HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:24:54 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
>
> >> One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
> >> that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
> >> secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.
>
> >> --KAT
>
> > OK.  But my point was not that Weinberger said what was being done was
> > illegal.  My point is that that President Reagan said specifically that
> > given a choice between doing something illegal and not doing anything
> > about the hostages, he would choose the illegality.  Further, according
> > to Weinberger's note, at that particular meeting, Reagan agreed that
> > what he was doing was illegal.
>
> > Jonathan
>
> Well, I don't want to defend Reagan, necessarily, but: 1) I think
> what you say Reagan said probabely is a paraphrase rather than a
> direct quote.  2) Reagan might have said that to Weinberger not
> because he really believed what he did was illegal rather that he
> had to say that to keep the "Finding" secret from Weinberger.  Over
> the weekend Weinberger said that Reagan kept him in the dark on a
> lot of issues related to that particular deal.
>
> --KAT
>
Sure it's possible.  I'm sure that Weinberger says a lot of things now that
he has been pardoned that can't possibly be verified.  Yes, it's a paraphrase.
And it's a personal note written after the event.
Sure it could be hooey.  It could be an exaggeration.  It could be that
what you say about #2 is correct.  Although, let's not forget that Weinberger
was the defense secretary.  This is one of the top 4 cabinet positions.
Maybe Reagan kept him in the dark, but if you aren't talking to your
defense secretary about arms shipments....
But that's what the independent prosecutor was supposed to find out.
If Walsh's investigation hadn't been impeded, we might have found out.

I guess that I am just ticked that in actual fact no justice was done.

I still have hopes that the Bush administration has forgotten about
some files that still need to be shredded!  I hope that Clinton and
his people can find these files, declassify them and at least embarrass
the Reagan/Bush people.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:21:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Jamie:
>>    That the huge majority of good parents are heterosexual couples?
>[...]
>If necessary, I will explain exactly what the mistake is. But it is
>more fun to show how analogous reasoning is obviously wrong.
>[...]
>Contest:
>Come up with the most amusing example to demonstrate the fallacy
>of Ramon's reasoning.

The huge majority of accordian-players in the U.S. have bladder problems.
Therefore, people in the U.S. who don't play the accordian are less likely
to have bladder problems.  Furthermore, playing the accordian actually
causes bladder problems.  It's believed in some corners that the persistance
of the accordian in modern society is actually due to a conspiracy headed by
the Depends company...

>Jamie

Have a happy, portable new year, everyone...:)

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
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, 21 Dec 1992 14:31:38 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      apology
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

I would like to apologize for my aggresive postinsg to all, who feel offended.

It was due to my explosive temperament, bad knoledge of English, unpleasant
experience with totalitarian regimes.

I have also disregarded my excellent adversaries. Now I'm rethinking my
strategy.

Once more : I'm sorry.

Caius

PS. These apologies do not apply to those, who proposes to disturb the
listowners and similar actions, as I think freedom of speech is the most
important foundation of our civilisation.
From: ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: freedom of speech
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:27:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Please try to be consistent.
>It really isn't asking too much.
>Doctor Pizz

Speaking of that, I haven't seen a response yet
to my critique of your logic on discrimination.

I had guessed that you might have left the list
for break already.  But, it seems you are still
around.

If you have a chance, maybe you could fill me in,
at least, on whether you buy my critique (if not,
please show me the logical lapses) and if so, how
that affects your position on legislation regarding
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

                       -Tim
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Marrou
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:17 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GSKTVZQ9SI0008HB@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,      
   The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
> 
>        The Libs strongest showings are in New Hampshire, where 4 state Reps
>are Libertarians.

Silly me.  And I'm originally a New Englander, but I wasn't aware.

> 
>        Lib candidates received strong showings in various states, including
>the western ones.  A libertarian candiate may also be seated in Nevada if she
>can prove the local Dem. rigged the election.
> 
>        The presidential candidate, however, only got 3/10 of a percent of the
>total vote, the main reason why the press ignores the presidential campaign.
>In 1980, the Lib. candidate got 1% (or a million) votes.  So far that's the
>high point of the Lib. presidential runs.

In Alaska in 1980, the Libertarian candidate beat Carter.

> 
>        It's not surprising that Libs get there strongest support in a state
>with a motto like "Live Free or Die".  

Of course, it's ironic that the "Live Free or Die" motto is printed on New
Hampshire license plates -- made by prisoners.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:35:11 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >he need never disclose who/what he has slept with in the past on the
> >grounds that it would violate national security concerns. I personally
> >have a problem with the character issue; Bush ran his whole campaign
> >on "Who do you trust to tell you the truth?" and now it is obvious
> >that he has been less than candid with the american people as to his
> >knowledge of Iran-Contra.
>
>         I expect executives to keep mum about certain things.  The question is
> whether Bush himself did anything criminal.  Walsh keeps crying "cover up!" in
> an effort to invoke Watergate, but it just doesn't wash.  He's had six years
 to
> dig up facts, one thinks that Bush would have been indicted earlier if he was
 a
> key player.
I have given my feelings on this.  Bush wasn't impeached and there was a
cover-up because the Reagan/Bush administrations classified documents that
didn't need to be classified.
> As it is, Walsh's claims of a cover-up are nonsense also.
> Weinberger's notes are already archived, and available to those with the
 proper
> clearance.  (Something Walsh could have obtained.)  But instead he blames the
> two-year period from which the notes were archived until now on an attempted
> "cover-up".  Phooey.
My understanding of what happened is this.  Weinberger continously denied
having notes.  He slipped them into the Library of Congress and didn't tell
anyone.  When he finally notified Walsh years later that the notes were in
the Library of Congress, Walsh found out that _ONLY_ Weinberger could get them.
It was only under the threat of a subpeona that Weinberger gave explicit
permission for Walsh to retrieve the notes.
> Walsh is incompetent.  He even has accepted the same kind
> of gifts that he broiled North for accepting.
Walsh may or may not be incompetent.  But he certainly hasn't been
given a fair shake by the powers-that-be.  I'd like to hear more about
this gift-receiving.  Of course, compared with North's gift-receiving,
it's probably minor.
>
> Brett'
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:42:40 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
>
> > This contradicts a widely-publized note which Weinberger wrote after
> > a meeting with the president, which I detailed in a previous post.
> > To summarize it, Weinberger told the president that selling arms
> > to Iran was illegal and the president said that he realized this
> > but he wanted to get out the hostages.
>
> One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
> that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
> secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.
>
> > Jonathan
>
> --KAT
>
OK.  But my point was not that Weinberger said what was being done was
illegal.  My point is that that President Reagan said specifically that
given a choice between doing something illegal and not doing anything
about the hostages, he would choose the illegality.  Further, according
to Weinberger's note, at that particular meeting, Reagan agreed that
what he was doing was illegal.

Jonathan
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, 21 Dec 1992 14:39:35 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      logical error
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

My assumptions are:

1) rightism<=>support-for-free-market  \
   nazis didn't support free market    /   therefore nazism is NOT rightism

You say that the following term is "widely accepted"

2) nazism=>rightism

(One person argued that nazism<=>rightism but let's ignore it)

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

R <=> F and N => ~F    therefore  N => ~R

                                  N => R
--------------------------------------
There must be an error in these statements.
I consider N=>R (if you are a nazi you are a rightist) to be false.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:57:22 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

>> One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
>> that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
>> secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.
>
>My point is that that President Reagan said specifically that
>given a choice between doing something illegal and not doing anything
>about the hostages, he would choose the illegality.

So?  Is "willing to break the law" a crime?  I'm willing to commit
murder in some situations - am I criminal before I actually do so?
Suppose I kill someone - does my willingness to break the law affect
the legality of that action or does the legality turn only on the
circumstances of that killing.  (It is possible to kill legally.)

>Further, according to Weinberger's note, at that particular meeting,
>Reagan agreed that what he was doing was illegal.

Yet, the finding made it legal.

Or, is Reagan guilty because he could have broken the law?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:52:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: abortion
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> BTW - Suppose that there aren't enough of MDs qualified and willing to
> perform abortions.  What do we do?  Do we force them to take training
> and perform them anyway despite their personal preferences?  After
> all, they're advertising in public that they're MDs and abortion is a
> medical procedure.  Since their refusal "restricts" (Peter's defn)
> women's abortion rights, shouldn't we bring in the thugs?

As a matter of fact, no.  Andy shows us once again his ability to twist
anything into an ad hominem, and also to distort his reporting of
the positions of others to the point of rampant dishonesty.  If you
can't make a point without lying, Andy, you might want to avoid making
a point at all.

A doctor, obviously, has the right to choose what kind of medicine to
practice.  Just as a car dealer has the right to choose whether to sell
Chevys or Jeeps.  But they do not have the right to arbitrarily refuse
to serve certain portions of the public, such as blacks, or gays, or
what have you.  A doctor who performs abortions for white women but not
for black women is restricting their right to get an abortion.  A lung
specialist who performs no abortions at all is not.

The offence here is the denial of the opportunity to participate fully
in the life of our economy and society to certain arbitrarily chosen
members of that society.  Therefore it makes no difference if there is a
doctor or a car dealer right next door willing to serve that person.
Their rights have been violated whether there is another willing dealer
or not.  There is no right to act like a bigot in public.  There is a
right to be a bigot, obviously, but actions leading from that bigotry
which harm others are rightly prohibited outside your own home (and
maybe even there, depending on the harm caused).  And when bigots do
cause harm to others, it is they who become the real thugs, and the rest
of us have the right to defend ourselves against them.  There are far
more private thugs than publically-employed ones, and most of them
practice their thuggery without regard for the state of the law.

Maybe someday Andy will learn that a campaign for the right to act like
a bigot makes a pretty sorry campaign.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:14:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: kids

>As Kerry points out, she can be artificially inseminated.

>And a gay man can deposit sperm in a sperm bank, and thus become
>a biological father. (Well, not quite "thus," but you get the idea.)

>Glad I could clear all of this up.

just as an added aside, they could, if the spirit so moved them, do it
the more direct way.....

physiologically speaking......it could happen.

-linda

>Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:20:09 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Sam

I was not trying to imply that thoughts and desires should be punished,
and I also wanted to point out the potential dangers of legitimizing
and validating their desires as normal.  Certainly, it should be
allowed, but I question the potential actions resulting from this
validation, or the possible excuses that may one day be maade.
Otherwise, have a happy.  See you next week dude...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:31:55 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queens contorversey yet again...

>>Sure.  After all, I'm using similar criteria when deciding to buy that
>>Ferrari.  I'm using similar criteria when I'm deciding what housing to
>>buy/rent.  So does EVERYONE.  It isn't a problem, yet it has exactly
>>the same effects as the "evil" discrimination that offends O'Andy.
>>Sauce for the goose....
>
>        Not exactly. I don't think the house or the car
>        (even if it *is* a Ferrari :-) ) care too much
>        that they are being passed over. People tend
>        to be more sensative to these kind of slights.

The seller is a "people".  If I only had to worry about what
the car/house thought, I wouldn't have to pay anything.

So, why is the sensitivity of the buyer more important than the
sensitivity of the seller?

Why are by-buyer boycotts acceptable when by-seller boycotts aren't?

>        Hell, it could
>        affect the "discriminators" quality of life, too.

So?  I did get a giggle out of the "protecting" the discriminator idea,
because we're doing it by jailing him....

>        They could miss living near someone very special and
>        as for the car salesperson, I would say they are
>        gambling with a hefty commission.

And O'Andy wants to protect that commission by jailing them if they
refuse to accept it from the "right" people.

-andy
--
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:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:31:01 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: common usage : left-right

>Ok, I didn't know about the "common usage" in the US.

>I have a question (it is very important to me, you discussed the A/AN before
>historian so maybe you will answer my linguistic problem);

Actually I avoided participating in that argument.

>My Longman Top Pocket English Dictionary says:

>RIGHT  (p.441)
>4 political parties that favour less change and less state control
>
>LEFT (p.290)
>2 political parties that favour more change and more state control

There are obviously flaws in these definitions; what if the "state
controllers" are in power and massive change would be required to
bring about less state control?

>How about "common usage?"
>Do I have to throw away my dictionary?

I'd suggest that you acquire a different dictionary to supplement,
perhaps an Oxford, Webster's, American Heritage or some other common
dictionary. (not a pocket or compact format abridged variety)

>Do I have to throw away a copy of 288 lines Valentine message?

Nope; the least you can say about any position that Val takes is
that it is well researched. Val in answering you put forth an answer
that applies a certain academic standard, quoting respected sources
as references. You may feel free to participate in this sort of
discussion by researching and referring to your own sources and/or
by disputing the veracity, reliability or applicability of Val's
cites.

You could also maintain that this sort of argumentation is irrelevant
for whatever reason in this instance, and provide some reasonable
demonstration of why this is so.

If you do this in a manner that is not insulting to your opponents
you will likely get a fair and reasoned response and, who knows,
you both might learn something.

>Caius.

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:53:48 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
              29 Dec 1992 16:04:58 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

> This contradicts a widely-publized note which Weinberger wrote after
> a meeting with the president, which I detailed in a previous post.
> To summarize it, Weinberger told the president that selling arms
> to Iran was illegal and the president said that he realized this
> but he wanted to get out the hostages.

One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.

> Jonathan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:50:44 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      what makes a good parent?

Some members of this forum have indicated that only heterosexual married
couples are capable of raising children the way they "should be raised".
How do you reconcile this  view to the Chicago couple charged with
child abandonment for leaving their 4 year old and 9 year old daughters
home alone over christmas while they vacationed in Mexico? By all
appearances, they lived in a very respectable neighborhood and would
certainly be labled middle class. Just another myth about child abuse
shot down by reality.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:40:50 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I think it's unfair to mention NAMBLA in a company of unsavory groups.
I believe that there is nothing wrong about loving children (that's
all NAMBLA is about). It is wrong to molest children, but not to love
them, even sexually. NAMBLA is created as a support group for people
who are attracted to children. It is not a cabal of child molesters.
One should distinguish between a desire and an action. There is nothing
with a desire; the action (the impementation of the desire) can be
immoral and illegal. 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?

(CORRECTION: 5 lines above read: 'There is nothing wrong with a desire)

Sam.
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, 21 Dec 1992 15:20:03 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      human percentage
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>      I don't think I fully follow everything in your post about percentages
> and humans etc...all I can say is you misunderstood the point of my post
> and went off on my sarcasm...

I am sorry. English is not my mother tongue.


I consider women to be better sort of humans. No less that 199.75 %.
Your subject line was an underestimation.

Do you think you are "better human" if you earn more?
Do you think that humanity is measured by your income?

> Equal pay for equal work.  Period.
> -T.

Equal pay for equal effect.
Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU