HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:04:53 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Is there a law requiring protesters to be polite?  Is ACT-UP polite
> when they protest at NYC School Board meetings, or City Council
> meetings?  Since when do we expect protesters to be polite??  I
> certainly don't see pro-choice protestors being very tolerant or polite
> to those who disagree with them...  So, Kerry, is it "polite" when you
> agree, and "impolite" when you do not????
>
> Pizz
>

Pizz,
while being polite isn't really important here, I think that physically
restraining people, which the anti-choice people have done outside the
clinics is a bit too much.  I think that the people that you have mentioned
above have gone too far.  But I'll bet that I don't see the current
administration defend their right to break the law like the previous
administration did in defending Operation Rescue multiple times before
the United States Supreme Court.

Jonathan

P.S.
I can't speak for Kerry, but I believe that the request to be polite was
done facestiously.  Try not to be such a hardass!  :-)
And Pizz,...., relax these are the holidays after all! :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:08:11 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:52:31 GMT Dunstan_Vavasour said:
>>
>>
>>BTW, if I was to take up the Bank of England on their statement "I
>>promise to pay Bearer on demand the sum of five pounds", what would
>>they give me ?
>
>
>
>Umm.....five pounds, I think.
>
>james

What, just a different five pound note which says the same thing ?

D
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:31:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: POLITICS FAQ, part one: purpose, rules, terms, etc.

list and ahem deleted.
(i like to keep the place tidy)

>Scoundrels, all.  Where's the UN when you really need them?

jumbo, er opps, jimbo,
i have told you over and over not to call names. you are punished. coal in
your stocking if you continue to misbehave.

and would you please stop doing the mimbo limbo til all hours of the night?
i need my sleep. next time, i take away your stereo for a whole week.

>--Jimbo

your loving mother
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:28:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> Granted, we have had limited numbers of democratic executive office
> holders in the past quarter century but can anyone list examples of
> pardons handed out by democratic presidents? I can't think of any off
> hand.

There are lots of examples.  Apparently Truman was a champion pardoner.
But, in his case (and in the case of the overwhelming majority of
Presidential pardons) they went to people that few had heard of and even
fewer had too many strong opinions on.  There were six or eight others
(besides the Iran/Contra defendants) on the list that Bush released last
week.  None of them are big news.  Except when the recipients are like
Nixon or George, most Presidential pardons go without much notice.

Best,
Peter

> fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:12:02 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Queens controversy yet again

>> advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
>> please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
>> them.  (I'd like to have a Ferrari.  Is the local Ferrari dealership
>> "restricting" my ability to have one by refusing to give one to me for
>> the price I can afford?)
>
>You'd better throw that analogy away before it explodes on you.  If the
>local Ferrari dealership refuses to sell you one because you're a _____
>(fill in the blank), even though you have the money in your pocket, they
>_are_ restricting your ability to own one.

No, they aren't.  They're merely refusing to sell one to me.

A friend of mine wants to have sex, but Madonna hasn't answered his
letters.  Is she restricting his ability to have sex?  Another person
I know can't get anyone s\he knows to sleep with him/her.  Who is
restricting her\his "right to have sex with a consenting adult"?

>If the local circus refuses to give you a job as a juggler because you
>can't juggle, you've got no complaint.

The Ferrari dealer thinks that its biz depends on controlling the
"quality" of Ferrari drivers.  The circus thinks that its biz depends
on controlling the quality of its jugglers.  What's the huge difference
here?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:49:08 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
              23 Dec 1992 16:41:16 GMT from <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:41:16 GMT james p mcbride said:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:42:02 EST Evelyn Duncan said:
>>>
>>>I'm in favour of freedom of spelling for all of those, plus people who
>>>spell color, favor, etc, with a 'u', ie, colour, favour, labour, etc.
>>>
>>>top that
>>
>>What is this:  King of the Mountain?
>>
>>>james
>>
>>Evelyn
>
>No, it's more end of term boredom.  When you've spent eight fruitless hours
>trying to get a map out of GIMMS, despite doing everything according to the
>manual, you'll find anything fun.
>
Well, how about "What is the best present you've ever received for Christmas?"

Mine was a wheelchair 5 years ago (to help me get around with a broken leg).

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:06:44 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      human animal?
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>> human animal

I think humans are a bit more than human animal

>> Let me ask this question - what if society deemed "right wing Poles" as
>> "abnormal?" Would you be so eager to send THEM to some other place?

Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. For now they are getting disinterested
in politics.

But what's wrong in finding someone else abnormal. You find abnormal me.
I find abnormal you. But it doesn't mean that we MUST kill each another.

>> It seems to me that acceptance that humans behave in
>> a variety of ways is much better than perjorative labels of specific
>> minorities on the basis of sexual behavior, skin color, religious
>> belief, or ethnic origin.

skin (not green), religion, ethnic origin, SEXUAL behavoiur is OK.

"Homosexuality" is not. I cannot accept this. I accept that such people
exist, but do *NOT* want to one as a friend, mate, employee, employer.

Do you catch my point of view?


Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:17:24 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      SF
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>the reason why is because robert, travis, pizz and caius do not live in SF.

the reason why robert, travis, pizz and caius do not live in SF.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:45:07 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>The really disturbing thing about that case is not that it shows that
>heterosexual couples can be just as unfit to raise kids as homosexual
>couples might be, but that in an adoption case, the Chicago parents
>would almost be guaranteed of a better chance of adopting a kid
>than a homosexual couple, JUST BECAUSE they are heterosexual.  A
>responsible homosexual couple would be automatically disqualified.

No, the really distrubing thing about that case is that some parents would
treat their children in such an irresponsible manner.  Any other
"disturbing" inferrences are stretching the story to fit another agenda.

>Ellen <----I'm not sure of this; I accidentally deleted the sig line.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:43:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      appointment strategies

Gary, about Clinton showing canny strategic thinking:

Yes, I think that's also true to a certain extent.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:25:27 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>It cracks me up how the Libertarians espouse individual freedom, yet they
>want a whole lot of people to organize and vote them into office.  I know
>they stand for less government influence, but deep down the premise is
>one of uncurtailed individual freedoms.

        That is simply untrue.

>Yet in order to do this, they
>want people to organize and work together for a common goal, so that
>things can be made better.

        You seem to think that people acting together is antithesis to
libertarianism.  It's not.  Libertarianism is about consensus as well as
individual rights.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:50:59 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: rush, wwf, "sport"

>     Before we dialogue on the meaning of "sport" ...
>
>     let us first agree on basic principle recognized by all civiliz-
>     persons - bolwing is NOT a "sport."

Hmm.  Silly shoes - check.  Silly shirts - check.  "Objective" scoring
- check.  The tools aren't supposed to matter - check.  "Technique"
can be more important than raw strength/speed - check.

Why isn't bowling a sport if football (soccer, Oz rules, or US),
baseball, cricket, volleyball, basketball, track&field, tennis, pool,
etc is?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:58:47 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: green skin explanation

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>> First Caius says:
>>> Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
>>>       what people think, do, choose etc.

>> Then , when a flaw is pointed to him, he says:
>>> Green skin - normal on Mars, abnormal on Earth;

>> I thought you said "you cannot judge the skin," what happened?
>> --KAT

> Explanation:
> (a source of words expects the target to have at least minimal intelligence)

> You cannot judge on people characteristics people cannot change.

> ethnic origin - cannot change
> natural skin  - cannot change

> painted skin  - can change

> Get it now? Contact me if still not.

I will, as soon as I find my inter-galactic communication device.  :-)

So a trait as rare as it might be cannot be called abnormal as long
as it cannot change but homosexuality although somewhat common is
considered abnormal because in your opinion it can be changed.

So a baby born without a brain is not abnormal because he cannot
change the situation?  (What if that baby grows up and starts
posting to POLITICS?  :-)

You are the first and the only person on this list who is suggesting
to tie the definition of abnormality to whether the particular trait
in question can be changed or not.

Now because you are the ONLY one who believes this I was gonna call
you abnormal but then I am not sure whether you can change this
nonsense approach.  Please let me know if you can change.     :-)

> Caius.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:00:46 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

>I hardly think turning off a radio is analogous to "going home."  Even if
>it were, you need to check a few facts.  In "most places", there is *no*
>place for a woman to receive an abortion -- at last count, 83% of U.S.
>counties have no such clinics.

The statistic doesn't support the conclusion.

One can go to another county to have an abortion (or heart surgery for
that matter).

Most days, I travel through at least two counties.  From the roof of
my apartment building, I can see four counties and on some days, I
travel through more without going a significant distance.

Don't bogus pro-choice arguments bother other pro-choice people?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:31:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >        Which leads certain hospitals to spend medicaid dollars on Super Bowl
> >tickets....
>
> As I understand it medicaid is paid out on a per-use basis, not as a
> general lump sum aid to facilities, which would allow a discretionary
> use of funding. What I am driving at is that there are no over-allocation
> of funds that causes a surplus that the hospitals find they need to
> "use or lose;" what we are talking about is the presentation of
> fraudulent claims. If this fraud is as widespread as you intimate
> then the FBI ought to get on it and start busting some hospital
> administrators and doctors, right? Who knows, maybe it would
> revolutionize the prison health care system...not to mention
> all of those community service hours that could be put to good
> use by VA hospitals and inner city clinics... B)

An additional detail.  In the first post that mentioned this, Brett'
said that these funds were overhead money.  Now, overhead funds are
intended as a reimbursement to an institution for costs already incurred
that allowed them to perform a service for the government (or, really,
any funding agency).  I don't know how it's supposed to work with
Medicare, but for research grants overhead funds are supposed to meet
an institution's cost for keeping up the library, running the personnel
and other administrative departments, and so forth.  The point is that
overhead is supposed to be a reimbursement, not a payment for services.
That should considerably loosen the restrictions on how the money is
spent.  An analogy: if your institution advances you the money to attend
a conference, you'd better spend it on attending the conference.  If it
simply pays you back the money you've already spent to attend, they've
got no legitimate beef if you choose to spend the money on something
else.  So maybe this isn't as questionable as it seems at first glance.

That being said, it strikes me as dumb for any institution to spend
money on Super Bowl tickets.

Just to muddy the waters a bit--sorry if this point has already come up.

Best,
Peter

> >Brett'
>
> -other Andy
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:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:26:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Milosevic wins
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Sam:
>Sometimes Milosevic is called 'a fascist'. If it is just an emotional
>statement, I don't disagree with it. But, strictly speaking, Milosevic
>can not be called 'a fascist' because it would contradict the definition
>of fascism.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1980 ed:
fascism (n) - a philosophy or system of government that advocates or
exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the
merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of
belligerant nationalism.

>In my view, fascism is a dictatorship based on the market
>economy. Communism, as opposed to fascism is a dictatorship based on
>state-controlled economy.

Odd, I had thought that communism was an economic system.  It's been used
to perpetuate totalitarian dictatorships of the left, true, but that does
not mean it has a comparitive meaning to 'fascism'.  (It can also be
argued that communism inevitably leads to less freedom across the board,
as I've done in the (distant) past.  But that's not the same as claiming that
it is a dictatorship.)

Milosevic is a totalitarian, it would appear.  I'm not sure if he's a
communist.

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 11:27:13 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan says:

>So if Clinton felt uncomfortable around women or minorities, he
>wouldn't have selected as many of them to serve in his cabinet.

For a politician it usually doesn't matter whether he feels
"comfortable" or "uncomfortable" around certain people, just
like for a businessman it doesn't matter that the person he
is dealing with is fat, ugly or smelly. On such a high political
level as the US cabinet, people get chosen for more important
reasons than personal likes or dislikes.

>>I think I can guess which of the following explanations of
>>Bush's adventure in Somalia you are likely to choose:

>Based on what?

Based on your understanding of politics. If you think that
personal feelings play an important role in politics, then
you will certainly agree with what the american media tells us
about the operation Restore Hope. In short, you probably think
that feeling of compassion forced Bush in intervene in Somalia.
Am I wrong?

Sam.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      capitalism & justice
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:26:20 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9212211421.AA12783@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,         
Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
> Laisser-fair capitalism is THE best just thing ever on Earth (it was never
> created - it evolved)
> The main justices are:
> -just tax (preferable poll-tax),
> -you spend your money yourself,
> -the only legal way of getting rich is to offer some sort of services
>  to others.

Caius has clearly never heard of the robber barons.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: well, pardon me! version 1
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:13:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >It was my impression that the law specifically states that when a "senior"
> >member of the White House Staff is involved, a special prosecutor HAS to
> >be named.  IMO, Barr had no choice.  And I'll bet that he tried to find
> >every loophole possible!
>
> I think that is what the law says.
> But the law was about to expire! All Barr had to do was drag his
> feet for two days, and the special prosecutor law would have no
> longer been an issue.
>
> >hmm. Interesting.  However, I believe that it is the Attorney General
> >who decides to appoint (or more accurately since the law is now history,
> >decided to appoint), and therefore unless Barr and Grey are good buddies,
> >(not impossible to imagine), Barr decided to do this on his own and
> >(referencing my above paragraph) followed the law.
>
> They ARE buddies. Better than that. Grey "took Barr under his wing,"
> when Barr was brought in as Atty General. According to Safire.
>
> Jamie
>

Wow! The plot thickens.  I have to get ahold of that Safire article!
I love it when these guys fight themselves!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:58:24 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I do think that Walsh has taken his own sweet time about the investigation
> (how long has it been:  6 years?).  All-in-all, I have not been pleased
> with his performance.
While I may think that Walsh has not been perfect in his persual of justice,
I think that it is important to point out that he has been severely hampered
by the people (slimeballs?) in power.  Reagan and then Bush and their
various appointees have refused to declassify the appropriate documents which
would have helped Walsh make the relevant cases.  So Walsh has been
hampered by Reagan and Bush and then accused of dragging this out by the
same people.  Amazing!
Hopefully when Clinton takes over, only 30 days to go now until the end of
the dark ages!, he will declassify _ALL_ of the unshredded documents,
I am sure that the shredding is going on day and night now!, and we will
finally get the truth about what went on in the mid-1980's.
>
> About the pardons:  I'm glad that Robert MacFarlane got one.  He's already
> suffered enough for his crimes (a suicide attempt should not be taken
> lightly).  As for the rest, I'm not sure.
I didn't know that MacFarlane had attempted suicide.  But I still
don't think that he should have been pardoned.
>
> In conclusion:  I wish there had been another Special Prosecutor.
I don't believe that it would have made any difference.
>
> Evelyn Duncan
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU