HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:56:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <Bxz6p0.Kv4@fig.citib.com>, glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
> In article <13256@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov17.210333.2428@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> |> > In article <13208@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# |# # #So why is there a right to practice sodomy?
# |# # 
# |# # Because it is a private matter between consenting adults. Didn't you
# |# # know that?
# |# 
# |# Of course.  I've argued that repeatedly.  But your reading skills
# |# are so deficient that you utterly missed my point: if you want
# |# freedom, you have to extend it similarly.  You want the freedom to
# |# engage in private acts between consenting adults?  Do likewise.
# |# The homosexual fascist lobby won't -- that's why they insist on
# |# laws regulating private actions between consenting adults.
# 
# Since when was being fired or tossed out of your apartment
# simply because your affections were geared towards adults
# of your same gender a private action between *consenting*
# adults?
# 
# Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607

For the same reason that we call it rape when one part wants
sex, and the other doesn't.  Mutual consent is required.
If an employer doesn't want to hire you, or wants to fire you,
they have the right to do so, for the same reason that you have
the right to refuse a job, or to quit when you feel like it.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61038 sci.econ:8781
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:39:47 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <184341@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.171201.5662@desire.wright.edu>,
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov16.200608.24566@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> |> >  
> |> > 
> |> > What happens when you add in 1991 and 1992?
> |> 
> |> 	Apples and Oranges.  Bush was not following supply side after he
> |> raised taxes in 1990.
> |> 
> 
> I question this.  According to your earlier posts, you have said that
> "supply side" has two main components  - tax reductions and a lessening
> of restrictions on business legislation.  After his State of the Union
> address, Busht effectively did both -- he deferred the witholding rate
> for one year, an effective tax cut, and he loosed diver Dan Quayle onto
> the task of determining which pieces of red tape should be suspended due
> to the  emergency state of the economy   

	Whoa!  George Bush raised taxes by a considerable amount in 1990.  The
witholding was just a "$20 rebate" ala Carter.  Bush also increased regulation
by a dramatic amount.  The Quayle commission was simply a counter to the
environmental legislation passed earlier.
	And the second compenent is less government spending.  Which can
include less regulation....

> In other words, Bush engaged in "virtual" supply-side -- policies, which
> according to you, should be indistinguishable with "true" supply side.

	Bush did nothing of the kind.

> So what do you conclude, Brett?  Do you deny that the "Bush" conditions
> are indistinguishable from supply-side policies (with added credit), and
> if not  how does the result square with your thesis?

	I reject your "facts" and thus conclude that your conclusions are
false.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61333 alt.sex:37245
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:57:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

#>2) It is irrelavent. Argueing that because a random homosexual partner
#>is more likely to be HIV+ than a random heterosexual partner mean that
#>you can take fewer precautions is like argueing that a person who
#>skydives only once a year doesn't need to be as careful as someone who
#>skydives 300 times a year.
#
#This is a non sequitur, so I don't know what to make of it. 

It is *not* a non sequitur. When dealing with a life threatening
situation, you need to be as careful if you only do it once as you do
if you do it multiple times. You had argued the other way.

# A heterosexual
#male is more likely to die in a car accident driving ten miles to a sexual
#encounter with a non-IV using female than from contracting HIV from that
#female.   

That may be true today, but if heterosexuals continue to not take
protection against spread of HIV it won't be true. And the amount of
time for it not to be true is frighteningly small. 

#First, this alone will prevent HIV from reaching epidemic proportions in
#heterosexuals.

Thinking this is a recipe for disaster. Prevention of transmission is
easy. 

#Women are abysmal transmitters of HIV, so most heterosexual
#men will never be at risk, and women that sleep with heterosexual men won't be
#at risk. 

Are you willing to bet you life on these "abysmal" odds? If nothing is
done, the number of HIV cases will rise. However, doing something is
easy. 

#Eighty
#percent of monogamous couples where the male was infected and the female
#wasn't didn't result in a female infection, despite the fact that each of
#these couples averaged three hundred or so sexual encounters.

I would not call a 20 percent chance of getting HIV "abysmal". 

And using the factor of 17 that you posted earlier, that means there
is over a 1 percent chance of getting HIV.

Those odds are certainly too high to risk not using proper measures. 

#And anal sex is more likely to induce semen-to-blood contact
#than vaginal sex or oral sex.

Agreed, but small scratches do provide vectors for transmission. 

#And half of heterosexuals sleep with women, who are poor transmitters of HIV.

Are you willing to bet your life on "poor transmitters"? I'm not.
Ignoring simple precautions is a recipe for disaster.


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:59:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.213102.21606@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Ya know, Clayton, I was waiting for you to post something about this.
>I just knew you could not resist. 
>
>I was amused becasue a story on CNN about 10 days ago gave figures
>that 57 percent of heterosexuals engage in "unsafe" sexual practices. 
>
>So of 57 percent of hets and 33 percent of homosexuals are  doing
>something bad, which group is acting more reasonably?

You're comparing apples and oranges.  What was defined as "unsafe sex"
in the heterosexual study puts one at thousands times less risk than
the behavior Clayton describes.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 10584@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
[On the question of whether Anita Hill lied about being conservative and Republican]
[Quotes from various people who testified against Hill deleted...]

>The effort to portray HIll as a conservative, were just a crude attempt to
>give her more credibility.  It appears to have only worked with those who
>wanted to believe, or were looking for some kind of cover to justify their
>opinions.

Actually, your quotes generally come from people who were trying to assign a
political motivation to Hill's behavior.  That effort failed miserably for lack
of evidence.  For every person who accused her of liberal motives there were
credible testimonies that she held conservative views.  None of her detractors
claimed that she wasn't a Republican.  At best, you might claim that she was a
moderate or liberal Republican, but those kinds of labels are highly subjective.
From my perspective, she was moderate to liberal on some issues, especially for
a Republican.  That doesn't make the claim that she was conservative and
Republican false in the general sense.  She was deeply religious, strongly
patriotic, and fiscally conservative.  Those are hallmarks of conservatism. 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:54:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.203440.27419@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.170925.16802@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>>
>>It's total bullshit.  I doubt Clinton has devoted even one second of
>>thought to the EEOC since the election, much less who is going to run
>>it.  In any event, No one in the Clinton camp has said anything about
>>who is going to be in the new administration (except that Clinton will
>>be President and Gore will be Vice President).
>>
>>Paul.
>
>Sorry, this is neither bullshit nor something to stir up debate on the net.  
>November 8 on Meet The Press, one of the two leaders of Clinton's transition
>committee said that Anita Hill was indeed at the top of the list for Head 
>of EEOC.
>
>It is a sad day in america.
>
It is bullshit.
Having watched that show I can categorically state that Vernon Jordan
(the person who you are refering to) did not make any such comment.
One of the questioners was trying to put words in his mouth but he
didn't say anything about who is on any list for any government
position.  In fact, he was as careful as anyone I have ever seen in
avoiding any comment on who might be a cabinet member (or any other
government official).  

Paul.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61185 ba.politics:7306 ca.politics:9774
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:15:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Nov19.205149.2623@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> In article <13243@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

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

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

But isn't NAMBLA a political group?  Mr. Radow insists that
their only purpose is to reform the age of consent laws.

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

Yes, this is true.  After all, I am a straight, white, male,
and so are those in the KKK!  I presume that those who made
the above decision do not properly represent the priorities
of the gay community.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60815 ca.politics:9674 misc.legal:20145
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:03:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.230223.17089@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <13186@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <1992Nov14.202602.23939@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > > In article <13166@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # #   Oh yes, keep dreaming. You, Clayton Cramer, have done more to
# # # give NAMBLA a platform than anybody else I know of. I guess 
# # # you should work on your self loathing.
# # 
# # By saying that the homosexual community should shun NAMBLA, I
# # give them a platform?  I guess Bnai Brith gives neo-Nazis a platform,
# # too.
# 
#   Actually, if I had to make an analogy it would be more like the
# John Birchers giving the Communists a platform. Your lunatic ravings
# about the subject serve only to dismiss any legistimate concerns
# that there may be. In your case, it's even worse because your
# ravings have been systematically been cast in great doubt by
# Kane, Chase, Bartholomew et al. You are doing your cause far
# more damage than good exactly the same way that Birchers only 
# served to make people want to distance themselves with Red Baiting.

You don't suppose that the continual drumbeat of support for
child molestation by homosexuals in soc.motss has done some 
damage to your cause?  I didn't care, one or the other, about
this subject three years ago.  Soc.motss has really opened my
eyes to what sick, screwed up, depraved people homosexuals are.

# # # # Take a look at California's laws on child molestation.  It's
# # # # obvious they are written the way they are to benefit homosexuals.
# # # 
# # #   !!! Are you actually suggesting that legislators purposefully wrote
# # # laws which benefit homosexual molestors? You realize, that would be the
# # 
# # Sure.  Willie Brown, Assemblyman from San Francisco, has been speaker
# # of the Assembly for many years now.
# 
#   Well, Willie is from SF, so I guess it's guilt by association.

Willie has historically carried many gay rights bills.

# But let me see if I've got this correct: Willy Brown is the ring
# leader of the homosexual fascist conspiracy to cause people perform
# witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and leave their spouses and become 
# homosexual? 
#   Right?

Witchcraft?  Huh?  I am much more worried about the propaganda
efforts aimed at children.

# 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:13:09 GMT

In article <13241@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#The excuse give was that
#no political groups were allowed in the parade -- yet NAMBLA
#states that its goal is political -- repeal of the age of
#consent laws.

Hmm, that's a bit strange. I generally support free speech, even of
Illionis NAZI's, but I don't agree with inconsistencies.


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:31:52 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Nov21.213102.21606@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

> So of 57 percent of hets and 33 percent of homosexuals are  doing
> something bad, which group is acting more reasonably?

Neither.
-- 
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???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61078 ba.politics:7286 ca.politics:9745
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:08:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <13278@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#You missed such postings, then.  I have also recently posted about
#the absurdity of a deaf person taking orders in a fast-food restaurant,
#as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

You post hundreds of articles about homosexuals, and claim that a
single posting about a deaf person shows that you aren't biased?

I think that the only person who belives you aren't biased is
yourself. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61137 alt.politics.elections:24204 misc.legal:20238
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Judicial Branch
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:07:56 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov19.011053.6720@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp 
(Michael Friedman) writes:
> >Humph!  Jurisdictional gerrymandering.  Technically legal in most cases, 
but 
> >still suspect, IMHO.
> 
> Hardly a gerrymander.

My use of "gerrymander" was a metaphor: it does with boundries of 
jurisdiction what gerrymandering does with boundries of electoral districts.

>  Also, why are you calling it technically legal?
> The Constitution specifically permits it.  It is totally and
> completely legal.

I'm calling it "technically legal" based on the portion of my post you quoted 
directly below.

> >There've also been suggestions that where a jurisdictional gerrymander 
> >interferes with the Court's core functions or an individual's fundamental 
> >rights, it would be unconstitutional.  These theories, of course, have not 
> >been tested.
> 
> No.  I challenge you to give us a cite on these theories.  I don't
> believe they exist.  Why?  Because the Constitution explicitly permits
> Congress to limit the cases the Court can try.

Well, hell, the theory exists merely because I said so.  If someone else 
didn't say it first, then it's just that the theory is original with me, 
right?

But others have said it first, so we need not reach the question of whether a 
theory originating with me is indeed a theory.  I have no references handy, 
but I have them at home, and if I remember, I'll look them up and cite them 
for you on Monday (11/23/92), okay?

ObSheesh:  Sheesh!


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:02:36 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov15.190249.11564@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov14.172226.5605@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> >	GDP growth rate, 1982-1990: 3.5%  Up 102% from 1980--equivalent to an
|> >economy the size of Germany was created.  Even after infation, GDP was up by an
|> >astounding 31% from 1982-1990.
|> 
|> The first number, of course, is meaningless.  As for the second, it's
|> a tribute to three trillion dollars of Keynesian deficit spending, no?
|> 

I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
the economy going that spending more money.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60825 ca.politics:9683 ba.politics:7251
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:05:31 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <Bxs66M.2Ap@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>Brendan, you just shot your argument in the foot. The second reason you cited-
>the perception that women will "take the money and run" to start families 
>instead of staying with the company for the longhaul-is a perception and
>perceptions are the basis of discrimination. Has anyone done any research to see

Actually, when I said they were perceived as "less reliable" than men,
I wasn't thinking of "taking the money and run", I was thinking in
terms of being less willing to work long hours, weekends, taking time
off when the kids get sick, that sort of thing.  Please note also that
I'm not saying this is how it is now if this was a valid point in the
past - I've read in the last couple of years that more and more men
are turning down responsibilites at the office at the price of
career advancement in order to spend time with their families - I'm not
sure if my brother has done anything to hurt his career but I do know
that he is aware of the trade-off between his career and spending time
with his wife and son.

>how true it actually is? And would anybody apply the same logic to men, about 
>whom it may be equally true?

Interesting, I don't know.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61371 alt.rush-limbaugh:10273 alt.politics.elections:24262 alt.politics.clinton:17662 alt.politics.bush:14010