HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:13:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: electronic town meeting with the N Tickets

> before i go out and cast my hard-earned vote
> i would like to hear from the candidates
> where they stand on the shoe issue.

I'm very glad you asked that question.  I wish to make it perfectly
clear that I do not stand ON shoes, but rather IN shoes, as the
Founding Cobblers clearly intended.  I am a strict constructionist,
preferring the highest-quality materials and best available standards
of workpersonship.  I am committed to these traditional pedal values
to the very depths of my sole, and I am not just speaking in tongues.

> jcsteelE who thinks there should be E tickets as well...

Then it may interest you to know that I am the only known candidate
who can bring together the N and E constituencies.  As anyone who is
familiar with my choice of shoes can attest, I am a EEE and proud of
it!  And it is this EEE base that places my candidacy on a firm,
solid foundation, stable even when buffetted by the strongest political
winds.  America wants a leader who can keep his ear and his center of
gravity close to the ground!  America needs a leader who is broad-
footed enough to stand with all of the many diverse cultures and
backgrounds that make this nation great.  America craves a leader who
will leave a footprint in history that will be seen by all future
generations, even if they leave their glasses at home!

Vote for me and stride-rite into the future of America!!!

Best,
Peter
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:51:50 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>>> 2. What was anita hill's motive for lying?

>> Doesn't she get tens of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements???

> You mean alleged or possible motive, right?  Anyway, do you
> recall what you just wrote in another post about truth and the
> whole truth?  Well Thomas also had alleged or possible motives
> for lying.

>     So what?  Thomas didn't make the accusation; Hill did (1).  Certainly,
>     his motive would be self-defense if he were lying; that is self-
>     evident (2).  But the burden of proof rests on the accuser(3). Therefore,
>     her motive for making the accusation must be definitionally more
>     suspect than his for defending himself (4).

I have added numbers AFTER each points that you have raised
so I would answer them one by one.

  (1) Factually correct but irrelevant to the point I was making.
  (2) Factually correct but irrelevant to the point I was making.
  (3) That was not a criminal procedure, not even a civil-court
      procedure.  Anyway what kinda burden of proof do you require?
      As far as I know the Senators could vote on any basis that
      they deem reasonable.
  (4) I am not aware of such "definition."  I will agree that in a
      court of law the burden of proof is on the accuser but the
      degree of suspectability (if such word exists) of their motives
      is NOT based on who is the accuser, rather on the nature of
      their motives and the circumstances surrounding them.

Finally, the point that I was making had nothing to do with who
had the burden of the proof nor who was innocent, rather, that
both sides had motives to lie.  And apparently you agree with me
on that.

>                                        --Missy Justice

--Missy KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:44:46 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      ratings for tv

I think that children at an impressionable age are far more likely to
be exposed to sex and violence on televison as opposed to the theatre.
Any guesses as to why we don't have a ratings system for television?

We don't see many ads for "watch tonight as the beverly hills teenagers
just say no to sex and drugs".
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:16:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: The Romantic Tragedy of the Electorate

On Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:03:00 EST linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said:
> my son and i were talking abt. the "timing" of perot's announcement to leave
> the race. he believes that perot's whole purpose was to undermine bush and
> remove the possibility of another republican presidency.
> he also said he thought it was mainly aimed at george for some personal reason
> of perot's.

Believe me--if Perot doesn't want Bush re-elected, all he needs to do
is say the words and Bush will be outta the White House.

-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:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:45:47 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      j.b. and the foundations of a perfect world

j.b.:  yes, i am in complete agreement with you.  however, it is not
my opinion that government policy is going to change over to the nicely-nicely
stuff anytime in my lifetime.  what i'm saying is:  it's great to dream...
i used to be awfully idealistic and uncynical myself...but i learned differently
    and now realize that while you dream of a world that operates harmoniously,
   you have to make preparations for dealing with it while it's not.  when the u
   n
becomes an unimpeachable force for good, we'll talk.  til then, i'm the
one over in the corner, sullenly reading _the nation_.
                                                          * * *l.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Excused or Excuses?
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:34:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92072913213783@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET> writes:

> Why not testify?  How should Pensylvanians react if both their Reps. need
> to be subpoenaed to testify in a scandal that they claim is nothing more
> than harrassment?  If they have nothing to hide, then tesify.  I would
> certainly want Nebraskas House Reps. Doug Bereuter, Peter Hoagland, and
> Bill Barrett to testify if called to, or I would want to know why not.
> 
> Sue Clark

Of course, a subpoena does not supercede one's fifth amendment right.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:22:04 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Intentions v. Effects

>> Effect always matters, intentions rarely do, especially if the bad
>> effect doesn't result in change in action.
>
>If you knock down my morning coffee by accident I won't get
>upset.  On the other hand if you do it purposefully I'll be
>really upset.

So?  KAT assumes that that isn't one of the exceptions and not
considering why it might be one.  However, the spillee is soaked
either way; the spiller's intent only affected said spillee's mental
state.

While looking at isolated incidents is helpful, life lasts longer and
the appropriate response to an isolated incident isn't necessarily the
appropriate response to a single incident in a bigger picture, let
alone one of a series of incidents.

Suppose I spill coffee on KAT every day, but I'm trying not to.  (No
deception; I'm really trying to avoid spilling coffee, but I'm failing
miserably.)  At what point does my intent become irrelevant?  Does the
answer change if I'm spilling without intent to spill, but I don't
really care if I spill either.

>How can you say that intentions rarely matter?

I emphasize it because the current bias is way too far on the
"he meant well" side.  We excuse far too much on that basis.

I say it because mental states don't have much effect in the real
world.  Actions do.  If you ruin the economy, but meant well, that's
not much better than ruining the economy intentionally.  If you "cure"
the economy, but do so with evil intent, we're still better off than
we would be if we let some do-gooder ruin it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:57:31 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:15:00 EST linda said:
>kat,
>i don't think you can reasonably infer from quayle's statement that his stance
>on abortion is anything but what he says it is because he would "stand by his
>daughter" in her decision.
>
>parents do that. they may hold firm beliefs, but if their child makes decisions
>contrary to those beliefs, or the kid gets arrested or whatever (believe me,
>kids do all sorts of things that make you want to tear hair :)), most parents
>will support their child. they may not like it, they may become heartsick, but
>they are always there for their children.


And the proof of the pudding is on the evening news all too often.  A teenager
brutally shots or stabs someone else and as he's taken away, his mom is on
camera pleading, "but he's such a good boy!"...failing to realize, that if
he was so good, he wouldn't have been carrying a gun or knife around...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

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:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:27:32 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      i didn't know that toni morrison had a big hasidic following

brni said:
the jewish tradition has the song of solomon, which christians ignore in a big
way....

well, we don't exactly, y'know, ignore it.  we just don't exactly *explain* it
to the kids in sunday school.
kid:  "sister glenn, what does he mean about her belly being like a heap of
       wheat and her lips like honey?"
sunday school teacher: "it's a reference to farm subsidies, laura anneliese.  go
                           sit down now.  you see, god wants us to have cheap
                        dairy, apiary, and baked goods...."

                                      * * *liese "there is yet balm in gilead" l
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:58:00 CST
From:         Ghost of Abbie <AHOFFMAN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      It might also be ...

that our ticket will try to stay away from much namecalling during the
race. Ms. Stephenson said harsh things about my life, and blamed things
on me that the only President ever to resign was REALLY responsible for,
and I was still smarting from the venom of her attack. But, I promise to
be as civil as Valentine tries to be. "Free"
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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:02:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

Brni foreshadows:

>i heard on pacifica news tonight that
>bush is sending more ships and a bunch of
>patriot missiles into the gulf, dispite the
>acceptance of hussein of un investigators
>and the un's acceptance of hussein's terms.
>does everyone think this means what i think it means?

It sounds as though Bush is determined to have a war to boost his election
chances, regardless of whether Iraq gives him an opening or not.  As for
whether this is good for Bush's chances, the common political wisdom would
seem to hold so, but there are a couple big differences between now and
a year ago:

1) Iraq, then, was occupying Kuwait, and as such could be puffed up by the
   George's propaganda machine into a world-threatening tyrant, whom we
   Had to Defeat to Secure Democracy and Free Kuwait.  Iraq, now, is trying
   to protect an agricultural building.  Hardly something that will cause
   the blood of patriotism to pound in the ears of Joe Sixpack.

2) The economy, then, while sliding, was not a big negative for George, as
   it is now.  Clinton could use this to illustrate how Bush is ignoring
   problems at home to pursue foreign policy abroad.

Another angle that has not been mentioned is how this is being viewed by
other arab countries.  From a PR standpoint, the big bad allies bearing down
on defeated Iraq can't be good for the U.S.'s reputation in that region.
Anyone have more info on this?

>brni

Gary W. Olson                 "Wave those flags high in the air,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   as long as it takes place over there."
                               - L7, "Wargasm"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:46:09 EDT
From:         BAFEI@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      Satisfy my curiosity

Would the members of this list please send me through PRIVATE e-mail
information telling me whether you read this list through a LISTSERV mailing
list or through UseNet on bit.listserv.politics?

Thanks for the help.

Regards,

Brett


--
   _________________________________________________________________________
   | Brett A. Feinstein                       |     Campaign Chairman      |
   | BITNET: bafei@conncoll.BITNET            | GERRISH FOR REPRESENTATIVE |
   | internet: bafei@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu     |  Connecticut 40th District |
   | Voice phone: 203-439-4021                |                            |
   | snail mail: Box 3337 Connecticut College |       Please insert        |
   |             270 Mohegan Avenue           |        slogan here         |
   |             New London, CT, USA 06320    |                            |
   | Listowner: GOP-L, ELECT-L                |  Vote REPUBLICAN in Nov.   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:59:42 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

MacPhil:

>The ratings have little to do /c it.  The advantage to seeing a movie
>in a theater late @ night during the last viewing is that there are
>fewer children and young teens.  Beyond that, most parents drop their
>kids off @ the door and pick them up two hours later.  And theatres
>seem reluctant to screen people based upon age because of lost
>revenue.

Would you prefer strengthening the enforcement of such guidelines?
Maybe having police at the entrance to cinemas?

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:38:19 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?
              26 Jul 1992 19:13:38 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

Sice you concede that my other points are factually correct (except the
actual quote, which you apparently suspend judgment on, pending further
evidence), I will address this one, though it veers again into the realm
of theology.

It is in the nature of the unregenerate to sin.  However, we are admonished
to separate the sinner from the sin in passing human judgment.  Only God
is permitted to determine that a sinner is forever lost.  Thus, as human
beings we love the *person* that sins, despite the fact that it is part of
their constitution to do so.  You admonish a sinner and condemn a sin, in
the same way that you disagree with but do not hate a racist, while hating
that for which he/she stands.  If you fall to the level of hating the *person*
that sins, rather than the sin itself, your hatred is equivalent to--and no
more honorable than--theirs.

This is how Quayle can make such a statement.  Of course, this is an easy
one, since we are talking about his own daughter.  I would have liked to
have seen the same question posed regarding a total stranger, since that
is where true conviction becomes visible.

                                   --Missy Justice
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:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:18:30 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

j.b. asks:

>This argument in particular seems to be one of women's rights.
>This is understandable.  Why don't women take more of an
>assertive role in society.

Got a minute? :)

>I accept that the male-dominated society is difficult with
>which to deal, but nonetheless, women have all rights that
>men do.  Whose fault is it that women are conditioned the
>way in which they are?  It is not merely the men, but also
>the mothers, aunts, grandmothers, etc.  This brings the point
>up that society needs adjusting.  I do not think that
>arbitrarily deciding when life begins and giving a mother the
>right terminate her pregnancy will help change society in
>any manner for the good.

Of course society needs restructuring -- far more than it needs folks
running around pointing fingers of blame.  Now, why would you think that
arbitrarily deciding when life begins and forcing a woman to continue an
unplanned pregnancy would help?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:38:28 PDT
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@CS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

>>An emphasis on criminal activity in the administration isn't
>>necessarily consistent with an interest in criminal activity in govt.
>>If Jamie wants to make the principled argument, he has to take the
>>principled stand; "I want to publicize criminal activity by Repubs"
>>isn't it.
>
>You call *this* relevance?  Jamie posted some info regarding how Iraq
>was armed through the influence of the current administration, and you,
>extrapolating like the wind, arrive at the conclusion that Jamie is
>unaware that the legislative branch has it's own share of corruption and
>criminal activity?

Huh?  I didn't conclude that Jamie is unaware of corruption/crime in
the legislative branch/by demos.  I concluded that he didn't post
about it.  I concluded that he's behaving as evenhandedly as Carl; if
he wants to be considered unbiased, he can't do that.  Carl admits
that he's biased; Jamie wants us to see him as unbiased.

>Selective carping that ignores this state of affairs
>is mere partisan wh--no, I won't say it.  It's too easy.

Feel free to display the opposite bias and see if I complain.  (I
won't if someone else does, and I won't if the displayer admits the
bias.)  Argue that biased folks can't point out the bias in others.
Show that I've claimed to be unbiased.  Until then....

-andy is contrary; he argues against his positions
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:03:26 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Obfuscation Elimination

Peter,
Hmm. Well, those have possibilities.
I'm a bit miffed that you don't think Logic Czar is very significant.
Still, I take your proposal under advisement.

Julie W.,
You could try:

_Mere Christianity_,
_The Case for Christianity_

both by C.S. Lewis; or,

_Christian Reflections_, ed. by Hooper (essays by Lewis),
_Owen Barfield on C.S. Lewis_, by, well, you can guess.


I hope you won't be too disappointed by the "proofs."

Jamie, possible logic czar, open to alternative suggestions
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:55:40 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>> 2. What was anita hill's motive for lying?

> Doesn't she get tens of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements???

You mean alleged or possible motive, right?  Anyway, do you
recall what you just wrote in another post about truth and the
whole truth?  Well Thomas also had alleged or possible motives
for lying.

> -Travis

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:20:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

sue:

in the large post that got eaten i had mentioned something
about that.  we have one of the highest standards of living
on the planet, if you ignore parts of the cities and some areas
in, say, kentucky and west virginia area.  the rest of the world
tends to think that we have even more money than we do, since their
image of us is generally brought to them by such sources as "Dallas"
and "Miami Vice."  i have personally shocked people by telling them that
no, i don't have a tv in every room, because i can't even afford one
tv.

people in the united states can always leave and settle just about anywhere
(except australia, which is even more picky about immigrations than we are).
however, people in other parts of the world cannot do this.  and they want
to go somewhere where their standard of living will increase, where they
can be free from the oppressive regimes that exist in most of the world.
this is why they want to come to the usa.  this is also why a lot of them
are not anti-us-citizen per se, but anti-us-government, because often the
particular oppressive situation that these people are living in is either
being supported by the us government, or has come about as a reaction
against a us supported tyrant (i.e. the shah of iran).  this is because the
us government is, by and large, more interested in securing its own power
and aiding our business interests than in actually working towards the
ideals which they use to justify their actions.  (a perfect example of this
is the rio/biodiversity thing--our country should have been leading this
but instead, we had to protect our businesses, and so we neglect the environ-
ment which we have done so much to destroy).

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU