HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Impeachment, with honor
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:34 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93010611524266@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,      
   Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes...
>Congress critters DO, in fact, have a limited immunity from
>prosecution, as spelled out in Article 1 sec. 6. Daniel R.
>seemed not to know this, by the way! Attorney to be, huh?

The operative word above is "limited".  Specifically, it refers to actions in
the office of a member of Congress, and probably was intended to promote open
debate on the floor.  Some countries, such as Italy and Israel, grant complete
immunity to legislators.

>. . . .
>Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious
>offenses against the system of government.... Because impeachment
>of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be
>predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either
>the constitutional form and principles of our government or
>the proper performance of constitutional duties of the
>presidential office.
> 
>[Historically, in English law,] the criminality issue was not
>raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant effects
>of the conduct--undermining the integrity of office, disregard
>of consitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of
>power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact
>on the system of government.... Impeachment was evolved
>by Parliament to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal
>standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the
>conduct of great public figures.
> 
>[end of quotation]

Good point.

>. . . . Also interesting are Gerald Ford's early comments on the
>grounds of impeachment--in the context of the attempted
>impeachment of Justice Douglas, but they were tossed in
>Ford's face four years later--the remarks of Attorney
>General Kleindienst--"you don't need facts, you don't
>need evidence, all you need is votes"--and the findings
>of the NYC Bar Association in a committee report.

Actually, the "votes" issue came up in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.  The
Democrats, who controlled Congress, were so angry with Johnson that they openly
claimed the proceedings were political and not judicial.  Fortunately for
Johnson, and probably the credibility of Congress, exactly enough Democratic
Senators gave up their careers and voted to acquit.

							Dan, ad nausuem
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:39:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              7 Jan 1993 13:28:44 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:28:44 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>        These people *want* to die.
>
>        Why should we stop them?  If they are lucid, and it's their desire, we
>have no right to stand in their way.

Helping someone to kill him/herself bothers me; don't those people know what
their suicides mean to their family and friends?

>
>Brett'

Evelyn
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      How to the british treat oil spills?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:16 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93010616505984@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,      
   fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET> writes...
>I read in the local paper today about a tanker running aground north of
>the british isles with over 25 million gallons of crude, twice as much
>as the spill in Alaska a few years back. Can someone from over there
>provide some insight as to your laws concerning liability in such cases?
>A specialist in the article said "the oil is lighter than  that on the
>exxon valdez and therefor should evaporate more rapidly and cause less
>pollution". I'm having some trouble digesting that line of thought.
>Sorry, I don't have the name of the "expert", it wasn't provided in
>the article.

The report I heard on NPR was that a Scottish expert (can't remember the name)
predicted the damage would still be particularly heavy because the prevailing
currents and storm conditions would tend to send the oil shoreward.

As for liability, the maritime authorities reported that the tanker apparently
followed the applicable statutes and treaties.  Given Britain's strong
common-law tradition, however, I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of the
tanker were sued for negligence in going into the area in the first place. 
The result of such a suit, however, is a different question.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:45:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

Brett' says:

>         Homosexuality among various animals also disproves the "unnatural"
>part.

        I agree that homosexuality is _not_ unnatural, but I disagree with the
above.  Homosexuality among _humans_ is pertinent; the sexual practices of
animals has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything about the sexual
practices of humans.  In fact, many homophobics use the reverse argument
(equally extraneous) "hardly any animals are homosexual" to prove _their_ point.

>
>        And "dangerous" only in the sense that almost every human activity has
>an element of risk associated with it.

        I'm also tired of hearing homosexuality referred to as an "activity",
a "lifestyle", an "action."  It's no different to homosexuals than hetero-
sexuality is to heterosexuals.  To be simple, it just _is_.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:46:49 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      How to the british treat oil spills?

I read in the local paper today about a tanker running aground north of
the british isles with over 25 million gallons of crude, twice as much
as the spill in Alaska a few years back. Can someone from over there
provide some insight as to your laws concerning liability in such cases?
A specialist in the article said "the oil is lighter than  that on the
exxon valdez and therefor should evaporate more rapidly and cause less
pollution". I'm having some trouble digesting that line of thought.
Sorry, I don't have the name of the "expert", it wasn't provided in
the article.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:18:49 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: re: The Show Mosst Go On
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From: sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet


From Tim
Mr Sprgoo mentioned in an earlier post the biblical
prohibition of homosexuality - and even did us all
the great service of quoting chapter and verse.
Now, it so happens that I have a copy of the bible
with me.

From Robert
Will wonders never cease?

Tim continues in the tulips
          Leviticus (where Robert's quote comes from)
Numbers and Deuteronomy all have lots of laws from
God to man.  I'm wondering how many of them Robert
actually subscribes to.

For instance............

From Robert
No need to itemize what you don't understand.

I apologize in advance, this is going to get dangerously close to a
Bible lesson, but I'll keep it short.

All Old Testament requirements for sacrifice have been removed.  All
sacrifices were embodied in the crucifixion of Jesus.  He has become
*THE SACRIFICE*.  Now, do all the references to Christ as the *lamb*
of "G"od make a little more sense to you?

The Old Testament law was in essence a teacher.  It taught obedience
to "G"od and it also demonstrated the need to atone for sin through,
yes KAT, a BLOOD sacrifice.  The law has not been invalidated, but
it could prove to be quite cumbersome in light of the fact that we
have Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  Neither of which had been given to
mankind during the period of the Old Testament.  Much of the law
concerns how the high-priest is to deal with sacrificial proceedings
and other aspects of seeking "G"od.  Jesus put us in direct
communication with "G"od without the need for the high-priest, i.e.
Jesus became our high-priest.  Does "In Jesus name...Amen" ring a
bell?

From Tim
I'll tell you what, Robert, if *you* live by the rules
of leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy yourself, then
I'll support your little war on homosexuality..........

From Robert
You will be happy to know that homosexuality is also condemned in
the New Testament.

From Tim
Worry about your own sins, big guy.

From Robert
My position on homosexuality is not an attempt to say that I'm better
than anyone else.  The Bible teaches us that our best is but filthy
rags.  I am a sinner, and always will be.  I know that without the
forgiveness offered through the sacrifice of Christ, my eternity would
be one of separation from "G"od. (Hell)  I accepted Christ's sacrifice
and have become one of his children.  I am proud to be a Christian and
look forward to His approaching return.  As a Christian, I do not claim
to be any better than anyone, just forgiven.

Apologies.  Maybe we can get this topic back to a more secular level of
bickering.
From: U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET (Carl A. Lahetta)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Visit Colorado - #2
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:32:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


   Admendment 2 in Colorado does not deny any homosexuals of any
constitutional rights.  The only thing #2 does is to deny minority status.
Homosexuals earn more than the average american, have a higher educational
level than the average american, and hold higher job positions than the
average american.  Now, if the homosexuals are not suffering in earnings,
education, and employment then why do they need to be a minority?  If they
were a minority it would give them an advantage over other people above and
beyond what they already enjoy.
   There are laws on the books that do prevent people being discriminated
against in housing and employment.  There are laws that prohibit violent
actions against all people.  These laws have not been changed.  If people
feel that they can engage in this behavior because of #2 then they are
wrong.  Admendment 2 does not condone violent behavior against homosexuals,
or puting them in camps.  All admendment 2 was passed for was to deny
homosexuals a minority status.


Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:58:12 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, Serbia and a Potential 'Third B

>From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
>
>Thomas:
>
>>On the contrary, you can easily prove something wrong by providing
>>a counter exapmle. That's a fairly common practice in Mathematics...
>
>The above statement is an example of your poor knowledge of logics.
>According to you, I can use this example as a proof. It is very
>tempting to do that, but I will not. For 2 reasons:
>                  1. The proof can not be based on a false premise.
>                  2. An example can not be used as a proof.

Gag.

Thomas is clearly correct. You can CERTAINLY prove something wrong
by providing a counterexample. For example, consider this
hypothesis:

There are no even prime numbers.

It is easy to prove this wrong by an example.

Mathematicians generally know VERY well what it takes to prove things,
by the way. In my experience, at least.

>You mentioned Mathematics... As you know, in Mathematics two negatives
>make a positive. In logics, it's not quite like that...

It is, in fact. It is exactly the same in mathematics as it is
in logic. There is a very good reason for this, too.

>In short, learn some basic facts about logics before trying to prove
>something.

Words of wisdom.

Jamie
The Logic Czar

>Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:11:57 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Visit Colorado - #2

>From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>

>> Carl, get a clue, would you?
>
>   A clue to what?  Are detectives on this adventure James?

So what am I, Carl's straight man now? (pun intended)

>> No state law can possibly deny anyone their constitutional rights.
>
>  Absolutely!  Yet, the homosexuals and others are talking about them
>  being denied their rights.  And since a law cannot deny constitutional
>  rights, except in movie theaters, then what rights are denied?

You'll have to ask whichever homosexuals you have in mind.

They may possibly think the Colorado amendment is unconsitutional.

But I shall not speculate on the interior of their minds, lest
I anger Brett.

>   I see, you are defining minority based on numbers.  A minority is in
>   reference to someone based on physical characteristics.  That is why
>   women are a minority, although there are more of them than men.
>   If someone enjoys an above average lifestyle why do they need employment
>   protection?  Minority rights only deal with pay equity, employment and
>   housing rights.

If someone has lost her job because of her sexual preference, then
THAT is why she needs employment protection. If she has lost her
apartment because of her sexual preference, then THAT is why
she needs housing protection.

Could you possibly fail to understand this? Or what do you mean?

>> >   There are laws on the books that do prevent people being discriminated
>> >against in housing and employment.
>>
>> These laws no longer protect homosexuals in Colorado from discrimination
>> on the basis of sexual preference.
>
>  I would have to dispute that based on what I remember that I heard.

That is the whole POINT of Amendment 2.
What do YOU think its effect is supposed to be?

>> >        Admendment 2 does not condone violent behavior against homosexuals,
>> >or puting them in camps.
>>
>> Homosexuals will be very grateful, I am certain.
>
>  They should be and so am I.  If a homosexual is assaulted they can press
>  charges against those that hurt them.

That's right. Now, if only those damn minorities would stop complaining
and sing "God Bless America" for those rights the rest of us Americans
DO choose to grant them, we'd all be better off.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:41:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      New Congress, New Hopes

   Hopefully the new members in Congress from both sides of the fence are
not so partisan as to put the good of their respective party ahead of the
good of the people.  Maybe, just maybe things will be different.  If I am
wrong then instead of children going to bed fearing a nuclear war they will
instead fear the bills they will pay as adults.

Carl---+

PS  It seemed staged that Clinton was "astonsihed" that the deficit is larger
    than he anticipated.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:39:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: freedom from discrimination
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >   "outrageous lies"? peter, if i and a black person apply for a job,
> >and both of us are equally qualified, affirmative action dictates that
> >the black person gets the job.
>
> This is simply false. Unless Firefly is using "affirmative action"
> in some Humpty Dumptyish way. (Fictional characters all know each
> other, right? Valentine and Rufus T. Firefly and Humpty Dumpty
> meet regularly for, um, well probably a tea party. At least so
> I have been assuming.)

All right, you guys, move down two places so Jamie and I can join in.
Hey, my cup's empty!

> I leave the enjoyable task of puncturing Rufus's misconceptions
> about affirmative action to Peter. Tag.

How about that?  Already done :-).

(Later addition: I see that rtf has posted some more questions.  They
will have to wait until I have a bit more time to answer them--maybe
later, more likely tomorrow)

I really AM beginning to feel that this is more of a task for a
folklorist, though.

Best,
Peter

> Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:56:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:40:50 +0100 BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG said:
>                      According to some polls many (if not most) men
> wouls commit rape if they could do it without any unpleasant consequen-
> cies. Does that mean that most men should be hated?
Last I heard it was 1 in 4.  I admit I would be tempted, but I don't
think I could go through with something like that.  I believe it is
wrong to hurt people (as you imply, it is not wrong to THINK about
hurting people).  Anyway, your statement goes to show that laws also
protect us against ourselves.

> Sam.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:59:42 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A "right to discriminate?"
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

If I were Travis, I would not make assumptions. I take each issue on its
own merit. What I think about homosexuality is NOT linkable to what I think
about discrimination. I suggest that homosexuality is "morally objectionable"
to a minority of people, and that a majority of us either find the label
basically meaningless, or harmless to us, or not worth putting folks in
purdah about. I also suggest that "a right to discriminate" may or may not
be "politically incorrect," I think that in 20th century life discrimination
is an anachronistic, outmoded and reactionary behavior, regardless of grounds.
But, in closing, it seems to me that flip generalizations about what I
believe in conjunction with assumptions about what I advocate makes no
point save to show the possibly narrowminded view of the generalizer. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:24:00 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

Caius pisze:

>There was a Lenin's slogan : "No freedom for enemies of freedom". Look what
>it created after just 70 years.

There was a slogan of Locke's, "No toleration for the intolerant."
Look at what a nightmare it created after 300 years!

Jamie

(I think we should print up some Political Philosopher Bubblegum
Cards. Caius and I could trade them. They'd have slogans on them,
and scores of how many dead people resulted from the philosophy.
A goldmine, don't you think? Caius can have all the gold.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:27:41 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> From KAT
> Same thing could happen if the husband is HETEROSEXUAL and infected
> with AIDS.

> From Robert
> True. But, like it or not, track the history of the infection and you'll
> find homosexuality.

So is it one of the Ten Commandments that the origin is important
and not the present state?  If homosexuality transmits AIDS and
therefore it is immoral, then I say heterosexuality transmits AIDS
and therefore it is immoral too.

At any rate, are you saying that *IF* AIDS had been transmitted
by a heterosexual act at the beginning THEN it would have affected
your position.  AGAIN I won't buy that for a moment.

OK, let's ASSUME that the very first human to human transmission
of AIDS was between two homosexuals.  That is, one person had it and
gave to another person through a homosexual act.  But now we know
that the same person could have given AIDS to another person
thorough a heterosexual act too.  So how can you base your "hate"
(that should get you started :-) on something which was either
coincidental or statistical.

> From KAT
> ....................................... husband should be sanctioned
> against.  Why blame the homosexuality (or bisexuality), why not
> blame being dishonest with your wife?

> From Robert
> Being dishonest, although wrong, does not cause disease.  Speaking of
> shifting blame, what of your tendency to deny personal responsibility?

So if a dishonest lab worker is lazy and does not check a donated
blood and later infect an innocent recipient, Robert would say,
"Being dishonest, although wrong, does not cause disease....".

That argument was pathetic too.

--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 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:12:10 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Wales" at Jan 10, 93 8:49 pm

Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales pisze:
>>
>> Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
>> >The problem is the majority of the voters are NOT economists. And majority
>> >of the economists does NOT understand inflation.
>>
>> It is correct, in a sense, to say that the majority of economists do
>> not understand inflation.  But only in the sense that macroeconomics
>> doesn't really exist, and that we really haven't got much more than
>> a vague clue about certain issues, inflation among them.

Some say that economics as a science does NOT exist, because the reality is
too complex to be describes in a scientific manner. I don't think it should
make us stop discussing economic issues. Macroeconomic view is good as long as
we have in mind that it's not a strict description of what is really going on.

>> One of the big difficulties with inflation, one which is often not
>> sufficiently recognized, is that inflation distorts the role of
>> prices in the conveyance of information.  Note well that it seems
>> unlikely that this distortion is helped much when the amount of
>> inflation is known in advance.

That's right, but those situations are significantly different. In case of
expected inflation, the prices can be recalculated.

I hope we will agree with the ranking:

- ideal stable prices   - no distortion, utopian
- relative stability    - best situation possible
- expected inflation    - some distortion
- unexpected inflation  - much distortion

>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU