HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:38:05 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gore on the Environment

>>>> Democrats are behaving like their caricature of Republicans; now we
>>>> know why.
>
>Why?

Pam Leader claims it's because Repubs win.

>>> I think the environment is the most important issue.
>>
>>Really?  How many hunting licenses and tags has Leader bought?  (Hint:
>>a "0" response demonstrates that "think" doesn't translate to action.)
>
>Please explain.

There are lots of ways to do something about the environment, but in
the US, the ones that actually seem to happen, at least with respect
to a number of environmental measures, are tied to hunting.  (Some
really aren't; the "hunting" excise taxes are collected on guns and
related stuff, not just those used for hunting.  I suspect the fishing
equip excise taxes are targetted better, but ....)

Sure, it's possible to be "environmentally active" and do something
useful without working through those channels, but reminding folks of
those channels unmasks some stereotypes.

-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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:55:14 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

 *** Resending note of 08/25/92 13:36

 >Do I also take it that you are first an American and then a
 >Christian or is it that your morality/religion/ethnicity takes
 >precedent while others should be pushed under the rug.
 >-KAT

 I get the feeling that your trying to characterize me as an extreme
 nationalist.  In response, I would point out that an "America First"
 position ( a few years ago ) was considered *patriotic*.  Only recently
 has it been twisted to mean *isolationist*.

 Why would you think patriotism would come before Christianity?  I probably
 have less respect for the twisted remnant of government, with which we are
 saddled, than anyone on this list.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:15:38 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill

About Quayle:

Actually, he said, "...about 94--about 1996."

Take it any way you like.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:46:09 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:29:30 EDT Jamie said:
>Oh, great. I knew we were in for trouble.
>Can I get a reprieve on the grounds that I had already responded before
>Jenna?
>I'd hate to have to choose between MacPhil's butter knife and Jen's
>hacksaw.
>I guess I'll go with MacP. Surgical experience.

You think I'd consider applying a butterknife to anyone? :)

My personal feelings are that since castration doesn't prevent
the physiological ability to have an erection, it doesn't mean
an end to rape, but the psychological aspects of such an procedure
would be plenty of punishment.

In all seriousness, I'd rather leave them intact so that they are
better test subjects for medicines, etc.  Fewer woodland creatures
would have to be used then and we'd know for sure how drugs & cosmetics
reacted /c the human body.  'course then that implies those who rape
are human...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:42:24 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:23:39 EDT Jamie said:
>Er, hold on a sec....
>
>>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>
>>Maybe not.  On a short clip from a Quayle interview, he said something to
>>the effect of "our first priority is to get the president re-elected.  Then
>>we'll think about '94."
>
>Did he say "94" or "96"?

He said '94'...I almost went up to Huntington on Saturday to have a
prize for some contest on the list (A genuine Quayle hometown paper
or something quaint like that) but went to the State Fair instead.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 4 Sep 1992 14:22:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

So Val, if everyone has a right to live without regulation of the state,
then what is the state for?  What is democracy for??
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:13:36 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 09:24

 ... much deleted

 >Responding to a question about how he would work to decrease the drop-out
 >rate, especially among minorities, Clinton pointed out that Arkansas has
 >gone from 35th to 18th in the nation in drop-out rate since he took office.
 >While the national drop-out rate is increasing, Arkansas' is decreasing.

 Are they aborting that many babies in Arkansas?

 >Lord only knows Clinton's not perfect -- but if I want an education
 >president, he's running way ahead of Bush.

 No, actually quite a few of us know.  But, I don't like Bush either.

 >Kerry

 ---Robert
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Deadly Force
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:35:18 GMT

Robert <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
> Someone mentioned a person being sued by a wounded (surviving) criminal.  All
> I can say is, BAD SHOT(s).

Robert,

There is a very famous book called "The Bible".  I don't care for it
much, myself, but most of the people I've met who call themselves
Christians seem to place a lot of trust in it.

There's some stuff in there about how one ought to treat others.
I seem to remember something in there about what one ought to do
if someone robs you.  I think that Jesus fellow said it.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the book could post an exact
quote.  Was it something like: "If a man takes your coat, then
blow his head off"?  Was it something like: "Hate thine enemy"?

Perhaps one of the real Christians on the list might want to come
forward to disassociate their peaceful religion from this warmongering!

--Jimbo



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:43:46 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Are Quayles Pro-Choice?

From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>

>   uh, KAT, maybe she was considering what happens if their daughter
>  is raped and becomes pregnant as a result. this is rare, but it
>  does happen. consider the effect on a young woman (13 or 14, i think)
>  if she is not only raped, but is forced to remember the rape every
>  minute of the day for 9 months. not to mention how she would feel
>  about the child once it is born. would *any* compassionate parent
>  force a child to go thru this?

Well, if the bible is interpreted differently by different people
then I guess Quayle's comments could too.

But three comments:

        1.  The question was NOT "what if you daughter is raped
            and gets pregnant."

        2.  Even if she was answering it regarding a rape question
            then it was "slick" of her not mentioning it.  This way
            pro-lifers, well, KNOW that she is pro-life and
            pro-choicers, who are leaning Republican otherwise,
            are fooled into believing that maybe the Republican
            are not that extreme on this matter.

        3.  Or, maybe this was a trick answer on your part.  Maybe
            you are implying that ANY teenage pregnancy is either
            rape or incest and therefore Marilyn was answering the
            question as if it was either rape or incest.

>  rtf

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:55:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CLINTON STATE OFFICE UPDATE (8/20/92)

>>SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
>>CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM
>>(This information is posted for public education/information purposes.
>>It does not necessarily represent the views of The University.)
>>========================================================================
>>State offices update follows:
>

list deleted....

and deleted and deleted....come on guys, how many times do we need to re-send
this list?
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:24:57 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: speed, police, crime, hell

> i drove into a speed trap last year about a block from my work. going 40 in a
> 25 mph zone. the ticket was over a $120. that's just a little less than my
> monthly food budget. i cried. cop tore up ticket and told me to get lost.

On way to avoid a ticket, next to crying :-), is to
pretend that you don't have your wallet with you.

Most cops who are issuing tickets are assigned to the job for a good
portion of the day.  Therefore they would hate to take the time off
and take to downtown and book you.  I have been given tickets many
times.  I always tried to weasel out of it; it never worked.

One time I was in this dealer's car I was trying to buy (the dealer
wasn't with me).  I made this stupid move: I made an illegal U-turn.
Not only that, I did that recklessly against the incoming traffic.  And
guess who was in the incoming traffic, a police car.  He stopped me
and told me that on top of the other two violations, the car was not
properly registered.  So he asked for my license in order to write me up.
I really did not have my wallet with me; it was in my own car.  When
I told him so, he told me "be careful next time."

Wow!

--KAT    use this info at your own risk.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:42:08 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: little answer to little question

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Jason:

> You're "right." (pun intended.)  The things KAT refers to as rights are
> not rights at all, but merely things that it would be nice to have
> (excepting military service, which is a duty, not a right.)

> Good call.

> --Missy P 2 B

Jason,

I was worried for a while that maybe YOU were right.  But thanks to
Missy, I am not worried anymore.  :-)

(Jamie has answered your points much better than I can, but I'll
just add a few points.)

Look, I don't expect that I should have the "right" to join the army,
but I expect to have the "right" not to be excluded based on my sexual
preference.  Same with taxes and health insurance.

Now, if you would like to live in a country that would routinely
exclude it's citizens from benefits according to their sexual
orientation/practice, that's fine with me.  I wouldn't.

What would be next?  To exclude people based on sexual practices:
for example, if you masturbate, you cannot claim tax credit?

I wonder if you or Missy are claiming this is the way it is, or
that this is the way you WANT things be.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:16:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

> >I wasn't going to mention this, but it's been typed in at least
> >ten times now.  FOIST.  The word is FOIST.
>
> Why are you telling me?  I was using the word 'hoist' because someone
> (the original poster on the topic) used it, and I wanted to make fun
> of them.  You know how I am...

And I thought you were trying to hoist your morality up for all of us to
see.  But you were just making fun of the foist poster.  Didn't know ya
wuz from Brooklyn.

Best,
King Bushwick the Toity-toid

> --Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:02:52 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 14:56

 > >I meant that he had a prodigious personal library, some of which
 > >hasn't been colored in yet.

 Colored pencils or Crayolas (tm) ?

 > >Do you accept anecdotal evidence from a disinterested third party?

 >Nope, sorry.  I'm afraid it would not live up to the demanding standards
 >of this list.

 > >Smile when you say that, Pilgrim.

 "Frowners always lose and smilers always win, so open up your heart and
  let the sun shine in..."
 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:13:43 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE:drugs

Rick asks: "what would be a proactive approach to the drug problem.."?

Can you say: EDUCATION ? There, I knew you could.

The statement that it is a republican policy to use the seizure laws
was mine, not 60 minutes. This strategy was born of the republican
administrations therefor my statement.

Why don't we confiscate the property of the savings and loan administrators
who allowed their institutions to go down the toilet instead of asking
the taxpayer to save their butts? I bet you would see a lot less of the
risky speculations of the 70's if these people had something to lose.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 11:28:33 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: disaster response time
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 10:00:52 CDT fred said:
>A well known political equation states that " R = S ./. T" where
>R = response  S = standing in the polls  divided by T= time until vote.
>
>George got to Florida a hell of a lot quicker than he got to California
>following the riots. An additional factor could be that the secret

An additional factor could be Florida was a natural unpreventable
disaster thrust upon the populace whereas California was a preventable
disaster caused by a bunch of maniacs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:46:17 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              25 Aug 1992 16:21:24 GMT+4 from <MARYELEN@HFX001.N S.ISTC.CA>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:21:24 GMT+4 Mary Ellen Foster said:

>This sort of thing (linguistic intolerance) is still alive and well
>up here in Canada. There is a law in Quebec which prohibits the usage
>of any language other than French on commercial signs (I am not from
>Quebec, don't flame if I am inaccurate!), and the Quebeckers (I find)
>are extremely defensive about their language and culture. I am from
>Nova Scotia, which is almost unilingually English (at least in
>Halifax where I live), but I have no problem with people speaking
>other languages. I don't think that my identity as an anglophone Nova
>Scotian can possibly be threatened by being around people from other
>cultures!


Libre' Quebec!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:22:53 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: I'm back, *again*

>Posted on 2 Sep 1992 at 18:10:20 by Bill Dickson
>
>I'm back, *again*
>
>Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:01:48 GMT
>Reply-To:     Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
>From:         Bill Dickson <dickson@ESKIMO.CELESTIAL.COM>
>
>Hi everybody.  Trying yet *another* internet server.  This one's been
>around for a while, so I'm hoping it's more reliable than the last.
>
>Are you receiving me?
>
>Bill D.
>
>PS - what's my address coming out as?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:05:48 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deadly Force

Here in Missouri, the law is that that one must be "endangered" to shoot
a person in one's house. However, in practice, use of deadly force is
"usually" called "justifiable homicide" by prosecutors and/or grand juries.
As I recall, in the past five years, we have had maybe ten such cases in the
city of Kansas City, and not one shooter was prosecuted for murder. But,
one cannot shoot someone on one's lawn. I know a fellow who shot a fleeing
bank robber who was running by his house, and he WAS prosecuted, though he
did get acquitted. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:06:43 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: morals

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 10:52
 >From JCS
 > Since when has taking responsibility for your actions fallen under the
 > heading of hoisting morals?

 > >Me taking responsibility for my own actions is one thing, you taking
 > >responsiblity for my actions is another.

 Rapists, murderers and bank robbers fail to take responsibility for their
 actions also.  I guess we're wrong to make those activities illegal.

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

 > The list of those awaiting adoptions grows longer every day.  Many now
 > make private adoption arrangements.  Why can't this process be streamlined?

 > >Do you think that there are actually 300 million people waiting to
 > >adopt? I agree that the adoption process needs work. However,
 > >outlawing abortion isn't going to be the catylist.

 300 million?  You must have some abortion stats the rest of us haven't seen.

 > >Gee, maybe if gay and lesbians could adopt...how do you feel about
 > >that robert?  Or if it was easier for biracial families to adopt?
 > >or white families to adopt non white children, and vice versa?

 Biracial doesn't bother me on the morality issue (if that's what you mean).
 I do not think it's always a good idea.  Whether we like it or not, there
 is a price to pay in these situations.  Prejudice, etc., will be with us
 forever.  I think before placing a child in these types of situations other
 options should be explored.

 > >or do you think that only seemingly heterosexual couples should
 > >be able to adopt all these non aborted little people?

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

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:18:04 EST
From:         Diane Alexander <alexandd@GVSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?
Comments: To: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

   Andy,

   Thank you for your somewhat condescending reply to my question. I never
   called Mr. Buchanan ANYTHING. I was just alarmed at what that phrase
   SOUNDED like.  Wha parties might like to get involved?  Just what was
   he "merely suggesting"? And just what does he want all you good people
   to do about it?

   Many of my ancestors were Native American so I know only too well the
   history of culture-smashing the United States government has. Please
   forgive me if I become slightly terrified at hearing a national
   political leader use inflammatory and divisive language such as this.
   You'd probably be a little sensitive too if YOUR relatives were beaten
   to within an inch of their lives in government and church schools for
   speaking their native language. It wasn't all that long ago.

   Diane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:57:03 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: slowly for macphil
              31 Aug 1992 11:35:44 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

> I see it to be like the other _60 Minutes_ story where Floridian officers
> stopped certain types of profiles for drug searches and were effective.
> Minority race leaders claimed it was racist policy which did this as
> young, black/hispanic males driving expensive sports cars on the interstate
> fulfilled the profile.  But is it racist because they fit the profile or
> because the profile happens to fit a racist stereotype?

Maybe it is racist because if you were black and innocent your
chances to be stopped is many times greater than if you were
white and innocent.

> It's been said 2/3 of the women murdered in this country know their
> attacker (FBI stat.).  Do we see anyone screaming genderal bias
> when the law enforcement officers query males a murdered woman knew or
> do we assume they are playing the odds?

Aside from having different circumstances, I don't recall
discrimination based on acquaintance was illegal, but discrimination
based on race is.

--KAT

> MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:09:19 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      the war on personal liberties

Would those of you who think that the war on drugs is 1) successful and
2)necessary please provide some rationale for that position? I saw a
report on CNN last night about the legalization of drugs in the Nether-
lands. A government person estimated that 15% of their population smoked
pot compared with 40% for England and over 50% (youth only) of Americans.
There is no drug related crime because drugs are cheap and there is no
market for black market supplies. Treatment is government supported and
education is an ongoing process. This seems much more effective and cost
efficient than our current system.

I also saw a 60 minutes report that the driving force in the current war
on drugs has nothing to do with morality but rather is centered in the
seizure laws. If you are a minority carrying a lot of cash into an
airport you are sure to be harrassed. They sent one of their people as
bait into an airport and he bought a quick turn around ticket with cash.
He was then approached by drug agents who backed off when they found out
he was with the media.

My biggest gripe with the current enforcement is that a lot of low life
people are making a lot of money for turning in their friends. I think
it is a republican attitude that it is ok to use drugs if you are willing
to snitch for pay. All of the current efforts are reactive rather than
proactive and do nothing to change the pattern. I think this is because
you have to have drug users to be able to confiscate property and the
only way a law enforcement official can afford a porsche 944 is to take
it from someone else.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics