HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:47:22 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >> 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.
> >Jonathan
>
>         It's the exact same kind of gifts that North received:
>         All of which violate the federal gift guidelines.
>
No, I know what North received (and was convicted for).  What did Walsh
receive and from whom?

> Brett'
>

Jonathan
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Date: 21 Dec 1992 13:58 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BzKLJu.F7u@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
 jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes...
>> [I write]
>>There is no such thing as ultimate cause or ultimate purpose, except as our
>>societies define them. 
> 
>Why society?  Why not 'each individual'?

Ever read the papers lately?  It's my impression popular culture and the
dominant ideologies have a major influence on people's thinking.

							Dan, ad nauseum
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:         Fri, 25 Dec 1992 12:40:58 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, Serbia and a Potential "Third Balkan War," #800
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Thomas,

I believe that Greece's assertions that if Macedonia doesn't change
its name it will start claiming a province of Greece bearing the same
name are totally groundless. It's the other way around. If Macedonia
retains its current name, Greece will have a good pretext to attack
Macedonia and annex it. How can a country of 2 mln. people, barely
on its feet and virtually having no regular army can threaten
a comparatively big country, member of NATO with a population which
is several times bigger?!

In case of any hostility, Greece will have an automatic support of
the Western world, because it happens to be a Christian country.
(4O% of the population of Macedonia is Moslem). I think the best
solution of this problem would be if Greece changes the name of
its province called Macedonia.

You say:
>Throughout history Macedonia has always been a part of Greek
>history and culture from the ancient times to now.

I hate to disappoint you, but that is simply not true. There is
no continuity in Greek history or culture. Ancient Greece has
very few (if any) things in common with modern Greece. Ethnically,
modern Greeks are as different from ancient Greeks as American
Indians are different from the peoples of India. Any objective
(=non-Greek) historian will tell you that ethnically modern
Greeks are closer to Slavs than to ancient Greeks. So Thomas,
Athenian philosophers, who you mention in your post, have as much
to do with you or with your ancestral country, as they have to do
with me. What I am saying is that modern Greeks can not claim the
ancient history and culture of Macedonia as their own. And should
not use this false claim to harass the neighboring country.

Please don't think that I'm anti-Greek. I am not. I am simply
trying to be fair.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:10:51 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the spirit of xmas
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>How do the libertarians view things such as seat belt laws? Is this an
>unwarrented government intrusion or a good idea?
>
>fred

        The party line says it's government intrusion.

        Personally, I see it this way:

        Stupid people will not wear belts.  Stupid people will thus die.
(Evolution in action, as Mr. Niven would say :)  However, as good as that
may be (speaking for the gene pool :), their actions raise the costs to
society for dealing with severed heads and broken bodies.
        [Non-]use of a seatbelt is "victimless" in the sense that no one else
suffers the damage of impacting with the dashboard...yet there are certain
things we try to protect "society" from: untimely death, for one.
        So I view it with an eye on the bottom line: does society as a whole
benefit from it?  What's the alternative?
        Net gain, IMO.

        You could think of it a rule of social interaction :).  Wear your
seatbelts, drive on the right side of the road, stop at traffic signals....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:03:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      logical error indeed

> From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>
> (One person argued that nazism<=>rightism but let's ignore it)
>

And you expect us to take you seriously when you make statements like
that???

LOL!  ROFL!   ROFLMAO!!!


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:50:47 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
              23 Dec 1992 12:54:22 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

I am gonna give Andy a Christmas present.     :-)

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> Would it be awful if one was for freedom of speech for all
>> except those who are against freedom of speech?

> If it was applied on a "those folks are really against freedom of
> speech, so they shouldn't be allowed to speak on other issues either"
> basis, it doesn't mean anything.

Andy is right, sort of.  I did not mean what I said (but this time
I don't/didn't expect Andy to know what I was talking about.  After
all Andy is not a mind-reader you know. :-)

I MEANT to say:

"Would it be awful if one was for freedom of speech for all SPEECHES
except those SPEECHES which are against freedom of speech?

> I don't see anything to recommend the quoted position.

Thanks for your input.

> -andy

--KAT
From: u8042010@MIS.NSYSU.EDU.TW (u8042010)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:10:15 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


          Hi,first,I would like to greet to every member in this discussion
     group. I'm a second year student in the department of Information
     Management at the National Sun Yat-Sen university in Taiwan. Since I
     join this discussion group,I received hundreds mails everyday and that
     excited me. In these mails,there are some very good points and some
     special points of views. After all the readings, I feel that I did get
     a lot, and I would like to share some of my opinions with you. I'll
     try my best and hope this will help any member in this discussion
     group.

          Not long ago, the American's presidential election finished
     successfully, and it happen to be Taiwan's legislators election on
     the 19th Dec. Therefore I'll use the democracy of Taiwan as a title
     and briefly introduce the recently development of Taiwan's democracy.

          As everyone knows, Taiwan's economic development has made Taiwan
     become one of the Asia's four dragons, but maybe not everyone knows
     well about recently Taiwan's democratic development. Long ago, when
     Chiang Kai-Shek was in charge of the government policy, he controlled
     everything, so in fact there was not what we mean by democracy. Even
     though people's rights had been taken away, but at that period when we
     face Mainland China's coercion, it did stabilized the political
     situation and hold the development of the economic. Until his son,
     Chiang Ching-Kuo, took over his father's place, he started to execute
     the real democratic policy and that was when people started to know
     what is the meaning of democracy. It is admirable that Chiang Ching-Kuo
     didn't infatuated with the power, and completely executed the democratic
     policy. Especially, he accentuated reformation and therefore people
     startd to have consciousness about democracy. Later on, we have what we
     call Democratic Development Party - that is the next to the regnal
     party in size. So now we have this one to cope with the regnal party,
     and start to forwards the democracy.

          We say that "When you climb up, you will fell inferiority complex,
     when you want to walk far, you need to start from near place." The
     evolution is also the same. In the past few years, even though Taiwan
     had appear few excessive period, but that is only a short time, because
     most of the know ledgeable people don't casually use democracy and the
     real meaning of democracy comes out.

          Become democratic in Taiwan is not a far and unable dream. It is
     going to actualise in the future. I believe after some time, Taiwan's
     democratic development will just like Europe and America.

          If you have any question about Taiwan, I'll be pleased to try my
     best and give you a satisfied answer.

     Meu-Sen Sheu.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:48:53 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>> With all my due respect for Clinton, I don't believe he really cares
>> one way or the other. He acts under pressure of all the interest
>> groups and of his own promises. In politics personal feelings ('care'),
>> moral or humanitarian considerations don't play any role whatsoever.
>> If he appoints women or minorities to high posts, it's not because he
>> cares, it's because of Realpolitik. There is something wrong with the
>> system in which the most sizable minority (gays) can be so blatantly
>> ignored.
>>
>> Sam.
>>
>With all my due respect to you, I don't think that you know (or even
>care) what Clinton believes.  If you had followed his career at all, you
>would know that Clinton has consistently shown that he _does_ care about
>minorities.  He has appointed more minorities to his available posts than
>any previous governer of Arkansas (OK, that by itself doesn't mean
>anything!).  He has been applauded by women's groups, gay groups, black
>groups, etc for his appointments and the laws that he has passed.
>While I think that you may be accurate to a certain extent regarding the
>ethics of politics, I think that it is important to point out that one's
>real feelings come out when you look at appointments and laws that were
>pushed for.
>Jonathan

        Clinton gave Gennifer Flowers a post that a black woman (who had been
working in that organization for years) was supposed to get.
        Of course, since his affair(s) are "no big deal", the press didn't give
that any coverage.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:58:52 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Original Intent

>>Jamie is taking an "originalist" position here.  The court moved
>>beyond that limited role a while ago.
>
>All legal theorists, at least all the ones I know about, believe
>that the task of the Supreme Court is to protect constitutional
>rights. (Actually, that's obviously too narrow: there are other
>constitutional issues than rights. Nonetheless, my main point
>is almost universally accepted in legal circles; viz., that
>the Court does not have the authority to strike down any
>legislation it finds bad or poorly implemented.)

Back when I was looking for good constitutional law readings, I came
across (one of) John Ely's discussion of the role of the Supremes.
(Ely is/was Dean of Stanford Law and supposedly a heavyweight in
Constitutional Law.)  His description of the mainstream thought on the
subject was that the Surpremes were supposed to throw out bogus laws
even if there wasn't obviously a constitutional issue.  (I note that
"constitutional issue" isn't all that fixed either.  I don't see a
"right to contract" in it, but the surpremes protected it for some
time.)

>Originalists think that the Constitution should be interpreted
>according to its Original Intent.

Since that was the intent that was passed, it does have one
interesting distinguishing characteristic.  If we're not going to pay
attention to what was passed fine, but ....

>I have not in any way endorsed Original Intent as a unique
>strategy for interpreting the Constitution.

I know that Jamie isn't an originalist on all issues, however the
"Supremes should only decide constitutional questions, and not every
question has a constitutional answer" is an Originalist position.

>I think sometimes we do, clearly, have to do some historical
>investigation to find out what certain words meant around 1800, or
>whenever. But I don't think that's even the main strategy that should
>be used.

So where should we get word meaning?  Note that we can change the
constitution's text any time we want, so it isn't like we have to play
word games to change it.

Suppose Congress passes a law defining "press" as "govt office that
distibutes official news bulletins".  They manage to get it put into
common usage and dictionaries.  Does this also change the protections
afforded by the 1st amendment?  What if Congress didn't pass such a
law; does that change things?

>If you want to know why *I* personally agree with this
>conception of the role of the Court, I will explain why.

I agree with it, but it isn't all that mainstream.

-andy
--
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-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:38:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject: Re: I suspect ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>>I am puzzled by a phenomena I saw again in this debate that I have
>>seen before in this forum from our rightist brethern. If you don't
>>agree with them, you are either dismissed or disparaged, definitely
>>and often hotly accused of being "wrong," "wrong-headed," misguided
>>and lacking in proofs even when one offers fairly acceptable
>>evidence.

>I'm puzzled by why VMS thinks that that behavior distinguishes
>rightists from leftists.
>-andy

        Rightists engage in it more frequently than leftists?

  -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:37:45 -0500
From:         Jeff Green <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Seasons Greetings
Comments: To: uunet!ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu!POLITICS@uunet.UU.NET

Dear Netters,

        For all of you who will be celebrating Thursday evening and
Friday this week, enjoy. Be safe and be happy. To those who have been
celebrating since last Saturday night, Chach Someach Chanukah!

Peace.

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor                  "The Alternative Press for BBS Users"
ModemNews Magazine                   RelayNet:Jeff Green->MODEMNEWS(465)
203.359.2299 BBS                     Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
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, 28 Dec 1992 15:21:52 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Clair George pled guilty to at least one count of lying to Congress. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:45:07 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Words
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>>Good grief, what's next, Pope torts? B)
>
>thought that was pop tarts?
>
>-linda
>
>>-other Andy

Who mentioned Madonna ?

Dunstan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: POLITICS FAQ, part one: purpose, rules, terms, etc.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:32:23 GMT

>The list hierarchy:

>Virtual President: Tim Johnson
>Virtual Vice President: Gary W. Olson
>Secretary of State: Valentine M. Smith
>Logic Czar: Jamie Dreier
>History Czar: Michael McCarthy
>Science Czar: Kerry Kilburn
>Associate History Czars: Valentine M. Smith, T. Clark, Brett'
>List Mother: Linda Saboe
>Deposed List Dictator: Ramon

Ahem.

Scoundrels, all.  Where's the UN when you really need them?

--Jimbo
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Bobbie Riconosciuto speaks out/INSL
Date: 28 Dec 1992 11:49 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212221850.AA06110@igc.apc.org>,        
 Paul Franklin <pfranklin@IGC.APC.ORG> writes...

[A very long transcript.]

I think the discussion would be better served with a summary and report,
including verifying sources.  Otherwise what I've been scanning simply doesn't
pass th e first-glance test for apparent credibility.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:54:22 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech

>Would it be awful if one was for freedom of speech for all
>except those who are against freedom of speech?

If it was applied on a "those folks are really against freedom of
speech, so they shouldn't be allowed to speak on other issues either"
basis, it doesn't mean anything.

The "you can't argue against freedom of speech form" is an admission
that freedom of speech is an idea that can't stand on its own, an idea
that would fall to opposing arguments.

I don't see anything to recommend the quoted position.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:22:22 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>> *another* reason to let them excersize their constitutional rights.....that
>> way you know what these groups are about, what they're going for, and you ju
>> may be able to use *them* to arm yourself (intellectually) and your children
>> against their kind of bull.
>>
>> -linda
>
>Really.  The real danger is letting these people >whisper< things to your
>kids, not >shout< at them.  Let them march, let them demonstrate, let them
>put on their freak shows, and let everybody stare.  Obviously, some people
>are going to be moved by that kind of thing; but imagine how much more
>destructive it would be if they were forced to go underground to spread
>their crap around.
>Ellen

        Can I send everyone a Libertarian Party application? :)

        That is the same strategy that Libs would like to use for all forms of
social problems.  If people want to be discriminatory, let them be open about
it so we all will know.
        My wife and I used to eat at Shoney's all the time.  We had no idea how
racist the owner was until Shoney's got sued by former employees and
applicants.
        If there had been a "no blacks" sign hanging out front, we'd have never
stepped foot in the place.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:09:29 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again

>Just to add some fuel to the fire, an attracive person comes into the
>dealership and the dealer, on the spot offers them a price reduction;
>should the dealer be able to deny you the right to purchase a
>Ferrari at the customary price? Should someone who sells/rents
>housing be allowed to deny you the right/charge you a significantly
>higher price based upon your appearance?

I note that there are very few "ugly" people on stage/screen/etc.

I'm waiting for the proposed law....  I also wonder why O'Andy
doesn't practice what he demands from others.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:32:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      beer countdown cancelled due to holiday

well, i'm off work after today until monday the 28th.
friday beer countdown is cancelled due to christmas.
next friday's beer countdown is also cancelled, but this time due to new years
and mucho football. i'm sure you guys won't *need* a countdown that day.....
probably just a stretcher.

friday beer countdown will return on Jan. 8, 1993.

ANNOUNCEMENT

in place of a beer countdown today, and in keeping with the spirit of the
season, i have the following announcement.....

drum roll please.....


The *Christmas Eggnog Countdown* will commence at 1pm EST.

MERRY HOHO DAY TO ALL!

-linda (now where did i put that nutmeg grater....gotta have nutmeg on top....
hey, who has the rum-this eggnog isn't for wimps ya know)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU