HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:51:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      taking a crack at libertarianism...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ellen:
>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.  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.

Either you're easily amused, or you need to find some other variants on
"it cracks me up"...:)

Individual freedom does not inherently imply that no one wants to have
anything to do with anyone else.  It merely states that the individual is
best suited to determine the nature and extent of these associations,
rather than an external agency.  Granted, this can be taken to absurd
extremes, but many of the more reasonable libertarians don't take it to
such extremes.

Perhaps you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism.  You would be in
error even so, but at least then the error would be understandable.
Anarchism, in common perception, seems to deny that any order or organization
is desirable, and is seen as being largely synonomous with chaos.  A careful
reading of anarchist literature, past and present, illustrates why this
perception is false, but I'm already digressing, so....

>The libertarians just want it MORE >their< way.  I suspect America
>doesn't work quite that way.

A lot of groups want it more their way.  The government, since it's the
biggest group, usually gets it more their way than other groups.  Why do you
think the U.S. doesn't work this way?

>Ellen

Side-note: I previously wrote "philosophy's" in a posting, and meant
"philosophies".  Deal with it, potatoe-heads...:)

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
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:06:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: in ri, drunk drivers get court (ha!)

>New South Wales they just set up breath testing points on the side of
>the road and haul in every third car or whatever. As a result not many
>people drink and drive in New South Wales.

i've seen this kind of checkpoint out west. there you are, driving
along in the middle of new mexico or arizona and all of a sudden cars are
stopping, cops are checking id and searching for illegal aliens, drugs,
fresh fruit, opened bottles of coors, unopened bottles of coors,
concealed weapons (unconcealed are okey dokey out there, gunracks on pickup
trucks abound).

don't know how many drunks they catch, but the cops make a *haul*.

>Dunstan.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:30:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Bush's Social Spending (chart included)

This table appeared in the Washington (DC) Times on Dec. 17, in an
op-ed piece by Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute.  It shows Bush's
budgets for 1989-93.

                              1989               1993     % increse
                        (Billions of '90 $)      ($)   (inflation adjusted)

Children's Programs           8.1                13.5         67
Education & Training         30.7                35.6         16
Federal Aid to
  States/Cities              89.5               142.8         60
Infrastructure*              44.3                58.3         32
Nutrition                    21.4                36.8         72
Research & Development       36.5                43.7         20

Grand Total                 230.5               330.7         43

* includes highways, transit, airports, housing, prisons and environmental
  facilities

Comment: Clinton wants more of this kind of spending to "stimulate the
economy".  If it hasn't worked yet, why should it work now?  How much
more is enough?

- David, who's scheming to get invited to Linda's Holiday Dinner

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
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:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:52:11 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>rattling against Serbia, and, in a striking Iran-Contra development, pardoned
>six officials, including Caspar Weinberger, Alan Fiers, and Clair George.

        Weinberger's I  agree with.  THe major charge against him was thrown
out, and all the persecutor--err--prosecutor had left was vindictiveness
against Bush.
        Walsh is a loon who has wasted $40 million.  Yes there are people who
are guilty of breaking the law, but Walsh has managed to let each and everyone
get off on technicalities or overturned convictions.  His desire to discredit
Bush is obvious, and reminds me of a certain Senator named McCarthy.

>The pardons strike me as a very interesting move.  Clearly, the intention was
>to lay the Iran-Contra scandal to rest, and Bush was willing to take some flak
>to do that, now that he doesn't have to worry about polls and elections.  The
>revelation that Bush himself took careful notes on Iran Contra, dating from
>when it went public, combined with the pardons, has focused attention on
>Bush's role again.  The late revealing of the notes will no doubt breathe new
>life into the investigation, and Bush's reluctance to hand over the notes
>gives a certain deja vu feeling (burn the tapes, george! burn the tapes!).

        Like Weinberger, Bush's notes have been available for some time.  The
persecotor prefers not to acknowladge this and instead acts like there is a
"cover up".
        Perhaps he could explain how something he has been investigating for N
years can be "covered up"?

>Thoughts, comments, snide attacks on the special prosecutor?

        Pave it over and start over next time.  The special prosecutor has
become an unworkable boondoggle.  We have justice dept. and they are supposed
to be independent.  Let's work on getting that bureaucracy back into some
semblence of a working institution.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:51:48 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From Sam...
Don't you find it strange that so many people 'choose' to become
members of a discriminated minority, knowing that they will be
subjected to attacks by idiotic bigots?

From Me...
Strange?  No.  People join the Nazi party knowing full well that they
are going to have to deal with the consequences of their *CHOICE*.
Others take refuge in NAMBLA.  Misery loves company, or if you prefer,
birds of a feather flock together.

---Robert

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
 that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
 everlasting life." John 3:16
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      homos having kids
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:03:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9212181817.AA14122@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,         
Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
> Jamie pisze:
> 
>>> > Homosexuals cannot have kids.
>>>
>>> That is false. In fact, it is very obviously false. Anyone who bothers
>>> to think about it will see that it is false.
> 
> Really? Can they.
> 
> What about 2*2=4? Is it also very obviously false?
> 
> Caius

My friends, Margot and Sharon will be very interested to know that
homosexuals cannot have children.  So will their daughter Mallory, and their
soon-to-be conceived second child.

-- 
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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:49:22 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>   and as for outing people, queer nation has announced that donna
> shalala, clinton's pick to head hhs, is a lesbian. she has stated
> that she told the fbi that she "does not practice an alternative
> lifestyle", which sounds an awful lot like a waffle to me.
>
> rtf
>

Actually from what I understand, it's been pretty well-known that Ms.
Shalala is gay.  Even though she is still in the closet, apparently it's
well-known.

Jonathan
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, 23 Dec 1992 09:39:44 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

Hi, y'all:
Dr. Pizz wrote the following:

Besides, just as
>people can turn off Howard Stern, they can go home, avoid the aabortion
>clinic, and have the baby, or even come back aanother day to have the
>abortion.  Further, in most places there are mutliple plaaces one could
>go.  Finally, if a woman was desperate for an abortion and really
>believed it was right, the pro-life people shouldn't be able to chnge
>her mind, and she could then just walk right through...

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.

Kerry
who thinks anti-abortion activists have the right to protest outside
clinics, but wishes they would be polite :)
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 14:33:15 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      conservatism
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jamie wrote:
>Classically conservatives are those who are (1) in favor of the status quo,

Not exactly.

Conservatism is a set of values based on superiority of natural (or divine)
law over established law.

Classically, when those values were widely accepted and adopted, conservatism
had nothing to do but preserve the values and prevent reform.

It was CONSERVATISM BY INSTINCT.

Now, when this situation is no longer true, when free market economy
and the right to posses are publically challenged, when homosexuality
is widely considered normal, the conservatives have to fight to
re-establish the virtues, return to the values. It is no longer in favor
of status quo. It requires reforms. Reforms in the opposite direction
that the trends in the last years.

It is CONSERVATISM BY KNOWLEGDE.


Disclaimer: I am *NOT* an expert at conservatism. Please have it in mind
when flaming or associating MY views to other people.

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 14:56:41 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      common usage : left-right
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

-other Andy:
>How about "common usage?"
>
>In the US it is commonly held that Nazism is a right-wing sort
>of belief; then again so is extreme conservatism, some brands
>of libertarianism, etc. There is wide acceptance of the idea
>that there is a significant difference between the ideologies
>of these different right wing philosophies.

Ok, I didn't know about the "common usage" in the US.

I have a question (it is very important to me, you discussed the A/AN before
historian so maybe you will answer my linguistic problem);

My Longman Top Pocket English Dictionary says:

RIGHT  (p.441)
4 political parties that favour less change and less state control

LEFT (p.290)
2 political parties that favour more change and more state control

How about "common usage?"

Do I have to throw away my dictionary?

Do I have to throw away a copy of 288 lines Valentine message?

Caius.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Well, pardon me!
Date: 29 Dec 1992 14:17 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
Keywords: Walsh, Weinberger, Bush, Iran, contra, pardon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In the original North investigation, Walsh made a serious mistake in allowing
North to testify instead of going with a lesser charge -- if we assume that
convictions are the only way to score.  If, however, the point is to try to
find out what happened, Walsh is trying to do everything he can and getting
stymied left and right.  (The original joint committee certainly did a
wonderful job of avoiding the possibility of a Reagan impeachment.)

It appears that we'll have to wait for the journalists to finish this up. 
Meanwhile, Walsh will presumably attempt to put together obstruction of justice
charges against Bush.  This is extremely difficult to make stick, so don't
expect anything for a while.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:20:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      SET POLITICS NOMAIL

SET POLITICS NOMAIL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:54:48 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, Serbia and a Potential "Third Balkan War," #800
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Worse than the tragedy already unfolding is the idea of European war.
> It is amazing, and sobering, to a student of history that the nations
> of Europe would be willing to engage in ANOTHER war over this
> war-torn land. The brutal raping of Moslem women, the starving siege
> of Sarajevo, "ethnic cleansing" has created a climate of "war
> crimes," and war, it would appear that fighting is all most of the
> folks involved in this mess think will work. The people of Bosnia,
> Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and perhaps Macedonia and Kosovo will
> probably pay the worst price for war.
>
> Humans are sure slow to learn, aren't they?  VMS
>

Thank you VMS for that stirring and sad walk down history lane.
I must take issue with your last paragraph though.

I think that it is pretty obvious that the following statement is
NOT true, "Europe would be willing to engage in ANOTHER war over this
war-torn land".  Europe has blithy ignored the Serbians lo these many
months.  Europe has approached the Serbian butcher the same way that
they approached Hilter over 50 years ago, (talk about slow to learn!),
appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.  The Serbians violated multiple
cease-fires, ignored any idea of human-rights, and have generally
acted as though it matters not that the rest of the world holds them
in contempt.  It is obvious that Europe hasn't wanted to do anything
about the Serbian aggression and has prayed very hard that it would
just go away.  Let's hope that Europe and now, finally, the US is
not acting too late.  Serbia does hold at least 70% of Bosnia.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:50:59 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      merry whatever you celebrate

Y'all have a good Christmas, Xmas, Hannukah, Holiday, etc...

see you next month,



james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:20:26 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: logical error

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:39:35 MET Grzegorz Albinowski said:
>
>My assumptions are:
>
>1) rightism<=>support-for-free-market  \
>   nazis didn't support free market    /   therefore nazism is NOT rightism
>
>You say that the following term is "widely accepted"
>
>2) nazism=>rightism
>
>(One person argued that nazism<=>rightism but let's ignore it)
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>R <=> F and N => ~F    therefore  N => ~R
>
>                                  N => R
>--------------------------------------
>There must be an error in these statements.
>I consider N=>R (if you are a nazi you are a rightist) to be false.

There was a report on BBC Radio last night about the growth of Oi music in
Germany, a little like punk, except nastier.  One of the songs mentioned was
called Leftie, which was basically an attack on left-wing politics (probably
anyone to the left of Genghis Khan), the lyrics included references to Lefties
being like swine when together, cowards when alone.  The most relevant part
was where the singer proclaimed how pleased he was to be a Rightie, and the
report said that the more right-wing the sentiments, the better.  They were
referred to as neo-Nazis.  Other songs called for expulsion, and/or execution,
of foreigners.
The reproter considered the groups right-wing, other germans considered the
groups extreme right-wing, the lyrics themselves proclaimed the groups to be
proud to be right wing.  Unfortunately, I tend not to take word for word
transcripts of every news bulletin that I listen to, but if they consider
themselves, I think that is close enough to the documentary evidence you were
demanding.

On a further point, you said that Rightists (a) were free market, and (b) did
not kill anybody.  Well, where does that leave China?  They now run a free
market economy.  Therefore, by your narrow definition, they must be a rightist
government.  But where does that leave Tiannenman Square?  One of the more
disgraceful incidents of the late 1980s.  So if they are murderers, then they
must be leftists.  But leftists don't believe in the free market, so...?


Try and square *that* circle.
>
>Caius.



james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:43:58 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments, part II
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Ellen:
> >Number one, the last I heard, most estimates of the homosexual popula-
> >tion in the U.S. run from 10 to 15 percent of the population. I hardly
> >think they're the most sizable minority.
>
> Could you name a minority that is more sizable?
women and blacks come to mind.
>
> >But it is ridiculous to claim that he doesn't have any real feelings for
> >women or minorities.
>
> I never said that Clinton doesn't have any real feelings for women or
> minorities. All I meant to say was that he is not going to ACT on those
> feelings.
> Sam.
>
He has already ACTed on his feelings for the rights of women.  He has
talked about ACTing on his feelings regarding the rights of gay people, when
he talked about lifting the ban on gays in the military.  Since the man
is not yet President, I think that it is premature to claim that he is not
going to ACT on his feelings.

I deleted your post, but I believe that you did say that he didn't have
any real feelings for women or minorities.  You talked about what a "good"
politician does.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:47:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

Brett, wow, just what I always wanted...an America full of little
enclaves and sub-territories where everybody gets to do exactly what
they want all the time.

It always cracks me up when people contend that America was founded so
that people could do whatever they want.  Likewise, it always cracks me
up when people say that America was founded because we all had to work
collectively for the greater good.

In order to win the right to be able to do whatever we wanted to, the
people who started this country had to form a government and draw up
ground rules so that these rights could be kept safe.  In other words,
they all banded together to make a better place on earth than had
existed before.

Yet, if they did not have the freedom of thought and movement and speech
to assemble and make these plans -- in other words, the freedom to do
whatever they wanted -- then they never would have had the opportunity to
make these plans for the greater good, which are the plans that insured
the freedom for people to theoretically do more or less whatever they
wanted.

And if these people had never banded together to make colonies in the
New World, working together for a greater good, they probably never would
have had the opportunity to get out from under the Crown's thumb and do
whatever they wanted, which in turn gave them the opportunity to make
these plans for the Revolution...

Need I go on, Brett?

What came first, Brett -- the chicken or the egg?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that America is about BOTH of these things,
always has been, and always will be?   Individual freedom and working for
common goals.  I know it's a tough concept for a lot of people to grasp.

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.  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.

In this country, at least, you cannot separate the two forces.  So many
people just do not understand that, it seems.  (I'm not saying you don't,
Brett, but I think a lot of people don't.)

To quote Henry Louis Gates Jr., whose "A Pretty Good Society" is one of
the most brilliant essays I have ever read on American government and
society (it was in the Nov. 16 issue of TIME):

"Down with either-or.  Up with both-and."

And if you look very carefully, you'll see that that statement also
contains a contradiction in itself.

It's the American way.    :)


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