HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:32:42 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:19:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
>On Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:54:58 EST MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> said:
>> authenticity to a story /p any basis in fact.
>>
>> Now, /c this in mind, what obligation does your local newspaper have
>>
>I'm sorry, I just gotta know--Why do you use /p for without and /c for
>with???

/p was a typo. it should have been /s as in <sine> = "without" and
/c as in <cum> = "with"...old habit carryover from medical days
years 'n years ago...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:13:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Dan Quayle & Masturbation

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Dan Quayle & Masturbation

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:27:40 EST 92price@GW.WMICH.EDU said:
> I wonder if people who think AIDS education should consist only of a flat-out
> "abstain or get married" ("just say 'no!'"), because those practices are safer
> than practicing the other forms of "safe sex," would also recommend
> masturbation
> for that reason.
I would.  Masturbation is totally harmless, and on its face does not
entail unfaithfulness nor promiscuity.
-Travis

        i dunno.... the dangers of masturbation are legion.  hair on
        yer palms, goin' blind as a bat, gettin' hit by trucks, and
        goin' to hell (do not pass go, do not collect $200).  sounds
        dangerous to me.

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:08:37 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A non-announcment of my non-candidacy, pro tem.

         Ahem.

3. A crushing rebuttal to the Kerrys' mind-boggling
program to subject innocent citizens to mandatory
psychiatric testing.

          Please re-read my position paper.  The word is "voluntary."

                                     --Missy Justice
                                       Just clearing things up
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:26:20 EDT
From:         Evelyn <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: N-tickets
              24 Jul 1992 09:16:23 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry,
  If ALF came upon anyone trying to experiment on a cat, he'd
complain that that person was stealing his dinner away from him. :)

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:11:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: If A then B

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:03:02 EST "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KEN
T.EDU> said:
> From:          Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> }Yes, that's what I learned in high school geometry.  If the condition
> }itself is false, the statement is true.
>
> No, no.  Almost, but no.  It is
>
>                     IF <condition true> THEN <result>
>
> therefore your condition A from above must be deemed as a true
> statement in order for B to happen.  It's similar in saying
>
>                     IF A = B THEN B = A
This is a true statement for all A and B.  If A<>B, then the condition
is false, therefore the statement is true.  If A=B, then the condition
is true, and, by the reflexive property, the result is true, therefore
the statement is true.

I naver said If B then A.  B may or may not happen without A, but it
does happen with A.

> Make sense?
> Trust me, I've taken enough comp. sci. & philosophy courses to last a
> lifetime and a half.
Wasn't someone arguing a bit earlier about providing substantial reasons
in support of an argument??

> }> Dan Evens
> }-Travis
> -Greg
-Travis again
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:40:41 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "Another Gulf War"

Sue:

A few things.  First, I believe that the inspection team that is now
being allowed in is composed *entirely* of people from countries that
did not take a position during the Gulf War.

Second, I agree that taking out Hussein would play well for Bush.
Particularly when he could say that we did what we were supposed to
do the first time, and then got out and waited for an appropriate time
to go back and topple the "Evil One."  After all, if we had been sitting
out in the desert all this time, think how many more casualties there
might have been on both sides!  A successful and limited strike now
demonstrates the "prudent" nature of Bush's original actions.
                                                  ---MJ
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 16:25:01 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GE - WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE

>1. Why do we allow cost overruns in the first place? Couldn't we pass
>legislation that says what you bid is what you get?
>

I don't think that Congress particularly wants to pass such legislation.
Doesn't it have something to do with the committees, jobs, the industry,
and the executive agency that does the actual spending?

>2. Why isn't anyone going to jail? I have an ideological problem with
>20 year sentences for stealing $20 with a gun but no time served for
>bilking the government or private investors out of huge sums of money.
>

Do you not think that a wo/man's life is worth more than any sum
of money?  I think that this is the reason why robbery at gunpoint
is considered a greater offense than robbing something else.

>If our system of justice is truely equal then why don't white collar
>criminals spend time behind bars in REAL jails?

Very good question. Any suggestions?

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:09:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: telephone (kinda')

I think SWB has primary culpability, then 911 (if it is "separate" from
SWB). Brooks nor the promoter should be held responsible, the telephone
company is supposed to do things to deal with those kinds of overloads,
which is why I would place primary culpability upon them. 911 is NEVER
supposed to be busy! My opinion, VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:38:43 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A response to "Another Gulf War"
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              24 Jul 1992 13:23:11 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:23:11 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:

>If such a strike were to be carried out, it wouldn't change my voting
>behavior.  It's not that I'd necessarily consider it wrong per se, but that
>I'd be wondering how much of the whole situation Bush was simply exploiting
>for his immediate goal of re-election.  A friend of mine even went so far
>as to say that *she* thought Bush had set the situation up in advance for
>exactly this reason.  (Well, she didn't say she thought Bush had engineered
>every detail.  Rather, with Hussein still in power at the end of the Gulf
>War, Bush could pretty easily figure out a way to justify another military
>strike nearer to election time.)

So you see this as the "August Surprise, Part II" ?

>I'd hazzard (sp?) a prediction about how such an action would be perceived
>by the rest of the voters, but I honestly haven't a clue -- I could easily
>seeing it go both ways.

Depends upon whether Saddam is left alive (again)...that was one of the
big criticisms publicly during our first road trip--we sent a large
quantity of resources and left the turkey alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:08:13 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      N-lessness
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

Seeing as how I fall short on two counts (N-lessness and not born in
US), I am offering my services as a Campaign Manager/Political
Consultant.

I believe that several of the N tickets have potential - given the
right advice, grooming and general spin doctoring. I'm willing to give
objective advice to the highest bidder. Reply to me by private mail
coz we don't want our campaign secrets getting out onto the net.


--
 Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
 Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:08:11 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ?: Financing the gov't via taxation

>From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
>
>Candidate Clinton has repeatedly answered the question regarding the
>increase in taxation /c a rather nondescript:  "make sure the wealthy
>can pay their fair share."
>
>Unfortunately, that doesn't 1) define "wealthy"; and 2) doesn't say how
>the remainder of his programs will be financed.

Poster MacPhil has apparently not listened to Candidate
Clinton's acceptance speech nor read his 22 page economic plan.

In the speech, Clinton defined "wealthy" (for purposes of his
proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy) to be those earning
more than $200,000.
In the plan, Clinton names several ways that he will cut
government spending; the most notable is to cut 100,000
positions in the federal bureaucracy by attrition.

>If the wealthy were
>defined as making > $100'000 per annum and were taxed at 100% + the
>current taxation on everyone else, just how much smaller would the
>deficit really be?

I give up. How much smaller would it be?

>When will he begin answering the entire question?

Apparently before you begin paying attention.

The most important way of cutting the deficit is to reduce
unemployment and spur growth, and everyone knows it. If
people make more, you can get more revenues without raising
taxes. So the most important aspect of Clinton's plan is the
approach to spurring growth and reducing unemployment. You
might take a look at that part, in case you are actually
interested.

Jamie
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, 24 Jul 1992 16:04:29 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A response to "Another Gulf War"

>>It is the accepted opinion in the military circles that
>>a government should never stop fighting a war until its
>>political objectives are accomplished.  This is what we
>>did.  The two objectives were to free Kuwait and remove
>>Hussein from power.
>
>Removing Hussein from power may have been one of Bush's motives, but it was
>not one of the U.N.-sanctioned objectives (am I remembering this right,
>everyone?).

And remember the federal directive banning the US from assassinating
the head of state for another country...


MacPhil:

        Isn't there a difference between assassination
        and death in war time?

        Another question shouldn't a government do what it
        needs to even if it goes against its directives?

        -j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R2).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:35:27 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A few thoughts ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

From:          jimmy donal wales <jwales@COPPER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

}>> Tell me not how to live my life, and I may feel a great deal more
}>> tolerant of yoir narrow-minded, moralistic (to drudgery) beliefs. Not
}>> realizing how irritated I was 'til I read Jimbo's post, VMS
}Travis responds:
}>You entered into a social contract, bud.

}I didn't!  I never signed a thing!  Travis, son, I have never ever
}given you ANY right to regulate me or my sex life in any way, and
}I can assure you right now that I never will.

Travis, where are you from?  China?  I think that's the last place
around that has any type of "social contract". . . Buhddy!
`Sides, if Jimbo has one I'm sure the rest of us has one too, right?

NOT!!

To the morally correct:  Go soak yer head!


-Greg, The Outspoken.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:35:34 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:07:15 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier said:
>>sheesh. you need to get a grip, Jason. Does
>>your mother know you talk this way about women?
>
>fyi, my mother has a stronger opinion on this than
>I do.

Yeah!  Don't you people know the apple doesn't fall far from the tree?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:34:37 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
>
>>Seems like an appropriate time to raise (again) the question of how Iraq
>>was armed in the first place.
>
>Maybe this time we'll find out why the question is relevant.

It's relevant if you want to know the effectiveness of recent
foreign policy, or if you care about criminal activity in
the Administration.

>US foreign policy for the past few decades has been to pass out guns
>to anyone with a uniform, especially if there's oil.  Occasionally we
>go in and stomp recipients of said aid when they don't toe the line.
>Maybe we should change that policy, but it's not new or secret, or
>even all that unpopular among Congresscritters.  Selective carping
>that ignores these "unpleasant details" is merely partisan whining.

The first sentence is plainly false, and I have to wonder whether
Andy actually believes it or whether he is trying to make some
subtle point by lying.
I also wonder what he has in mind by the second sentence. For example,
in exactly which cases have U.S. armed forces "stomped" on
recipients of military aid, other than in Iraq?
Andy then says that the military aid to Iraq was not secret. But,
again, what he says is false. It WAS secret, and it became public
only when Rep. Gonzalez got his hands on secret CIA documents.

The final sentence I will ignore, since the Big Build Up to it
consisted of a string of falsehoods.

>ps - Of course the Kurds are going to get hurt.  Every region has a
>kick-dog and they get it no matter what we do.

I see. Would Kurds have been massacred in the way they were if the
U.S. policy had not been to urge them to rebel, then abandon them?

>(Wanna bet that they'd go for expanded borders to encompass all of
>greater Kurdistan?)

Sure, I will bet (pointlessly) on ANY counterfactual claim.

Maybe Gary would care to set odds?

Jamie
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 16:18:55 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

>                                       I don't see any particular
>reason why a combination of two biological parents plus 2.4 (or however
>many) kids is "sacred" simply because it exists.

>Kerry


I don't think that there is some great holiness or sanctity either,
but it is a unit that should be relatively free of governmental
intrusion.

Hasn't the Supreme Court basically said as much with the "right to
privacy"?

Maybe I'm over-interpreting the interpretation, because I realize
that they have primarily had to do with matters of the bedroom.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 07:57:45 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Jails and GE

Hello all,

The question  was asked, 'Why aren't people going to jail?'  The police
are so busy with anti-sodomy laws that genuine criminals are not going
to jail.

Entrapment?  What is the difference between using police male/female to
bring prostitutes to jail as well as gay men?  If the law applies to one
should it not apply to the other?  If a community has an anti-sodomy or
an anti-prostitute law, it has to be enforced, and most local business
people would certainly agree with the enforcement of the law.  When a
community decides to overturn such a law, then they will, but in the mean
time if it is in the books such a law has to be carried out.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:19:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

On Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:54:58 EST MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> said:
> authenticity to a story /p any basis in fact.
>
> Now, /c this in mind, what obligation does your local newspaper have
>
I'm sorry, I just gotta know--Why do you use /p for without and /c for
with???
> MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:20:49 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      What's the probability that I can get odds correct.

Gary,
	I'm afraid that I must admit (speaking sheapishly with hat in hand)
that Jamie's definition of losses to wins is the proper ratio, not the other
way 'round, as I had said.  If a horse is a 70:1 shot, he will win one in
every 71, not 70 out of 71.  Jamie was kind enough to point this out to me.

Gee, and I did (try to) pay attention in prob. class....Hmmmm.. just a brain
cramp, I guess.

Chris

From: SLOFFER CHRIS A               (ENGVAX::GA82428)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet")
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:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:34:02 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?

>This makes sense, as have the other responses.  But it kinda misses the
>question my partner was asking:  even if Bush dumped Quayle, and this were
>perceived as betrayal, what do you think the hard-core conservatives would
>do?  They'd be mad, but would that prevent them from voting the Republican
>ticket?  If they *didn't* vote for Bush, would they simply not vote?  (I
>can't imagine they'd switch parties :))  And would any such loss of votes
>be compensated for by an increase in votes from more moderate conservatives?

I don't think so.  I think that a good number of people would see
Bush as being very self-centered and not out to serve his country.
The most conservatives would continue to support Bush simply because
of the other choice.  Everyone would see Bush's actions as survivalist
and shy away from such a candidate.

It will hurt even more if Bush moves Baker from Sec. of State to
campaign chief, for the same reason.  Any person who puts his/her
individual needs over that of the country for which s/he is supposed
to be working, will not be seen in the most positive political light.

I think that this would take away a decent percentage of a vote he
might otherwise get.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:02:51 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Course for T. Kidd: History 530: Research & Methodology

>The only point I wanted to make out was that never have the vast major-
>ity of Southerners ever been adamantly in favor of subjugating another
>race.  Granted they may not have been against it, but they were not
>in favor of it.
>-Travis

  What??

  The only point I wanted to make was ... well, I made it in
the last post.

  BTW, careful what you say:  "I wanted to make out" may get
you in trouble with your sex cops.  Keep your hands on the
table and the chaperone in the room.

                                    -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:01:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      N-tickets ...

could we have a rundown on the 7 tickets again. My friend A. Hoffman
has not been in touch, but did say unequivocally that he'd prefer to
run with EvelyN DuncaN that whoever he had been paired with, and she
should be the Presidential nominee. That's why I heard, folks, VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU