HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:35:03 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

Ahem,

Who invaded Kuwait and had plans to invade Saudi Arabia afterward?  The
aggressive US? Guess again. Who who invited US, British, Italian, Canadian,
Austrailian, etc, etc., to place troops and machines in their country? SA
Who held American and British civilians hostages?  Iraq.  Who hid American
civilians to keep them from being captured by Iraqi soldiers?  Kuwait
And who would ""not"" have backed the coalition if it had just been a
US attack?  The Arab Nations.  Remember, even the Arabs nations are in
the UN also, how do you think they voted?  They are not exactly our 'bosom
buddies', but there they were.  Oil?  Heck yes, we are their best customer,
especially Saudi Arabia, buuuuut, remember we are not the only people in the
world who need oil, so do the 'aggressive' nations of Japan, (more so than
we do), Australia, Canada, Britian, (despite the North Sea), etc, etc.

As to the world hating us....

Yeeeees, the world resents us so much, that they are still trying to get
here, I don't recall people 'killing' themselves to get into the ex-USSR
do you?

As to the rest of the world, at least a nice chunk of it, here is a little
interesting bit of news.  This is a poll from a July CNN/Angus Reid Group Poll.

'POLL: WORLD LOOKS TO USA A LEADER'

People around the world look to the United States to lead the way into the
next millennium, a new CNN/Angus Reid Group Poll finds.

Forty-two percent of people polled in 16 countries named the USA as the world's
leader at the end of the 1990's.  Japan was second with 20%

"From the outside looking in, and I say this as a Canadian, America is seen
as a force for good in the world," says pollster Angus Reid.

The telephone poll covered| 4,510 adults-in the USA, Canada, Mexico, France,
Britian, Germany, Spain, Iltaly, "Russia", Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South
Korea, "Japan", India and Australia.

I suppose they could have asked another 4,000,000, but I think I know what the
answer would be.

It is no news to anyone, we could have driven Saddam, don't believe me, ask
Norman.  And yet, we didn't, despite the fact that even though Saddam had
been kicked out of Kuwait, which "he", not US, declared as a 19th province,
and had agreed to most humiliating, intrusive, encompassing cease-fire
conditions since Versailles punished Germany after World War I, and to
top it off, 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces had justbeen wracked by the bloodiest,
most furious revolt in Iraq's 60 year history, (Persia became Iraq in 1932).
Plus the military staff he as assasinated, and his own Republican army trying
to assasinate him and the Kurds he apparently is still killing.

And you talk of 'aggression'???

Why haven't we attacked, don't believe me, ask the UN.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:18:35 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

Missy J:
>This is how Quayle can make such a statement.  Of course, this is an easy
>one, since we are talking about his own daughter.  I would have liked to
>have seen the same question posed regarding a total stranger, since that
>is where true conviction becomes visible.

Two things.  First, didn't Quayle argue, back in the previous campaign,
that an 11-year-old rape victim who became pregnant should not be allowed
an abortion?  Would that qualify as the same (general) question regarding a
total stranger?

Second, could you clarify your idea that true conviction becomes more
visible when we discuss total strangers?  Seems to me the opposite would be
the case -- our true convictions become most clear when we have the largest
emotional stake in the effects of our convictions (e.g., I can take a stand
against the death penalty, unless someone hurts my child -- at which point
I might change my mind).  Does that make sense?

Your running mate,
Kerry
who will soon detail her specific proposals for dealing with collapsed wave
functions and dead cats.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:15:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      things under god indivisible

all you young'uns out there are gonna be surprised (except for valentine, he
might remember).
in the (gulp) 50's when i was in grammar school (do they still call it that?),
we were taught the good ol' pledge of allegiance, *without* "under god" .
it was,"...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
i think it was the Eisenhower adm. that inserted the under god part, but i
could be wrong. it may have taken time to get every school to chg. it over.
now, in case anyone has a notion that the public schools tried to keep the
under god part out, i went to parochial school from grades 1 thru 5, and anyway
people weren't so touchy way back when....

-linda (looking for E strEEt) saboE
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: prolifers and informed discussion
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:48:33 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Richard_A_FYFE writes:
> This shall be my last word on the abortion debate.
> In a discussion, all that can be done
> is to offer reasons for and against one's position.  However,
> the major proponents of the "pro-life" faction on this list have
> decreed that their positions are above reason and above proof.
> In placing a belief above reason, one need not (indeed,
> can not, without contradiction) hold that there is any reason
> for others to accept his view.
> From pro-life activists all that I read in return were slogans
> that my conclusion must be wrong.  Surprisingly, it was indiv-
> iduals who were pro-choice who were doing their best to provide
> objections to the line of reasoning I was attempting to advance.
> Anyway, when a person metaphorically places his/her
> finger in her ears and begins shouting as loud as possible, "I
> am right! I am right! I am right!" it is a fool who attempts to
> continue to talk with such a person.

I am adamantly 100% pro-choice, and I am also pro-abortion.  (Pro-abortion,
btw, Missy, means that you would consider and might decide to have an abortion,
should the question come up.  Obviously men cannot have abortions, but in
either case pro-abortion also means that you can envision realistic
circumstances under which you would personally support abortion.  And I would
estimate that 1/4 to 1/3 of pro-choice people are also pro-abortion under this
definition.)  

I see the throwing around of slogans and the lack of reasonability.  But I do 
not think that the pro-choice movement is somehow immune to this.  I do think 
the anti-choice movement as a whole is really about oppressing women and 
putting them back in "their place" and also about encouraging poverty.  But I 
think some anti-choicers have made valid arguments--Missy's sanctity-of-life 
argument would stop wars and even violence in self-defense (which is what 
abortion may be viewed as).

I think the real problem is that both sides, although mostly the anti-choicers,
tend to think that the right they are protecting cannot ever be comprimised by 
social and economic questions, and that anti-choice opinions are evangelical in
nature in that they require coerced conversion of the masses into a shared 
belief.  But as for they lack of people being willing to discuss an issue, free
from the influences human frailty, well yes, I think your letter proves that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoof and horn, hoof and horn.          |
All that dies shall be reborn.         |             Kai Alexis Price
Corn and grain, corn and grain.        |           Hallucinatory  Satyr
All that falls shall rise again.       |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 15:51:23 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:54:00 EST linda said:
>yuck....i'm getting a little queesy with this stuff.

>how far would we have to go before we'd be executing people accding to their
>blood type? life for B+ ....death penalty for 0-.
---------------------------------------------->?

But there is an advantage to harvesting B-types instead of O (not zero)
as B is rarer than O and cross-typing is even more important in
organ donations than blood transfusions.  The only advantage to being
type O is universal donor.

This is keeping in mind, of course, geography.  Different blood types
show dominance/recessiveness in different parts of the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:42:45 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:59:43 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier said:
>Here's an idea for US taxation.

>Tax all the income of individuals making over $500,000 down
>to that amount.

How many people make that amount (or more) ?  Not as many as you'd think.
That's why the issue of heavy taxation on the very rich only makes sense
as a method to try to keep them from amassing mega-wealth.  You'd make
far more money taxing middle-class denizens a fraction of a percentage
more probably raises far more than a 100% (fair share) taxation of
those in a minority group.  This is why I questioned Clinton's rationale
for "fair share" taxation of the wealthy vs. actual revenue generation.
"Fair share" will create an emotional response in those who appear to be
over-taxed and generate more votes.

>I would also tax inheritance, lotteries, sweepstakes and the like
>to individuals down to $5 mill after the standard tax is assessed.

>Does anyone have an idea of what sort of revenue this would generate?

Not much.  There aren't many lotteries & sweepstakes where the lump-sum
value is over $5 million (Indiana is one, btw...win the Lotto on Saturday
and you get one check for ( total - taxes ), rather than a twenty-year
payment where the devalued payments are worth less & less.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: A non-announcment of my non-candidacy, pro tem.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:33:40 GMT

Jamie is right, of course, that a vote for the J1/J2 ticket would
indeed be a vote for the smartest list member.  And it is easy
enough to decide which of us that would be.

If Jamie thinks he is smarter and I am not, and I think that I am
smarter and he is not, then one of us must be confused.

Suppose that Jamie is confused.  Then his (subtle) assertion that
he is the smartest one would also be confused.  Then I would be
the smartest.

Suppose instead that I'm confused.  Then when I read his (subtle)
assertion and took it to mean that he was claiming to be the smartest,
then I was confused, and he was really claiming that I'm smarter.
In that case, Jamie and I are both proclaiming me to be the smartest,
and since (in any case) one of us must be smartest, then it is
unlikely that we are both wrong.  Then I am smartest.


QED

--Jimbo

p.s. Some may draw an analogy between this marvelous proof and
some supposed proofs for the existence of God.  Spot the fallacy
(fallacies, actually) and win a free pair of shoes!

p.p.s.  I've gotten myself so tickled at this feast of unreason,
I'm drawing strange looks from others in the lab.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:24:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: The Romantic Tragedy of the Electorate

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:31:07 EDT Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET> said:
> Now for something completely different:  If A, then B.  For the whole
> statement to be true we have to consider these:
>        a)  Is B true?  If yes, it doesn't matter what A is, the whole
>            statement is true.
>        a)  Is B false?  If yes, then A has to be false for the statement
>            to be true.
>
> The only way the whole statement can be false is if A is true and B is
> false.

Exactly.  If A is false, the statement cannot be proven false or true,
therefore it is true.  If A is true and B is true, the statement is pro-
ven true.  If A is true and B is false, then the statement is proven
false, and is therefore, obviously, false.  Therefore, a statement must
be able to be proven false before it is considered false.  Therefore,
a statement that cannot be proven false is true.
And BTW, I held to this belief before I even learned of geometric logic.

> Evelyn
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:21:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Logic: politicos beware

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:27:07 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> >Well, I would like someone then to prove the above statement true.
> >(Besides the geometrical axiom that says so.  Why does it say so?)
>
> (The statement was:
>  If 2+2=26, then 3+3=90)
>
> There is no geometrical axiom that says this statement is
> true. Axioms of geometry are about parallel lines, and so
> forth.
Axiom, law, rule, whatever....

>
> The statement is true because of the meaning of the
> logical particle "if...then." Evelyn, among others,
> has already explained why.
Yes, but she used the "axiom"--infact, she stated the axiom, just used
more words to do it.

> (Evelyn)
>
> > Now for something completely different:  If A, then B.  For the whole
> > statement to be true we have to consider these:
> >        a)  Is B true?  If yes, it doesn't matter what A is, the whole
> >            statement is true.
> >        a)  Is B false?  If yes, then A has to be false for the
> >            statement to be true.
> >
> > The only way the whole statement can be false is if A is true and B is
> > false.
>
> (But then, Travis)
>
> >Exactly.  If A is false, the statement cannot be proven false or true,
> >therefore it is true.
>
> If A is false, then the conditional CAN be proved true. Here is
> a proof:
>
> (1)   Not A.                             (By hypothesis)
> (2)   If not A, then (if A then B)       (Logically valid schema)
> (3)   If A, then B.                      (By modus ponens, from lines
>                                                       (1) and (2) )
Hmmmm....I don't quite follow #2.  It seems to me that you are usng a
circular argument.  Show me that if not A, then (if A then B)...
If not A, then there is no way to test if A then B, so there is no way
to prove or disprove if A then B.  If it cannot be proven false, it is
true.

> >If A is true and B is true, the statement is pro-
> >ven true.  If A is true and B is false, then the statement is proven
> >false, and is therefore, obviously, false.  Therefore, a statement must
> >be able to be proven false before it is considered false.
>
> That simply does not follow. Sorry!
What do you mean it does not follow?

> Here is a famous example:
>
>            "This statement can be proven false."
>
> There you go. A statement which cannot be proven false, yet
> it's false.
> (It's better when represented in a formal system, believe me.)
Surely you know that a logical statement never refers to itself...
Statement:  This sentence has five words. is true.
Converse: This sentence doesn't have five words. is also true.
Logic would go out the window.

> >Therefore,
> >a statement that cannot be proven false is true.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> >And BTW, I held to this belief before I even learned of geometric logic.
>
> Well, then, don't let logic change your mind. Probably Robert
> can help you out here.
I'm not stopping it...

>       Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:12:39 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

>From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
>
>
>1)  Not-withstanding any Supreme Court action, legislative
>    action, etc., shouldn't the mother bear the burden of
>    proof in explaining why the child is not a living
>    person entitled to all rights under the Constitution?
>    It is she after all who wishes to abridge those
>    rights by terminating the pregnancy and thus take
>    away the right and liberty of life.
>
>
>3)  Why is it that a mother has the right to determine how
>    her body is used by a child, but not how it is used
>    by a grown adult?  Why couldn't she have said no to
>    the sex and not no to the child?  When will people in
>    American society start taking responsibility for their
>    actions rather than trying to find the easy way out?
>
>    I am not advocating outlawing sex outside of marriage,
>    but women should be aware that having sex brings up the
>    possibility of having a child.  Consequently people
>    should not have sex without being willing to handle a
>    child.  What is so hard about this?
>
>-j.b.

Jason, if you are going to put the burdon of proof on women,
and make them the responsible party, you are gonna have to
do that across the board, and allow women to make decisions about
their body, without interference from anybody.  You can't say to
women "its your fault you are biologically equipped to get
knocked up, and to punish you for that, we are going to
potentially ruin your life"

how about if men were more responsible? How about if everytime a
guy gets some girl pregnant, he has to go through some horrible
tortuous ordeal, something akin to giving birth. How about synthethic
kidney stones or something?

This whole blaming women thing is tiring, and if i was in a position
of medical power, and some guy came to me with a bleeding hernia from
lifting something to heavy, i might just say "well, you deserve it, you
should have known, you should have been more responsible with your
body, and i'm afraid i can't do anything for you. I am not going to
operate because that's the "easy way out" and you need to learn right
from wrong."

jEnnifEr ElisE colE stEElE "i got N's, and a J, but E is the ticket,
                            vote the E-ticket, a roller coaster ride
                            of politics"
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: ratings for tv
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:24:08 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

linda writes:
> one note abt. the warning labels tipper managed to get stuck on recordings.
> my son worked part time at s.goody's. all the recordings w/the warning labels
> were held under a counter or in back. customers had to request them, and store
> personnel had to check id's.      [I may have altered this by accident.] 
> ALL the recordings w/these labels were by black artist.

It is my understanding that Jello Biafra's "spoken word" albums have been
similarly censored, and their only "offensive" quality is anti-authoritarian
questioning of the government.  No sex, no violence, no "bad" words (I think),
no hate....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He's not the old Bob Denver...he has his shirt off!" <-- TG | Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: A quote
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:21:51 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <9207202025.AA19448@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu> BAFEI@CONNCOLL.BITNET writes:
>This sounds like a politician we all know.
>
>>From TFTD-L:
>>
>>                His speeches leave the impression of an army of pompous
>>                phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea.
>>                Sometimes these meandering words actually capture a
>>                straggling thought and bear it triumphantly a prisoner
>>                in their midst until it dies of serviturde and overwork.
>>
>>                                     -Senator William McAdoo
>>                                      (Said about Warren G. Harding)
>>
>
>Regards,
>
>Brett

Yeah, that does sound a lot like George. Or did you mean Dan "Vot for Me"
Quayle?

--John Mignault
  jbm@panix.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:17:12 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

I, too, am tired of the old Double Standard regarding men, women, and
sex.  And I say it is time that men should be forced to help support the
children they father.  After all, it doesn't take one person to conceive
a child, it takes two.  So why should it be placed all on the woman's
shoulders?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:42:28 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't...

> From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>> If, according to you, they [the rich -- JRZ] are already paying "*more* than
>> their
>> fair share," then would you please tell us how much IS their fair
>> share?

> The rich would be paying their fair share when they are paying the same
> proportion of their income in taxes as does everyone else.

On what did you base your opinion?  If you want absolute equality
(fairness?) then maybe you would like to institute a head-tax (where
everyone would pay a flat sum, period).  And to be really really fair,
do you think we should tax income or wealth?  I mean if I have a $100,000
diamond ring and if the US Military is protecting my life and property,
then shouldn't I reimburse the government for the protection that they
are providing for my diamond ring?

>> --KAT

> Jason

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