HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:42:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 'H' is for 'History.'

From: "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
>Hpoefully this message isn't one of many already sent to explain.

Actually, it's the first one...:)

>The
>problem is that you are confusing "odds" and "probability".  If I say that
>the odds of a horse winning a race is 3:2, I am saying that the ratio of
>successes (wins) to failures (losses) is 3:2.  If I say that the probability
>of the horse winning is 2:3 (I switched it around because no probability can
>be greater than one), then I am saying that out of three races, the horse
>will win twice.  The equivalent odds would be 2:1 (two wins to one loss).

Aha!  Now I understand.  So, the tenative odds I gave for the presidential
race would be expressed as follows:

Clinton/Gore   3:2
Bush/Quayle    2:3

>It really is an issue that many, including the popular press, will often
>screw up.

I can't blame the popular press on this one.  Shoulda paid more attention
in stats class.

From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>So presumably you meant, odds on Clinton, 2:3, odds on Bush, 3:2.

Other way around (since Chris spoke up first, I'm accepting his ratio
of wins to losses).

>Jamie

Gary W. Olson                "Nationalisation, with one big boss!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU "No, privatisation, with lots of little bosses!"
                             "But someone in control of course
                              Either way there must be someone giving orders."
                             -Chumbawamba, "The Candidates Find Common Ground"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:50:57 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Russian Military

It may not have been a wise venture on Boris Yeltsin's part to chasten
the military so severly considering their anger and confusion.  Since the
break up of the Soviet Union the army is being pulled out of places that
they have had for decades, the navy is being split between the Ukraine and
Russia, once secure military positions in the Kremlin and among officers
vary from month to month.  Is their military pride any less than ours..No!

If Mr. Yeltsin continues to bash his military there may be another coup...
...at Boris Yeltsin's expense.  The world might like it, but an angered mil-
itary doesn't.  A little revolution now and then, is a healthy thing, and
they just might be thinking that soon since THEY still have the T-72 tanks,
Typoon submarines and a few IBCM's around.  We'll see.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R2).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:03:02 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: If A then B
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

From:          Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

}> Any statement of the form "if A then B" which can not be proved false,
}> is true.  And the examples seem to be, "if A is false and" added in
}> front.  In other words, "if A (but it is not true that A obtains)
}> then B."  These examples seem to be vaccuous.

}Yes, that's what I learned in high school geometry.  If the condition
}itself is false, the statement is true.

No, no.  Almost, but no.  It is

                    IF <condition true> THEN <result>

therefore your condition A from above must be deemed as a true
statement in order for B to happen.  It's similar in saying

                    IF A = B THEN B = A

Make sense?
Trust me, I've taken enough comp. sci. & philosophy courses to last a
lifetime and a half.


}> Dan Evens
}-Travis
-Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:50:30 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cost vs. return

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>>> Sex outside of marriage should be a jailable offense.
>>> -Travis

>> How about sex in the absence of (any) marriage?

>> --KAT

> I don't know about that.  But I think anyone caught having sex with
> someone in the absence of marriage should not be allowed to marry anyone
> else.  I also think that divorces should be VERY hard to get, and that
> only one divorce should be granted per person.  (That's per person, not
> per marriage.  Whoever asks for the divorce is considered the "person"
> in this sense.)
> -Travis

A *partial* answer.  OK, I had sex without marriage, and now I am not
allowed to marry ever.  Could I keep having sex with other unmarried
women?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:52:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what does this mean?

I've been informed by the listowner that the daily message volume has been
increased until the general election from 100 to 300. VMS
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 14:00:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't via taxation

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>The most important way of cutting the deficit is to reduce
>unemployment and spur growth, and everyone knows it. If
>people make more, you can get more revenues without raising
>taxes. So the most important aspect of Clinton's plan is the
>approach to spurring growth and reducing unemployment. You
>might take a look at that part, in case you are actually
>interested.

Technically, this is right.  Remember, though, that the U.S. has a structural
deficit, which means that even if we grew to full-employment GNP, our tax
revenues would still not match expenditures.  Thus, while growth can CUT the
deficit, it cannot ELIMINATE it.

Also remember that gov't programs intended to spur growth (such as Clinton's
schemes for "investment") usually cost money, thus partly offseting the
increased tax revenues that their growth brings about.

>Jamie

BTW (to all who are interested -- not just Jamie), I'm puzzled by Clinton's
pledge to make the wealthy pay "their fair share."  Since the rich are taxed at
a higher rate than the rest of us, it seems to me that they're already paying
more than their fair share.  If Clinton really desired "tax fairness," it seems
to me that a flat tax would be his best proposal.

But then again, I guess Jerry Brown already lost :)

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:41:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions
              29 Jul 1992 10:19:41 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

I think you have got the point of Glendon's book.  In no other nation
is abortion considered to be the absolute right of one individual.
Other countries recognize the humanity of the unborn and have systems
that are set up to take care of the family itself.  It may well be
that the real problem in the United States is not abortion itself--
*or* the stridency of those who oppose it.  The real problem in the
United States, on this and other issues, is the unconscionable
selfishness of individuals.
                           --M. Prez-to-Be
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:22:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

>That is the way I see it.  But maybe you saw something that
>I didn't.  I am willing to listen though.

KAT,

well, you have me at a disadvantage because being cableless i didn't see the
interview, i just was going on what you said in your post. based on that tho',
i still don't see him as being a hypocrite. I think he is truly (and misguid-
edly) very pro-life. i didn't get the idea that he meant he would support her
decision to abort, but that as a father he would support *her*.

lets take a more moderate example than killing of bratty 2 yr. olds. last
semester my son dropped out of school w/out consulting me or even doing the
courtesy of informing me prior to the deed. now, i work at the same school, so
i get tuition remission for him. we're talking a free college education, which
is a big deal to someone in my salary range. my son is also 21 yrs. old, so he
is old enough to make that decision. BUT, he also lives at home, has a job, etc.
i was opposed to his decision on many fronts. i thought his reasons for quitting
were invalid, i felt as tho' he had no regard for my feelings and convictions,
he didn't seem in the least grateful to me for working at a low paying job
expressly to get him an education. i could go on.....

i did not support his decision. i was completely against it and let him know
it. i did not kick him out, but i discontinued to allow him to live free in
my home. he had to start paying rent, since i refused to sacrifice if he was
no longer pursuing his education.

see the difference? if i had suspended my support of my son-my child whom i love
dearly but was doing things of which i did not approve- i would have kicked him
out and washed my hands of him.

i stood behind *him*, not his decision. (but i didn't make it easy on him, he
had to pay for it! by the way, he's returning in the fall, it cost too much
to be independent-heehee).

now, if he had done something like murder, or drugs or whatever, i would be
appalled and miserable. i would do my best to get him counsel, a fair trial,
if he was guilty and went to jail, i would visit him, and love him, and try
to do what i could for him.

am i a hypocrite? i don't think so because i can hate the deed, but i don't
have to hate the person.

anyway, that's just one mother's opinion. (sorry this is so long)

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:10:12 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't via taxation

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

> BTW (to all who are interested -- not just Jamie), I'm puzzled by Clinton's
>pledge to make the wealthy pay "their fair share." Since the rich are taxed at
> a higher rate than the rest of us, it seems to me that they're already paying
>more than their fair share. If Clinton really desired "tax fairness," it seems
 ^^^^
> to me that a flat tax would be his best proposal.

If, according to you, they are already paying "*more* than their
fair share," then would you please tell us how much IS their fair
share?  And if you think a flat tax is fair then you must think
Reagan was unfair to the rich by taxing them more than their "fair
share."

> Jason

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:04:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jails and GE

Sue Clark <SACLARK%UNMCVM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> writes:
>The question  was asked, 'Why aren't people going to jail?'  The police
>are so busy with anti-sodomy laws that genuine criminals are not going
>to jail.
>
>Entrapment?  What is the difference between using police male/female to
>bring prostitutes to jail as well as gay men?

I believe that you missed my point.  The POLICE OFFICER made the
proposition that they go to bed together.  If I'm acting on behalf of
the police as an undercover agent during any sort of sting, _I_ can
not make the offer.  I can't go to someone and say "How about I sell
you these drugs" or "How about we sleep together and I pay you $100?"
(prices may vary in your area).  I would have to _wait_ for someone to
proposition _me_, otherwise it is entrapment.

>If the law applies to one
>should it not apply to the other?  If a community has an anti-sodomy or
>an anti-prostitute law, it has to be enforced, and most local business
>people would certainly agree with the enforcement of the law.  When a
>community decides to overturn such a law, then they will, but in the mean
>time if it is in the books such a law has to be carried out.

I disagree.  In Florida there is a law which makes it illegal for you
to bathe while naked.  In Hawaii it is illegal for you to place
pennies in your ears.  In Iowa (I believe) it is illegal for you to
use canned corn kernels as fish bait.  Should we really be arresting
people for this nonsense?  "Sir, we suspect she may be bathing naked.
Let's get a warrant and bust her."

I think that the law which outlaws "Sodomy" is unconstitutional and
outmoded.  I believe that a supreme court with integrity would have
had the decency to have outlawed them years ago.  I believe that the
laws need to be struck down by courts all across the land and I do not
believe that the specific consentual sexual acts in which I engage are
anybody's business save for my own.

--Julie
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:56:28 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What the constitution REALLY means, etc.

>And Brett, I have confirmation that one need not reside in a congress-
>ional district to represent that district.  The federal government,
>if it felt like it, might have the power to pass a law against it, but
>currently it has not.  Just think, how would incumbents who because of
>redistricting now live outside of their district be able to continue
>running??
>-Travis


Does this ever happen?  I thought that was one of the major reasons
we wanted a split with the UK?  They considered the representational
system fair and we didn't because we didn't have seats designated as
ours.

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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: A response to "Another Gulf War"
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:23:11 GMT
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

Val said:
>> I think it could help him more than hurt, especially if the action
>> was primarily quick, and "specifically punative," ie the Agriculture
>> building in question was destroyed. If it is to happen, Bush should
>> push the Un for it to happen soon. Else he's trying to be re-elected
>> AND wage war. Lastly, I do not think such a "war" (more a police
>> action, as was the Six Weeks "War" that stimulated this question)
>> will be popular here at home, regardless of the rhetoric of Bush. VMS

and KAT responded:
>I agree and would like to add that if this time by some "miracle"
>Saddam Hussein is killed or is he/his regime is left vulnerable
>enough that the opposition would take over.  *If* he accomplishes
>that, he would score a big point with me and something like that
>would weigh heavily on me when I am voting.  Such an action would
>also shut up some of the opposition's claim that Bush did not achieve
>one of the most important wishes held by the American people --
>that of eliminating the next "Adolf Hitler."  (See, make an analogy
>once and you have to pay for it for ever. :-)

My several cents worth: :)
I heard some military-type or other on NPR discussing how such a military
strike might be conducted.  This individual said such a strike would *not*
target the Ag. building, but focus on things critical to Hussein's ability
to retain power (munitions depots were mentioned, e.g.).  The idea, he said
, was to make a strike more costly to Hussein than would be allowing the
inspectors into the Ag. building.  I honestly don't know what to think of
this -- seems Hussein's done a pretty good job of taking our best shots and
still coming out ahead: still in power, and still managing to convince
folks that he's just a nationalist victimized by the West etc. etc. etc.

If such a strike were to be carried out, it wouldn't change my voting
behavior.  It's not that I'd necessarily consider it wrong per se, but that
I'd be wondering how much of the whole situation Bush was simply exploiting
for his immediate goal of re-election.  A friend of mine even went so far
as to say that *she* thought Bush had set the situation up in advance for
exactly this reason.  (Well, she didn't say she thought Bush had engineered
every detail.  Rather, with Hussein still in power at the end of the Gulf
War, Bush could pretty easily figure out a way to justify another military
strike nearer to election time.)

I'd hazzard (sp?) a prediction about how such an action would be perceived
by the rest of the voters, but I honestly haven't a clue -- I could easily
seeing it go both ways.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:20:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: telephone (kinda')

sprg...,

now you know what rap artists claimed long ago

"911 is a joke"

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:13:40 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

JeNNifer,
  I could ask what's wrong with tuNa and Nuts, but I won't.  That's not
important.  What is important is what your team will do for the people
who live here.

EvelyN
P.S.  How's your cats?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:16:45 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pavlov's dog vs. schrodinger's cat

>The American people don't care about elitist abstract
>physics arguments.  They care about jobs.  They care about their families.
>They care about crime.  And drugs.  (And not sentence fragments.)  They
>are looking for a team to lead them into the next century that will get
>down to the real work of getting this country back to its real work.

  The question of the superposition of states (the so-called "state's
rights" issue) is one of obvious importance to the very foundation of
this nation.  No candidate unprepared to address this issue can hope
to keep the nation strong.

  And what have we seen from the Kerry campaign.  No plan.  Nothing.
Ask yourselves - ask them - what experience they have for dealing with
the issue?  Can you trust our future to candidates who say "we don't
have to deal with it - let the next generation deal with it"?

  The JohnsoN and OlsoN ticket is willing to take a stand on the issue.
We endorse the tried and true Copenhagen interpretation.  We are willing
to do what it takes to settle the issue.  Even though we risk alienating
ourselves from the Stimlies (the anti-Denmark faction).

  I expect that my running mate will be issuing a statement of his
own, from hiding, shortly.

                                         -Tim
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Suggestion for another virtual ticket
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:46:48 GMT

The Jimmy/Olstone ticket idea isn't a bad one, at least superficially.
But the press would probably dig up a bunch of old allegations having
something to do with a Loompanics catalog, a certain resident of Washington
state, and something about 3 foot tall beer.

And, frankly, I just can't stand the emotional strain of all that.

--Jimbo

p.s. The nice thing about being a _real_ old-timer around here is that
even though I've only been back on the list 2 days, I can still create
cryptic inside jokes to mystify the masses.

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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:38:25 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

Have you heard what Marilyn Quayle has said?  If I got it
correct, she said that her daughter would not have an
abortion.

If I understand the tone, it implied that it was not an issue
and never would be a issue.

Who knows. . . . ?

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:26:06 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't

>the more rational will acquire more wealth than their brethren.  But surely
>those who are born into wealth are not automatically more rational and more
>deserving of social power?  But to prevent inheritances would severely disrupt
>our society and family structure, so such reform would only be detrimental.

The relevance of that argument depends a great deal on easy it is to
pass on as much as one inherits.  Even if we assume two kids and both
parents inherit equal amounts (or one parent one kid), that can't
happen unless said parents are able to pay their expenses, either
through the results of work or investments.  (Yes, people lose money
on investments.)  To the extent that rich people pay more for their
lifestyle, this is a significant burden.

I've heard that the inter-generation turn-over among the rich is
30-40%, that 30% of the rich earned their own money, while 30% of the
kids of last generation's rich don't qualify.

-andy's dad was born in a log-cabin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:04:54 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      summer break (at last!!!)

Since I won't be here for the next month, and will miss the Republican
convention, I think I will take the opportunity to make a few predictions:

      *  Bush has a triumphant convention, cutting the Clinton lead by half
         and hearing cries of "great executive decision-making, Mr President",
         he achieves his greatest domestic policy triumph.  He fires
         Dannikins.

      *  Bill Clinton carries on serenely, only to be unhitched by stories that
         he and Hilary are in fact Satanic worshippers who sacrifice twelve
         year old children to Satan, drinking their blood in a grisly ritual.
         Clinton tries to shrug it off, "well, maybe I went to one ritual, and
         tried the blood once.  But I never swallowed."

      *  Ross Perot endorses....................Dave Barry for president.

      *  Robert and Missy Justice will STILL be banging on about abortion.


Well, at least some things never change.  If anyone on the list will be
attending the University of Essex Summer School in Social Science Data
Analysis and Collection in Colchester, England over the next four weeks,
maybe I'll see you there.  This account is going into hibernation for the
summer.  'byeeeeeeeeee



james p mc bride
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU