HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:26:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxKwDJ.J4o@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> In article <13131@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> )In article <lftd0aINNh4o@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
# )# Unless "exclusive homosexuals" molest girls at some unusual rate, I
# )# think this means that, if your goal is preventing child molestation,
# )# then the best man for interacting with a mixed group of children is an
# )# "exclusive homosexual" (however Abel defined the term).
# )
# )Great.  Protect the girls, damage the boys.  Of course, that appears
# )to be a mechanism for making more male homosexuals, so I guess I'm
# )not surprised that you would make such an absurd suggestion.
# 
# Amazing.  You hint at a homosexual conspiracy to "recruit" new
# homosexuals, suggest that encouraging sexual molestation of young boys
# as a method of "recruiting" is not beyond the conspirators, and suggest
# that David Chase is one of the conspirators.

Two of three recent scholarly works on child sexual abuse agreed
that adult homosexuality is often a result of child sexual abuse,
as I have posted in the past.  And yes, I find it not at all
surprising that NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades, and has
support from a surprisingly large number of homosexuals.

# David Canzi


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: Sign seen at Bush rally
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:10:30 GMT

In article <dusek.720734440@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
|> hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) writes:
|> >But since you're so quick to wave the 2nd amendment in everyone's face,
|> >why don't you go back and read it. And while you're reading it,
|> >think about the types of firearms the Framers had in mind when
|> >they wrote it. Do you think they ever in their wildest dreams
|> >thought about fully automatic guns?
|> 
|> 	Yes they did. Our forefathers were extermly farsighted. They
|> knew weapons were going to advance, though they didn't know what
|> was comming, they belived the U.S. population should have arms
|> compareable to the U.S. goverment. (This excludes nukes, they are a 
|> stragic weapon.)

[All sorts of stuff deleted since I'm reading from s.c.u where stuff
for alt.politics.humpty_dumpty doesn't belong.]

I think that the main point people forget is that the Constitution,
even government itself, was set up to be scrutinized and modified if it
was found wanting.  Remember that the Bill of Rights is itself a string
of amendments to the Constitution.  That the United States has done so
well for so long with an increasingly anachronistic Constitution is
nothing short of amazing and would probably be especially so to the
founding fathers.

If the Constitution were being drafted today it is inconceivable there
would be such an animal in it as the 2nd Amendment.  Does that mean
that we should have a constitutional convention or attempt to clarify
or repeal the 2nd?  Probably not, since there is so much strong feeling
about on both sides.  Until there is stronger public clamor for
modification of any part of the Constitution we'll have to be satisfied
leaving things to the Supreme Court (assuming, of course, that
presidents can refrain from appointing mental midgits to that body just
because they pass some arbitrary litmus test).

-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: Rational
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:26:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.093945.23354@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.204935.29624@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|>
|> [...]
|> 
|> >Excuse me, but if the North Vietnamese were taunting US POWs with news
|> >about anti-war protests back home and stating that the US anti-war
|> >movement convinced them that if they could just hold out long enough
|> >they could win they you're the one who just doesn't get it whereas
|> >Stockdale had his nose rubbed in it for seven and a half years.
|> 
|> And why, exactly, should he believe them?  Are captors often in the
|> business of telling POWs what their leadership's policy decisions are
|> based on?

Oh come on. All they had to do was show the cover of Time or any US
newspaper to one of the POW's for proof. Newly arrived POW's also 
carried in word of the unrest at home.


This is all pointless now anyway since the events of the 3rd. Look,
even if you don't agree with Stockdale's opinions, you should at
least make an effort to understand and accept them - and give the
dude the respect he deserves. His speeches at the various Perot
rallys were some of the best written stuff I'd heard in a long 
while.

	-MSM

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:57:34 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <6946@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>'jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>'>tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>'>>doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>'>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>'>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>'>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
>'>>
>'>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>'>>
>'>
>'>In your opinion...
>'>
>'
>'Testimony is evidence.
>
>In a dictionary definition, yes it is. But...
>
>I wish that were always the case. Then what is "perjury"? Isn't it when
>your sworn testimony about what happens is discovered to be found in
>conflict with the evidence already given, mainly by physical evidence?

It's only perjury *if* it can be shown that the lying/decit were intentional

>What about a situation in a rape trial in which it is essentially one
>person's word against another's? Can _both_ stories, such as that in the
>William Kennedy Smith trial be the truth?
>

Actually yes, both stories *can* be true, to the people that tell them.
Take two people observing the same incident. Later, ask them to describe
what happened. The two stories can, and probably will be, different. Both
people honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they *percieved* it.
Now, the task is to piece together the *reality* of the situation based
on the two different *true* stories...


>Testimony or offering to testify does not necessarily mean you are
>offering irrefutable evidence about a situation. I could testify that my
>parents beat me when I was little all the time. It's not true, but
>according to the statement that "testimony is evidence," my statement
>proves that my parents beat me when I was young.
>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
>	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
>I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
>good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu (John G. Otto)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.
Organization: Tallahassee Objectivists for  Nancy Lord in 96
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:50:53 GMT

> In article <1992Nov6.094336.12188@eecs.nwu.edu>, 
> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) wrote:
>> In article <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com 
>>  (robert j kolker) writes:
>>	2. Property has been part of the advanced
>>	   cultures of the world since the agricultural revolution. It is 
>>	   implicit in the control and use of land. It is a pragmatic 
>>	   consequence of the way we get our food, not a good thing in and
>>	   of itself.
 
> This would imply that cultures that do not feed themselves by
> agriculture have no concept of property.  Do you have any evidence that
> this is so?  It's not inconceivable that such evidence might be
> obtainable, since nonagricultural cultures exist today, but have you
> actually obtained such evidence?

Nomadic cultures had/have property rights concepts, as well.  Some of 
these are similar to condo time-shares wherein one group has control
during one season and another has control during a different season.
Of course, there were/are also property rights in portable property such
as water casks and tents, but also in herds.

The wanderers (i.e. Hebrews) were told not to steal at a time when 
they'd been "wandering in the wilderness" for several decades.  
Shortly thereafter, they were given ownership of "the promised land".

> In any case, even if property DID arise out of agriculture, why does
> that imply that it is not a good thing in and of itself?

What comes out of the records is that sophisticated and specific rights
to specific uses of specific kinds of goods, including land have always
existed, as have the concepts of various kinds of transfers - voluntary
transfers such as inheritance, giving & trade, and involuntary transfers 
such as robbery, taxes, burglary, tribute, continuation of uncontested 
use & theft.
jgo   John G. Otto   otto@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections (IV)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:00:09 GMT

The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections (IV)

"The [Salvadoran election of 1982] was tailor-made for television ...
if the guerrillas of the FMLN-FDR chose to boycott the election, this
was because they had an innate preference for bullets rather than
ballots, not because the entire leadership of the leftist alliance
had been abducted and killed in November 1980, or because their
successor had been included on a ``traitor list'' published by the
armed forces in March  1981. If a guerrilla perspective on the
elections was lacking, the biases of t press corps were not entirely
to blame, for Salvadoran military did their part to ensure that
journalists would steer clear of such controversial topics. Ten days
before the vote, reporters were summoned to the San Salvador morgue.
Laid out in stark wooden coffins under the harsh glare of the
cameramen's klieg lights were the bodies of a four-man Dutch
television crew, shot dead as they traveled to keep an appointment in
a rebel-held area. The military announced that they had been ``killed
in crossfire,'' but the corpses had been mutilated, the pants pulled
down to expose their bloodied genitals.... this was a formal display
of the dead for demonstration purposes, and there was little room for
ambiguity about the message. The same day, an anonymous death list was
circulated with the names of thirty-five foreign journalists. In the
months leader up to the March election, major newspapers, including
the New York Times and the Washington Post, had run reports from behind
rebel lines, which the U.S. embassy accused of romanticizing the
guerrillas. These now abruptly ceased.

Instead, there was euphoria about the pageant ... Dan Rather led off
his election-night broadcast on CBS News with an exclamation of
delight: ``It was a triumph! A million people at the polls.''

``After a lifetime of journalism, I still cannot understand the media.
I cannot fathom the pool of silence into which the killing of the four
dutch journalists in El Salvador has been dropped.'' -- I. F. Stone,
1982."

[Pages 151-152, George Black, _The Good Neighbor_, Pantheon Books
(Random House), New York, 1988] " ]

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:04:34 GMT

In article <83252@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
writes:
>Oh, Dave? Tell me. Are the Vietnamese better off today than before?  I
>mean, is their government much of an improvement over that police state
>you seem to love talking about?

No, it's probably not an improvement.  However, if you accept the argument
that there is no clear choice between a communist totalitarian state and a
string of US-backed puppet dictatorships, then the justification that the
US was fighting on behalf of a government that would somehow be "better"
for the South Vietnamese vanishes.

>If so, then why have so many fled that country to live here? Just some
>questions.

You incorrectly presumed that my answer to your first question would be
"yes".

>]Monte
>](War mongering baby killer and village burner that I am)
>
>No. I doubt you are such a thing. But then people like Dave can't tell
>the difference between a soldier and a brigand. Pity, for enlightened
>folk, they really are blind in a few areas....
>-- 
>Patrick Chester
>wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

Once again, someone has totally ignored the point of my post, and once
again, someone has used insults in place of rational arguments and
reasonable questions.  I am amazed that the intent and implications of such
a simple concept can be so totally perverted by supposedly educated people,
and that these same people find it necessary to resort to name-calling just
to make their point.

One more time: I am not calling every single US soldier who served in
Vietnam a "brigand"--this is totally ridiculous--but rather saying that the
brutality of certain of the US counter-insurgency tactics was such that it
tended not to cause South Vietnamese to support the US intervention.
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: solensky@andr.UB.com (Frank T Solensky)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17)--Clinton on Cuomo & Suprem
Reply-To: solensky@andr.UB.com
Organization: Ungermann-Bass Inc./Andover, MA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:59:42 GMT

In article 720979857@spssig, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>.. As for 'squeaky
>clean' (NOTE: this is NOT a flame or complaint, just an opinoin) a liberal 
>nominee doesn't need to be as squeaky clean as a conservative.  If you claim 
>to be a conservative, you better not have done anything out of line...if you 
>have, you'll be slaughtered.  A liberal is more likely to get away with
>minor indiscretions.  It has to do with the self-proclaimed standards.
>
My gawd, Steve, I almost agree with you!

The slaughtering of the conservative appointment, though, is often accomplished by
their own:  once -- who was it, Greenberg? -- admitted to inhaling, it was the
Reagan administration that withdrew the nomination.

>
>Cuomo on the other hand would be fillibustered.

I think the larger problem might be the amount of time it would take him to
decide if he wanted to accept the appointment. (I can hear it now: "The Supreme Court
decided by a 5-3-1 majority today..." :-)
								-- Frank



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:30:06 GMT

rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>>I share the original poster's concern that socialist health care
>>will result in pressure to "live healthily"...
>
>I don't know if I will like socialized medicine.

Don't worry, you won't see it.  Even Michael Dukakis, who has been studying
national health care pretty seriously since 1988, is against it (gasp!).
Nobody in power, except possibly a lunatic fringe of the Congress, is in
favor of it.  (and I am at least well-disposed towards it, having been a
child of the British NHS).

However, I hope one aspect of socialized systems gets tried here: the local
non-doctor health practitioner, quite possibly employed by the State.  I'm
particularly thinking of the visiting nurses who barged into the house
after the children were born, gave them a couple of thorough checkups (yes,
Rob, I'm talking about you) and generally dispensed good advice.  Often the
same woman who handed out iron and folic acid tablets during the pregnancy.

We hear of the value of preventative medicine, but not often specifics.
And, even in a nationalized system, it is not a given that people will
voluntarily take early action.  This is a concrete and unexceptional
example.  Don't be too scared; there are some aspects of systemized care
that are actually quite enjoyable.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allueberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... ewig...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: President Clinton's Cabinet
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:08:54 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <7928@transfer.stratus.com> dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
>Guess what I heard on Bos radio, and read in the Herald. cabinet choices.
>
>Think of it: Sec of Housing & Urban Development - Boston Mayor  Ray Flynn
>             Sec of Education : Michael Dukakis  (he's baaaaaack!)
> Others: Jimmy Carter, John "watch this Biden tape" Sasso, for Chief of Staff
>and a host of others.

From what I've heard, Oklahoma Governor David Walters may become Secy. of
Energy. Walters was (I believe) co-campaign chair for Clinton.

A Grand Jury is currently investigating Walters' 1990 campaign, where
apparantly illegal campaign contributions were involved. If Clinton's
smart, he won't touch Walters with a ten foot pole. I can see the
indictment coming down right after the Senate confirmation.

						- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Quota at colleges for the rich (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:00:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.153555.20038@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
>In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith,
>ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those
>whose
>>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make
>alumni
>>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>>discrimination.
>
>So you're in favor of quotas for rich white people.  Quotas are okay
>if the recipients give a kick back to the organization?  I don't
>know, sounds like a case were the RICCO laws should be invoked.

If they're private colleges AND don't receive federal dollars from
ANY source, I believe they're free to do whatever they want.

BTW, it would probably be more accurate to say quota for rich people,
not rich white people.  I imagine colleges aren't too picky where the
big bucks come from.

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:59356 alt.rush-limbaugh:9370 alt.politics.elections:23347 alt.politics.clinton:16705 alt.politics.bush:13673
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:05:05 GMT
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Nov6.031510.15623@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.015124.1213@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct26.160811.323@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>> Hey folks, I have a question.  If trickle-down-economics is bad and 
>>> doesn't create jobs...where the hell else can jobs come from?
>>>
>>Not picking on you Ted ...
>>
>>This is incredible ... a softminded, and inept person coins
>>a phrase that even he does not and cannot define and the country
>>uses that phrase in conversation
>>
>Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's been
>around since at least the 1920's.

A source for this please?

And a definition?

Pat
>
>Paul.
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FROM PEROT VOTER -- CONGRATULATIONS BILL
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:50:02 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Glynne Tolar writes:
>The only good I see in Clinton winning is that 4 years from now you could not
>vote a democrat in for garbage collector!
>

This has been remarked on several times and assumes that everyone is
just itching to recreate inflation and hard times and spend like
crazy. The fact is that Congress, recently, has consistently
spent less than the President has requested. Under the gun of accountability,
wonderful word, who knows what savings might result? Several friends
and I, although we voted for Clinton, did so with some trepidation:
his stated policies are so scantily different from those of George
Bush that given the political equivalent of one of those Taster's Choice
coffee switches, I'd be willing to be most people couldn't tell the
difference. Think of the commonality: capital gains tax relief, investment
tax credits, enterprise zones....jeez...to hear the dies irae Republicans
moan, you'd think Karl Marx had taken over. The big difference: health
care reform. Whoa, Nellie! It is a demonstrable fact that Americans
pay more for less than any other country on the planet. You'd think
EVERYONE would want to reform the health care system. And -- given the
coffee switch gag above -- I bet more people would pick Clinton's. I
know  that was the reason I voted for him. So, buck up, kiddies. If
Clinton does futz things into oblivion, the political result will
be as you describe. But if things get better...you win that way, too.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58747 alt.politics.clinton:16317