HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:36:06 -0500
From:         LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afraid to use it!
              <JULIEWS@IDS.NET>
Subject:      RE: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>Incidentally, for those of you "Quayle-bashers,"  I'd ask which one of you has
>the ambition, intelligence and perseverance to rise to the second most importan
>t job in this country?  He may not be the smartest bear in the woods, but those
>of you who criticize from the cozy "ivory tower" can't even say you've tried.

you're saying that we are in no position to criticize Quayle because we have
never been Vice President?

>-  Another concern, and one I've witnessed first hand, is aggressive homosexual
>seduction.  Many young people join the miliatry because they lack a directio
>n in life.  They join up and travel to basic and technical training.  For many,
> it's their first time away from the comforts of home.  They get depressed and
>someone offers a shoulder to cry on.  The next thing they know, they're showing
> their gratitude by sleeping with someone of the same sex, and entrapped in a s
>itaution they weren't prepared for.  As I said, this is something I've seen hap
>pen - it's not a fantasy.  This type of activity, coupled with the advance of A
>IDS (and let's get real - homosexual males are the population "most at risk.")
>makes homosexual activity incompatible with the military.

This is kinda silly.  Whether or not this sort of thing happens, I don't see
what bearing it has on anything.  If someone is "showing gratitude" by sleep-
ing with somone of _any_ sex then there is something wrong.

Now, regarding AIDS: you say "let's get real."  DO you really have a clue or
any understanding of AIDS and how it is transmitted?  Gay males are, as a
group, "most at risk."  However, given all your military experience you
should know full well that the military tests for HIV on a very frequent
basis.  It's tested and monitored so it should not be a problem.

>The bottom line, I think gays will end up being allowed in the military, but on
>ly after they make a confidential disclosure of their status.  What they do of
>f duty, and off camp will be their business.  However, any efforts to prosletiz
>e the lifestyle, engage in homosexual activity or recruitment, will be met with
> punitive action.

Uhm... since when do we "prosletize?"  I've never encouaged anyone to adopt
my lifestyle, but all soerts of straightfolk have attempted to convert me.

>Some food for thought - Uncle Ernie

Sorry-- don't eat junk food.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:39:58 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: partisan idiocy

  In the interests of a quick ending, it seems
I have misunderstood Mr. -T.'s remarks.  I thought
he was saying that conservatives and not liberals
hides their political motivations behind a smoke-
screen.  Apparently, though, what he was saying
was that a few individuals or corporate entities
with economic interests at stake will put up a
political smokescreen, and thus, people with
conservative political views are really hiding
economic interests.

  Although, having said that, the logic of it
escapes me.  The first part (those with economic
interests sometimes hide their motivations) doesn't
seem to imply the second (those who express conservative
political opinions are, as a rule, hiding their true
motivations, where as those who express liberal political
opinions are, as a rule, not.)

  In fact, without exception, the NRA members
I am acquainted with (if we continue to use this
example of gun control) find their hobby to be a
financial liability and not an asset.

  And none of the political conservatives I know
who support 2nd amendment rights have any economic
interest in the manufacture and sale of guns.  But
mine is probably not as representative a sampling
as -T.'s.

  Maybe what -T. is saying is that political conservatives
become rationalizers when their interests coincide with
the economic interests of others.  But that seems to
imply a different notion of rationalization.

  Well, to satisfy Linda and Julie and Mr. -T., these
are my last remarks.  You can have the last word.

                               -Tim

  (Oh, a few post scripts.  While I would hardly venture
to speculate on the selfishness of the motivations of the
liberal gun control activists, I do wonder if they aren't
similar in kind to the motivations of the conservative
abortion control activists.)

  (Also, I'm rather concerned by the remarks of Linda's
son.  There has been extensive debate on this net on the
relevance of "original intent."  I am rather dubious of
those who claim that the text of the Constitution is unimportant,
and who offer instead, their own suppositions of what
the writers would have or should have written.  Linda's
son (forgive me for not looking up the name) mentioned the
"dead" Soviet Constitution.  The reason the Soviet Constitution
is an object for mockery is precisely because the Soviet
government ignored the words and the text of their Constitution
in favor of their own suppositions of what should be the
law.  The guarantees of their Constitution are no guarantees
at all.  As for our Constitution as a "living" document,
yes, it is open to being amended.  But there is a procedure
for amending the Constitution which I personally, if you
don't mind such value judgements, find much more appealing
than ignoring the text.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:22:11 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

It was a TYPO, Martin! Anyway, we'll see in 1996! How do you like that?
                                KEVIN... (You're satisfied?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:05:26 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

>People like me will be always convinced that Clinton
>would not have won the elections had Perot not run.

  I'm not sure that is something to brag about.
Lots of people refuse to change their convictions,
even in the presence of irrefutable evidence.  "We
just see them like we call them," they say.  But
that is hardly an admirable, let alone reasonable,
position.

  While the evidence about Perot's influence on the
election is not irrefutable, the fact that Clinton's
numbers dropped more than Bush's when Perot rejoined
the race would seem to indicate that no matter how
firmly you believe Perot cost Bush the election, you
are almost certainly wrong.

  Of course, I have no stake in dispelling your illusions,
but I wonder why, then, you are on this list at all.
Clearly you consider yourself immune to reason, since
you intend to stick by your convictions regardless of
the evidence.  What do you think you get out of a discussion
in which you intend to ignore all contrary views and all
contrary evidence?  What do you think we get out of a
discussion with you in which you refuse to recognize
contrary views and contrary evidence?  Surely your own
self-assurance doesn't require either the approval of
strangers or a martyr's glory to maintain its strength.

                     -Tim
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:56:04 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Originalism and Facts: a disjoint posting

Brett'
>        There were originally 20 amendements, cut down to 12 in the first cut,
>then 10 for the final version.  It's interesting to look at the original 20 and
>see which ones are still being proposed today.

Hey, that *would* be interesting (at least to me).  Do you happen to have
the ones that didn't make it?  Or maybe give me a big clue about where to
find them?

Kerry
who'd love to see an ERA :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:07:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Unions -- 60 Minutes

   The 60 Minutes investigation into the NYC School Superintendents is a
classic example of the many reasons why I do not favor unions.  People
getting paid when not at work, not answerable to principals, budget funds
payable to the super, a pratically free vehicle and much more.  And
public officials wonder why people vote "no" on school bonds.  If the money
is being wasted and mismanaged then why give them more?  The most revolting
aspect of it all is the physical danger that reformers have to face.  All
city and state governments should be able to void all present contracts,
pay for a special non-partisan investigator to observe the new contracts,
and publish the contract for review by the public and the elimination of
any freebies, and better constraints on how monies are disbursed and to whom.

Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:55:55 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> >I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
> >protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
> >
> >-Rich
>
> I thought that all he had done was act as a steward on a couple of the
> marches, not actually lead them. I'd like to know the truth on this
> one.
>
> Dunstan
>

There's been no evidence that Clinton helped lead more than 1 protest
in England.  You just have to ignore the spewing (I guess that's the
hot word!) of Rich. He just likes to run his mouth, er.. fingers.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:01:37 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      test message
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

test message - please ignore
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:56:08 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Another Victim
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I'm sorry KAT but you seem a little confused.  I'll try to straighten it out
for you if that's possible.  Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzeneggar are human
beings.  You are confusing them with characters they have played in movies.
Now, has Candace Bergen the actress ever portrayed an evil character?  If not,
it's because she has been typecast as a certain actress.  Hope you realize the
difference between fiction and realilty now.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:26:28 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      skin in america

Last night, I watched a CBS special on pornography in America. The show
had interviews with people from all sides of the issue, from screen
stars to zealots to Ted Bundy (I prefer Al Bundy as a role model). The
women who were involved in the making of the pictures said that they
did not feel exploited and did not mind showing their stuff for a six
figure income. The women who were opposed did not see any difference
between erotica and violent pornography. An interesting point was made
about the bundy bill to allow civil suits against producers of "porn"
if a link can be shown between the media and the crime. One person
interviewed, sorry forget his name, said "If you want to prosecute
based on what made people perform a certain act, you should start
with the bible, as many mass murderers have claimed devine inspiration
for their acts".

I am totally opposed to violence against women in any form but I fail
to see the link between erotica and violence. If a man is predisposed
to violence toward women, there is plenty of sex and violence in prime
time tv and advertising but nobody is asking for a ban on sex in
advertising. Is this because the media has a lot of money behind it?

If these people who want to ban skin pictures don't want to be exposed
to the media, turn the channel, don't buy the book, etc. Does anyone
have hard stats from a reliable source on a link between exposure
to erotica and violence toward women? Please cite date published and
source of article.

fred
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-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:23:08 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military

Amazingly enough, I have to side with KAT on this one.  In fact, he and I
apparently share the same rationale for excluding gays from the military,
namely sexual tension.

No, I'm sure homosexual men do not lust every other man they see.  Its telling
that Linda and Julie had to resort to this spurious argument.  The fact
remains, however, that there is no difference whatsoever between gay men living
in close quarters in the Army and men living with women in the same situation.
At least, neither Julie nor Linda has actually questioned whether KAT's analogy
was accurate, so they must agree.

For the sake of ending this argument once and for all, I'll restate KAT's
challenge a little more vigorously.  If Linda and Julie can honestly contend
that they would feel comfortable showering with 20-30 18 year old men, or if
any man can honestly contend that he wouldn't be distracted by an 18 year old
woman showering 2 feet away from him, then I'll have to reevaluate my position.
Until then . . .

JasonZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:20:22 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The Wages of Sin

That's funny. I always thought that the wages of sin was death.
Apparently the wages of sin is really $7/hour.

Well, I'm almost never spurred by insult, but to my surprise I seem
to be pathetically susceptible to flattery, so I will add a couple
of cents to Kerry's explanation of why JasonZ's argument against
homosexuals in the military won't wash (so to speak).

First of all, isn't there a pretty obvious solution to the problem:
just put some curtains on a bunch of shower stalls.
Anyone who doesn't want to shower in public doesn't have to.
I suppose SOME people might not even want to take off their clothes
in front of straight members of the same sex. Humor them.

If for some reason this isn't feasible, then I guess it boils down to a
choice between two costs. Cost one: if gays are denied entry into the
military, they are being disadvantaged because of their sexual
preference. That's wrong. Cost two: if gays are allowed into the
military, some people will feel uncomfortable showering. That's
unfortunate.

Suppose some whites just didn't like showering with blacks. It would be
too bad that they had to be made uncomfortable, but I don't think that
cost would stack up to much compared to the cost of denying blacks entry
to the military.

To address JasonZ's point more directly, I have to imagine a pretty
implausible case. Suppose there were some government organization that
was populated exclusively by women. And suppose members of the
organization shower together. And suppose some men wanted to join.
(Maybe a girls' sports team in a public school would be something like
this? A sport that boys don't typically play, so that there was no boys'
team?) And suppose for some reason, private facilities were not
feasible.

If there were no other reason for excluding men, I guess I'd have to say
the organization would HAVE to allow men in. Unfortunate for the coy
women, but better than the alternative.

Fire away, JasonZ.

Jamie

     (what's happened to our Lehighans? couldn't take the heat?
      got bored with the game?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:36:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Another Victim

>She says that she is not so sick or weak that she wouldn't want to punch
>his lights out!

your mom sounds like a strong woman. this is a serious question, sue, not
a challenge....

what would happen if your mom ever got to the point where she was so sick and
weak and in pain that she would welcome death? if her view changed on the
subject, would that change how you looked at what the doctor was doing?

please don't get me wrong here....i lost my mom very suddenly 3 yrs. ago, so
i know a little about the agony this thought could cause. i'm just wondering
how far you would go to do what your mom wanted.

i would have done anything to save my mom. i also would have done almost
anything she would have wanted to save her pain and anguish. i don't know how
far i could've gone with this one.

-linda
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:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:05:42 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ideals

Mike:

Well said.

Von Laue's work is already out.  I just read it for a history class.

It is excellent.  I am currenlty also taking a course on the Soviet
Successor States and we covered a good deal of history prior to the 80's
and 90's, using essays from _Foreign Affairs_ and _Foreign Policy_ as
well as my professor's own personal friends in the academic world and I
was delighted to see that the conclusions we came to were also reached
by others in the field such as von Laue.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:50:35 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan and Facts
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I agree with Andy: lies repeated often enough and loudly enough become
truths.  That's exactly what Clinton and the media did to the economy.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:40:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Showers part II

--KAT:

        Gays and straights showering together is *nothing* like men and women
showering together!

        You cannot assume that since straight men and women are attracted to eac
h other - and *supposedly* this would lead to rampant sexual harrassment if
they showered together - that the same thing would happen among gays and
straights in the shower!

        I think Julie was right; too many people think that *they* would be
attractive to gays!  Gay people are probably attracted to straight people in
the same proportion as, say, straight men are to lesbians, or straight women
to gay men.  Not often.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:01:50 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: CE, BCE, and God
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              ESTRIN" at Nov 18, 92 3:39 pm

        I point out, for hopefully the last time, that these
introductions are not meant as an insult. I realize with the ammount
of flamage that goes around, that my attribution line could look
suspiciously like a flame. It is not. Everyone who i reply to, whether
it be my boss, to my best friend, to one of you guys, gets the same
treatment. With that out of the way...

While under delusions of grandeur, SCOTT MATTHEW ESTRIN spewed:

| Which brings me to the second part of my subject.... "God"
|
| Here are two quotes from America, the country that accepts all religions.
| "In God We Trust"
| "...one nation, under God, indivisible..."
|
| God should not be on our currency or in our pledge.  Rather than please
| everyone "In God/Allah/Buddha/Satan/blah/blah We Trust", why not drop the
| phrase altogether?  The US invites all religions, but just because the
| majority of Americans believe in God, that doesn't mean that "In God [All
| Americans] Trust".
|
| The same thing goes with the pledge.  "...for which it stands, one nation,
| indivisible, with liberty...".  That's how it once was, and how it should be.

        Scott is quite correct that the word GOD should not be part of
our currency, or our pledge, or anything else that goes along with
this country. The truth is that it violates Church and State. However,
Scott's rationalization is something I think most people would go
along with.

        Small Historical lesson. Many people would assume that these
phrases have been apart of our lexicon for a long period of time (in
these cases, since the US started printing money and since the pledge
was first written). These people would be incorrect. Both these
phrases came into being in the McCarthy era, the early/mid 50's. The
reason I mention this is because of the arguments I see against the
change. (Not from this list BTW). These people claim that the phrase
"In God We Trust" has been on our currency since we started printing,
thus proving thier point that A) Anyone who doesn't believe in GOD
shouldn't be here, and B) That it should continue being there because
it is a symbol of our heritage. Both positions are incorrect, and I
hope that it is changed. However, Scott is also correct in saying that
these things are minor. They are.

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
                       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:42:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Another Victim

Someone just said that they don't advocate "playing God...".  If what one means
by "playing God" is the deliberate destruction of life, because the power to
give and take away life lies *only* in God's hands, then consider this:

What about when Dor
                        (oops) Doctors *save* someone's life?  Is that inter-
fering in God's great plan to take life away?

Or what about when a man wears a condom when he has sex with a woman?  Are they
"playing God" by purposely avoiding the creation of a life?

The reality is, humans make decisions on other humans' life *every day*.  No
one is up in arms over prolonging life - or war - or legal execution.  What is
amazing is that we allow people to decide *other* people's fate, but when some-
one wants to decide their *own* fate, well, now, we're a *civilized* society!
We *have* to step in an prevent this!  It's *outrageous* that someone _dare_
make a decision about their very own *life*!  Yes, they can sit on a jury in
a capital murder case, they can be Commander In Chief during war, they can be
Emergency room physicians - that's all about someone *else's* life.  But
allow them to make decisions about themselves?  Are you nuts?!? This is a
*Christian* society!!!


Sorry for the abundance of "!"s.  Gee, was I clear enough?

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