HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:55:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Using deadly force against dead horses

> >I find it interesting that people are concerned about Joe Blow blowing
> >away a burglar going for Joe's TV in Joe's "castle", but few blink at
> >armed armored car and bank guards.  Said guards don't have guns to
> >protect themselves so much as they have guns to raise the stakes of
> >robbery, much of which consists of making said protection necessary.
> >This is seen as a good thing.
>
> I find this interesting too, now that you mention it.
> We seem to take for granted that professional armed guards
> have a proper para-police function.
> Is it because we trust Brinks guards? Or is it because we
> just don't think about it critically?
>
> Our government, and I suppose any government, claims for itself
> a virtual monopoly on the use of force. It gives back some of
> its claim, for example, for purposes of self-defense. As far
> as I know it doesn't give back any extra to Pinkerton. But
> maybe we think of uniformed guards as quasi-state organs.

Do Brinks guards or Pinkertons have any more license to use deadly force
than the average citizen?  Certainly a carry permit alone doesn't let
you use a handgun in any way that you would not be allowed to use a
rifle.

Perhaps the weapons are simply an acknowledgement that these are people
who are more likely to be in a situation where thay may need them for
self-defense.

Getting other people to behave toward private cops as though they were
police officers may also be part of the reason.

Best,
Peter

> Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:51:02 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
              28 Aug 1992 12:41:58 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

According to Planned Parenthood, birth control is "a safe and simple
way to plan for your children and to have them when you want them....
It is not an operation of any kind."  In 1965, birth control was
about child spacing and family planning, not damage control.  I
have no problem with this.

---Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:16:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape; violation, sex or whatever...

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:18:45 -0500 "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
said:
> I suspect that Missy, like myself, has some strong feelings about
> this because it happened to her, though I could be reading the
> sub-texts of her message in error.
Well, there's the answer I was looking for.  Never mind my last post,
Missy.  I probably should have posted it private anyway.

> Well, I suggest that you are both right. I was raped at 14, by 5
> other boy/men, now over thirty years ago, and it was totally to gain
> power over me, and HURT me, and humiliate me. Sexual gratification
> was a byproduct of the process.
God--I dont mean to condone man/woman rape, but man/man rape is LOWEST
of low.

> I'm not challenging your claim. I believe both of you have elements
> of rightness in what you say about this awful subject. I would add
> that even though this is painful for me to discuss, I believe Travis
> is out of his mind to say that rape is not "violation" no matter the
> gender of victim. Every women I've ever known who was raped, and the
> three men besides myself I've known who were raped DEFINITELY
> believed and felt that they had been violated. I was so humiliated
> that I had to fight my way through half a ward of fellow emotionally
> disturbed patients to get the derision to stop, AND severely injure
> all five of my assailants. At the time, I tried to kill three of
> them, figuring I had already lost everything in the way of dignity.
> Fortunately, for me, I failed.
Ahh, but just because you feel you are violated doesn't mean you are,
or if it does, then the same applies to abortion...if a baby feels he
is murdered, he is murdered.

> >Richard A. Fyfe
> >rf35@umail.umd.edu
>
> VMS
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:34:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      BUST-TED

IT APPEARS THAT THE MORE SUE COMMENTS ON CLINTON THE MORE PNE WOULD WISH
TO VOTE FOR CLINTON.  THAT IS OF COURSE WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE SOURCE.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:07:21 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      re: Make My Day

 >From KAT
 ... stuff deleted
 >...After the first or second BANG, there is no more (reasonable)
 >danger of the intruder harming you, so I believe you would be charged
 >with attempted murder.

 I don't think so.  Have you not heard of PCP crazed criminals taking
 multiple rounds?  How can I possibly know he is no longer a threat, until
 he is down?  Short of standing on his neck while I insert another clip,
 the attempted murder scenario would be very difficult to prove.

 Missy asked if the law had ever been challenged.  I know that it has been
 used several times.  Two of those cases involved fleeing punks ( one driving
 away ).  Both were shot dead, one by the homeowner and one by a relative.
 Each of the victimized parties were cleared of any wrongdoing.  There are
 more, but I can't recall any of the specifics.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
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, 27 Aug 1992 09:06:55 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      oklahoma...where the bullets whistle down the plain

questions, questions, so many questions...
(and, just to waste bandwidth, i will point out that i am sitting in the
zoo, the aptly-named big computer terminal graveyard on the east bank of the
minneapolis campus, listening to a radio show that i taped last night after
i got off the phone with a friend, but was too tired to sleep.  odd thing,
hearing one's self on the radio.)
but to the questions at hand, tally-ho:
robert, or whomever it was who posted the oklahoma thang...
the law states that the legislature acknowledges that each citizen has a
right to expect safety within the home. i'm not being contentious in
anyway at all, i just want to know if you know how they extrapolate stuff on
this law about:
1) battered wives
2) abused children
3) unsafe living conditions (including those whaddayacallems, overloaded
   electrical sockets and stuff?  and the presence of vermin and all?)

can battered folk gun down their abusive spouses with relatively little
penalty?  can abused children take out mom & dad in a hail of gunfire
completely legally?  could someone hypothetically defend a murder by saying
"my client was being subjected to extreme risk in the home, due to the
pernicious effects of, oh, let's say...ad infinitum repetition of jethro tull
albums and frangipani incense-burning" ?  i mean, i could see that as being
threatening to one's mental health.  that would be an abridgment of absolute
safety, am i right?  what do they do about this?

to the guy from alaska... are you really a big America First-er?  do you know
how i can get in touch with bay buchanan?  no, i don't want fashion tips...
but i do want to get some stuff from the buchanan campaign.  (souvenirs.
gonna be worth a fortune someday.  how much would you pay for a mc carthy
bumper sticker now, hmmm?  ;-)

to the tax code people, kerry and peter...get a simpler hobby.  say,
electoral college function.  or maybe the rules of bezique.  perhaps track the
careers of former members of big star.

and to the man who is not a doctor, but who plays one on tv, the ever-popular
richard a. fyfe... thrilled to pieces that you're still with us!  what a
swell post!  you're my hero of the day.  try not to be disheartened that you
are succeeding rula lenska at that post.
                                        * * anneliese
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Youthful punks
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:13:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92090401445377@UCF1VM.BITNET>, IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (m
acphil) writes:
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:47:00 EST Tyrone Slothrop said:
>>sure, toddddd, a lot of countries have/had  mandatory military service:
>>the soviet union, yugoslavia, to name a few.  don't you think that
>>we in the us should have more sense than to copy these countries?
>>
>
>How 'bout W. Germany, who is current sitting on 2% inflation and p*ssing
>off the other European countries because the d mark is doing so well?
>
>I had a college teammate from soccer who received a deferrment to attend
>college here in the states.  He accepted what would amount to a job
>of charity in this country afterwards despite German citizenship.  After
>going home one last time to say goodbye, he was detained @ the border
>and told his deferrment was up:  welcome to the W. German army!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess you haven't been to germany lately; Inflation is running at greater than
2%
>"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:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:37:30 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      oklahoma...where we're safer in our homes than you are

 *** Resending note of 08/27/92 09:07

 >From liese
 >robert, or whomever it was who posted the oklahoma thang...
 >the law states that the legislature acknowledges that each citizen has a
 >right to expect safety within the home. i'm not being contentious in
 >anyway at all, i just want to know if you know how they extrapolate stuff on
 >this law about:
 >1) battered wives
 >2) abused children
 >3) unsafe living conditions (including those whaddayacallems, overloaded
 >   electrical sockets and stuff?  and the presence of vermin and all?)

 ...deletions

 The law was written to address a very specific problem.  It is simple and
 straight forward.  So far, it has proven to be effective.

 Read it again, closely.  You will see the phrase, " against another person
 who has made an unlawful entry ".  This pretty much negates your concerns.
 Perhaps, an EX spouse breaking in to beat the old lady one more time would
 qualify.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:14:55 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              26 Aug 1992 14:48:57 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

> .......................................................  Bush, on the other
> hand, IMO would sell his mother if it was expedient for his political
 aspirations.

> ---Robert

Could that be termed "voodoo politics?"

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:24:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Sandy Patti

>To save the dirt-diggers some time & trouble regarding Sandy Patti:
>yes, she's a religious singer and yes, she's filed for divorce.

sandy patti??? that is the goofiest name i've ever heard.
and why would anyone care?

sandy patti?

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:58:59 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Richard:

> Since when does the Catholic church not prohibit divorce?

(Notice that I am only ANSWERING a purely theological question. :-)

I think Richard earlier said that the Catholic Church does not
prohibit divorce but only discourages it.  And now Missy wants
to know since when.

Well, I don't know since when, but I know the Church's position.

Officially, the Church does not recognize divorce.  Divorce
does not exist and can not be created.  You may then ask about
annulment.  Annulment is an affirmation that marriages did
not exist in the first place.

Therefore if you obtain divorce from the civil authorities you
have not committed any sin in the eye of the Church because
1) divorce does not exist and 2) you are still married to your
spouse in the eye of the Church.

With the same token, the Church does not forbid remarriages and
remarriages are not sins.  (Wait, this was a technicality. :-)
No body can remarry.  You only marry once.  (Again annulment means
there was no marriage in the first place.  So if you obtain
annulment and "remarry" you have actually only married for
the first time.)

So what happens -- as far as the Church is concerned -- when
somebody get divorced (which is not recognized by the Church)
and remarries (which is also not recognized by the Church)??
Well, technically you are still married to your first spouse and
living in sin with another person.

And THIS, Robert, my friend, is the word of God and cannot be
disputed.

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
From: Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (rf35)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: morals
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:06:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Robert

> Like it or not, homosexuality is perversion.  Homosexuals should never be
> allowed custody of a child. (are we becoming friends yet?)
>
> ---Robert

        Before making comments, I would like to express this argument
in logical form.  Please tell me if I am mistaken in expressing the
form of your argument as follows:

        1) Homosexuality is a perversion.
        2) No person who has a perversion should be allowed custody of
                a child.
        3) Therefore, no homosexual should be allowed custody of a
                child.

        This assumes that your two claims about homosexuality are log-
ically related; that the REASON why homosexuals should not be allowed
to have custody of a child is because it is a perversion.  If the first
sentence was not meant to provide justificiation for the second sentence,
then I would like to know what justification you do offer for the second
sentence (as well as the first).

        I would like to determine if this argument is logically sound.
However, before I can do this I need to know more precisely what you
mean by the term 'perversion.'  More sepcifically, I need to know what
type of evidence counts in favor of categorizing something as a per-
version and the evidence that exists for so categorizing homosexuality.

        I believe I will also need to know more precisely what you mean
by 'homosexuality.'  For example, does 'homosexuality' consist in an urge
for same-sex activities, or does it require actually acting on that urge?

        Once these clarifications have been made, then it is possible
to examine the form of the argument and determine its soundness.  I am
looking forward to your response.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:51:53 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 16:49
 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 16:33

 > I probably
 > have less respect for the twisted remnant of government, with which we are
 > saddled, than anyone on this list.

 >>I doubt it.  I think that our current government is filled with a
 >>bunch of scum-sucking weenies.  I think that BOTH major parties are
 >>corrupt and intellectually bankrupt.  I only regret that it seems that
 >>we are NOT on the verge of any kind of constitutional crisis which might
 >>change things... we seem destined to muddle along stupidly into the
 >>next century.

 >>--Jimbo

 You're awfully complimentary for one that challenges my level of disdain
 for our government.  Scum-sucking weenies is like saying "I love you".
 Try harder.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 11:02:17 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Deadly Force
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 11:29:32 EDT Jamie said:
>My impression is that you may legally use deadly force to
>protect your person, but not your property. So you may
>shoot someone to protect yourself against rape, if that's
>your only defense, but not to protect your carpet.
>The idea, I believe, is that you might rely on the law to
>get your carpet back for you.

Now if you manage to kill the scum and claim he threatened your life...

Let's also not forget the _60 Minutes_ story about the shop in Miami
that electrified a wire basket hanging just below the skylight.
Some dirtball broke in through the skylight and was electrocuted.
Of course some ambulance chaser got the family to sue.  I don't think
they stated the outcome of the suit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:32:37 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What is family values?

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
>
>>I believe in tolerance and individual rights -- so I support any party that
>>will support legalizing homosexual marriage.
>
>Both major parties have the ability to implement this at the state
>level, but neither has.  (I'm not convinced that marriage should be
>recognized by govt, no matter who's involved.)

Hmmmm.

This is a good point.

In fact, it seems likely that Democrats control more state governments.
Why haven't some states legalized homosexual marriage? Or HAVE they?

Jamie

"Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him
... against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples
should have the same standing in law as married men and
women."   - Pat Buchanan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:39:49 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What is family values?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:32:37 EDT Jamie said:
>In fact, it seems likely that Democrats control more state governments.
>Why haven't some states legalized homosexual marriage? Or HAVE they?

Party affiliation seems to mean much less in terms of rhetoric
when it is at the gubernatorial level and below.  It doesn't
seem like there are many practical differences in the parties'
declarations & actions until you get to the Federal level.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:21:48 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

>> >Divorces should be illegal except in extreme circumstances.
>>
>> Why?
>So that children don't have to live in torn families because "it just
>didn't work out."  I mean, if divorce is easy to get, marriage loses
>its meaning.  There should be strong proponderance of the evidence of
>an act (such as adultery, if I had my druthers) that would, if proven
>beyond a reasonable doubt, result in someone going to jail before a
>divorce would be granted.

Everyone I know whose parents are divorced says that the divorce was much
more pleasant than the constant bickering.  Most of my friends say they
were thrilled when their parents finally filed.
And if you send one parent to jail, isn't that going to break up the family
much more than if he or she simply moved out?  Talk about emotional trauma
for the kids!

>>
>> --Jimbo

>-Travis

-----Gayla
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:21:29 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: morals

Robert:
Richard wrote:
> >Imagine somebody depriving you of something of the same order of import-
> >ance as this and, when you ask for a reason, they say, "I stand by
> >'christians should not be allowed to adopt.'  Pick any justification
> >you like."
>
> OK. I'm imagining school prayer.  I'm imagining Bible clubs in schools.
> I'm imagining Christmas manger scenes.  I'm imagining a right to life.
> Now what?

Um, I think the answer is "live with it."  That's the problem with the
"pick any justifaction you like" argument.  No one has to explain or
justify anything.  That makes useful discussion -- even if it's limited to
trying to understand one another's views without attempting to change them
-- rather difficult to achieve.

Kerry
who is adamantly opposed to school prayer and nativity scenes, but doesn't
mind Bible clubs :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:53:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

>
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
> >
> >On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:20:00 EST linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said:
> >> i do not hold the same beliefs as you do robert. i do not believe that abor
> >n
> >> is murder. i do not believe that human life begins at conception. the evide
> >I do not hold the same beliefs you do, linda.  I do not believe that
> >raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.  The evidence is not
> >there.
>
  Travis,  if you were raped, would you feel like your body had not
  been violated? Perhaps not if you were raped by a woman. How bout
  if you were raped by a man?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:24:41 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Patriotism

Kai:

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.

Ironically, many people have died in order to safeguard your right to
both ridicule them and burn the flag under which they fought.  Not
to mention your free-speech right to criticize the governmental system
they dug in their heels to protect.  They may have been right; they
may have been wrong.  The fact remains that they believed that their
personal, physical sacrifice was required to protect the families,
friends, and ideals they held dear.

We do them no honor, nor ourselves elevate, by trivializing their
lives and their deaths.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU