HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:43:03 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      he keeps thinking that it's by degrees; she says thanks,
              he says please

travis,
i am curious as to the scale you are using to determine *degrees* of
detestability of a crime.  man/woman rape is bad;  man/man rape is worse.
uh-huh.  okay.  women are expendable, after all.  if you say so.  fine.
tell you what, maybe you better not talk to me, i might contaminate you with
ritual pollution and the like.  watch out, i might steal your power in the
middle of the night.

tsch.

robert, spelling errors are regularly pointed out in order that we might...
wait for it...teach others (to be careful, to be accurate, to be, you know,
scholars?).  you could try to break me of this habit, but, as you said,
educators make lousy students.  although the argument might be made that
i myself am no great educator.  might i ask what you do there in tulsa
(other than preach the gospel, devote your life to charitable works for the
poor, and apparently harangue abortion-seekers)?  are you a teacher?  if so,
what are you teaching?  hopefully, not constitutional law.  :-)

speaking of constitutional law, i have a case for you on your fave-rave
topic, the meddling of the government in personal religious practice:
reynolds vs. united states.  deal with it.

                          * * *anneliese "pick a little, talk a little" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:08:07 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Heat and light

Look, I think the question Missy and KAT raised is an interesting one.
I said a few constructive things about it, way back when.
Two posters made some outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about the
issue. Sometimes I ignore such postings, but occasionally I challenge
them.
I think we are fairly well settled on what the law is about the use of
deadly force. I guess off hand I'm reasonably well satisfied that the
law is appropriate. As I've said to KAT off-line, it seems to me that
deadly force might occasionally be justified if the danger is enormous
loss of property which one could not expect to recover later; as I
understand it, the law does not currently allow this.
Any intelligent response will be appreciated.

I might add that I did find that Robert and Carl are not typical of
Christians regarding killing of intruders. That's something, anyway.

Oh yeah, and I'm kind of pissed at Dave for revealing personal
information about me without my consent.


That ought to do it for today.


Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 12:55:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Deadly Force, We Need Help, Justice??

Politicos,
   I've been silent for too long, some may think not long enough (Jimbo),
and this issue is one issue that boggles my mind.  If someone is in your
house and the person is there to steal, rape, or kill, I think that a
citizen has the right to stop the person from carrying out the illegal
activities.  THis would include deadly force.  How is a homeowner to know
that the person breaking in to steal is not also going to rape thier
spouse?  Should one wait until the spouse is mounted, violated, or the
person is done?  How does a homeowner know that the burglar isn't high on
drugs and just trying to stop them would be impossible short of killing
the burglar?
   The homeowner doesn't have time to judge if someone is high on drugs,
or if they could possible physically overtake someone.  Besides that the
homeowner is probably scared as hell.  In these circumstances the law
should favor the homeowner, even if the homeowner uses deadly force.
When someone breaks into a home the law should be clear that the burglar
should expect no mercy.
   The current laws may be leagal, but they are not moral.  This issue
is another example of people trying to remove the responsibility for
wrong doing from the wrong doers.  Even more silly is the issue that
criminals can sue a homeowner if they trip on a rug.  This is absurd!  Is
this the type of justice that the average person wants? No!  But it is the
justice given to us by Liberals who want to coddle the criminals.  To all
those Liberals I write, "If a criminal comes in and rapes your spouse, or
you, and leaves and slips on the floor and breaks their arm and sues the
hell out of you, don't complain.  Just make excuses for the poor bastard."

Carl-----------+
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: rhorlick@mtholyoke.edu (Rick Horlick)
Subject: Bill Clinton on the Highway
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:41:24 GMT
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: did i send the wrong stuff?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <POLITICS%92083111110970@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda) writes...
>ok-i hope this didn't happen, but i was sending personal stuff and i think
>it went to list instd. if so, i'm really sorry. let me know if i did, cause
>then i'll have to re-send to correct address. also, did everybody take off
>for the wkend, or did our nasty storm friday night knock everything out.
>linda

	Linda,
		Was that the post about the lime jello bath and 
guacamole dip rub? 

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: nope
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:12:29 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: About Buchanan

>> >That would be an increase.  Another estimate is that if the entire
>> >Federal tax system was restored to its pre-1981 state, revenues would
>> >increase by about $100 billion per year.
>>
>> We know that the tax system is now taking in more than it was, so
>> that's not an easy argument to make.  You can't just plug in marginal
>> rates, because collections are based on AVERAGE rates, and deductions/
>> credits (many closed in 81) cause a difference between the marginal
>> and average rates.
>
>Say what?  You apply the pre-1981 rate structure to current incomes,
>and calculate the result.  That's how you figure out the revenue changes
>that will be caused by changes in the tax laws.

You can't do that if you don't have information about deductions that
aren't available now but were then.  Tax law does affect behavior.
Moreover, we don't know that people would have earned the same.  You
can't argue that tax preferences affect behavior while claiming that
tax rates don't.

>> I thought that govt is now taking in a greater fraction of GNP than it
>> was then, if so, it's not obvious how going back would result in an
>
>I wouldn't be at all surprised, if you include state and local taxes,

It was my impression that it was true IGNORING state and local taxes.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:57:59 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Balance Budgets
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

This is a curiosity question more than anything, triggered by
something heard on the radio recently.

One of Clinton's common statements about balanced budgets has been
his history of balancing the Arkansas state budget early & often
in his time as governor.

Just for the sake of information, how much Federal funding was needed
to balance the budget? i.e. does Arkansas get back more than it gives ?

Since some states lose funds to the Feds and others gain, I am wondering
how much of his budget was helped?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:47:06 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Jamie a.k.a. "Lone Ranger"

 Jamie,

 I'll not continue sending our entire conversation ( hold the applause ).
 In fact, you were correct about one thing.  It has become quite pointless,
 stupid if you prefer.

 It appears that we're all getting into the *rules* business.  You have 2
 that you employ in almost every post.

  Jamie's rule #1 - If you have no valid argument, feign misunderstanding.

  Jamie's rule #2 - If you have lost all credibility, focus the issue on
                    syntax and usage.

 BTW -  Choose your Webster's.  Mine says that "dialog" is interchangeable
        with "dialogue".  Sometimes an attempt to display your mind may
        result in showing that you only have half of one.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:36:37 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
>>   Oh, yes.  And if I were Missy, the first person I'd
>> open up to would be someone who has the experience,
>> sensitivity, perspective, and understanding about things
>> sexual that Travis obviously does.
>>
>>                                   -Tim
>
>Oh God, do we really have to put personal flames on every post a less-PC
>member of the list might make??

Whoa, cool.
Travis implies that he is less-PC than Tim.

I doubt Tim will sit still for that one.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:31:04 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Polling Pitfalls

>        The margin of error represents a range of either two or
>three standard deviations from the number reported.  If it represents
>two standard deviations, then the chance that the actual numbers
>fall outside of the margin of error is 5%.

The process of computing that 5% includes an assumption about the
nature of the error, that it can come only from random sampling
problems.  (Given the sizes of the sample and population, one can
compute a margin of error assuming that the sample is randomly
selected.)

Jamie and I have both pointed out that the sample might be
systematically biased by the sampling methodology.  Actually, we've
shown that real polls are.  (He's shown that some polls have greater
bias than others.)  We don't know how large the bias is or in which
direction.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:19:38 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Deadly Force

 *** Resending note of 08/25/92 11:02
 >From Jamie
 >My impression is that you may legally use deadly force to
 >protect your person, but not your property. So you may
 >shoot someone to protect yourself against rape, if that's
 >your only defense, but not to protect your carpet.

 Many, quite a few, several, at least a couple of states have what has become
 known as the "Make My Day" law.  Basically, they provide for a legal defense
 for using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety.

 If I an awakened in the middle of the night by an intruder, I will not ask
 that he fill out a form describing his reasons for being in my home.  I will
 not wait while he partakes of my wife or 8 year old daughter.  When he violated
 the sanctity of my home, he left his rights outside.  I have no difficulty
 justifying my use of deadly force.  I do believe that I should have recourse
 against the state or the family of the criminal for placing me in the position
 of having to handle the problem myself.

 Someone mentioned a person being sued by a wounded (surviving) criminal.  All
 I can say is, BAD SHOT(s).

 ---Robert
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Bush on hurricane Andrew (satire)
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:17:50 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Today, after touring the wreckage caused by hurricane Andrew, President Bush
blamed the devastation on what he termed "the Democrat-Establishment Congress." 
"What you see here is the direct result of failed liberal environmentalist
policies of the sixties and seventies.  This is what happens when care more
about the wetlands than you do people.  And don't let them fool you, this sort
of destruction of peoples' homes is exactly the sort of thing Bill Clinton and
Al Gore want to encourage."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This satire has been brought to you                  |       Kai Alexis Price
by the "Rhetorical Point."                           |      Bush's Ghost Writer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:45:04 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 14:35

 >Well, he teaches Philosophy at Brown University

 Why am I not surprised?

 >and has a bookshelf that impresses me.

 I like nice furniture too.

 >Do you accept anecdotal evidence from a disinterested third party?
 >Dave

 Nope, sorry.  I'm afraid it would not live up to the demanding standards
 of this list.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:30:21 CDT
From:         the annoying will inherit the earth <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bush Interviewed On Atheism

>Kerry:

>I don't care what you were taught in Civics 101.  Gary is right
>about "separation of church and state."  I knew that even when I
>was an atheist.  Sorry to disillusion you.

1) In no part of the Constitution does it say "separation of church
and state."

2) It *DOES* say "establishment of religion" and it talks about it
in the negative sense. (My copy of the Constitution is in my Big
Dictionary, about 30 miles east of here.)

3) The Supreme Court has enterpreted the "shall not" to mean something
along the line of "separation of church and state," and although most
Civics teachers say that the US has a written constitution, as opposed
to Great Britain, which has a constitution based on SOP of earlier
administrations.

So, even though the Constitution does not say "Separation of Church and
State," it is part of our governmental system.

>--Missy P 2 B

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"Jesus died for someone's sins
 not mine" -- Patti Smith
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:03:13 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Jamie:
>
>If the state defines "marriage" as a legal union between a man and
>a woman, then your argument of discrimination is wrong.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Kerry,

I'm afraid I do not understand your argument.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:41:57 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: some clues for Hansjorg: how to sign off

Gary:

"A date with the best flirt?"

Sorry, but I'm taken.

Besides, you ain't half cranky enough to run in this race.

--Missy P 2 B (continued.  word.)
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Interviewed On Atheism
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:01:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BtG9Jp.KD0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes...

[...]
> 
>The political position of the religious right is authoritarian and 
>leaves no room for individual liberties.  The advocates of the position
>generally reject, on principle, the idea that reason should be applied
>to political questions.
[...]

	Cites and sources, please.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:14:04 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      slowly for macphil

phil, you always pick small parts of posts to respond to. Must be your
Meyers-Briggs type that you are not a big picture person. There are tons
of laws on the books that are never enforced. The push to use seizure
laws in the war on drugs originated in the white house during the Reagan
administration. I don't know how to make that any more clear.

The original intent of the seizure law was to go after large quantity
dealers. The current administration has allowed that to deteriorate into
harass anyone who is a minority member carrying large sums of cash. This
brings some rather interesting political implications into the equation:

1. Why are the majority of persons searched from minority groups?
2. Why do these people have to prove that they didn't commit a crime to
recover their property?
3. Is this a form of discrimination based on race ?

Can I vote for Travis and Robert as co-winners of the current prize
for list educationally challenged poster person?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:49:20 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              26 Aug 1992 11:21:08 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:21:08 -0400 Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet said:

> Technically, "G"od cannot be bound.  We have no *real* disagreement.
>
> But, what if Jamie gets a terminal illness and prays for healing?  What
> good does it do if, while he prays, he doesn't believe?  Of course, "G"od
> could go ahead and heal him if it was within his will.  However, as a
> general principle, would you not think that "G"od would be somewhat
> pressed to answer an empty prayer?

Wow!  Hurricane Andrew must have been stronger than thought...somehow
the lines have gotten crossed and now we're receiving traffic
from CHRISTIA and BELIEF-L here on POLITICS!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:43:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rape and Violation

>From: "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>

>(I
>do not accept that a first trimester fetus is any more than fetus, period.
>After that, I would generally oppose abortion save of emergencies, threats
>to mother or fetus' health, or severe trauma to one or the other. After that
>time, you might make a case for fetus as "victim," even then I'm not sure).

At exactly what time does the non-human fetus suddenly become worthy of
protection?  Is it on the first second of the first day of the second
trimester?  Why not a second earlier?  Your standard appears awfully arbitrary
as a system that you admit might mean the death of a human "victim."

Jason
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: my last word on this EVER
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:20:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>       I think what you meant to say here was:
>       "I hate being confronted by the truth!  Leave me alone you
>        bully."

> ---Robert

to say that i think this issue is impossible to discuss is an understatement.
the truth robert?
who's truth?
that you compare women who exercise personal control over their own bodies and
destinies to hitler is bad enough. but to equate hitler with mother teresa is
disgusting.

i do not hold the same beliefs as you do robert. i do not believe that abortion
is murder. i do not believe that human life begins at conception. the evidence
is not there. i believe women have the absolute right to control what goes on
with their bodies w/out the interference of the government or any other person.

abortion is not something i take lightly. i love having children, i've brought
two beautiful ones into this world. abortion is not a decision of convenience.
but, if i were confronted with the choice of ruining my life and the lives of
my children by bringing into this world another child that i do not have the
ability to care for (financially, emotionally, or physically) i would certainly
decide for the children for whom i am already responsible. i would have an
abortion. for me, dear robert, the selfish decision would be to have the child.
the responsible decision would be to abort.

here's the reality check. i have 2 kids. i am divorced and receive no alimony or
child support. i must work 2 jobs to feed and shelter my family. (yes, we are a
family with values and everything). if i had to lose even a few weeks of income
to have a baby, and place it for adoption (and considering the medication i'm on
no one would adopt that baby if it lived), it could spell financial ruin for us.

i cannot, in good concience, sacrifice those already here for those who might be

i will not post on the abortion again.

and no, robert, i do not think you are a bully. i think you are wrong.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:54:36 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order restored

>I have asked this of others before, and I will ask it again.  Could we
>PLEASE keep the straight theology off the list!  Please note that
>I *only* discuss theology here when I am asked to do so, and
>against my will.

  I'll go on record as seconding this request.  Save it for
a more appropriate list.  Your vendetta against Christianity
is surely inspired by the most noble of motivations, but;
this is not the place for it.

                             -Tim"not the most moral person"J
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU