HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:12:48 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: What is family values?

Hi, Sue :)
>Preventing homosexuals from adopting children  - 47%
>Women having children only when they are married - 46%
>Couples living together only when they are married - 40%

So does this mean 53% favor allowing homosexuals to adopt, 54% favor women
having kids out of wedlock, and 60% favor couples living together without
the benefit of marriage?  Whew!  That's a relief :)

On a more serious note, though:  Let's say we're going to try to work on
these.  How would the Republicans (or whoever) make sure that only married
women have kids?  How would they make sure that only married couples live
together?  The important part of the discussion, to me, is how *policy* is
going to be used to address these questions.

Kerry
single-parent living in sin :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:49:41 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Comments on numbers ...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:09:19 -0500 VALENTINE M. SMITH said:
>done to people for specifically negative purposes, and I believe most
>abortions occur for positively motivated reasons - long term survival of
>the family, interactions, etc. Could all the systems that are overloaded
>now - health care, schools, counselling, courts, welfare, et al - stand
>30,000,000 more people? Personally, I actually agree with Barbara Bush on

that's a diversion which I don't think applies...I think there will always
be some unwanted pregnancies no matter what is done, but how many people
would be even more careful knowing they had no legal opportunity to
get an abortion, making it inconvenient. "what if this, what if that"
are not even credible enough to be considered hypothetical as there are
no real means to accurately support the hypothesis.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:44:14 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: morals

 *** Resending note of 08/30/92 12:18

 >From KAT (?)
 >Robert might only SAY that you and your wife being atheists
 >cannot adopt kids.  What he really believes is that you should
 >be denied custody of even your own children as Robert thinks
 >you are unfit parents.  If I am wrong, I am sure Robert would
 >correct me and tell everyone that he believes atheists can be
 >good parents in which case I am sure many would ask him why
 >then they should not adopt.

 Robert does indeed say that atheists should not be able to adopt.  He
 does not advocate removing children from their homes except when the
 safety of the child is at stake.  He also admits that atheists may be
 excellent *worldly* parents imparting all the values for successful
 socialization and employment.

 He would also ask:
 "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

 >I wonder if Robert would agree to the notion that minor children
 >of atheists parents should be able to hire a lawyer to sue
 >their parents in order to get out of a godless household.

 No, not unless the child's safety is at risk.  If the child has the
 wisdom to know s/he is living in a "G"odless household, the parents
 have failed to impart their misfortune upon their child.  In this
 case, the child will overcome the burden of ungodly parents anyway.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:26:27 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Rises

I'm quite surprised to find that nobody has commented this morning about
the latest CBS/NEW YORK TIMES poll, showing Clinton/Gore with a 16% lead...
55% to 39%.  As one wag put it, "Everyone was impressed with Bush
on Thursday, then over the weekend they realized he'd said nothing new."

Charles Osgood thinks the poll reflects the poor choice of music at the
RNC.
---------------------------------------------

   Another in the series of topical George Bush quotes...
   ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)

"So it's trying to find this common ground and catch this wave, this wave
that's moving through Eastern Europe, and indeed around the world, of freedom
and democracy and things of that nature."

      - Bush on facilitating changes in the Eastern bloc, June 1989.

                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:13:04 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: clarification for andy

>She wishes that there was a female equivilent of a vasectomy
>which would not require surgery.

Somehow that just doesn't make any sense.  (BTW - Vascectomies aren't
100% reliable either, even when correctly done.)

>Also, can you explain how it is possible to have an unwanted pregnancy
>prior to the fact? You totally lost me on that one.

The fact that a given pregnancy is unwanted doesn't imply that it was
unwanted at the relevant time.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:23:21 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle
              31 Aug 1992 09:13:21 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

> From one that sees nothing wrong with reverse discrimination, I have a
> hard time accepting criticism of my answer concerning perversion.  Just
> so you can think you're having fun: Homosexuality(perversion) is wrong
> because it is contradictory to "G"od's word.

Robert's Rule #9:  If you favor reverse discrimination, you
                   must also favor perversion.

BTW: That last sentence, "Homosexuality is wrong because it is
     contradictory to God's word", how does that sort out
     with Robert's Rule #1 which says "I believe it, therefore
     it must be correct."  It seems to me the only logical conclusion
     is that Robert feels he is either God or he speaks for God.

--KAT

> ---Robert
From: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:00:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: OHSTVMA.POLITICS%92082811003523
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 09:51

 >You haven't been paying attention.  The abortion figure is now *30*
 >million in the U.S.

 >-Missy P 2 B

 What's a few million among friends?

 How ironic that poor little Adolph has been treated so shabbily.  When
 compared to what we've done, he begins to look like Mother Theresa.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:56:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: discrimination

> VAL,
>
> On the surface, I would say that idealistically most would like to be able
> to agree with your basic premise, *no discrimination against anyone for
> anything*.  I'm afraid that just isn't possible, never has been and never
> will.
>
> You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.  There ARE such
> things as right and wrong.  Our *new* way of thinking has no bearing on
> things that are unchangeable.  We can all decide to believe the sky is pink,
> but it doesn't make it true.  Stealing, lying and greed are wrong, even if
> you employ all three to provide for your loving family.
>
> For us, as a society, to defend and/or accept wrong as right is surely to
> place our country on a path of self destruction.  Where is it supposed to
> stop?  If homosexuality is fine, is incest, bestiality or pedophilia?  We
> cannot assume that we are able to determine at will the values by which we
> should live.  Would that not be the fast track to anarchy?  Pray tell, upon
> which mortal will this power be bestowed, you or me?
>
> ---Robert


    There can still bbe one absolute evil --- harming another person
  physically or infringing on their rights (OK two evils).  To take your
  examples, homosexual activity between two consenting partners harms
  nobbbody.  Incest, I would say, should be illegal in the cases of
  child abbuse and rape (which accounts for the vast majority of incest)
  but, as gruesome as it may seem, should e legal between two consenting
  adults.  Bestiality would be a difficult one, since there are a lot of
  differing opinions on animal rights.  And, of course, pedophilia should
  bbe illegal if acted upon with someone below the age of consent.  Of
  course, the actual age could be subbject to debate ut the principle
  holds.


         --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:49:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Regarding an asinine response

hmmm.  the cricket in my room just jumped on my head.  no, i'm not on drugs.
there really is a cricket.

carl correctly says that most criminals are also drug users.  this is
true because drug use is a crime.  since there are so many persons in
this country who use drugs, either occassionally or every day, they
represent a large percent of the criminals out there.  however, most
people who commit the crime of using drugs do not commit other non-
drug-use crimes.

jamie, i will pass on the Czar of the Absurd position, thanks.  not
being an existentialist, i feel that i do not really have all the
qualifications.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:43:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Patriotism

> Regarding your "flag-burning" signature.  You might take a moment to
> reflect on the fact that you live in one of the few nations on the
> planet in which burning the flag is not considered to be an
> actionable offense.  American flags are burned in America and elsewhere,
> but in many nations, if you burn the flag of your nation, you are
> considered a traitor.

But if Bush and his Republican colleagues in Congress had had their
way, it would be an actionable offence.  So apparently our illustrious
leader does not like the state of affairs that you describe and, quite
rightly, value.

How sad that we should have a President who thinks this way.

And would you care to hazard a guess as to the outcome of a survey on
this topic at the Republican convention?

Best,
Peter

> --Missy P 2 B
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:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 10:37:50 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

Hi, folks.  I'd hate to be left out of this discussion :)

>However, the Smokey Mountains got their name from the trees there. I
>don't recall the story, but I can find it by Wednesday, if anyone
>cares.

Go ahead and check -- I'd be interested.  I've always sort of understood
that the Smokeys are "smokey" because of fires and because of
evapotranspiration (trees releasing water vapor from their leaves) -- under
the right atmospheric/temperature conditions, that vapor sort of stays
condensed.  Water vapor, of course, is not smog.

>There are other ways to show "think" translating to action. Recycling
>newspapers. Buying recycled. Not using harmful chemicals. (insert index
>of _Fifty ways to save the Earth_ here). I do agree that the money
>recieved for hunting licenses goes directly to wildlife management.
>(Heck, that's like agreeing that the grass is green.)

Well, let's be fair about the money generated from hunting/fishing revenues
.  Some of it goes directly to wildlife management, but that doesn't
necessarily mean it's being used wisely or well.  For starters, you need to
know what percentage of the money is going to "game" vs. "nongame" wildlife
programs (around here, the bulk -- if not all -- goes to "game" programs).
Then, you need to look at how that money is being spent.  Is it being spent
to maintain habitats in their "normal" condition?  To restore them?  Or to
alter them so as to increase the number of game species at the expense of
non-game species?

For example -- here, a chunk of bucks goes to stocking trout streams with
hatchery-raised game fish.  The streams need to bd because acid mine id
mine drainage has killed off the native trout.  The hatchery fish don't
survive for long (so we're not doing anything to restore stable fish
populations in that manner); moreover, hatchery fish can themselves be
problematic (they can introduce diseases, and, where native species are
still extant, they can out-compete and replace them).  A few efforts have
been made to actually address the problem of acid drainage, but they're few
and far between.

Similar problems arise with other game-management spending efforts.
Managing habitat for ducks may involve alterations that reduce habitat for
other species.  Same goes for turkey, deer, grouse, bear, etc.

I'm not opposed to either hunting or fishing, btw; nor do I oppose using
funds generated from those activities to manage wildlife and habitat.  I
just wa the way we spend the funds isn't always what it's cra'
it's cracked up to be.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:58:57 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

> IN MY OPINION:

Mr. SPrgoo says:
> *************
> or stress, so be it.  Abortion in EVERY SINGLE CASE is murder.  Surely
> we can do something.  Aren't 20 million dead babies enough?  How many
> more must die to satisfy our selfishness?
>
> ---Robert

Ok, how about a show of hands here.  Who thinks that its MORE selfish
to hoist your morals on others?

ok, and now, who thinks its selfish to have children you can't
take care of?

jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:50:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: democratic platform

missy:

there is nothing in the constitution that protects us from govt.
interference from owning televisions, radios, computers and
photocopiers.  in the soviet union, the use of photocopiers by
anyone other than the govt. was a jailable offense.  this was done
to make the _samizdats_ more difficult to reproduce (underground
journals had to be typed w/ carbon paper: 5 copies at a time).
certainly if the govt told us that we couldn't use photocopiers
we would be outraged, even tho the "founding fathers" never
mentioned them in the constitution.

just because guns are mentioned in the constitution and drugs aren't
doesn't mean that it is any less wrong for the govt to regulate
one or the other.

brni
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Balance Budgets
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:11:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <POLITICS%92090112550030@UCF1VM.BITNET>, IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil) writes...
>This is a curiosity question more than anything, triggered by
>something heard on the radio recently.
> 
>One of Clinton's common statements about balanced budgets has been
>his history of balancing the Arkansas state budget early & often
>in his time as governor.

	Every Governor of Arkansas for the past 50 years has balanced 
the budget. They enacted a law in 1934 that the budget had to be 
balanced. That explains why willy had to raise the taxes so many 
times.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:24:14 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Buying Votes

That wonderful and wacky world leader of ours came to my state,
South Dakota, yesterday. He visited some people (if my guess is
right, the relatives of some friends of mine) who just happen
to farm wheat. Y'see, most of southeastern South Dakota is Corn
country, and the wheatfields are to the north, and Air Force One
could only fly into Sioux Falls or Rapid City, so to announce
an export policy (that congress would have to spend money for),
they had to import a group of wheat farmers from a *LONG* way
away. Probably farther than Tim is from Boston.

So, while our wonderful leader tells us that highly mobile attack
fighters to Taiwan will *INCREASE* stability, he's also transporting
farmers a couple hours out of their way for a media event in the
middle of harvest. What a guy!

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:43:48 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order restored

 *** Resending note of 08/25/92 13:50

 > >From Jamie
 > >Mistress Kerry, god does not give us rules of logic. God is bound
 > >by rules of logic. Cf. St. Thomas. (You need this one to defend
 > >against the Problem of Evil, so said Thomas.)

 >
 > "G"od is not bound by anything but your personal (lack of) faith.
 >

 > >"G"olly, Robert, if someone is bound by my personal lack of faith,
 > >that is quite a limitation. My personal lack of faith is boundless.

 As usual, you have managed to miss the point.

 > >In any case, if I have to listen to some authority on god's relation
 > >to logic, I think I'll go with St. Thomas before I listen to "R"obert.

 If St. Thomas actually said that "G"od was bound by logic, then he was
 wrong.  Sorry if that bothers you.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:42:27 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

Hey hey HEY!!!

What is all this?

Does this mean I can speak in tongues on the net without
being incinerated by the membership?

Or is the incomprehensible reserved only to the inscrutable?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:33:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

In article <tfilt316057@drew.edu>, Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes
   :
>             Joe, baby, you blew it again:
>
when did I blow it the first time?

> 1) the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting
> religion", not talk of established churches.
>
>             It would have behooved you to call for the line before
>             attempting to deliver it; most of your audience has
>             read the script.  The line is "Congress shall make no
>             law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF religion, nor pro-
>             hibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Bit archaic,
>             perhaps, but meaning there will be no Church of the
>             United States (a la Church of England.)  You may well
>             want to argue the meaning, but try to get the text
>             right.

aaggh!  ok, I forgot to put in the words "an establishment of", a bad
slip on my part.  Nonetheless the (looking at my handy Constitution
this time!) words ARE "Congress shall make no law _respecting_ an
establishment of _religion_"  Note the words "respecting" (used in
Lemon v. Kurtzman to show the establishment of a church is not the
only point) and "religion", not "a religion", but religion itself.  Thus,
an nondenomential prayer/invocation at high school graduations was
just voted down by the Supreme Court.  If you are so concerned that
the court said the gov't shouldn't have to pay to uphold
constitutional rights (only some ex. if you can't afford a lawyer,
they have to pay for one, why not an abortion [various religious and
moral talk about personhood]), maybe you should follow the lead of the
court since the 1940s re what the first amendment means.

>
>
> 3) very good idea about reading historical documents.
>
>             Never show your arrogance in an intellectual debate;
>             it may come back to haunt you.
>

it wasn't arrogance that put forth what the first amendment was meant
to mean.  Note you didn't debate me on how I explained the meaning, only noted
my stupid mistake which you must of knew was a slip up.  This cheap shot
instead of real intellectual discource and study is what is arrogance.

     -Joe
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:19:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      credit where credit is due

Hi, y'all:
Just so we're fair and all -- I watched the fireworks on Crossfire last
night.  The discussion was supposed to be about the infamous "family values
thing."  Bob Beckel was sitting in for Kinsley; the guests were the Newt-
man (where did he get that name????) and a woman from the DNC (I think)
whose name escapes me.

Beckel spouted off against the fundamentalist-Republicans in language every
bit as offensive as some of the Repub's used during the convention.  Sununu
was his usual self.  The DNC lady waffled.  I was actually rooting for
Gingrich!  He called Beckel on his vitriolic rhetoric and actually tried to
discuss specific policies.  Pity no one would let him.  We might have
actually heard something informative about the child-care tax credit,
social programs, etc.

Kerry
who can provide anyone interested with her take on the child-care tax
credit :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU