HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:40:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95356@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12129@optilink.UUCP>
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
# #from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
# #Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
# #powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.
# 
# Listen, whoever is harrassing you is clearly an asshole, but if you
# do what you threaten, you are exposing yourself as a hypocrite. Lou
# Sheldon is a cultural fascist, someone you should love to hate.

As distinguished from the homosexual lobby's efforts to force
me to associate against my will.  They are also fascists.

I would prefer to not have to choose between forms of fascism,
but unless the homosexual community overcomes this desire to
run other people's lives, I, and many others, may have to choose
the lesser of two evils -- and the results will be unpleasant.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 92 22:29:00 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> What's really extraordinary is that the same day Bush announced the 
> increased wheat subsidies he made a speech praising free trade!   The
> man has to be one of the biggest hypocrites there is, in a profession
> (politics) that has produced some real champions!  

If it weren't an election year, I wouldn't find this hypocritical.  Isn't
it just good policy for a country to make sure that it can produce its own
critical products, like food?  If another country is more efficient in
these areas, either tax the imports or subsidize our producers, so that
if the imports are ever cut off, we still have domestic production.

Unrestrained free trade in everything seems awfully dangerous. 

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45177 alt.politics.usa.constitution:146
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:19:55 GMT
	<1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com>
	<1992Sep13.171425.6225@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

   In article <1992Sep13.171425.6225@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
   >In article <1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:

   >>	The danger I see with a line item veto, is the president
   >>could, scrach out the word   'not' from the sentence fragment 
   >>'is not permitted' making it into 'is permitted' thus totaly changing
   >> the meaning of a new bill.

   >This isn't anything like the line-item veto I've heard discussed: The
   >President can't _edit_ a bill, simply veto sections of it (though,
   >admittidly, "section" needs to be better defined.) The idea is to

   While this isn't the *meaning* of line-item veto, I wouldn't put it past
   Bush and his statist judges to attempt to redefine it this way.

Again, more liberal crap predicting the future without a shred of
supporting evidence.  Now, it will become gospel that this is what Bush
will do.

   >allow the President to seperate unrelated parts of all encompassing
   >bill. It isn't at all uncommon for Congress to dodge a Presidential
   >veto, by sticking together totally unrelated items, one of which the
   >Presdient opposes and one which he suppports. A line-item veto is
   >intended to curb this abuse. (By the way, it there anything in

   Why do you call it *abuse*?  It's not an abuse, it's a perfectly valid
   exertion of Congressional powers.  Part of checks and balances.
   Otherwise the President would have a ridiculous amount of power, and it
   would take 2/3 of Congress to pass anything.

Abuse?  I'll tell you how it comes about.  Remember a cute thing called
the Boland amendment?  Well, it was included as a rider to a continuing
budget resolution.  President Reagan's only choices were to sign the bill
or allow the Government to shut down.  He chose not to close the  Gov't.
And for that we got Torquemada Walsh.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45514 alt.politics.elections:13158
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:27:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Sep14.102736.12922@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>In article <18ta4cINNau8@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>
>>>What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>>>You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>>
>>Better them than people like me who make less than $40,000. 

You didn't read correctly. You AND them will pay...
>
>The top tax bracket in Arkansas starts at $20,000/year.  Maybe this is
>considered rich in Arkansas?  Will this be rich in the US under Clinton??

When the effects of his economic plans kick in, it will ....

Pat, (hoping this comment deserves a :-), but fearing it deserves a :-( )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,ba.market.computers
Subject: Re: "Property is theft" (Re: WANTED : Very Cheap or Free Computers/Modems)
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:39:35 GMT
Reply-To: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Organization: QueerNet

In article <12185@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <jtkn6nb.ladasky@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky
|> II) writes:
|> # "Property is theft." - Groucho
|> Yeah!  "Property is theft," so I guess we should ask the San Jose
|> Green Party where all those computers and modems will be based.
|> I mean, it's not like they will object to all those stolen
|> goods being expropriated, right?
 
Gawd, Clayton, you *are* dim.  Why don't you look at the source to whom
the quotation is attributed and go rent yourself a sense of humor?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44862 ca.politics:7639 ba.politics:5196 soc.motss:38828 ba.motss:1581
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:48:36 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <12211@optilink.UUCP>, Clayton Cramer writes:
>The homosexual fascist lobby is creating a situation where the choice
>is "the devil and the deep blue sea."...and the only realistic way to stop it is by
>assisting another group that I don't like.

Well, from my perspective, it seems like choosing a far worse alternative. Far 
worse.  But then again, I don't have a problem with gay people, so that could
account for it. I see the CCTV and OCA as groups dedicated to stifling all 
dissent from their internal norms, and anti-discrimination legislation for 
homosexuals as a small thing that is (by your viewpoint) already a de facto
fait accompli. 

So, I find the CCTV infinitely more repugnant than gay rights organizations. 

So it goes. Choose your poison, I guess. 

JZ
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 1992 10:03:46 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Electoral College
	<1992Sep7.181148.22935@athena.mit.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 7-Sep-92 Re: Electoral
College William D. Starr@athena. (1435)

> I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
> college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
> most popular votes to be the winner?

> (I've heard the run-off concept defended by argument that the
> democratic system, in order to retain a veneer of legitimacy, "needs"
> to be able to display a winner who garnered a majority of the votes; I
> suggest that twiddling the democratic system in order to generate such
> a result _artificially_ instead gives the system a smell of hypocrisy
> that does more harm than good.)

The problem is that someone could become President even when a majority
of voters would have prefered some other specific person.

For example, suppose A gets 40%, B gets 35%, and C gets 25% of the vote.
 So you suggest, let's just make A president.  But it's quite possible
that most or all of the people who voted for C would certainly have
preferred B to A, so 60% of the people prefer B over A but A still gets
elected president.  This also causes lots of "horse race voting", where
people don't vote for the candidate they like best, but for the one of
the "top two" candidates that they like best.

I think the best system is a preferential system, which basically
amounts to a single-election with multiple run-offs.  You rank all of
your choices from 1 to n, and the person with the least number of votes
is eliminates and his votes distributed based on their second choices,
then the person with the least number of votes is eliminated and her
votes distributed based on the next choice, etc., until someone receives
a majority.  It's probably only workable in a large country by limiting
the number of candidates or by computerizing the voting systems, neither
of which would probably be very popular.  So the "run-off" is a cheap
approximation to a preferential system, where instead of eliminating
only one person at a time, after the first election you eliminate all
but the top two candidates.  Since there's currently no sizable third
party in the U.S., I don't think a simple run-off system would be too
useful here.  But I think it's important to note that a run-off is not
an "artificial" "twiddling of the democratic system" - it's very
important for getting the most-accepted person as president.

--Conrad
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45402 ca.politics:7763 ba.politics:5303
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:21:25 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep14.173812.2523@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
    >In article <12274@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark
    >Walsh) sniffs:
    >>Besides, would you want to work for a company that fired
    >>people because they were gay? I wouldn't.
    >>
    >It's nice that you can pick and choose. Millions of people
    >out of work in this country can't.

So what does THEIR need have to do with employment?

Perhaps you believe just because they NEED something that they are
entitled to something?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:27:50 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

Corporate Lawyers and Bushs in bed
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:57:57 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <Sep.15.07.21.56.1992.9727@romulus.rutgers.edu>
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>rarely does anyone in the U.S. run red lights.

The man has never been to Boston or New York.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45119 alt.rush-limbaugh:4681 alt.politics.elections:12966 alt.politics.clinton:5134 alt.politics.bush:4896
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:24:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.225745.21723@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>As an aside, has anyone noted that Saddam Hussein is Bush's Willie
>Horton?  Think about the parallels.  You've got a known murderer.  You
>could impose stiff penalties on the murderer, but instead you decide to
>be nice to him and hope he'll suddenly become a nice person.  Not
>surprisingly, this murderer takes everything you give him and then goes
>out and murders again, anyway.  
>
>Of course, the difference is that Willie Horton only killed 2 people the
>second time around, and Saddam killed thousands.

Good analogy.  One other difference, though, is that Saddam won't have the
same psychological effect on voters like Willie Horton did.  Most people
are not going to be afraid that Saddam is going to come into their
neighborhood and rape and murder.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44374 ca.politics:7549 ba.politics:5128
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:37:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>sexual orientation is not defined by AB 2601].
>Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
>Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
>nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
>what it meant.

What a red herring! What you've just said is tantamount to saying,
"well, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality in itself, so if
I'm going to successfully portray it as disgusting, I'd better try
to link it behavior which is almost universally condemned"

As I've said, Boston University's illustrious president, HRH John
Silber, gave the same trashy argument as you have here, Clayton.

As a result, when Silber ran for governor in 1990, during the height of
anti-Dukakis sentiment, I excercised my vote and helped put Bill Weld
in office. The first Republican I've ever voted for. And a mighty
unpopular one among the cultural fascists controlling the GOP and its
convention last month. Weld's latest effort has been to secure health
benefits for state worker's same-sex domestic partners, provided they
meet some essential criteria.

<I swear, I just felt Buchanan and Cramer cringe at the same time!>

You see, I'm actually afraid for my job security here by blaspheming HRH
Silber! After the sexual orientation clause was made to specify consenting
informed adult behavior, and after the Board of Trustees approved it,
Silber still has not signed on. He can terminate my employment at will
because of my sexual orientation.

I only feel safer now because he is currently in Germany giving the
Deutschmanner his "Straight Talk" (name of his self-promotional book
on the woes of America), lecturing them on how to best become more
democratic.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Mark Eckenwiler Does the Impossible! (was Re: Clair George ...)
Date: 5 Sep 92 12:05:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

He "proves" a negative!

In article <1992Sep3.013622.9015@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

[Al Thompson:]

>>>> [re Oliver North]

>>>> Note too that he was only convicted on the "cheap" charges,

Note also that the forewoman of the jury which convicted him has since
publicly stated that the jury arrived at a verdict for conviction
_NOT_ON_THE_BASIS_OF_THE_EVIDENCE_, but because they felt that this
was their obligation since the government had spent so much money
bringing North to trial.  They did not want to disappoint the
prosecution.

>>>> destruction of government documents and accepting the gift of a
>>>> security fence.  A gift he accepted in desperation because, even
>>>> though he had received numerous death threats, the government refused
>>>> his request for protections.

[Mark Eckenwiler:]

>>> Unfortunately for your position, this is a lie.  [...]

>>> References [...] available on request.

>> Here's a request.

> Ask and ye shall receive . . . .

> [Associated Press account, N Y Times reprint of committee reports,
>  and Reuters account deleted.]

These accounts only prove that no written evidence exists of any
request made by North, not that no such requests were ever made.

> Any more cherished Ollie North myths you want exploded?

Yes.  The myth that Ollie North was a criminal.  But you're not the
man for the job.  Ollie North is a veritable hero.  You're not even
fit to shine his shoes.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU
Subject: UH "Open Mike" 9/11/92
Reply-To: elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 08:09:30 GMT

The University of Houston is having an "Open Mike" on 9/11/92.
If anyone is interested, please come and express your viewpoint
on ANY issue, such as the GOP, pro-choice, pro-life, gay rights, 
family value, environmental issues, etc, etc, etc...

It is going to be held in the University Center Saterlite from
noon to 1 p.m.  at University of Houston (central campus).
This program is sponsered by the Student Program Board (SPB).

If you have any question, e-mail to elee74l@jetson.uh.edu

-Ken N.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lmb@netcom.com (Larry Blair)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care (was "ACM downgrades Catastrophe Medical Insurance")
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:42:07 GMT
Organization: Glenwood Consulting, Scotts Valley, CA

In article <1992Sep10.192729.2078@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
=In article <jwtnrdm.lmb@netcom.com> lmb@netcom.com (Larry Blair) writes:
=>
=>Canadian care is not inferior, I hear you say?  Bullshit.  I'll give you 
=>a very typical example: my sister (who lives in Montreal) developed a
=>neurological condition.  Diagnosis required an MRI.  There is *1* MRI 
=>machine in Montreal and it was booked for the next 6 months.
=
=A couple of reasonable questions ...
=
=1. How long ago was this?

Last year.

=2. Did your sister have private insurance from Le Croix Bleu or any
=other equivalent private companies (often through work benefits)?

Not at the time.  She does now.

=3. Is your sister lower/middle class, or upper-middle/upper class with
=connections to the good private hospitals like the Mortimer B. Davis
=Jewish General or Saint-Luc?  (Just remember that lower/middle class
=people are the ones in America feeling the no- or lack-of-insurance
=crunch down here.)

So solve the problem by providing insurance for those that fall through the
cracks.  Having the govt. pay for all medical care is a guaranteed failure.
-- 
Larry Blair   lmb@netcom.com       Glenwood Consulting 408-438-6386
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush