HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 14:38:21 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      ghosts
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

VMS:
>>.... Caius ..., and like his
>>comrades in "rightism," Robert and Travis

Caius opinions are Caius opinions. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Who is Robert?

Who is Travis?

Caius

-------------------------------
PS.
"comrades" have ruined half of globe in just 70 years. Assosiating this awful
word with rightism is disgusting. The ghosts of murdered rightists of Russia,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Byelorussia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia,
Germany, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Serbia,
Afghanistan, China, Mongolia, Korea, Vietman, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, most of
African countries will howl at you in the nightmares.
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-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:42:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>>>Could we get real here? What's the authority for the statement that
>>>heterosexual couples do, in general, make better parents?
>>
>>    That the huge majority of good parents are heterosexual couples?
>>
>>  - Ramon
>
>Bzzzzzzzt. Incorrect answer.
>As Ramon has been informed, I am the logic czar around here.
>
>It is incorrect to infer from "the huge majority of good parents are
>heterosexual couples" that "heterosexual couples do in general
>make better parents."

       Baah-humbug! We did fine in my time without a logic czar. But I have
to admit that you are right. I committed a MINOR logical error.

>(We'll make a philosopher out of him yet....)

      Your concern is most touching.... :-)

  - Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:34:14 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Etiquette

Dear Doctor Pizz,

It is generally considered bad form to re-send private messages to a
list.

Jamie
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 12:08:07 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: back to iraq
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I heard a report on the news this morning that US planes have shot down
>an Iraqi fighter in the designated no fly zone. Can someone enlighten
>me on how the no-fly zone came about? Was it a UN resolution or a
>condition imposed by the coalition at the end of the war? I think it
>makes a difference when considering your legal position in such a
>matter.

        A total of four planes violated the airspace of the no-fly zone that
day.  Of one of the pairs, one was shot down.  That pair had turned towards the
US fighters (universally accepted as a hostile move).  After repeated warnings
to get out of the no fly zone, no less.  After the first one was shot down, the
second turned tail and exited the no-fly zone.
        The no-fly zones are UN actions, I believe.  Also the coalition and UN
are essentially the same body of power.  The coalition has always acted under
UN auspices.

>The Iraqi's have vowed to retaliate. Will we see US troops in action
>in two spots soon? It seems that the only possible avenue for the Iraqi's
>to take would be terrorist attack. I wonder if they have purchased any

        Iraq is merely testing the waters to see what it can get away with.

>submarines from the former soviet union? Subs would go a long way toward
>reducing the air superiority edge but we could still launch long range
>attacks.

        Subs would be quite ineffective for the Iraqis.  And virtually no
threat to the US.  They could be easily tracked in the gulf and taken out with
little effort.  Don't forget that the planes fly out of Turkey and the Gulf
states as well as from carriers.  I don't think carrier planes make up any of
the current CAP (combat air patrol) over Iraq.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:39:20 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: conservatism

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>
>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.

That is not what English speakers mean by "Conservatism." Nor does
it have much of anything to do with the history of the term.

During the 17th century, most of the natural law advocates were
not conservatives at all. Indeed, it's ALMOST the opposite. The
naturalists criticized positive law by reference to natural law,
while the conservatives denied either that natural law was a
real thing or that it had any relevance to positive law.

>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.

Radical reform is the antithesis of conservatism.

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

There was never any doubt about THAT, dear Caius.

Jamie
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 12:41:20 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Sam,

     I would agree with your assertion that a desire is different from
an action.   That is precisely why such groups as NAMBLA are allowed to
exist.  The problem would be if people start saying that their
attraction to children is a normal desire, and is something
biologically inborn, then they can rationalize their behaviour to
themselves, and possibly to a jury in the future, if the concept of
personal responsibility for one's own actions erodes any further in
America.  This is the problem.  People seem to lose the distinction
between cause and effect.  Hence, the "insane" are not held liable for
their actions.  I can see where it is more difficult for some to
conform to the laws of this country than it is for others, but just
because one is sick is no reason to allow their actions to go
unpunished.  It may not be equally simple for them to be good
productive members of society, but so what, life isn't always fair.  If
anyone violates the law they must suffer, regardless of how hard they
tried to be good.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:01:55 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> Let's cut past the nonsense and admit straight out that Colorado did in fact
> not pass anything resembling hate of homosexuals.  The Amendment proclaims
> that homosexuals will not be recognized as a minority.  BRAVO for Colorado!

That might be part of it.  However, the Colorado law does not
allow other things either.  For example discrimination based on
someone's religion is against the law, even if that religion
happens to be Christianity which is hardly a minority religion.
Colorado law does not allow disallowing discrimination based
on sexual orientation.

> If homosexuals are allowed this privilege, then why not drug addicts and
> alcoholics?  Whether you like it or not, your actions are the direct result
> of a choice.  If you choose to be homosexual fine.  If I choose not to be,
> that also is just fine.  Our choices are equal but in opposite directions.
> If my choice to be hetero does not qualify me as a minority then why should
> your choice not achieve the same result?

What is called a privilege here is things like outlawing
discrimination based on one's sexual preference -- hardly
a "privilege."

And the same old cliche again, "if homosexuals, why not murderers
adulterers, etc."  It is amazing (also comforting) that anti-
homosexual people can never come up with better analogies.  They
always have to put homosexuality (which is an act between
CONSENTING adults and has no tangible victims) with other acts
which are know to hurt third parties and often lack consent.

> The bottom line is that homosexuality does not deserve the legitimization of
> minority status. Colorado has only arrived at the only possible conclusion.

The bottom line is that discrimination based on religion (including
christianity) is illegal and that has NOTHING to do with being a
minority.

And Aspen (a city in Colorado) arrived at a diametrically opposed
conclusion.  Are we saying that that conclusion was not "possible?"

> ---Robert

--KAT
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      planning
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:08 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212211424.AA12837@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,        
 Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>Big business is macroplanning its *OWN* money (unless it is a lobby)

Large corporations in the United States usually do attempt to affect the
political process.  You might be surprised how much the corporate PAC's donate
to the candidates of their choice.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:18:25 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: virtual white house holiday menu

>Ok, that's the food.  Now let's see the wine list! :)

  What, are you kidding?

  This *is* the whine list.


                           -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:34:57 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: abortion

>> >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.
>>
>> The statistic doesn't support the conclusion.
>>
>> One can go to another county to have an abortion (or heart surgery for
>> that matter).
>
>You happen to live in a highly populated area.  Believe it or not,
>there are parts of the country which are more rural and you can't "see
>four counties".

Huh?  The number of counties I can see doesn't depend much on the
population density.  (In fact, in some places, the population density
actually REDUCES the number of counties within eye-distance.)  The
number of counties within a given distance of a certain point is
determined by some arbitrary choices which have little to do with
whether or not something is "available".

>There are many parts of the country, where there is
>only 1 clinic in an entire state.

So?  There are states with only one decent medical facility.  That's a
consequence of low-population.  It doesn't mean that abortion is
"unavailable" and it definitely doesn't imply that there's some
plot to deny abortion to them.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that abortion services are not widely
available.  However, if the "support" given is bogus, I have to choose
between "there isn't good support for that position" and "the person
offering the argument is incompetent".  I may choose to research the
question on my own, but the bogus argument hasn't helped anything.

BTW - Suppose that there aren't enough of MDs qualified and willing to
perform abortions.  What do we do?  Do we force them to take training
and perform them anyway despite their personal preferences?  After
all, they're advertising in public that they're MDs and abortion is a
medical procedure.  Since their refusal "restricts" (Peter's defn)
women's abortion rights, shouldn't we bring in the thugs?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:10:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

>actually carrying signs that said that "Hate speech is not
>protected under the constitution."

it amazes me that the group who were protesting the KKK's right to free speech
don't realize that they were only able to protest under that same right.

>I don't believe the city of Cincinnati did anything to obstruct the
>KKK.  I don't think anyone was officially calling for them to do that.

if i remember correctly (which is unlikely :)), there was a KKK march out
my way in a little out of the way neighborhood. why they wanted to march there
is beyond me. anyway, people wanted the town to stop them, but of course the
town couldn't legally do that. so the upshot was that a few people yelled
nasty things to the marchers, but for the most part, no one showed up.

worked really well, what good is a march if no one watches.
i mean, how obvious can you get?

*another* reason to let them excersize their constitutional rights.....that
way you know what these groups are about, what they're going for, and you just
may be able to use *them* to arm yourself (intellectually) and your children
against their kind of bull.

-linda

>Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:01:10 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!

I forget - what exactly is the "crime" we're dealing with here?

We don't appoint special prosecutors to go after people who accept
improper gifts.  We don't appoint special prosecutors to go after
people who lie to congress.  Therefore, Walsh was obviously tasked
with searching out some other activity?  What was that activity?

Was "arms for hostages" illegal?  I've loaned out my copy of the arms
export laws, but I "remember" that they let the president authorize
"guns" for anyone for any reason he sees fit.  If there's US money
involved, then Congress comes in, but if they aren't our "guns" to
begin with, then the only liable party is a foreign govt which may, or
may not, be breaking a "you won't ship these things to someone else"
agreement.  I suppose we might have a suborning perjury/contract
violation case, but ....

I note that Weinburger says his notes say that he disagreed with
improving the relationship with Iran, that he didn't make an arms for
hostage connection at the time.  Later, when he did, he objected to
it, but claims that it wasn't illegal, just bad policy.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:02:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      SF

Caius, why the heck are you reposting your old posts?

It's REALLY ANNOYING!


Ellen
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 11:04:39 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 6
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >I guess that I am just ticked that in actual fact no justice was done.
>
> >I still have hopes that the Bush administration has forgotten about
> >some files that still need to be shredded!  I hope that Clinton and
> >his people can find these files, declassify them and at least embarrass
> >the Reagan/Bush people.
>
> >Jonathan
>
>
> Now which is it?  Is the goal that "justice [be] done" (whatever that
> means), or is it to "embarrass the Reagan/Bush people"?
The point is that now that Bush has pardoned these people it's almost
impossible to get justice.  So I have settle for hoping for embarrass
these guys.
>
> I think that _MUCH_ too much time and money has been put into this subject.
> If the special persecutor can't find a smoking gun in six year and $40 mil,
> than he isn't going to.  Let's finish this and move on.  There is no
> possible outcome that will lead to any "good."
See, as I've said before, the reason for the time and the money spent,
aside from the fact that Iran/Contra is much more complicated than any previous
special prosecutor investigation, is that the Reagan/Bush administrations
IMPEDED the Walsh investigations.  If they hadn't done that, then less
money and less time might have been spent.
>
> As for special prosecutors in general, I have mixed feelings.  It sounds
> like a good idea, but it seems a problem to give someone a blank check to go
> on a witch hunt.  You would like to think that whoever is in the Justice
> Dept. could run an investigation, regardless of the topic.  But of course
> that would never satisfy those who cry conspiracy/coverup every time the
> wind blows.
What's interesting is that Brett' and I have had this conversation less than
1 week ago!  The fact is that the Justice department has been turned into
a highly politicized department and one can't expect non-partisan fairness
coming from that office.  As an example, I pointed out Iraq-gate.  If ever
there was a need for an independent investigation, Iraq-gate was it.  But
Barr disagreed.  The fact is that if either President Reagan or President
Bush felt that the special prosecutor Walsh was going out-of-bounds, they
were well within their rights to fire him.  Obviously they didn't, except
with their rhetoric!, so he stayed on.
>
> I think that the answer is to assume that the Senate did its job when it
> confirmed the Justice Dept. officials, and thus we have Justice people who
> would do their job.  If people are not comfortable with the job, then
> perhaps the step that needs to be taken involves changing the staff of the
> committee that will do the confirmations.  Hmmmmm, that sounds fairly good
> anyway..
The Senate understands that these are political appointees and confirm them
on that basis.  I mean if you think that Manual Lujan was the best person
to run the EPA....
>
>
>
> Chris
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:06:11 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

At a press-conference in Little Rock yesterday someone asked Les Aspin
if he was going to allow gays to serve in the military. Predictably,
he avoided the question. I am sure that despite all the emphasis on
minorities Clinton will not appoint an openly gay person to the cabinet.
Gays are the only minority that a president can ignore without getting
into trouble. I think it's disgusting.

Sam.
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:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:11:03 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

Pizz:
>Is there a law requiring protesters to be polite?
(stuff deleted)
 So, Kerry, is it "polite" when you
>agree, and "impolite" when you do not????

I should let the list mom say this :)  I expect *everyone* to be polite.  I
expect anti-abortion protestors to stay out of a woman's face if she does
not wish to discuss her actions with a protestor.  I expect pro-choice
protestors to avoid calling anti-abortion protestors names.  Of course, my
expectations are seldom realized -- so I settle for doing my best to live
up to them myself.

Does that answer your question?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:00:11 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:49:08 EST Evelyn Duncan said:
>
>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:41:16 GMT james p mcbride said:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:42:02 EST Evelyn Duncan said:
>>>>
>>>>I'm in favour of freedom of spelling for all of those, plus people who
>>>>spell color, favor, etc, with a 'u', ie, colour, favour, labour, etc.
>>>>
>>>>top that
>>>
>>>What is this:  King of the Mountain?
>>>
>>>>james
>>>
>>>Evelyn
>>
>>No, it's more end of term boredom.  When you've spent eight fruitless hours
>>trying to get a map out of GIMMS, despite doing everything according to the
>>manual, you'll find anything fun.
>>
>Well, how about "What is the best present you've ever received for Christmas?"
>
>Mine was a wheelchair 5 years ago (to help me get around with a broken leg).
>
>Evelyn

Can't beat that, I'm afraid, probably my first watch comes closest, a Timex
analogue, when I was 10 (1979)

james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:39:21 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: POLITICS FAQ, part one: purpose, rules, terms, etc.

Ah! I always thought "hippocracy" was the rule of doctors! (Come to think
of it, isn't that what the U.S. has now anyway?) Not to be confused with
"hipocracy," the rule of the Miles Davis Sextet..
Cheers,
Michael
Happy Holidays, All!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU