HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:36:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jails and GE

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jails and GE

Julie:

You mention some of the more ridiculous laws that are on the books, in
an effort to support the idea that anti-sodomy laws are of a similar
nature.  However, you fail to point out that those laws have not been
enforced for a very long time, while the Supreme Court has upheld
the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws as recently as 1986.

                                       --Missy Justice

************************

mj:

every law that has not been enforced for a very long time stopped being
enforced at some time, and during the time shortly after that, they had
been enforced.  however, when a law is deemed absurd (such as, perhaps,
the penn law that claims that oral sex is an unnatural act against god
unless the persons involved are married) it is sometimes appropriate
to cease enforcing it.  the amount of time involved is irrelevant.

however, the claim that was being challanged was, i believe, that *all*
laws which are on the books should be enforced, and julie had given
examples of laws still on the books that are not enforced.  do you think
that they should be?

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:28:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Politics and Theology

this is not really an ans. to the post (maybe after lunch), but rather just
my observation...

i think it is possible to discuss political issues, and give the basis of your
conclusions based on your beliefs, whether they stem from a religious system, or
a scientific one, or any other system that might crop up. it can be done, and is
consistently done in both a thoughtful and tolerant manner, as missy justice
proves by her posts.

those who post particularly nasty comments, and dismiss others out of hand due
their own intolerant nature, well, they are few, deserve to have their say, and
the rest of us can either comment or ignore as we see fit.

no, this isn't the place for a purely theological debate, but it certainly is
okay to state on what you base your opinions.

i've noticed intolerance on both sides of the fence, and think its a pretty even
split.

well, thats just my humble opinion....

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:57:49 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

Thanks, J.B.!
  The DuncaN/ValentiN ticket thanks you for your support and will do its
best to fulfill its duty to all AmericaNs!

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:51:48 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What the constitution REALLY means, etc.

>> Also, in Louisiana, there are many people who can't continue running
>> when redistricting occurs.  They can run, but the odds of them being
>> elected in their new district are so slim that they don't.
>>
>> -j.b.

>I thought La. elected their reps at-large, statewide.  Maybe I'm wrong.
>-Travis

We don't elect any of our reps at-large, whether they be for the
Louisiana House (or Senate) or the US House.  We do elect our
two US Senators in that manner.

In local elections such as city councils, police juries (parish
governing bodies), school boards and maybe a few others do
elect one or two at-large positions, but the rest are by
district.

Since the recent census, we have had some redistricting "problems".
Most of them have to do with the state and local districts, but
there were some people who opted not to run because of the new
district lines in which they found themselves.

-j.b.
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, 21 Jul 1992 15:02:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Financing the govt

>From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
>
>On what did you base your opinion?  If you want absolute equality
>(fairness?) then maybe you would like to institute a head-tax (where
>everyone would pay a flat sum, period).  And to be really really fair,
>do you think we should tax income or wealth?  I mean if I have a $100,000
>diamond ring and if the US Military is protecting my life and property,
>then shouldn't I reimburse the government for the protection that they
>are providing for my diamond ring?

My opinion is based on the radical idea that the government should treat all
people as equally as possible; it should not implement a discriminatory tax
code.

A head tax isn't fair since it taxes a larger percentage of a poor family's
income than a rich family's.  Percentage terms seem to be the fairest measure,
since that results in an equally significant portion of each person's income
being confiscated.

You paid taxes on the ring when you earned the $100,000 dollars that paid for
it.  Assuming a 10% tax (I wish :>) that ring really cost $110k(almost)
 -- the other 10k went for taxes.

>--KAT

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:32:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How to Defeat Aids

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:59:00 EDT "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> sai
d:
> wear a condom.  On a national level we need to treat Aids like any other
> epidemic, for example TB.  Until this is done the whole nation is in
> danger.  Aids needs to be treated like other diseases that are just as
> deadly.
And weren't people with TB quarantined earlier this century?

> Carl------+
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:08:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:41:55 CDT Renee <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET> said:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> On Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:22:13 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
sa
>
> Travis,
>        The polls I have seen show that the majority of Americans do support
> the right to choose an abortion with some restrictions.  What is your evidence
> for the statement "and neither are most Americans"?  And what does Anita Hill
> have to do with anything?
>                                             SRA

Well, yeah--nobody said that abortion should be "COMPLETELY" outlawed,
but I dare venture to say that "some" restrictions means "many."
I saw a pro-life meeting on C-SPAN where polls not conducted by a pro-
life orginization (perhaps it was Gallup, but I'm in no way sure),
showed that most Americans are pro-life.  It really all depends on how
the question is phrased.
Anita Hill has nothing really to do with this, except she has been
turned into another "shining symbol" if you will of feminism.  I think
that there is going to be a very strong conservative backlash against
all this, and I am all for it.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:12:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:18:16 EDT K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> Kerry, Kerry, Linda, Travis, and others on the list,
> the following is the exact quote of what was exchanged
> between Larry King and Dan Quayle.
>
>     LK> "What if your daughter grew up, had a problem,
>         came to you with that problem all fathers fear?
>         How would you deal with it?"
>
>     DQ> I hope I never have to deal with it.  But
>         obviously I would counsel her and talk to her
>         and support whatever decision she made."
It's the truth and it's nothing but the truth, but it's not the whole
truth.

> FACT: He did not say he would support her, rather, he would
>       support her decision.
False.  He said "I would support my *daughter*."

> FACT: I would have done more or less the same thing if it was
>       my daughter, and I am pro-choice.
And if abortion were illegal?

> There was another piece of exchange that took place between
> Larry King and Dan Quayle that did not get any publicity.
> Larry King said if abortion is murder and if the fetus is a
> baby, then how do you explain the rape exception?  Dan Quayle's
> answer amounted to a simple "you can't, it is a difficult
> situation."
Right.  It is a difficult situation that should be left up to the
states to decide.  If states (like Louisiana) adopt my three month
guideline between non-person and person, the rape exception is accounted
for.

> Now, I will not disagree with Dan Quayle on his assertion
> that this is a difficult issue.  However, let's admit it:
> believing abortion is murder and allowing for the rape
> exception is not a consistent position.  On the other hand,
> the positions of those who say "abortion is murder and should
> only be performed if the life (not health) of the mother is in
> danger" or those who say "no one is allowed the use of another
> person's body without her consent" are.
I don't know.  "Implied consent" to let a baby use your body is not the
same as implied consent to let the baby's use of your body destroy your
health.

> --KAT
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:46:41 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

sjl:

If you would read Roe, you would know that abortion is legal throughout
the nine months of pregnancy.
                               --M. Prez 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:51:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

        Something that troubles me greatly about Bush's attitude toward Iraq --
and VMS touched on this with his wonderfully alliterative (used correctly)
names, such as the "Killer of Kuwait" and the "Rat of Riyahd" -- is the ease
with which our President pins the label of Hitler on a conventient enemy.  Now,
please understand that, like VMS, I find Hussein despicable.  But many of the
actions which Bush cited as evidence for Hussein's evil nature, including
gassing the Kurds, happened quite a bit before his invasion of Kuwait.  And
yet, Hussein was not then a Hitler.  Only when he threatened our oil supply did
Bush make him seem so ominous.

        And Sue, don't get me started about the Treaty of Versailles! :-)

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "Lafayette, we are here!"
Marshall Univ. History Dept.            -Col. C.E. Stanton, 4 July 1917, Paris
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       "We've paid off that old fart Lafayette.  What
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU       frog son-of-a-bitch do we owe now?"
YEA003@MARSHALL                         -U.S. Infantryman after Battle of
                                         Soissons, 28 May 1918
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:02:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

sue:

i wrote something really long and then my system ate it
and i just don't have the energy to retype the whole thing.

i suppose that your view of what america's image is to the rest
of the world is formed primarily by our media, which fails to
report things such as anti-american demonstrations in europe and
the like.

my experience from travelling around the planet (at least the
northwestern bit) is that there is significant amounts of anti-
american sentiments in those countries that are our allies and
friends (the problems that i encountered were in germany and
greece) and i can only assume that our enemies feel less friendly
than our friends do.  generally, people have not confused a dislike
of our government's actions with a dislike of us as people, but this
is not always the case (although i managed to escape unharmed).

perhaps some of the listmembers from the other side of the ocean
can tell us their take on people's sentiments about america.


brni(who doesn't like being called a "fucking american pig" and wishes
that our government would stop blowing people up so that it wouldn't happen)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:43:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Well, Larry,

I don't think I've ever seen a goofier pair of campaigns.  One
of them is throwing dead cats around, and the other wants to
bring families together by giving everybody the same first name!

Is this how we solve problems?

Just you wait until my position papers are ready.

(BTW, my birthday is August 18.  I may have an announcement for
you then.  Or I may not.)

Best,
PeterN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:06:26 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Consumer Reports on US health care
              21 Jul 1992 16:36:44 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

hi andy,
  Look, I don't mean to be an advocate for a single payer system or
socialized medicine or anything else.  I wanted to give some summary
from a very in depth article from one of the more credible sources of
information available.  (Consumer Reports isn't owned by Coca-Cola
and doesn't take outside advertising.  They dispense information to
help consumers shop smarter and since America spends 12% of her GNP
on health care, the subject seems worthy of CR's consideration.)
  The suggestions of CR seemed to be workable and reasonable approaches
to a very real problem.  Your initial dismissals were nebulous and/or
vacuous, and the line from your sig ("certain arguments deserve little
consideration") displayed your own bias in the matter.
  My follow up questions, although skeptical in tone, were an effort to
clarify your statements about free pre-natal care, not to say that the
experience was not significant.  I would have been most satisfied with
reference(s) of where to find the pertinent information, as I did.
  Stating that there are *several* single payer systems here indicates
that there isn't a single payer system here, at least not in the sense
that CR seemed to indicate.  That said, care to share any info on such
operations (i.e. why they don't work)?
  Finally, to all who are still reading, this month's CR has the second
of the three part series and deals with HMOs.  I haven't read the
article yet (again, it appears to be fairly indepth), although I may
post another summary, if for no other reason than to bug andy.
    todddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I don't have a solution,
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   but I certainly admire the
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    problem."  - UNKNOWN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:10:32 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: welcome back my friends to the show that never ends

No kidding, liese sponsors the whole olympiad? Must be expensive.
Even those big corporate sponsors only managed to shell out
enough to sponsor the olympics.



Jamie "four more years, four more years!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:47:42 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: personal liberties and high resolution broadcasting

Thanks, Linda.  It was fun having a ghost as a running mate.
I know VMS will make an excellent running mate, so I have high hopes.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:18:12 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Suggestion for another virtual ticket
              24 Jul 1992 22:06:29 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

Would the Jimmy/Olson team also have connections with a certain Kal-El
from Krypton?

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:17:05 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A few thoughts ...

      Valentine asks:

> Have Robert, Missy Kerry or Travis ever been married, or have they ever
> had sex?

      I have not been married.  And I would like to state right now, for
      the record, that I have never had sex....with Robert and/or Travis.

                                             ---Missy Prez-to-Be
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:05:07 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Quayle and family values

Hi, y'all:
I caught a bit of Quayle on Larry King last night.  He actually said some
things to clarify what he means by "family values."  I don't remember the
exact wording, but one of the things he included was what I've always
called a strong work ethic.  I have two comments.  First, either I'm way
ahead of the curve or the politicos are way behind:  I've been complaining
about the apparent erosion of the work ethic for at least 15 years.

Second, the political rhetoric around family values seems to tie the loss
of those values to problems of the inner city.  Now, in some ways, I think
that's a legitimate concern (although I'd bet I perceive the causal
relationships a bit differently than Quayle does).  That rhetoric, though,
presents what I perceive as a false dichotomy -- namely, that between your
basic white-middle-class-types and inner-city residents.  The problem I
have with that dichotomy is that it doesn't square with my experience.  To
the extent that I can judge the strength of an individual's work ethic from
attitudes and performance in higher education, it just doesn't hold.

I've taught close to 1,000 students from three ethnic/racial minorities and
just about every socioeconomic class (except the truly rich -- and my
sample of poor inner-city students is very small).  Among those students,
the best correlate of a strong work ethic is age -- the kids just out of
high school rank much lower than returning adult students.  Among the kids
just out of high school, I'd say that middle to upper-middle class students
rank lower than students from the lower-middle class.  I don't see much of
a relationship between the strength of that work ethic and religious
background.

My point, for all the politicos talking about "family values", is that I
don't think it's legitimate to use those values to divide "us" from "them"
-- not along political lines, not along socioeconomic lines.  If it's
really a problem it's a problem everywhere and should be addressed as such.

What do y'all think?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:36:55 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Sex and marriage, sex and marriage, go to . . .

     Travis' idea that extra-marital sex should be a criminal offense
is I'm sure well intentioned.  Though the tone of this discussion has
become a little high pitched, there are a few things to say about it.
Most of those responding to the suggestion have tried to point to the
logical conclusion of such a criminalization.  While it can be argued
that stable families = stable societies there are many reasons why the
state cannot get involved at this level of people's lives.

VMS has ably pointed out the practical impracticalities of such a
move.  What would we do with all  of these offenders?  Even if the
morality police manage to quell the number of infractions over a
period of time what about the immediate effects?  Thirty days in
jail per offense?  People demanding trials.  Just plain impractical -
not to mention what would constitute a reliable witness.

In addition, my libertarian bent makes me comment that the state
cannot demonstrate a real compelling interest in anyone's sex life.

Third (least political but perhaps most important), such legislation
would *trivialize* marriage.  It supposes that people get married
to have a live in sex partner; it supposes that people would stay
married to continue to have a live in sex partner - even one they
didn't love, or even like.  The state's intrusion in marriage is
*never* justifiable.

Other loose ends:
     The illegality of murder does not really prevent anyone from
committing it.  OK, some people.  But it is not because it is
illegal - it is because many people are ENFRANCHISED in society.
That is, they have something to lose.  Consequently, the illegality
of murder makes other remedies for disputes much more attractive.
For the unenfranchised's opinion on the illegality of murder, read
any newspaper nearly any day.  This morning's Baltimore _Sun_
will do.

     With respect to whether pregnancy frequently causes insanity
in women:  it is evident that anyone who believes this has never
endured and enjoyed the wonders and weirdness of nine months of
living with a pregnant wife - AND certainly, has never been present
at transition during delivery.   ;-)

Jenna - I too think there should be room for E- parties in the
election.  If you will have me, I volunteer to be your running
mate.      the colE/stevE ticket.  Unless you have another idea,
our slogan could be  "VotE E - for EnfranchisEmEnt!"
I hearby certify that I'm am old enough to take the reins of this
country, but in the interest of public disclosure, I admit that
a nasty campaign could aggravate my mps.

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