HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:36:35 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Quayle on TV

Quayle was on "This Week with David Brinkley" today.  Below
are a few (negative) points that I observed:

Dan Quayle>  President has said he would veto ANY bill that
             appropriates more money than he has requested.
Sam Donaldson>  Then how come Bush signed the Ag Bill (though it
                did appropriate more than that the President
                wanted)?
DQ>  Look Sam, the president has said in no uncertain terms that
     he would veto ANY bill that exceeds his request.
SD>  Then how come he approved the Ag Bill?
DQ>  Because we are gonna look at these appropriation bills (12 more
     is left to be negotiated) on a CASE BY CASE basis.
.......
SD>  Are you in favor of banning abortion.
DQ>  That is your question and I am not gonna answer it......
DQ>  I am for the Pennsylvania Law.

Now, why is it that Bush and Quayle are not willing to say that they
want to ban abortion?  I remember 8 or 12 years ago Bush would say
that abortion is murder and that he wants to ban it, but was not
prepared to say he would jail the woman, though he would jail the
doctor.  8 or 12 years later, he is not willing to even say that.

George Will>  A few month ago you said "if you are gonna vote for
              a Democratic Congress, then you should vote for Clinton."
              You still hold that opinion?
DQ> Give the Republicans a united government.  Give us the chance, if
    we are not successful, you can always elect back Democrats.
GW> So which one is better, Clinton and a Democratic Congress, or
    Bush and a Democratic Congress?
Dan Quayle would not answer.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:53:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Under Judaism it is also immoral to charge interest.  Boy, have they had
a time getting out from under that one!

                                      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"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:51:29 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      orshki dorshki boo, inky dinky doo, bork, bork, bork

ja, dis in-hyere's der svedish chef.  vot's vit der interest-raten?
excellent question.  but hey, look here:  to paraphrase jiminy cricket,
always let history be your guide.  read charles kindleberger's book
"the world in depression, 1929-1939".  check out the chapter on what
happened in the world with a strong u.s. stock market but a weak dollar,
and what happens in the world when you try to strengthen the german
currency of choice at the time (in k's case, it was the reichsmark).
then add into it a dangerously weakened british currency, with the
french doing little or nothing to support the franc, and guess what will
happen?  well, for one thing, sweden always seems to go nuts in the
interest-rate department.  go figure.  's a good book, for you economics-
heads out there.
                                   * * *anneliese
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: getting blood from a turnip
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:51:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

The reason they don't charge faculty members is that if they did they
would have even less chance of getting them back than if they did, and
faculty members can make their lives miserable anyway, so they want to
keep them happy.

Chris Morrison
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:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:39:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

> >I believe the amount each taxpayer contributes annually to the NEA is:
> >   1/4 of 1 cent
>
> How about if each taxpayer contributes 1/4 of 1 cent toward the purchase of
> Bibles for use in the public schools?


     Actually, the bible is fine literature, and I'm glad you're
    supporting education, finally.  I read the Bible in my High School
    English class, and found it to be a fount of information about the
    society in which I live.  Particularly fascinating
    are the formal similarities between the story of Adam and Eve and
    classical Greek tragedy.

> ---Robert


     --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:33:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race

Do they let you into the place where you work with your Puritan costume on?

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:44:03 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: To MacPhil (and interested parties) on Bosnia
              7 Sep 1992 13:33:00 +0200 from <HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS>

Gilbert:

Okay.  Let's say that Bosnia is an independent state.  So what?  It is
still a *regional* conflict, in which the United States' vital economic
and security interests are not involved.  If we were to start a war
against Mexico or Canada, does the Commonwealth of Independent States
have a duty to get involved?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:05:55 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>Why not?  We're going to force the Nazi store owner to buy from a
>Jewish supplier.  Why aren't we going to force the Jewish store owner
>to buy from the Nazi supplier?  Why do consumers get exempted?
>
>        we are?  i'm not forcing the nazi to buy stuff from jews
>        if he doesn't want to.  what are you talking about?

Sure we are.  Remember the "political beliefs shouldn't be considered
when jobs are concerned."  The "suppliers" were providing labor....

If we're serious about this, the Nazi store owner must hire Jewish
workers, and the Jewish store owner must hire Nazi workers.

>        sort of law that forces people to buy items from stores
>        owned by people we don't like?

They are now.  I'm asking why they're any different.  EVERY argument
for coercing store owners also applies to coercing consumers.

>        so there's this guy, owns a widget shoppe.  i don't need a
>        widget, so i never go there.  so one day he hangs a swastika
>        in the window, so i now HAVE to buy a widget: its the law.

No, you're a widget buyer, so you have to buy from both the Nazi and
the Jew, and that doesn't change if you're a Nazi or a Jew.

-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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:37:13 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
              11 Sep 1992 12:50:42 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

What makes you think that private schools start with better students?

--Missy P 2 B

PS:  It has just occurred to me that this entire discussion might be
confusing to those who are not in the United States.  Our use of the
terms "private and public" don't apply in some countries (as I under-
stand it, in Britain, a public school is what *we* call a private
school.)  Public school in the US is state-sponsored, state-funded,
and state-run, and every child has a right to go there (well, unless
they do something awful and get put in Boys' School--juvenile "prison"--
or something).  Private schools are not as tightly connected to the
state (though not always entirely disconnected from it) and often
operate on a different set of values and focal points (whether
religious or solely educational).  I hope that helps.
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, 12 Sep 1992 14:43:38 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: private education

> My daughter's private *Christian* school held a little get together last
> night for the parents and teachers/admin to get to meet each other.  This
> year the enrollment is 715, and covers grades K-3 thru 12.  There were
> 500 parents present!  I wonder if a public school would have gotten more
> than a handful.

Probably not.  Is this the school's fault, or the parents'?

[deletions]

> Perhaps I'm rambling, but I want to express the undeniable value of parents,
> teachers, administration and staff dedicated to a *Jesus first* approach
> to education.  Teachers are working for less than their public school
> counterparts.  Parents gather once a week on campus to pray for their
> children and the school.  Coaches emphasize sportsmanship rather than
> winning at any cost.  The students are considered *gifts* from "G"od, not
> just a bunch of little bastards to be warehoused from 8 til 3.

I know a lot of teachers, including my parents (my mother is a principal).  I do
not know a single one who considers students "a bunch of little bastards"--and
these are the public school teachers.  In my hometown, at least, the public
schools, while not perfect, are certainly superior.  The Christian school has
about six students to a grade.  Most of the ones who want to go to college
ultimately transfer to the public high school so they will be prepared.

The teachers at your daughter's school may be making less than the public school
teachers, but I guarantee you that the public school teachers are not getting
rich.  No one goes into teaching for the money.  Teachers are criticized
constantly, and most of them do not deserve it.  They are doing their best with
no support from parents, students, or society as a whole.

And by the way--private schools do not have a monopoly on Christian teachers.
My mother is a Sunday school teacher.  My father is chairman of the Deacon Board
at our church.  But both of them also say that neither prayer in public schools
nor religious private schools is the answer to America's education problem.

> Laugh or make fun if you must, but the joke will ultimately be on you.
> Public education will *never* be able to compete with this.  I am so
> grateful that I have been able to save my daughter from the clutches of
> public education.

> The political point to all of this is keep your vouchers and keep your
> ungodly principles, that will be attached to them, in public schools.

-----Gayla

> ---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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:17:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ERA

>
> The sponsor(s) of the ERA denied that the sex act was in any way the
> intent of their amendment.  However, they were *LYING*.  They flatly
> refused to substitute the word *gender* which would have narrowed any
> possible future court interpretations.  Instead, they took the typical
> approach of the *caught in the act* crowd and simply claimed it was
> not necessary.  Their refusal to allow the change proved without a doubt
> that their real intent was indeed the *sex act*.  The ERA was not about
> equal rights for women.  It was about equal rights for gays, lesbians and
> pedophiles.  WAKE UP!

     Either my High School English teacher was lying to me, or the
   actual meaning of gender is grammatical, i.e., if the word is
   a "masculine" or "feminine" noun.  He actually ranted that
   human beings have no "gender" only a "sex", used as a noun, not
   as a verb.

> ---Robert

        --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 11:01:08 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Kerry:
  Indirectly at least, I think what you have said is correct. The founders
cannot be said to have wanted a country without a god. What they explicitly
*did* want was a government which bent over backwards to stay out of
religious expression in all its aspects. "..(not) recognize an establishment
of religion" means that Congress must proceed without regard to religion,
*as if* there were no such thing.
  Of course this means that the tax exemptions for churches makes a mockery
of the Constitution. The church must be treated like any other institution,
since the amendment specifically forbids Congress from taking the religious
character of churches into account. They may NOT *recognize* this aspect
of the human activity called churches.
  The tragedy of American religious self-delusion is that we have a system
which has solved the problems of intolerance uniquely and brilliantly, yet
Americans insist on treating that system as if it enshrined bigotry and
superstition, as if it was *permissible* to teach religion in schools..
Regards,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:55:50 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

> ...............................................  One need not take
> showers with other sexes to be equal to them, but you do have to have
> equal opportunities for jobs to be equal.  Logic often works to nip
> such questions in the bud.

Lucky are those who have equal opportunity for jobs AND take showers
with the opposite sexes.

Is that combination precluded by any logical restriction, logic Czar?

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:37:03 EDT
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Stephenson" at Sep 11, 92 10:42 am

In a letter, Presidential Candidate Kerry Stephenson wrote:

| Oh, yeah.  One more thing.  Children who attend private schools
| average 100 points higher on the SATs than those who attend public
| schools.  And they do so at 1/3 the cost on a per-pupil basis.

	First, I disagree about the per-pupil basis. Can you show me
proof?

	As for why kids attending Private school average a higher SAT
score, there are too many reasons to list. But here are a few POSSIBLE
reasons.

	A) Kids in Private School plan on going to college. Many who
take the SAT in Public schools do not know, and use the SAT as a
litmus test.
	B) Private Schools teach to the test, Public Schools don't
	C) Private Schools have better students, because they have the
right to refuse a student. (Many private schools have admission
testing)
	D) Etc.

	Are Private Schools *inherently* better than public schools? I
don't think so. Are Private schools *inherently* better educators than
Public Schools. No. Are students who go to private school more geared
towards education then students in public schools. Yes. The difference
isn't the education policies of schools/teachers, it's
societal/family differences.

	Personal example. I went to a Public High School. I was
Salutatorian, had high SAT's, did lots of activities, and got into a
very good University. My brother, on the other hand, dropped out in
the 10th grade, and has yet to receive an equivalence diploma. What's
the difference in the scenarios? Same parents, same school, same
teachers, etc. The difference is that I thought (and still think) that
the key to my life is education. He didn't. Most of the kids in my
school didn't/don't care about education. We have to show kids what education
does, and get them excited about it. The only way to do that is to get
parents excited about it. Education reform has to start at the home.
With this, we have to keep schools in the EDUCATION business, not in
the moral dilemmas of today's society.

--
 Cousin It                                    cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
    I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't
         always agree with them    -President George Bush
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Re: It's always the money
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:05:01 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92090817370862@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET writes:
>  *** Resending note of 09/08/92 16:09
> 
>  >I believe the amount each taxpayer contributes annually to the NEA is:
>  >   1/4 of 1 cent
> 
>  How about if each taxpayer contributes 1/4 of 1 cent toward the purchase of
>  Bibles for use in the public schools?

Of course, the cases are not equivalent, as the NEA is not putting the sacred
works of various religions in public schools.

But while we're on the subject, how about if each taxpayer contributed 1/4 of 1
cent toward the purchase of variois Books of Shadows for use in the public
schools?
-- 
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       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:58:16 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Homosexuality: Isn't this where I left?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:37:00 EST Tyrone Slothrop said:

>        donna and maggie (a couple that my lover was living with over
>        the summer) are thinking of having a kid.   one concern they
>        have (and this is for the benefit of those people who like to
>        deny others rights) is that if the sperm donor knows who they are,
>        he could at any time sue for custody, with a chance of winning
>        because they are lesbian.  it is truly sick that this should
>        even be a concern, even if it never happened.

The Chicago Tribune carried a two-part story (rather large) on Thursday
and Friday of last week regarding this very issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:52:01 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: who loves you baby?

>Andy wants to know why I think that it won't cost jobs and money to
>provide employees with time off for their family needs. Someone already
>mentioned that it costs more to train a new employee than to keep an
>existing one. I have worked in data processing centers (not minimum
>wage jobs as andy suggests) where only 1 or 2 people in the whole
>operation couldn't be worked around for an extended period of time.

Yet, the proposal applies to those 1 or 2 people.

>I would guess that very few people would require a large block of time
>off in one chunk, so the impact on the business would be minimal.

Yet, the biz themselves disagree.  Why does Fred insist on spending
someone else's money on his theories?

>Macphil, why should I pay for your child to attend a private school
>when I can't afford the same priviledge for my own child?

Macphil isn't asking you to spend any more on his kid in a private
school than Fred is already spending on him in a public school, so
there's no difference in "afford".

Fred is contributing to Macphil's kid's education; why does he
care who provides that education?  Why does he insist on pissing
that money away in the public system?

>Why shouldn't the 2 percent of the population that controls 90 per
>cent of the assests pay 90 per cent of the tax bill?

Macphil has answered that question, but I note that the current system
is pretty close to that right now.  If you include "collective
ownership" (through pension funds, etc), the major shift would be to
more heavily tax retirees.

-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, 14 Sep 1992 08:10:35 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gifted programs...do they work or not?

> Since we're all sharing Gifted Program stories...

I was gifted from birth, but those around me were not,
therefore they never realized it.

Same story here on POLITICS.

--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:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:40:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: War against the patience of the users of this list

In article <tfilt319604@drew.edu>, Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes
   :

the length of this debate is getting damn ridiculous.  screens and
screens of computer script, time and effort are being used on the
reasoning for separate bathrooms, philosophical questions, and a
debate on homosexuality which is repeating itself.  Meanwhile, we have
to deal with repeated misinformed or miscontrued posts even after the
subject matter is shown to be so elsewhere.

> During the ERA debate, Phyllis Schlafly argued that the consequences of
> a gender-neutral society included the potential for unisex bathrooms.
> The public went mad.  They clearly did not favor such a thing.  Why not?

this is proof of idiocy and misstatement of the goals of such
people.  The ERA basically stated: "Equality of rights under the law
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on
account of sex." and Congress could make laws to uphold it.  Most
supporters of the ERA didn't claim that separate bathrooms infringed
on equality.  Evidence is legion however that women don't have equal
rights in many other areas, especially in the work place.
Furthermore, equality doesn't mean gender or racial neutrality, it
means equal value for both!

> at all.  Precisely what is the rationale behind gender-segregated
> restrooms?  How is such a rationale constitutionally sound?

this has been explained by at least two people, but apparently this
isn't enough to nip such questions in the bud.  Again, how many women
are crying inequality because of the practice?
>
> Many laws are based on what you are calling bigotry.  Others call it
> publicly shared moral and cultural values.
>
> --Missy P 2 B

since this practice isn't a breach of equal protection, it doesn't
really matter why the practice is in place.  Anyhow, bigotry is
disguised by many names, as blacks, gays, women, Jews, and many other
minorities and majorities will tell you -- including this one.

  -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU