HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:37:30 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      re: gun control, kinda'

From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> There is no room for debate about the intent of a criminal making use of a
> firearm.  The threat carries with it an implied "You're going to die".  The
> use of another type of weapon would generally lessen the immediate potential
> for death.  It's hard to struggle with an airborne projectile.  If executing
> criminals that make use of firearms results in a trend to less potent types
> of weapons, then what's your problem?

Society can tolerate many things, liars, thieves, Congress (Oops, I'm repeating
myself).  We cannot continue to endure the toll associated with allowing these
criminals to walk our streets and prey upon our citizens.  The death of an
innocent victim is hard to justify by claiming our good intentions.  ABSOLUTE
life without parole is an option that society could live with.  The problem is
that our system of justice is fraught with participants of social engineering
ideology and can therefore not be trusted to abide by any promises it may
make.  Given the situation and the options, death or parole, our prudent
choice is the protection of the innocent over the protection of those found
guilty of some heinous crime.

>........ Don't put much value on human life that isn't unborn, huh? .....

I put value on ALL human life.  That is why it is such a tragedy that one
would throw theirs away by committing a capital offense.  To attempt to
equate the "pro-life" position pertaining to unborn children with some type
of inconsistency on capital punishment is quite a stretch.  If you are
unable to distinguish the execution of a murderer from the slaughter of
a helpless child, you'll just have to live with your shortcomings.

>........ I'm sick and damn tired of people selectively preserving life and
>being so damn sanctimonious about it!
>Joe

I too am sick, of those that would consider children as discardable trash and
of those that would place the interests of thugs in equality with their
victims.  Here's hoping that you never have to experience firsthand the results
of your revolving door failure.

To turn the heat up a little, I also believe that parole board members that
vote to release a criminal prior to completion of his/her sentence should be
held responsible, and tried as conspirators, for any crimes committed by the
released before the intended completion date of the original sentence.

---Robert

"Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
From: FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The VP Debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:01:45 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Stockdale was pitiful.  I could have done a better job with an hour
or so prep. time, and possibly without that.  That guy was a college
prof.?  I though they worked off stage fright by teaching.  He had
a nice tie, though.  It was, if I'm correct, an Escher tie, with bird-
patterns repeated in diff. colors.  It is, suprisingly enough, the same
as my only tie.  The guy at least had good taste.

  I think Gore came out ahead, but neither he nor Quayle really answered
questions directly *ever* during the debate.  Quayle made some things
that looked a lot like blunders.  My favorite line of his was when he
described the gulf war as "...the most important international event in
his [Clinton's] lifetime."  What about his attacks on Gore's voting record
and Gore's book etc. that Gore denied?  Does anyone know the reality on
these.  I'm much more prone to believe Gore than Quayle on these issues, of
course.
  Have you noticed that in these debates, Clinton and Gore talk about
Clinton'
s record in Arkansas, and Bush/Quayle are avoiding it, generally?  Clinton
did a good job as Gov., but I'd still expect more attacks on that from
the Republicans....

-Martin, who would write more, but has a mid-term which he hasn't studied
for tommorow.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:17:40 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      the debate thang

I must go with the group feeling that the debate was basically a sleeper
although there were a few high points. I really liked Ross's comment
about people not taking the blame for things that happened on their
watch. I also agree with Bill's assesment that Bush did nothing about
jobs or the economy during his first 3 1/2 years in office. I don't know
why bush thinks that the new congress will be more friendly towards his
ideas. If he was leading by 10 points in the polls that might be possible
but I don't see a massive influx of new republicans based on bush's
numbers.

Bush just keeps saying 'trust me, I have the best plan'. You can't
implement any plan without the help of congress. I think Clinton has
the best shot at being able to work with congress.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:06:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Did you vote for Carter

   I wonder how many of you voted for Carter the first time he ran for
President as well as his second attempt?

Carl------------+
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Aztecs
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:55:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>however they are marred by the gruesome acts of human sacrafice.  How could
>they be so barbaric?


well, the romans had their crucifixions, the spanish their inquisition, the
germans their holocaust. seems to be a general trend that afflicts all humans.

one thing you have to try to do, carl (and it's hard) is to not judge a culture
by the standards of your own culture. if you're interested in learning about
different people, you have to suspend your personal values in order to under-
stand what's going on, w/out contaminating it w/personal bias.

personally, i find the process of learning about other people facinating and
have little trouble in suspending judgement for the sake of knowledge. but, that
doesn't mean i could live that way....i just find it all intriguing.

- linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
            <9210101841.AA00394@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:22:24 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Guns, Freud, and Psychology

I have said several times that the relation of Freudian psychology
to the political issue of gun control is beyond the understanding
of gun freaks, and the list's former serf proves this for us yet
again. In the pathetic belief that statistics speak for
themselves, and that any quote from Freud is as good as another,
he is evidently incapable of understanding what the PROBLEM is.
And it is not guns, nor is it statistics, nor is it which corrupt
law journals you happen to peruse: it is aggression, violence, and
distorted human values. It doesn't take a psychoanalyst to hear the
twisted malevolence in Robert & Andy, the need to strike back, the
rage and frustration. These emotions are the source of our social
problem, the idiotic frontier mentality that the way to solve problems
is with superior firepower. As Freud so classically describes it in
_Civilization and its Discontents_ (the *whole* book, Andy, not the
classics comic), the ability to master these id-drives is the absolute
precondition for a civilized society, and precisely what you clowns so
bitterly oppose. While we're about it, Andy, care to cite the stats for
the number of handgun deaths per year in the U.S. versus every other
country in the world? I thought not..
Wearily,
Michael
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, kinda'
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:52:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt354772@drew.edu>, K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:

[in response to Robert's support of victim impact statements]
>
> Of course the victim impact statements do not "force" the court to
> sentence any differently, that is understood.  The question was
> never that (at least mine), the question is whether those statements
> are relevant. I say that those statements should be considered totally
> irrelevant in the sentencing phase.

there is three reasons at least why victim impact statements are wrong.
(1) as Kat said the number of children the victim had shouldn't put
set the value his life was i.e. someone with 4 children is more
valuable to us than none.  (2) the criminal didn't know the person had
children or family that cared deeply for the victim, all s/he cared
about was the crime.  If the criminal knew about the family or did the
crime partly/because of the family, then it's relevant.  Proving this
would be somewhat difficult though.  (3) victim impact statements give
the jury an emotional plea that would likely alter their reading of
the facts.  The result is the injustice of emotion over justice.  Who
among you wouldn't call a killer of a father of five vs. a killer of a
older bachelor guilty more likely?

> However, in parole hearings such
> statements can be considered.


whoa.  what relevance do they have here?  parole hearings deal with
the criminal's activity in jail on the most part, not if he
inadvertedly killed a family man over a bachelor.

>> ---Robert
>
> --KAT
>

    Again and again we hear about how following the Constitution is
coddling criminals while running roughshod over their victims..
Besides the fact the often the rules broken were done so in a sloppy
matter and often results in unfair results, our country puts a value
on liberty that isn't always pleasant.  Rodney King's jury trial
surely showed that...

   -Joe
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, 6 Oct 1992 21:53:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      archive files - i'll only post this once, so take good notes
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
>2) I've already explained that I have no idea *how* to get into the archives.
>If you'd like to explain to me how to do that from bitnet, please do so and
>I'll rummage through them myself.  In the meantime, please refain from
>insinuating that I am choosing not to do so; I simply do not know how.  Again,
>your dishonesty is showing.

Oh, Jesus P. Flippin Magoo Christ on a Made-in-Taiwan Pogo Stick.  Send the
following command by interactive message to listserv@ucf1vm (listserv@ohstvma
does not have any archive files):

index politics

This will get you a list of the politics files available for request.
When you look at the file, you'll see a bunch of files that look something
like this:

* filename filetype   GET PUT -fm lrecl nrecs   date     time   Remarks
* -------- --------   --- --- --- ----- ----- -------- -------- --------------
                                                             -----------------
  POLITICS LOG9207A   ALL OWN V      80  9082 92/07/07 09:33:38 Started on Mon,
                                                        6 Jul 1992 06:27:49 GMT
  POLITICS LOG9207B   ALL OWN V      80 29352 92/07/14 22:58:56 Started on Wed,
                                                        8 Jul 1992 08:29:53 GMT

And so on.  The 92 indicates the year, the 07 indicates the month (which, in
this example, is July), and the A indicates which part of the month the log
has recorded.  Usually, there will be five (a,b,c,d, and e - sometimes there's
no e log).  You can look in the remarks to find the time period covered by a
given log.  To obtain a desired log, send the following interactive command
to listserv@ucf1vm:

GET POLITICS LOG9207A

And the file will be sent to you.

It appears that the archives were pruned recently: the most recent log is
from the beginning of July.  If you need to look at earlier archives, send
an e-mail request to anderson@ucf1vm - he's the current guy in charge of
the politics list (the index file says lois@ucf1vm - ignore that, it's out
of date).

As for whether your points have been answered, I'd have to say that they
have been.  And Jamie's been remarkably tactful in replying to you thus far,
in stark contrast to your increasingly strident (and utterly nonsensical)
accusations of distortion.  It's ironic, in a way.  The more you cast
aspirations on Jamie's veracity, the more I find myself doubting yours.  I'll
leave it to you to demonstrate that my perceptions in this matter are
inaccurate, if you care to do so.

>Jason

Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
28 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:27:21 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: No Subject

[Stuff Deleted]
> Also,
>when you have heavy gun control such as in the north.. the people
>without guns are the people who need them for protection.

[Stuff Deleted]

>Now.. an armed society is a polite society

[Stuff Deleted]

>    You're right.. guns are for violence.. but sometimes a little violence
>is necessary to keep order!
>
>                                john stith
>                                stustith@eku


You can learn so much from this list:  Guns are for protection in the
North, guns breed good manners (does Judith Martin write about this?),
and guns are for violence but violence keeps order.

Yee-hah!

...Rick
From: SWK004@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU (CONNIE LEINEN, SWK004@MARSHALL, HUNTINGTON,
              WV)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: What's the secret handshake?
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:06:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: _IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: SWK004
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Pardon me, but I'm not familiar with the ettiquette of lists.

I looked for a FAQ, but didn't find one.  This isn't really surprising,
because I ended up reading this fine board only because our news feed
has been down for TWELVE days.  Yes, 12 days.  For whatever reason, tho,
we are getting messages in the bit groups that have occurred in the past
2 days.  (Weird world, huh?)

Anyway, ya'll look like a fine group of people.  Is it considered to
be rude if one just lurks and reads.  I suppose if I wanted to post, I'd
have to belong to the list, right?  How do I belong to the list?  Not that
I anticipate wanting to post, but, you know, the draw of membership in
secretive organizations is sometimes so beguiling.

Connie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:23:48 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Did you vote for Carter
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:07:33 -0500 MARTIN FOX said:
>I was 2 years old in 1976.  I would have voted for Carter then, as well
>as in 1980.  Carter was a damned fine president who had several major
>difficulties which it would have been difficult for anyone to have dealt
>with, and a character flaw which made it worse.

>  Carter's political character flaw is A) He blamed the American people
>for the energy crisis and asked them to be more responsible (The Malaise
>Business)  -- to say something is the fault of America is not a popular
>thing.  (Damn -- I'm late to class -- I'll write more later...

But you are looking at Carter in hindsight.  At the age of two, you were
incapable of making a decision.  I'm sure many people who didn't vote or
didn't vote for Carter could make the same claims you are now that
time has tempered their perspective.

P.S.

Looks like your spelling is improving!

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: C503108@MIZZOU1.BITNET (Craig Rooney U of MO-Columbia)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: The Cable Bill
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:15:24 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


  Hi, I'm a Masters Student in Counseling Psychology; politics is a passion on
the side.  I've been following the discussions on POLITICS and have found them
very interesting--particularly the twist of Frued and guns--hmmm, we don't talk
 about that angle much in counseling...
  Just for the record, Missouri is also a "battleground" state so we're seeing
a lot of Clinton ads--as well as a lot of Clinton (Bill and Hillary) and Gore.
 The only Missourians who are falling for the Bushman's "soviet spy" joke again
st Clinton are the ones who haven't made it out of the Southern part of the sta
te for quite some time (hence, all of Bush's visits are to Springfield and Jopl
in and Branson. The Republicans are acting out of desparation--"The Religious W
ar in America" that we all heard about during the Republican Convention is abou
t to be lost to an ideology which truly endorses values concerning the treatmen
t of fellow human beings.
  By the way, I think Republicans, Fundamentalist Christians,and people who are
 following the Bat-boy story with fear and terror were cut from the same cloth.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:25:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: The Cable Bill

>I wonder what the Abnormal Pych people would think of us?

if they got ahold of us, they might not let us go.

-linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jswarts@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Swarts)
Subject: Re: Federally mandated leave constitutional?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:14:40 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92101510401463@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Travis Kidd <TK
IDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
>Perhaps you don't have your constitutional law books with you, but a
>copy of the Constitution is not hard to find.  It is a VERY LARGE
>corruption of the interstate commerce clause to say that a restaurant
>serving out-of-staters is subject to federal law.  That is just
>ridiculous.  The only thing the federal government can do (if the
>Supreme Court disagrees with me, then I believe the Supreme Court to
>be wrong) is regulate the ACTUAL COMMERCE itself.  When the states
>ratified the Constitution, surely they did not intend for the federal
>government to have control over everything in the state that might
>have the remotest connection with something out of state.
>It sounds ludicrous to say that how much a Burger King in Fairbanks, AK
>chooses to pay a cashier is under federal jurisdiction.
>-Travis

Travis,

It seems to me that, under your overly narrow and restrictive view of the 
constitution (apparently the so-called original intent view), the federal 
government would be completely hamstrung in its efforts to effect policy 
(especially in the 1960s in the face of unconstitutional discriminatory 
practices) aimed at expanding, not constricting, the rights of Americans. When 
there is an obvious need for a positive public policy, e.g. family leave, I 
think it legitimate to use such provisions as the ICC in order to legitimize 
a federally-mandated policy. After all, in the past 30 years or so, the federal
government has been the primary protector of civil rights, citizen equality, 
and progressive social policy.

Jon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:47:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Perotdiction for the election

>Some jerk with an ego problem displays his affliction with a voluntary case
of penis-cranius.

                                        ---Robert.


        You have described yourself perfectly, Robert.  Now go play with
your Bible.


                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: ==> Alert! IMPOSTER posting as Clinton For Pre
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:45:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

ALERT!
Someone tell Quayle's strategists!
Clinton For President cannot spell "impostor"!!!!!
Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:04:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      The VP Debates

Wow! Am I the first to write a message about the VP debates. Darn, I don't have

enough time to write in depth, (studies), but I'll say that Quayle was too
agressive and inaccurate (trying to challenge the author on his material, trying
to tell a senator that he voted the other way, and a plethora of other examples)
, Gore fleshed out the points and remained composed although a bit synthetic,
and STockdale, well, again the Perot camp has put out another character. CNN
truth squad reported that Stockdale was the only canidate to use such a huge
understatement when he was explaining the future of the U.S
Gotta Go.
Lance
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:47:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Dave's dilemma

> On Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:23:45 EDT Corinne R. Hillard said:
> >Only in your dreams,Dave.  If Bush loses than the real nightmare begins.  I c
> > live without the double digit inflation and the 20+% interest rates at the b
> Oh yeah... the ghost of the Carter administration.  Any reason to believe
> this tripe, other than Carter and Clinton are both Democrats?  Say maybe
> an analysis of their administrations as governors, an analysis of their
> campaign proposals, a detailed impact study of Clintons economic policy.
> Or is this just some sewage Rush Limbaugh has pumped through your sieve?

No, it's just that Carter is the Democrat that the Republicans most
love to run against, so his name keeps popping up in Presidential
politics.  In Senate races, on the other hand, the Republicans prefer
to run against Ted Kennedy.  Here in NC, Lauch Faircloth (a former
Democrat himself) is running against Terry Sanford.  Now, Sanford is
about as conservative as you can get without actually being asked to
leave the Democratic Party.  So Faircloth's TV ads mention Kennedy's
name much more often than Sanford's.  Guilt by association.

Best,
Peter

>     todddddddddddd
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,alt.activism,misc.activism.progressive