so far.  The problem so far has not been a lack of people
who are willing to sign the petitions, but rather that there are not
nearly enough volunteers yet to collect the signatures.

If you are interested in recalling Wilson, you can call either
(408) 279-5432 or (408) 236-2111 (I think these are the right
numbers), or if you live in the San Jose area, you can show up
at the Bite 'em Back campaign headquarters at 55 N. First St.
at 7 pm on Thursdays.  (There are lots of other offices throughout
the state; calling information and asking for the number for "Bite
'em Back" may get you a number for a local office nearer to you, or
you can try calling the headquarters numbers.)

I plan on attending this week's meeting and will post more info later.

Rick Donnelly                         My opinions, not Taligent's
Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com when email server is working
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Historic First for California
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:48:22 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

joan@koala.berkeley.edu writes:

}I saw Herschensohn's ads.  Perhaps I did not see all of them, but
}they appeared to me to be negative, but not "mad dog" or "vicious".
}Does anyone have an example?

Well, I might not go so far as to call them "vicious", but how about
damned hypocritical?  At the same time that he's running the anti-Boxer
ads citing her poor attendance, bad-check writing, and what-not, he runs
an ad in which he whines about HER negative ads and says, "She's trying
to scare you into voting for her; I'm asking for your vote".  "Asking"?
Yeah, right.  Telling us how BAD Boxer has been as a representative
is just ASKING, it's not trying to SCARE us or anything.

}Does anyone have an example that would warrant Boxer's comments
}on the "politics of hate"?  I am assuming that the examples given
}about Herschensohn's support for abortion bans and no cuts in 
}military spending are to show "right-wing extremism" and not
}"politics of hate".  Unless, of course, "right-wing" is considered
}shorthand for "hate politics".  If this is the case, I would still
}like some examples because this has puzzled me for weeks.

I'm not really a fan of Boxer.  For me, this was definitely a case of
being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.  And Herschenson
scared me enough that I felt compelled to vote for the candidate with
the best chance of beating him.  I think that Boxer's comments about
the "politics of hate" are a real exaggeration.  However, it certainly
did look, from where I sat, that Boxer started out trying to run a
positive campaign (i.e. she focused on her good points rather than on her 
opponent's bad points) and Herschensohn started right out running a negative 
one (i.e. telling us why we should not vote for Boxer rather than telling 
us why we should vote for him).  Boxer's negative ads seemed to me to be 
clearly in response to the perceived effectiveness of Herschensohn's 
negative ads.  So I think there is some basis for Boxer's position, even
though this "politics of hate" stuff is a little overboard.

--James Preston
From: veit@Unify.com (Veit Irtenkauf)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: How are results determined?
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:43:05 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

It seems to me that I'm not the only one who doesn't understand how
results are determined - even my American colleagues couldn't explain
me how it's done.  So I just post the follwoing simple question:

Why did Feinstein and Boxer give their victory speeches at about 11pm,
and why did CNN even come up with the results at about 9pm that Feinstein 
and Boxer are elected.  Although I understand that CNN's results are
based on exit polls why do they announce these as true results.
And, during Feinsteins speech, the local stations here (NBC, ABC and
CBS) showed that she was 53% to 47% in front after 27% of the votes
were reported.  How could she be sure that she won?  Am I missing
something?

Veit "Someone who is used to totally different (German) election procedures!"

-- 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veit Irtenkauf    Technical Marketing Manager  |  email: veit@unify.Com
Unify Corporation                              |  voice: (916) 928-6322
3901 Lennane Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834-1922  |    fax: (916) 928-6406
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Supporting 3, 4, 5 etc. kids
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:53:08 GMT

In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>	income have 3 kids????

Catholicism and Mormonism, for starters...


jb

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is moral to discriminate on ANY basis for ANY reason whatsover."
				- Phil Ronzone
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: What is the truth behind Clinton's term as Governor?`
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:30:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <23851@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, tucker@vishnu.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:
> [On SF Chronicle supporting Bush.]
# BTW, Clinton is not a liberal.
# Liberals don't want 100,000 stormtroopers and more weaponry for the
# War on Drugs.
# 
# 	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com

Then why did liberals turn out to vote for Clinton, if they don't
want that?  Are you ready for your random search on the way to
work?  That's what Clinton is going to give us, when the Biden
"crime" bill gets passed and signed into law.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
October is National Quality Month.  That's why we wait until the first
Tuesday in November for national elections.

From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 20:38:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Seniority Power (Re: Back to Politics: Proposition 164)
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: ca.politics

Chris Hugins:
> YES, I'm going to vote AGAINST Term Limits.

> Look, do you really want this regulation to make it impossiblr
> for you to vote for someone THAT YOU LIKE?

I'm going to vote for term limit to make it impossible for someone else
to vote for someone I hate.  Term limits would be much less of an issue
of Willie Brown and David Roberti had not been reelected time after
time.  I'm willing to vote for Congressional term limits because some
districts in California are returning people to Congress whom I
absolutely cannot stand.

- Steve Kao
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:33:31 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <69332@cup.portal.com>, Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
> .... 30% of men had anal intercourse ...
> 
> Remember folks, we're talking sexual preference, not just men who
> don't mind getting jerked off or otherwise for an occasioanal whoopie.
> Most or all persons have some homosexual tendencies at some level, and
> people will resort to sex in unusual fashion if their normal outlet
> is not available. So men resorting to same-sex in a prison isn't the
> same as someone who is "genetically" inclined to be gay.
> 
> Based on the common definition (Kinsey 6 or something like that) puts
> us back to 2 to 5 percent of the population.

Ah, but Mr. Cramer and Mr. Ronzone have publicly stated that a man who has
had sex with another man is homosexual.  Period.  Gad, the percentage of
homosexuals must therefore be 30%. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------