HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:39:52 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: The DuncanN/HoffmaN 14 Point Program (will adapt on the basis
              of
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

>11) Create a Department of Fun, or Merriment, with just the Humor
>Laureate of the Year out there lightening the more deadly moments.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but to me
this smacks of regurgitated policies. The DuncaN/HoffmaN ticket may or
may not be aware that the newly set up Department of National Heritage
was immediately dubbed the Department of Fun as its remit includes
such tidbits as Sport, the Arts, etc. Interestingly it also includes
broadcasting and the meeja, and as the first holder of the post of
Secretary of State for National Heritage (Minister of Fun) has
recently been dragged through the mud by the gutter press having been
caught with his trousers down with an out of work actress, there are
questions about whether he has a vested interest in the possible
Privacy Bill, which is aimed to protect public figures from meeja
intrusion into their public lives. [sorry about the long sentence].
From Minister for Fun he has become a laughing stock. Tisch.

Dunstan - on the brink of giving his endorsement to one of the
N-tickets, but who will string you all along a bit longer.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:20:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: re: ... tough choice

On Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:01:39 GMT "Patrick L. Humphrey" <HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU
> said:
> In article <POLITICS%92072316141620@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
> "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
>
> >
> > >anyone have any ideas how the most vulnerable can be protected
> >
> > Yes. OUTLAW ABORTION.
>
> Like that'll solve anything.  Let's see -- it didn't work prior to
> 1973, so what makes you think it'll work this time?
Yeah, I agree.  Can you believe these idiots who believe that outlawing
murder actually helps to prevent them??  What a ludicrous idea|

> > >w/out undo or unfair interference by the state into personal affairs?
> > >Linda
> >
> > No.
>
> ...so, let's just not worry about that little nuisance called a
> Constitution -- by god, we've got to protect those zygotes because
> YOU say so!
Yes, let's not worry about the Constitution.  Why should we when the
Supreme Court doesn't?

-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:55:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: on the lam

ooops
:(
this commentator has made an error.
robert sprg...moss will give the first person to notice it
$50 of KAT's money.

brnI mojzeS (IS)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:28:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

Travis:

I don't mean to be picky, but if the guy who ran the anti-abortion ads
you were talking about is Michael Bailey, he is from Indiana, not
Georgia.  And he won the primary.  He's up against Lee Hamilton,
so it should be an interesting campaign.

                                        --Missy Justice
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:24:08 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

j.b.:
>Parents have responsibility for their children.  At this time,
>there are laws that can have that changed, when these parents
>are abusive.

But do the current laws really work?

Kerry

        Is it that the laws don't work or that condidtions in
        society make it harder for them to work?  Is it the
        fault of the law that society "frowns" on this type
        of behavior?

        I know many people who advocate things like:

        Children obey your parents. . . to the point that it
        would be sin for them to report their parents.

        Furthermore, I don't think that making it easier to
        do something of this nature is going to help the
        situation, but will bring a plethora of problems of
        its own.

        -j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:35:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Trotter Poll of 7/27/92

Geez... Tim, Jamie, Peter... all still here?

I'm half expecting to see Larry Stimely...

--Julie, one of the _REAL_ old timers on this list.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:07:45 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Protecting the Rich

>do you think we should tax income or wealth?  I mean if I have a $100,000
>diamond ring and if the US Military is protecting my life and property,
>then shouldn't I reimburse the government for the protection that they
>are providing for my diamond ring?

The US Military may be defending your life, but it doesn't care much
about your property.  Unless you're going to argue that rich people's
lives are worth more, let's consider govt forces that are relevant to
the question asked.

It turns out that policing rich neighborhoods is cheaper than policing
poor ones because thugs value convenience and "blend-in".  (Rich
people commit different crimes.)  Thus, protecting that diamond ring
is cheaper than defending my car stereo as far as govt is concerned.
If we go by the "consuming public resources" model, rich people should
pay less per person when it comes to govt spending on police.

BTW - rich people pay quite a bit for private security.  Their
spending is higher on a per-person basis, but may be a lower fraction
of their "estate" value.

-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:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:46:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:11 CDT fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET> said:
> Travis, your posts show a lot of youthful idealism and enthusiasm but
> leave me with a few questions.
>
> 1. I was married for ten years when my wife decided she wanted a divorce.
> Even though I didn't want the divorce would I be unable to have sex
> again under your no sex outside of marraige proposal? How long of a jail
> term for sex? How will you pay for the jail space?Why would you be in
> favor of a judge telling adults what is best for them but not children?
Did your wife have a FUCKING good reason for a divorce?  If not then
the divorce should never happen.  Assuming you were at fault and she had
good reason for a divorce, then an appropriate jail term for each con-
viction would be 30 days, I suppose.  But our society and our children
simply can't afford to pay the price for the 1/2 of marriages that end
in divorce.  Adultery should be a jailable offense, and in a civil di-
vorce suit, there should be STRONG preponderance of the evidence point-
ing to adultery or another good cause for divorce.


> 2. What was anita hill's motive for lying?
Doesn't she get tens of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements???

> 3. Are you willing to live in a society where the thought police follow
> you around to be sure that you are not thinking unclean thoughts?
No.  Everyone has a right to their thoughts.  Actions are another
matter.

> 4. How would you handle sex in advertising?
Hmmmmmm....well first of all, there is really no "sex" in advertising.
But I do think it is wrong for a beer commercial (or any other type of
commercial--beer is most prominent) to suggest that you will get girls
if you drink Bud Light.  Why can't they tout their product's good
qualities???  Perhaps because it has none.


> You seem to be missing a very basic point: The child's accusation must
> have a basis in law or it will be thrown out of court. I assume that you
> are pro-life and want a judge to make sure that the baby is born but then
> the parent's can do whatever they want. I'm afraid that sane, normal,
> educated parents are probably a minority. The number of children living
> in poverty is pushing 20%.
And probably children of single parents who had sex outside of marriage.

> Do you happen to remember a little incident involving the poisoning of
> hundreds of children by their parents because they thought some guy
> was showing them the path to enlightenment in jonestown?
Well, that was in another country.  I will let Guyana make its own laws,
in the hopes that they would agree with me.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:15:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A few thoughts ...

>I never said let's bring back theocracy.  However, I am convinced that
>rules of morality--which, yes, are largely based in (Judaeo-)Christian--
>thought--are what has kept this country strong, and that the depletion
>of such values are dangerous to American society, and could chip away
>at the foundation of our country and eventually lead to its downfall.
>
>-Travis

Please explain to me how your laws of morality allow the Catholic
Church to cover up hundreds of child abuse cases by Father Porter only
to ship him to another parish each time he is discovered.  Please
explain to me what good your laws of morality are to abused children
who are ignored by their church while their abusers are protected by a
body which is supposed to be UPHOLDING this very morality.  Please
inform me how I am supposed to listen to you speak of "rules of
morality" when such rules have been used to justify slavery.

Please allow me how your laws of morality encourage people who call
themselves "pro-life" to harrass women (and those of us who escort
them) on a weekly basis at medical centers.

Please explain to me how the Pope could justify the endorsement of the
subjugation of women to the role of a vessel for a man's sperm in
order to bear his child, under your "rules."

Please explain to me how these rules worked for Lot's daughters, whom
he was ready to HAND OVER to an angry mob for them to rape.

Somehow I feel that putting things in the hands of a church is not a
healthy move.

--Julie





--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along...  All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

                          -- Hermann Goering, 1936
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, 31 Jul 1992 09:35:55 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Our beloved government and its duties Abroad

I think what I meant when I said the US should defend
its economic interests when they are threatened is more
like defend a market i.e. Japan and Europe.  For this
reason, the US should be doing something in the badlands
of former Yugoslavia.  True enough the violence hasn't
really spilled over anywhere, but there is always the
potential and that threat in Europe is greater than the
threat Saddam Hussein poses in the Middle East.

Protecting a specific commodity is lame, even when
that commodity is oil.  If we started buying more oil
from Russia, perhaps we could lessen our need for oil
from the ME and help a new friend at the same time.

-j.b.
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, 27 Jul 1992 13:19:12 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

Missy J:
>Your example of capital punishment is a valid one, but proves my position.
>If you change your stand on the issue because it hits home, then the
>conviction itself was not true to begin with.  A moral conviction should
>apply to both one's loved ones and to total strangers (and even--gasp!--
>to those one deeply despises.)

Ah!  Seems we're saying the same thing but in different ways.  So, if
Quayle's convictions are true, he would, *at this time*, respect a parent's
decision to support his/her child if that child opted for an abortion.
Works for me :)

Kerry
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, 25 Jul 1992 15:10:12 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: need address

Central  Scrutinizer, listening to O'Andy's Blues Show

>    could someone send the address for the governors office
>of arkansas, bill clinton.  thanks.

Try checking your local library for a microfiche of the Little Rock
phone book. They usually have a special section for Government stuff
in those things.

Dave
c/o Other Andy
E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET
"Oh, Mercy Mercy Me
 Things ain't what they used to be . . ."
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:45:31 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

j.b.:
>Parents have responsibility for their children.  At this time,
>there are laws that can have that changed, when these parents
>are abusive.

But do the current laws really work?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:12:37 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

>is named Al, Jr.  I GOT that, already!)  So how many kids are there on the
>2 "family values" tickets, anyway?

Enough to make at least 4 other families.  Oh, the joys of procreation.
   toddddddd
>                                  --Missy Justice

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "What good is all the vio-
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   lence unless it is tempered
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    with limitless sex?" - GWAR
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:53:19 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: ... tough choice
              26 Jul 1992 22:44:33 GMT from <HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

PLH:

I don't understand why you claim that the law "didn't work" prior to Roe.
It worked in the sense that law-abiding persons did not have abortions, the
same way that other laws keep people from committing illegal acts.  Unless you
can demonstrate that abortion law was broken significantly more often than
other laws, I don't see how you can find it less effective than the majority
of laws in the United States.  If you are arguing for the repeal of other
laws, however, I suppose that a point could be made.  However, that is
another argument entirely.
                          --Missy "I didn't come here to have an argument,
                                  yes you did, no I didn't...ding!  Time's
                                  up." Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:13:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Questions, questions

yo, j.b.....you say women should be aware of possibilities of pregnancy when
engaging in sexual intercourse??? SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM?

men don't have diddly to do with it?

until you guys start to truly bear the burden of children from conception
til death, maybe you ought to think about letting women determine for themselves
what they will and will not do with their own bodies.

i'd like to see what you would do if this country started legislating parts of
your bodies.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:52:11 EST
From:         Scott Adams <SADAMS@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      I'm back!

Hi!
After nearly a month of wandering through a LOT of China and Hong Kong, I'm
back. Airline food really stinks. Russian airlines have seats that can fold
from a regular seat-type position to a flat position. (Some weird planes...)
Anyway, If you are interested in a travel-type report, let me know. I'll jump
in as soon as I am caught up.

Scott Adams
Purdue University
SADAMS@PURCCVM
(who never wants watermelon again after being served it 2-3 times a day for
17 days)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:38:31 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Excused or Excuses?

Hello again,

In this mornings Omaha World Hearld is a curiousity concerning the ongoing
investigation of the House post office.

Three members of Congress, including Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, chair-
man of the Ways and Means Committee, said last week that they would refuse
to cooperate with the investigation.  In other words, he would not testify
before a grand jury.  The other two are Rep. Joseph Kolter and Austin J.
Murphy, both Democrats of Pennsylvania.  The U.S. Attorney's Office is even
suggested that subpoenes be issued.  They claim that the Attorney's Generals
Office is just trying to embarrass House Democrats.  They plead the Fifth
Amendment.

'All three are charged with improperly traded stamps for cash. The House
post office also has been the focus of recent congressional and Justice
Department investigations because of patronage proglems and alleged sales
of small amounts of cocaine.' -NY Times

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:15:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      the ridiculous state department

mj:

did you think that the rules of the game would cease simply
because we are contemplating another war?

remember, there are many forms of information: official information,
unofficial information, rumors, this information (called "dis information"
in urban areas), that information, lies, leaks, etc etc etc.

i think that the "dis information" is the most common sort.  just watch the
weather channel... :)

here's a theory: Hussein provoking something in a situation where he is NOT
an agressor in order to further turn world opinion against the US, with
the possibility of attracting iran as an ally against syria...

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:37:35 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Wichita (AP)
              22 Jul 1992 11:30:09 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> A state judge freed an abortion clinic protester, agreeing with her
> that life begins with conception.  "She was trying to prevent a
> greater harm".
> ----------
> Mark this down as a proud day for justice.  Congratulations to Sedgwick
> County District Judge Paul W. Clark!

> ---Robert

Mark this down as a proud day for knowledge.  Even Robert realized
that life begins with conception -- everybody else already knew it.

--KAT
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:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:24:27 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

It seems that morality and how it is related to religion
has come up often.  In case anyone doesn't already know
this, I thought I'd point out that every major religion
in the world supports the same moral code.

By this I mean the following rules are in just about
every religious tradition on this planet.

Do not kill(for Hindus and Buddhists, this often means
more than just people)

Do not lie

Do not steal

They all have roughly the same sex ethic and all support
the maintenance of a family unit of some roughly
equivalent sort.

They all put greater emphasis on spiritual aims, even though
the laity in all of them rarely do.

Judeo-Christian ethics don't have a monopoly on morality, and in
some instances other religious traditions go far beyond where it
does.

I hope that this wasn't too oriented in theology.  I merely
wanted to make the above point on Judeo-Christian ethics.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:50:44 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This place is infested!

>In reference to your last message:
>1) Prove God does not exist.
>                   --Missy Justice

  It seems to me that the burden of
proof is on those who would use "God"
to support their arguments.

  It also seems to me that there are
lists available for that argument, and
this is not one of them.

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