HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:31:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Baker running Bush campaign

i half-heard something to that effect, but at the time the news was going,
my younger son was having some sort of crisis (stubbed his toe or whatever).

i assumed it was a demotion (silly me) for something baker did that king
george didn't like....like i said, kids can give you brain damage.

anyway, does anyone know what's happening? you can answer this in any way
you want :)

-linda   i seem to be forgetting alot lately, so when do i forget my problems?
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:26:40 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Apologies

I apologize.  I think that I may have sent a message when I didn't mean to.

I was having a little trouble with my Mac.

-j.b.
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Life or Pro-Restrictions???
Date: 31 Jul 1992 01:20:45 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.920730101447.320@bsa1.kent.edu>
"Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU> writes:
 
>
>I've talked to many of my friends who are strong believers in the
>entire Pro-Life movement and it sounds more like, to me, that y'all
>are working more towards placing as many restrictions on abortion as
>possible but without outlawing it?
>
>So which is it ProLife people? Life or Restrictions?
 
Good question, there -- from what I've seen of 'em over the last 20
years (back when I was a freshman at the U of H), I'd have to say that
a frightening lot of the pro-life crowd seem to think that "life" is
spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n...
 
--Patrick, the perpetual skeptic
 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:54:08 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Intentions v. Effects
              21 Jul 1992 16:38:12 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

> From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

> Effect always matters, intentions rarely do, especially if the bad
> effect doesn't result in change in action.

Andy, you have said this quite a few times and I never
completely understood it.

If you knock down my morning coffee by accident I won't get
upset.  On the other hand if you do it purposefully I'll be
really upset.

If my child is killed in an accident, I'll be just sad.  But
if someone kill my child intentionally, I'll choke that person
with my bare hands.

If I get a "D" in a course that I deserved it, I'll be more or
less content.  However, if a get a "D" while I deserved an "A"
because of my political views, I would make a lot of noise.

Now, these were a few examples where the intention is important.
Can you bring a few that intentions are not important?

How can you say that intentions rarely matter?

Or, maybe I misundertood you.  Can you elaborate?

> -andy

--KAT
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: re: ... tough choice
Date: 29 Jul 1992 12:05:14 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <POLITICS%92072623205847@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
 
>
>On Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:01:39 GMT "Patrick L. Humphrey" <HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU
>> said:
>> In article <POLITICS%92072316141620@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
>> "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > >anyone have any ideas how the most vulnerable can be protected
>> >
>> > Yes. OUTLAW ABORTION.
>>
>> Like that'll solve anything.  Let's see -- it didn't work prior to
>> 1973, so what makes you think it'll work this time?
>Yeah, I agree.  Can you believe these idiots who believe that outlawing
>murder actually helps to prevent them??  What a ludicrous idea!
 
Well, we had six or seven of 'em around Houston over the weekend, and
the last I looked, we had the standard array of statutes covering such
acts -- could it be that most people have better things to do with their
time than contemplate murdering someone else?  It couldn't be *that*
simple, could it?
 
>> > >w/out undo or unfair interference by the state into personal affairs?
>> > >Linda
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> ...so, let's just not worry about that little nuisance called a
>> Constitution -- by god, we've got to protect those zygotes because
>> YOU say so!
>Yes, let's not worry about the Constitution.  Why should we when the
>Supreme Court doesn't?
 
Much as you may dislike it, this libertarian agrees with you -- Roe v.
Wade was pretty blatant judicial activism.  Still, it was an attempt,
misguided though it may have been, to end the crazy-quilt situation
that existed with regard to abortion before 1973 -- legal in some states,
highly illegal in others, illegal but no one cared either way in yet
others.  Are you seriously proposing a return to *that* state of
affairs, in which rich women can afford to go to a state where it's
legal, but the rest are just S.O.L., so we wind up with the return of
the back-alley practicioner?  Not as long as I've something to say
about it -- I'm pro-choice and I vote.
 
--PLH, whose wife is more than capable of making her own decisions, and
who'd greatly appreciate it if a few legislators would be cognizant of
that fact...
 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:10:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flying in the face of logic, and history

>     not all states opt to exercise this right.  Thus, in the state
>     of Kansas, it is permissible and legal to abort a child
>     as it is being born, while it is still in the birth canal.
>     My statement, as originally stated, was correct.
>
>                                     --Missy Prez 2 B

missy,
please explain to me how it is possible to abort a full term baby as it is
being born.
having studied anatomy, knowing both from books and personally (2 kids-usual
way) what goes on during the birth process, what you just stated is patently
absurd.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:35:23 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Doc Strangelove
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

Gary:
>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?

Mr. President, We cannot allow an instability gap.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:11:46 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      just for the record

Travis, when you post a quote make sure you know who the author is. I
NEVER used the F word in my post. The comment that you attribute to me
came from a response someone made to my earlier post. It doesn't do much
for your credibility when you can't keep the players straight.

I'm glad to see support for sex and freedom to do whatever you want to
your own mind from the various tickets. I gotta admit a preference for
the forklift song as a national anthem (How about changing the motto
from IN GOD WE TRUST to crow t. robot's favorite saying "BITE ME".)

Why doesn't the religious right simply join a church or compound that
will allow for practice of their beliefs regarding sex and marriage?
Could it be because they aren't interested in practicing their agenda
but simply want to impose it on others?
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:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:56:55 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: p.s.: linda, this one's for us :)

Hi, MacPhil:
>curiosity ?:  why would you (sic) heroes when it's the correct spelling?

Well, because either Danny boy didn't know the correct feminine form of the
word, or he was actually attempting gender-neutrality.  That is, he either
goofed, or did something unexpectedly PC -- and I wanted to be sure
everyone knew I wasn't putting the word in his mouth, so to speak.

Kerry
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: re: ... tough choice
Date: 26 Jul 1992 22:44:33 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <POLITICS%92072519384798@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
 
>
>PLH:
>
>How many is "quite a few?"  I would seriously doubt that the real
>number approached the 1.5 million that we are seeing yearly in the
>years since Roe.
>                --Missy Justice
 
I doubt it, as well -- but that's not what I asked you.  Let's try
this again -- what makes you think a ban on abortion will have
any different result from the bans that were in place in many states
prior to 1973?  We've already seen from experience (well, some of us
are old enough to remember that far back, at least) that it didn't
work the first time around -- so just what do you think is going to
make things any different this time?
 
--PLH, who sees nothing wrong with being pro-life -- until said
"pro-life" folks start trying to force their opinions on anyone
else...
 
 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:30:45 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?
              26 Jul 1992 14:54:58 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

>>       1. Most local papers do not cover national news through
>>          their local staff, they use wire services.
>>       2. Our local paper is part of Knight-Ridder (sp?)
>>          papers which is a nationwide news organization.

> Now, /c this in mind, what obligation does your local newspaper have
> for printing a wire source story in its entirety?  Have you ever
> compared the "same" wire story in two newspapers and compared the
> differences?

Look, nobody has challenged my (direct) quote.  Kerry, Kerry, Travis,
brni, etc. have challenged my interpretation.  Also, no one else has
proposed a direct quote whether from a newspaper or a first hand quote
(i.e. by watching Larry King).  So what is your point?  I have the
only direct quote and you are casting a shadow of doubt on it by
bringing up an academic point.  I agree newspapers do and have made
mistakes.  But the proper way to confront those is by bring up other
sources.  Sitting on the sidelines and ridiculing those who bring
quotes and cites by merely suggesting that those quotes might be
wrong (when there is no other conflicting quotes) is rather
irresponsible.

Have you personally compared the Bible with its original version?
How about your birth certificate?  How about your diploma, your
transcript?  The point is that as long as there are no other
disputing documents and if the ifno seems reasonable our only
choice is to accept those for the time being till it is shown
otherwise.

>>       3. I watched Larry King Live personally.

> This is incredible -- but you didn't quote what you saw or heard on
> tv -- you quoted something in print, as if a secondhand news source
> was any more accurate.

Some more put-downs, right?  It is incredible that you don't see
I am offering the direct quote AND watching Larry King Live as one
reinforcing the other.  And I DID quote from Larry King Live in my
very first post, then I backed it up with the quote from the
newspaper.  So now I have two quotes that are consistent and you
have none.  So?

> The reason I'm picking @ nits 'n lice is that several quotes/interpretations
> of what James Danforth Quayle did or didn't say during that reply have
> been stated on this list and each claimed to take it directly.  I'm not
> sure quoting a source such as a wire service story actually adds any
> credibility to a viewpoint.

Did you mean "James Danforth Quayle" or did you mean to say /jdq :-)

It was slick of you to mix quotes and interpretations with a "/".
That character "/" is an amazing "character", isn't it.  Look, I agree
with you on "several interpretations" but no one has challenged my
quote.  So I guess you better think of another reason for your
"picking @ nits 'n lice" -- whatever that means -- maybe boredom?

> MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:02:38 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      telephone (kinda')

 A Tulsa doctor's wife had a heart attack several days ago.  While he
 performed CPR, he dialed 911.  So far, so good.  The trouble was, he kept
 getting a busy signal.  His wife died.

 Southwestern Bell attributed the problem to over 318,000 callers trying to
 get Garth Brooks concert tickets.  Needless to say, the doctor is not
 pleased.  Where does the responsibility lie in this case?  Does the doctor
 go after 911, Southwestern Bell, Garth Brooks or the concert promoter?

 *hmmmf*

 ---Robert

 "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee; amd before
 thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee."
                                --- Jer. 1:5
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:39:08 EST
From:         Scott Adams <SADAMS@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Virtual polling

Well, with all of this electioneering going on, I thought that it would be
interesting to take a poll on the question of "Which virtual group of
candidates would you vote for today?" Potential candidates include anyone
of the alphabet group, Bert & Ernie, Bill & Al, George & Dan(e), and anyone
else that you want to include. As the list's virtual defender of the media, I
am the obvious person to take a meaningless poll to test the electoral
waters. So, send those vote choices to: SADAMS@PURCCVM.Bitnet. Polling will
close in a day ortwo. Let's say July 31, 1992 at 22:00 hours (10 pm).
Both Americans and Europeans are eligible to vote. So, keep those cards &
letters coming!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:51:35 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: The Romantic Tragedy of the Electorate

linda:

I think the "personal vendetta" theory is quite attractive.  I had heard
rumors now and then that Bush screwed Perot in some kind of business deal
way way back, and Perot never forgave him.  I also find Ross something
of a believable character in that scenario.  I think it was a game for
him, and I think the object was to mess up Bush's reelection.  If
his motivation goes beyond simple revenge to something more sinister,
I don't know what it might be.  Hmmmm.....

                                      --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:45:29 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      prolife support for children

Half of the kerry for president ticket says "I have yet to meet a pro-life
activist who would abandon his or her child for any reason".

In the interest of broadening your base of experience as you enter the
campaign trail, I would be happy to introduce you to several "pro-life
activists" (your term) who have abandoned their children. The reasons
for dumping the kids include:

1. disapproval of life mate choice
2. disapproval of sexual orientation
3. committing a crime
4. inability to maintain gainful employment or school performance

There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio then are dreamed of
in your philosophy.
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:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:59:48 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't via taxation

>BTW (to all who are interested -- not just Jamie), I'm puzzled by Clinton's
>pledge to make the wealthy pay "their fair share."  Since the rich are taxed at
>a higher rate than the rest of us, it seems to me that they're already paying
>more than their fair share.  If Clinton really desired "tax fairness," it seems
>to me that a flat tax would be his best proposal.

Some people in Europe think "their fair share" could be as high as 80%
of their income.

What do you think?

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:15:52 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

> kat,
>i don't think you can reasonably infer from quayle's statement that his stance
> on abortion is anything but what he says it is because he would "stand by his
> daughter" in her decision.

Most probably my last post on the subject.

Look, Quayle's stance on abortion is that it is murder.  Now, tell me,
would Quayle have said the same thing if his daughter told him she
*INTENDS* to murder her 2 year old child?  Of course not, and that
is the point.  Quayle seems not to think abortion is murder but takes
that stance.

The big point that the media failed to focus on is that the daughter
*intended* to get abortion not that she had already gotten it.  Of
course if she had already had  an abortion, Quayle should support his
daughter.  I would have done the same thing myself.  But if anybody's
daughter is *contemplating* a heinous act such as murder, you don't
simply say "I would counsel her (against it) but would support her
decision no matter what."

That's all folks.

--KAT
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:39:06 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

Carl:
>> But do the current laws really work?
>
>  Yes they do.
Could you please expand on your answer?  I don't think you're suggesting
that child abuse *doesn't* happen.  Perhaps you're suggesting that all
cases of child abuse *are* resolved in favor of the best interest of the
child?  That's not been my experience.  Moreover, I understand that at
least some studies have demonstrated that some forms of abusive behavior
never get reported.

Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:05:16 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Obfuscation Elimination

When I am Logic Czar, I will need no secretary. Furthermore,
I will discharge all premises, thus eliminating bureaucracy
on net (and on net).

What's all this from the Kerrys about equal logical opportunity?
No Logic Czar could deprive the masses of their horse-given right
to reason. A Logic Czar merely informs and enforces the iron
laws of logic.

When I am Logic Czar, I will produce a sound proof of the non-existence
of god. Probably more than one, actually. I'm not (right now)
campaigning, but I keep my promises anyway. So you have something
to look forward to should I become Logic Czar.


Jamie
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 08:21:42 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS

Hi, MacPhil:
>>Some can.  In theory, I suppose all can.  In practice, though, many (don't
>>know whether this is some, many, or most :)) can't.
>
>Can't or won't?
>
>Not to be pedantic...they do have a choice, just as men do.

Well, the choices some women have are extremely limited.  As a practical
matter, there really are women whose social and economic status stems
almost entirely from the men they're associated with.  In those situations,
the choice to abstain from intercourse with a man who won't use a condom
may well mean a loss of protection, of status within the community, of
financial support, and so forth.  A woman on NPR the other evening was
discussing this type of situation in inner-city Hispanic communities.  It
may also obtain in some isolated urban areas (like some of our Appalachian
communities).

In these situations, a woman's decision is going to be affected by her
perception of the available options.  She may well consider that the risks
of unprotected intercourse are less than the perceived costs of "going it
alone".

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU