HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:18:33 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Financing the govt

Jason:

>Some people in Europe think "their fair share" could be as high as 80%
>of their income.
>
>What do you think?

80% seems horribly draconian.  If it were a flat 80%, it would at least be
nondiscriminatory, but I would still oppose that level of taxation.  Since
European gov'ts are more welfare-oriented than ours, they are essentially
confiscating the wealth of their citizens and then giving it back, minus a
hefty brokerage fee.  While taxation is okay in the case of public goods (like
defense), an 80% tax rate is clearly unnecessary for these purposes.

If we had an 80% tax rate in this country, I would say its time to slash
spending and let people keep more of what they earn.  Since we're talking about
Europe, though, they can tax themselves into the Atlantic for all I care.

        True enough, but don't you think that there is some problem
        when there are some few people who earn more than $10 million
        in a year and a great many who starve and have no home?

        -j.b.
>-j.b.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:59:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      How to Defeat Aids

  Aside from blood transfusions, I think that the way to defeat Aids
is to encourage people to discontinue a promiscuous lifestyle and to
make abstinence in vogue.  As for education, since sex ed has been
introduced into the schools the rate of diseases and teen pregnancies
have increased.  Also, there is no protection against Aids even from a
condom.  The Aids virus is one fifth the size of the smallest hole in
any condom.
  As for women, they do have choices.  They can choose not to have
sex, and they can choose not to have sex with someone that will not
wear a condom.  On a national level we need to treat Aids like any other
epidemic, for example TB.  Until this is done the whole nation is in
danger.  Aids needs to be treated like other diseases that are just as
deadly.

Carl------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:55:56 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Doc Strangelove
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:58:00 EDT push the button, frank! said:
>From: "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
>>Tonight, I saw a film from 1964 that I had not seen for a long time,
>>"Dr. Strangelove or How I Grew to Love the Bomb."
>
>"Dr. Strangelove, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."
>One of my favorites.  And I quite agree with you, the rampant paranoia
>between the U.S. and Russia has caused severe damage.  I have to wonder,
>however, if most of the paranoia (the general paranoia, not the UMASS
>variety) may stem somewhat from the perceived instability of the Russian
>government.  Since that perception is grounded in fact, as you've
>amply illustrated, I'm at a loss as to how to counter it.  Suggestions,
>anyone?

I recently met Mark Gerzon (author/social commentator, etc.) when
he was passing back (he's originally from here in Indianapolis)
through town promoting his latest book _Coming Into Our Own_ and
got to discuss one of his big career achievements several years ago:
"the entertainment summit" where a series of clips from US movies
portraying Soviets was put together and vice-versa, both shown to
Hollywood bigwigs, then the group flew to Russia and showed them
to an equivalent crowd there.

He said the reactions were predictable, but still fascinating as
neither group was aware how prominent stereotypes were presented
in what were considered non-propaganda films...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:49:14 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: on the lam

Thank you all for coming to this press conference.

After carefully examining the statements made by our opposition, I would
respectfully suggest that all candidates voluntarily submit to a battery
of psychiatric tests, after which any candidate found to be totally
deranged be asked to withdraw from the race.  If the candidate refuses
to withdraw, I believe that a national referendum should be held to
determine whether or not said candidate should be asked to agree to
undergo a period of counseling before taking the oath of office, if
elected.

I would also like to remind the American people that the Kerry ticket is
the only ticket that has offered any sensible issues for debate.  We stand
ready to confront our opposition as soon as they can find something
of substance that they are willing to talk about.

Thank you for your kind attention, and God bless you all.

                                   --Missy "not at all deranged" Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:03:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Another reason to hate Hillary Clinton

Here's a good example of the insane Hillary Clinton.  If Bill does get
elected I hope his method of choosing his cabinet is better than the method
of choosing his wife.

Carl------+
-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:28:37 GMT
From:         Bill Chapman <billc@HOUSING.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      US Politics/Family Values/Hillary Clinton

I saw this on another list and post it for your information.
--Bill

From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Subject: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:59:48 GMT

In The American Spectator, August 1992, there is a discussion of
Hillary Clinton's views on reform measures for children and the law.
One of her major points is that she believes that children from the
age of 12 on up should, when the interests of the parents and the
child diverge, be able to take their parents to court and testify
against them.  In addressing this element of her proposals in her
article "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective", Hillary Clinton
says, in "answer" to the concerns of critics of these reforms:

        "I prefer that [court] intervention into an ongoing
        family be limited to decisions that could have long-term
        and possible irreparable effects if they are not resolved.
        Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic
        surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment,
        and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly
        affect the child's future should not be made unilaterally
        by parents.  Children should have a right to be permitted to
        decide their own future if they are competent."

As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
13, or 14!
I've said it before [though maybe not here] and I'll say it
again... the #1 reason why I would not even *consider* Bill Clinton
for president, is Hillary Clinton.
--

Bill Chapman <BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>   (601) 325-2042
Computing Consultant <wcc1@Msstate.bitnet> P.O. Box 1262
Dept. of Housing & Residence Life          Mississippi State, MS  39762
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:42:38 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS

Jason & Carl et al.
>Good point.  The only hesitation I have in making this argument myself is that
>the rise in disease and pregnancies could also be coorelated to societal
>factors.  In other words, they would have increased faster in the absence of
>sex ed.  If that were the case, the response would be more sex ed, not less.
>While I don't necessarily believe that to be the case, that's how an opponent
>would argue it.
>
>Of course, if this argument were true, it would greatly strengthen my own
>arguments against sex ed.  Any ideas, anyone?

I think we should let the NIH fund the two sexual practices surveys that
Jesse Helms nuked (sorry to keep saying it, but I become ever more
convinced that we *need* this info).  With the proper questions and the
proper statistical techniques, we ought to be able tease apart at least
some of the correlates of sexual activity.  That way we might just be able
to look at the effects of various sex ed programs in a more realistic way.

Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: questions for tkidd
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:34:27 GMT

Someone pointed out that most religions have roughly the same
set of moral rules.  

I just wanted to point out that athiests (such as myself) also
follow generally the same kind of moral rules as you religious
types.

The main difference, though, is that we do it for good reasons,
not as a form of blind obedience.

--Jimbo, the most moral man alive
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:34:18 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      A Good Tactical Move?

Hey all you Liberal and Conservative POLITIC-NICS:

Here's an interesting question....

How much of a tactical move would it be for the upcoming Repbulican
convention for the organizers to invite Bob Casey (the shunned Democrat)
to maybe speak at the Houston gathering?

Being a 'conservative' Democrat is not the point, I feel, but the idea
of being more 'open' to the voice of the opposition party more so than the
Democratswere in New York.He may share the same viewpoints, but the idea
of inviting a Democrat might pull away more votes away from Clinton.

What about it?  Good/Bad?                 Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:58:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Doc Strangelove

From: "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
>Tonight, I saw a film from 1964 that I had not seen for a long time,
>"Dr. Strangelove or How I Grew to Love the Bomb."

"Dr. Strangelove, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."
One of my favorites.  And I quite agree with you, the rampant paranoia
between the U.S. and Russia has caused severe damage.  I have to wonder,
however, if most of the paranoia (the general paranoia, not the UMASS
variety) may stem somewhat from the perceived instability of the Russian
government.  Since that perception is grounded in fact, as you've
amply illustrated, I'm at a loss as to how to counter it.  Suggestions,
anyone?

Gary W. Olson, fugitive       "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
  candidate                    they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
                               or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:39:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the 'N' factor...

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:49:00 EDT "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
 said:
> Today's posts are sponsored by the letter 'N'.
> * 22 of the 51 presidential elections have been won by candidates whose
>   names ended with 'N'.  For example: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,
>   Nixon, Truman, Reagan...
> Ruzicka also notes that only 5 or 6 percent of the names of U.S. citizens
> end with 'N'.
>
Who was it that was saying that the government should be more like
the general populace??
>
> Gary W. Olson                   "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
> SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
> Cthulhu in '92...                Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
> why settle for the lesser evil?  or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:10:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

Andy spins off into this tangent:

>An emphasis on criminal activity in the administration isn't
>necessarily consistent with an interest in criminal activity in govt.
>If Jamie wants to make the principled argument, he has to take the
>principled stand; "I want to publicize criminal activity by Repubs"
>isn't it.

You call *this* relevance?  Jamie posted some info regarding how Iraq
was armed through the influence of the current administration, and you,
extrapolating like the wind, arrive at the conclusion that Jamie is
unaware that the legislative branch has it's own share of corruption and
criminal activity?

With conservatives such as Sue and Carl eager to pounce on Congress,
liberals, and others of such ilk, there's hardly a gaping need for Jamie
to deal with this area.  Or me, for that matter.  If Jamie were the
only source of information for everyone on this list, his biases might
have some relevance.  Selective carping that ignores this state of affairs
is mere partisan wh--no, I won't say it.  It's too easy.

>-andy

Gary W. Olson                 "Resistance! shouts the man on the right,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   can't stop the problem overnight,
                               Resistance! liberal opposition, cryin violation,
                               stop the madness..." - Queensryche, "Resistance"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:22:13 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>>    LK> "What if your daughter grew up, had a problem,
>>        came to you with that problem all fathers fear?
>>        How would you deal with it?"
>>
>>    DQ> I hope I never have to deal with it.  But
>>        obviously I would counsel her and talk to her
>>        and support whatever decision she made."

> It's the truth and it's nothing but the truth, but it's not the whole
> truth.

OK, let's hear the rest of the "truth" from you.

>> FACT: He did not say he would support her, rather, he would
>>       support her decision.

> False.  He said "I would support my *daughter*."

False.  He said "I would ... support whatever decision she made."
Mine is a DIRECT QUOTE typed word by word out of our local news-
paper.  Is yours direct?  Where did you get yours?

>> Now, I will not disagree with Dan Quayle on his assertion
>> that this is a difficult issue.  However, let's admit it:
>> believing abortion is murder and allowing for the rape
>> exception is not a consistent position.  On the other hand,
>> the positions of those who say "abortion is murder and should
>> only be performed if the life (not health) of the mother is in
>> danger" or those who say "no one is allowed the use of another
>> person's body without her consent" are.

> I don't know.  "Implied consent" to let a baby use your body is not the
> same as implied consent to let the baby's use of your body destroy your
> health.

Let me get this straight.  You are saying a woman who is engaging
in sex in order to get pregnant and have a baby has only consented
that the baby uses her body but only if it does not affects her health.
On the other hand a woman who has no plan of getting pregnant, does
not wish to have a baby and is doing her best (short of abstinence)
not to get pregnant and DOES get pregnant (by accident) HAS consented
for the fetus to use her body for 9 months, right?  I am curious
to know how you arrived at that conclusion.  And what if the second
woman's pregnancy is affecting the woman's mental health?  What
about the risk of normal delivery on one's physical health.

And if you say "....but the second woman consented to a pregnancy
which would affect her mental health because she took the risk
by having sex," then I can equally say the first woman also
consented to a pregnancy which would affect her physical health
because she took the risk by having sex.

I honestly don't see the difference.  The first woman expects/hopes
for a healthy pregnancy but knows the is some chances of an unhealthy
pregnancy.  She takes the risk anyway.  The second woman expects/
hopes not to get pregnant but knows there is some chances of getting
pregnant.  She takes the risk anyway.  If there was ever a near
perfect similarity, this is the one.

What do you think?

>> --KAT
> -Travis

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:39:59 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A non-announcment of my non-candidacy, pro tem.

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>         Ahem.
>
>3. A crushing rebuttal to the Kerrys' mind-boggling
>program to subject innocent citizens to mandatory
>psychiatric testing.
>
>          Please re-read my position paper.  The word is "voluntary."

Sure, *I* would put it in quotation marks, too.
As in, "Sakharov is on 'voluntary' recuperation in Siberia."

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:23:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

Andy tries to slip bias...
>Huh?  I didn't conclude that Jamie is unaware of corruption/crime in
>the legislative branch/by demos.  I concluded that he didn't post
>about it.  I concluded that he's behaving as evenhandedly as Carl; if
>he wants to be considered unbiased, he can't do that.  Carl admits
>that he's biased; Jamie wants us to see him as unbiased.

That you made an issue of it at all gave me the idea you thought he
should post more evenly.  I guess the way you lept at it kinda threw
me...:)

As for Jamie claiming to be unbiased, if he's actually made such an
explicit claim, I think he made it in jest.  Or maybe it's a complicated
logical paradox.

As for me, I have bias, and can adjust it on my stereo...

>-andy is contrary; he argues against his positions

Gary W. Olson                 "You know me, I take everything so
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   seriously..." - Indigo Girls (?), "Galileo"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:20:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      please ignore prev.junk

i'm having dopey problems w/editor. something or other just got sent that
wasn't supposed to....sorry
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:20:22 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This place is infested!

Jimbo when discussing the error of Christian arugments:

>This country was founded on (among other things) the principle that
>all men have a right to speak their mind on the issues.

If you please, didn't the 1st Amendment come after the country was
sounded on the sentiment expressed in the statement "In God We Trust"?

-j.b.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: A Good Tactical Move?
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:14:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Sue:
Interesting question.
>Being a 'conservative' Democrat is not the point, I feel, but the idea
>of being more 'open' to the voice of the opposition party more so than the
>Democratswere in New York.He may share the same viewpoints, but the idea
>of inviting a Democrat might pull away more votes away from Clinton.

So here's my 2 cents worth.  First, what hurt the demos (when they declined
to let Casey speak) was that they weren't allowing dissention *within* the
party to be heard.  For the repos to counter that, an appropriate move
would be to let a spokefolk (hi, Missy) from the Republicans for Choice
group speak.  That would allow the Republicans to demonstrate what the
Democrats did not -- that there's room for more than one viewpoint within
the party and that *all* viewpoints merit a hearing.

Second, recall that the demos brought in some of those Republicans for
Choice to speak -- the idea being that here were a group of Republicans
that would vote for Clinton because of one issue.  To make an analogous
move, the Republicans should try to bring in a group of Democrats who'll
vote for Bush because of one issue (it could be pro-life Democrats, or it
could be folks switching because of some other issue).  That would
precisely counter the demo move: "See, even *Republicans* won't back this
guy".

What do you think?
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU