HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:47:00 EDT
From:         SPICE <GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

>I put value on ALL human life.  That is why it is such a tragedy that one
>would throw theirs away by committing a capital offense.  To attempt to

    The question in my mind is, who has the right to determine what
  constitutes a capital offense?  To me, it is an act of hubris to
  dare to decide whether another human being may live or die.

>equate the "pro-life" position pertaining to unborn children with some type
>of inconsistency on capital punishment is quite a stretch.  If you are
>unable to distinguish the execution of a murderer from the slaughter of
>a helpless child, you'll just have to live with your shortcomings.

    You're right -- they're completely different debates.  In capital
  punishment, the question hinges on whether a person may be killed due to
  the crimes they have committed;  in abortion, the question is whether or
  not a fetus is a person.



>---Robert

g racz, who has had a couple very busy weeks but will now attempt to take
  part in some debates
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:05:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Aztecs

        Judaism has given up the sacrifice ritual since the time of the
destruction of the Second Temple in 70 or whatever AD or CE if you prefer
(me I don't care what you call the date).

                                                Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:38:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: the debate - home game

        Re your idea of having a drink at every one of those lines from the
candidates:  can't do it, iron lungs are too expensive these days.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:55:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

oh - i kinda goofed. i made it sound like macp. said something about parole
officers in his post. that was in a different post. sorry if i confused anyone.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:06:49 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Perot-Part I

Good Morning to yoooooou,

On the GOP-L, there has been a lot of critiquing Perot's presentation
on Tuesday night.  But this little thought caught my eye from one of my
fellow conservatives on the list and I thought that 'you people' might
help here.

>If you remember just before he dropped out in July, there was a big fuss
>over his refusal to do the ads some of his campaign managers had worked up.
>Perot said he could have his own people do better for less money.  Here I
>go again with my imagination, but I'll bet the ones he rejected were overly
>slick, and that he has shown that his judgment was correct.

>Does anyone know if the presentation was prepared by "his own people?"
 (whoever 'his own people' are)

Or....

Does anyone know if he may have gone ahead and used anything in the way of
advice from Ed Rollins before Ed left?

Sue Clark

'He gave us 30 charts in 30 minutes.  I haven't seen that many charts used
by all the presidents in the last 20 years, he looked like a TV version of
USA Today.'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:32:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      debate

Well, yep, a boring debate.  Three comments:

   1)  "I'm all ears."  I laughed so hard I missed the reaction.  Could
       someone tell me what it was?

   2)   I predicted verbatim(sp?) Clinton's response to the question on
        racism: "I was born in the segregated South."

   3)   I noticed how Bush kept agreeing with Perot, i.e. "as Ross said"
        or "I agree with Ross in that..."

   4)   Perot I think did the best job.  I may vote for him instead of
        Bush.

OK 4 comments.
-Travis
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, 15 Oct 1992 18:30:30 -0400
From:         Barney Google With The Goo Goo Googily Eyes <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ==> Send A Postcard To Rich Bond?

ya know something... Dan Quayle brought up an interesting point
in the debate talking about negative press coverage: "Has anyone seen
my press clippings the last four years"


                      john stith
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:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:22:19 -0400
From:         I am Can Be Worshiped By Check Or Money Order Or Cash
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Decline of America: A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (II)

you know an interesting point could be this, those other nations
have no where near the populatoin of the U.S. The bigger the nation
the bigger the problem, and the percentages would adjust too!
         It just seems to me that  the percentages may be true, but
they are very misleading!
        John Stith
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:24:40 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: parole

From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>


>> sentence, while those who redeem themselves can have privileges or get
>> out a little early.  This can also remove the farce of having long

> No.  They simply get out when their sentence is completed.  Good behavior
> is still encouraged by not wanting additional time.

And how do you suppose we "increase" the sentence of those
who do not behave?  Do we drag them through the court system
every time they get out of the wrong side of their bed, or do
we just rely on the jail-keeper's statement that the prisoner
has been naughty and do away with the due process?

> ---Robert

--KAT
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, kinda'
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:55:53 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

>> Then maybe Robert could tell us in concise terms how we
>> should use the victim impact statements?  Should they affect
>> the verdict or the sentencing phase?  And exactly how should
>> it affect either of these two?  (Like 2 years for every
>> surviving child?)

> Not the verdict, the guilt or innocence cannot be based on whether there
> is a surviving spouse with children and a Shetland pony.

Agreed!

> I don't see you objecting to the use of character witnesses or the
> opinions of assorted befuddled social workers (experts).  Why do you
> only detect a problem when it involves the victim's point of view?

You also don't see how hard I laugh at some of your wisdom shown
in your posts, but that doesn't mean I don't.     :-)

> And yes, I happen to like your suggestion.  I think 2 years for each
> surviving child is an excellent idea, if not too generous.

It wasn't a suggestion, rather a question.  So you say if
I kill a father of 10 I should get 20 years more than if
I kill a bachelor, right?  Which "book" (wink, wink) did
do you get THIS idea from?

And don't try to weasel out of this by saying that both should
get the death sentence.  Say I shoot a person and he looses
his leg (out of gross negligence).  Now, are you telling me that
if the victim is a father of 10 as opposed to a bachelor I should
get 20 (or whatever) years more.

> ---Robert

--KAT
From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Jesse Helms on TV looks obscene to me...
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:01:16 GMT
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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In what appears to me to be a very revealing example Travis says:

> For example, broadcasting.  Say SC has banned obscene
>broadcasting.  NC has not.  Now, many people in SC will simply tune
>in to the NC channels.  The state of SC would not like that, and
>would probably get into a quarrel with NC.  This is the type of thing
>that I would gladly say can be implied by the commerce clause as being
>under the federal government's domain.

I find it really interesting that Travis thinks that if a State's
government outlaws obscene broadcasts that it is to prevent the citizens
from obtaining a service that they want, regardless of the fact that
the service is delivered in a manner that no citizen need be affected or
inconvenienced.

This speaks volumes to me about what Travis thinks the purpose of
government is, and why he is so ardent in support of state's rights.

>-Travis

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:59:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Congressional Record Reading

Just thought you would like to se what our Senate is up to these days.

                Yeah, I wonder how many of them are commie spies from outer
                space?

                                                Chris Morrison
                                                CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
From: YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU (Michael J. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: VP debate and such...
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:22:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:59:30 GMT
From: "(Jonathan Swarts)" <jswarts@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

>I'm not sure this is quite true. I don't have my constitutional law books here
>with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the Supreme Court has upheld
>such federally-mandated policies so long as the businesses concerned are
>engaged in commerce across state lines. This was based on the provisions of the
>Interstate Commerce Act. An example of such an application of the ICC was in
>the 1960s when the Court upheld federal anti-racial discrimination on this
>grounds. If the company could be shown to have done business across state lines
>- even restaurants serving out-of-staters - it was subject to the mandate.

Jon,

        You are quite correct.  Two cases of particular interest at _US v.
Heart of Atlanta Motel_ and _Katzenbach v. McClung_.  Both of these cases
validated the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the basis of the Interstate Commerce
Clause.

        What you do not realize is that Travis and a former POLITICS member by
the name of Jay Steven Sultan never recognized the legitmacy of this rationale.
Travis should have mentioned in his original post that the unconstitutionality
was entirely in his opinion, not in that of the Court.  Whereas the Court
ruled based on the idea of a "stream of commerce" stretching from production
to consumption, Travis would prefer a much narrower reading that would, I
imagine, limit the effects of the ICC to only the moment of actual
transportation across state lines.  I have gone 'round and 'round on this
topic, and since I am giving an exam in just a few minutes (I will send a
copy to anyone who would like to see it -- American History Since 1877 survey),
I don't have time to reiterate.

        In any case, your statements are correct.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:17:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: nag, nag, nag

Just between you and me, it seems like all of Pat Moynihan's statements are
long and rambling.  I would hate to ask him for directions to the bus stop.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
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:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:46:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The morality of nuclear deterence

Are nuke weapons used to deter war moral?
That's basically what you are asking, right? Well, this sure is a complex issue.
You could use the Machivelian approach, the end justifies the means--end=peace
means=through threat. Looking at it from a realistic approach, one could say
that history was based on war and threat--there was and there will be no such
thing as "utopia" because humanity has a violent and unpeaceful urge. Therefore,
if nuke weapons do the job to stop countries from blowing each other up, it's
got to be moral. Therefore the possession of nuke weapons is moral: it's the mos
realistic and safe way to insure that you don't get blown up. Look, if it takes
owning a nuke to stop others from nuking you, it's got to be moral because it
provides for peace and safety--everyone values peace and safety.
Case study: Israel. Israel's got the bomb--if you remeber the Tom Leherer song,
"Who's Next," you might remember the line: "The Lord's Our Shepard, believe in
G-d, but just in case we'd better get the bomb."--all precations must be taken.

The only reason wh the plethora of Arab nations at war with Israel don't attack
Israel is because Israel's got the bomb. Israel doesn't really have the
intention of blowing up the first country that threatens her, rather it intends
to show off the bomb. No matter what you think of the Middle-East peace talks,
what keeps the middle-east from blowing itself to pieces and remaining at a
relative peace is a strong Israel.
Another example: a cop. A cop doesn't really want to use his gun. It is
conveniantly placed on his side for all to see. Don't touch that cop, he's got
a gun. It is definitely moral to keep the streets calm. The cop uses the gun
as a possesion to stop potential threat against himself or those he protects.
If that cop didn't have a gun he'd be letting down
the American people and the U.S government because the government must protect
us through cops. Then when we look at it from an international spectrum, we see
that the U.S had better get herself a bomb to stop all potential attacks.
Threat or no threat, right or wrong, the bomb keeps the world balanced and at
bay. Keeping a warring and violent world at relative bay is a decent thing to do
Therefore, one may say that Nuke Weapons used as a deterent to attack are moral.
Later,
Lance
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:25:23 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Did you vote for Carter
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:03:00 -0500 MARTIN FOX said:
>
>As I was saying, though, Carter's been 1 of the few presidents we've had
>who have has real values and been consistent to them (Wilson is another).
>This, along with his putting blame on the Americans for their own problems
> made him, as a politician, a mediocre one.  Bush's empty messages this
>year, as well as his waffling record can be contrasted to Carter, and show
>him to be a much more wiley politican, but a horrible president.

/S being accused of extrapolating a line from a single point, what does
it indicate about the ability to be a good president and quality
of character values?  If Carter had values and was mediocre, what
about those who had no values and did well in the White House?

>> Your spelling is getting better

>When was spelling a criterium for Politics forum?  Or Politics in general

always an excuse....

>( Although Dan Quayle is an idiot, he gets this destinction from things
-----------------------------------------------> ???????????

I knew I shouldn't have said anything.

>beside the "Potatoe" incident.)

It's interesting how people continue to refer to this but haven't
checked out the product labels in their grocery store.  I've seen
a handful which spell it "potatoe" and that predates James Danforth
Quayle's publicity...

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET (fred)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: WWF (AKA the veep debate
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:28:03 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Whoever handled dan prior to the debate deserves a lot of credit. He
came across much better than expected and was able to impress easily
impressed people like Travis with his knowledge. The bush/quayle ticket
has been running on the big lie all along. I don't know why clinton and
gore don't push harder on how much government and taxes have grown under
the present administration. Gore could have hit harder on the job thing
as well, the number of months of consecutive record first time requests
for unemployment, the number of people working two jobs to survive, and
the lack of growth in the economy.

Mr. Perot's running mate struck a chord with the nation on the quip
about "This is why we have deadlock in Washington". I would also question
dan's claim that the district of columbia has more abortions than live
births.I liked Gore trying to get Quayle to say "I support a woman's
right to choice" but I was impressed that Dan didn't melt and came
back with his own attack. I also heard one undecided voter say that
given Bush's health and age she was hesitant to vote republican
because she didn't want Dan as president. How much respect has Dan
earned from world leaders over four years since much of their opinion
will be shaped by the US press?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:43:29 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Guns, Freud, and Psychology

>  You mystify me. I keep claiming that the gun lobby is powered by
>classical garden variety Freudian neuroses, and, far from refuting
>this contention, you keep demonstrating it. Freud suggests that
>guns are symbolic phallic replacements due to syndromes such as
>castration anxiety and latent homosexuality.

Hint: reading freud is a good idea before attributing "suggestions" to
him.  Said reading might keep one from getting things backwards, as
the above poster did.

Freud said that gun/weapons FEAR was associated with psychological
problems, that such fear was manifested in attempts to ban and control
said weapons of others.

Psychology has advanced somewhat since Freud, who was smart, but
didn't go in much for experiments.  There have been experiments that
have found an association between violence and guns, but not the
association that most people expect.  These experiments found that
college freshmen reacted violently towards people with guns.

Dr. Joyce Brothers claims that gun owners have sexual problems.  This
belief may come from her personal experience; her husband has an NYC
carry permit.

Half of US households have guns in them, so gun owners can't be a lot
different than the norm, but they do tend to be somewhat more wealthy
and more educated.  People who get involved to help others during
violent attack are far more likely to be gun owners.

BTW - We've had this discussion before....

-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, 12 Oct 1992 09:09:20 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Guns, Freud, and Psychology
              11 Oct 1992 14:36:28 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

> Here's a start: I oppose gun laws that don't affect crime.  ........

Fine.  But do you also oppose gun control laws that decrease
crime?

> -andy

--KAT
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:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:28:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is snoring!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

I've been sitting here for about a half hour trying to figure out something
to say about the first debate held tonight.  Something intelligent, something
funny, or at least something substantive.  But I find it very difficult to
do so, and it shouldn't be any mystery why - the debate was utterly mudane,
etherial, and uninspiring.

Clinton, I think, was the overall winner, simply because he didn't lose.  He
looked and sounded good, reinforced the themes of his campaign, and didn't
make any important blunders.  The same goes for Bush, but Bush needed to do
a lot more than Clinton, in order to shake up his standing in the polls and
ultimately get people to change their minds about him.  He didn't get that.
Ross Perot had some of the better lines of the debate, and may have the most
to gain from it.  However, a lot of Perot's best statements were, directly or
indirectly, stabs at Bush's record, with one or two jabs at Clinton's.

There were no knockouts or knockdowns, and in fact, not much to distinguish
the candidates in any major way.  They were all opposed to any form of
drug legalization (presumably including marijuana legalization, even though
lumping together crack and marijuana under the "drugs" hot-button is insane),
blithered on about who gets tax decreases and increases, rehashed what was
said over the past few days on Clinton's war protesting while in England,
sucked up to the American people a lot ("yes, now tell me I'm pretty..." I
was saying while watching), said "change" and "trust" a lot (while Bush was
making his closing statement, and used trust 3 or 4 times in the last couple
sentences, I was wondering if maybe he wasn't overdoing it *just* a little
bit - Clinton mixed it up a little better, but not much), and issued a
variety of stock answers on AIDS, defense, and the like.  Clinton seemed to
be making every answer into a mini-commercial, Bush was slightly looser, and
Perot, surprisingly, came closest to actually answering the question asked.

All in all, an extremely unenlightening beginning.

Gary W. Olson                "My lips may promise but my heart is a whore"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  - Nine Inch Nails, "Last"
23 days and counting down...
^^-hmmm, coincidence?  read the book.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU