HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:01:08 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>>  Oh, and why hasn't the press attacked Inouye like they have Packwood?
>
>I don't know. Does Brett have a hypothesis?
>Jamie

        At the risk of being branded a
sourgrapesultrarightwingreactionaryscapegoatmudslingingneofascist
:)
I'd say it was because Inouye is a Dem while Packwood is a Rep.  Just like it
was only the Rep Senators that caught heat over the Clarence Thomas hearings
while people like Ted and Howard were left alone.

        Let's face it.  It's hunting season for Republicans.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:19:02 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton

In article <01GS6ZNWQJEA00DIEZ@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>, The Integral Differential
<DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> says:
>
>        CNN is broadcasting a statement by Clinton that the FDA should
>consider
>approving RU-486.
>
>Brett'
>the un-Kibo

good, they should approve it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:26:14 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Last comments on "rightism" ...

Caius' claim that Hitler and Mussolini were "LEFTIST" is totally without
substantiation, nor does he offer a shred of evidence to buttress his
alleged "case." I cannot discuss an issue where an irrational position is
taken, and only rhetoric is offered to defend it. So, I shall go into
silence on this, apparently the list is tilted far enough to the right to
buy such balderdash, and not offer any refutation to such an absurd claim.
This historian-to-be finds Caius a totally unreliable source, and like his
comrades in "rightism," Robert and Travis, only willing to make assertions,
but not willing to offer proofs. I tried, apparently my sources are not
acceptable to our "scholars of the right," nor the rest of the list either,
for that matter. Have at, Mr. Caius, but be aware of the fact that at least
one reader finds you to be all rhetoric, with damned little substance.
There is not enough time to debate with a person who refuses to accept terms
that most of the scholarly world agrees upon. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:42:35 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
              18 Dec 1992 15:00:48 EST from <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

> What is our purpose on Earth, if not for procreation, and the
> betterment of the future world for our children?

I don't know about others but my purpose on earth is to have
enjoyful sex.  Now if as a by product, I procreate, that is
OK with me.

My next purpose is to make sure people could have purposes
other than mine.  :-)

Doctor KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:00:41 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
              11 Dec 1992 21:51:31 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:51:31 GMT jimmy donal wales said:
>
>>Guess I'm really going to show my ignorance here, but, erm....who is Rush
>>Limbaugh?  I've seen references to radio programs, comparisons to McCarthy,
>
>Limbaugh has a radio programme (did I spell that right for your
>side of the lake?).  He also has a television show.

Yup, that is the correct spelling.  Since I posted originally, I've
come across two things.  I noticed that his tv show is broadcast on
a satellite channel (Lifestyle, if anyone with an Astra dish is
reading), so I may get a look at his show over my Christmas holidays.

Second, I had a brief look at alt.rush.limbaugh over on USENET.  Some
poor, demented sod seems to post 1000 line summaries of his shows, almost
every day.  The one thing which shone through from my quick read is that
the guy seems to be incredibly arrogant, claiming credit for nearly
everything he could think of, from Reagan's economic policy to the fall
of the Berlin Wall.  I don't think I'll be dipping into that particular
list without a very large pinch of salt in future.
>
>But I saw a few minutes of Limbaugh's show the other night.  It was
>disgusting.  The man is a dangerous fascist pig.

That is, indeed, the impression I get myself.

>
>--Jimbo


james
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: racism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:19:06 GMT

Ellen appears to be about to blow a gasket or some such.

>I used to recoil in horror whenever I thought about a black stranger
>calling >me<, a white person, a "racist."  Now I don't fear it...

>The truth is nothing to be afraid of.  I remember what it's like to
>be afraid of it.

Ellen, take a deep breath.

Ahhh.... that's better.

I don't think you've got a good handle on the terms 'bigot' and
'racist'.

A bigot is one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church,
      party, belief, or opinion.

A racist is one with a belief that race is the primary determinant
      of human traits and capacities and that racial differences
      produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

(I got these from my handy-dandy-cheap-and-lousy online dictionary;
no guarantees.)

You are not a racist.  You are not a bigot.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
            <9212161811.AA19935@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:12:53 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Tolerance and discrimination are not mutually exclusive

AHEM! If the move to limit the number of posts on this list has foundered,
might we not at least consider requesting posters to abstain from exceeding
the legal alcohol-intake limits for driving a motor vehicle before posting
to politics?
  Or was someone else able to figure out what the hell Professor Freeman's
"riposte" to my distinction between discrimination & tolerance (NOT toleration;
John Barleycorn Must Die!, eh wot?) was all about, save an effective, nay
sobering demonstration of the dangers of strong drink?
Concerned Though I Like a Glass of Sherry Before Dinner Myself,
Michael
(confidential to Jimbo: THIS one's ad hominem, nolo contendere)
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Other People's Money
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:48:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Well, David, are you saying that being a member of this society
>is not "voluntary?"  If you are not willing to be a member, just
>go live in a cabin and eat . . . what ever the other poster so
>eloquently proposed.  So by being right here in the middle of
>civilization and using all its fruits and exercising your right
>to vote, etc., I am assuming that you "voluntarily" decided to be
>a member of this society which obligates you to pitch in for its
>expenses.

I'll say that my participation in KAT's society isn't voluntary.  I do
like to see KAT's "love it or leave it" stance, because I reject it.
Rather, I point out that it applies equally well to those who want to
interfere with my choices.  If they refuse to deal with people who
don't play their games, fine with me.  I won't even insist that they
do so elsewhere.  I merely insist on the same treatment.

-andy
--
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:31:29 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              firefly" at Dec 17, 92 10:06 am

rufus t. firefly pisze:

>>  fine. so we use other things as "solid currency". how about silver?
>> rare metals of all kinds? computer chips? bluejeans? why so hung
>> up on gold?

In fact silver, which is mined in Poland, will be better than gold in my
country. I have argued for gold just for historical reasons.

Maybe titanium which can be mined from the asteroids will be better in the
galactic economy.

Caius.


Computer chips etc, can be very easily produced and destroyed, and therefore
are not suitable.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 12:53:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: NORNAL

Michael:

        I believe that would be classified (if it happened) as
In Vivo Fertilization; there's no record of Miriam's egg being taken
out to be fertilized.

        Good point (for those to whom "this season" matters).


-T.
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:04:25 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: An Historian
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Check your dictionary.

        History

        Historian

        Historical

        Historiography

etc.  In the examples do they use a or an in front of those words?  It is a in
the ones we have around here.

Brett'
(A historian by night :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:54:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

Caius:

        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...

        Equal pay for equal work.  Period.


-T.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:54:56 GMT


>>I don't have any numbers either (if anybody does please post them)

I've got some:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,....

I've got an infinite series like that.  And you know what else?
I've got EVEN MORE than THAT!

--Jimbo, who knows some REALLY big numbers.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:21:43 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: we tripped the light fandango

A year or two ago, there was an article in Toronto's Now Magazine about the
shortage of marijauna and how that was forcing people on to harder drugs like
crack and heroin. The article included a story about one pot seller who called
up the RCMP from a pay phone to complain about the shortage:)
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:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:08:38 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

Re: the "nornality" of homosexuality Pizz fizzes:

>  I certainly think they should be allowed
>to do whatever they want to as long as they do not try to proselytyze
>to young children about its virtues.  I think if someone ends up there,
>fine, but we should certainly not be presenting it to kids as an
>equivalent lifestyle to the normal heterosexual family.

So then you are saying that in-school advocacy of abstinence should
be verboten, since after all celibacy is *not* normal?


>  After all, in
>some sense we are all on the earth for procreation, and everything we
>do in life is in someway related to making the world more livable now
>and in the future for our kids.

Eh? So after our kids are grown and we're too old and feeble to work
or provide value we owe it to the kids to off ourselves?

>  Homosexuals cannot have kids.

I think you have a problem here, some homosexuals *do* have kids,
some even used the kit and "made 'em themselves."

> It
>seems rather unnatural,

AHHHH! New word! Define "unnatural" please.

(I was figuring this one would come up right after "nornal" proved
to be less than adequate; I believe that "it's not moral" is the
next step for those of you keeping score at home. ;) )

>Pizz

-other Andy
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:19:06 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

>>What is our purpose on Earth, if not for procreation, and the
>>betterment of the future world for our children?
>
>There is no such thing as ultimate cause or ultimate purpose, except as our
>societies define them. 

Why society?  Why not 'each individual'?

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:04:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

Tim is correct: his statement about my reaction to Dr Pizz is pure
speculation - and wrong.

I have been going back and forth with Dr Pizz on this thread for some time -
longer, I believe, than Tim.  That is of no consequence, but it is true.

Having gone on so long with the Doc, realizing that arguing was NOT what the
Doc was doing, I asked for a simple and clear admission to end it.

Do me a favor, Tim: I do not welcome your potshots; however, if you must
make them, please wait for something legitimate.  I have and will make many
mistakes, and so provide you with more than enough fodder for your games.
All I ask is that I actually DO something to "rate" such a post.  This has
not been one of them.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:56:02 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)

>> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
>> the person who earned it.
>
>And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
>taken away from them.

Really?  I get money by trading things people want for their money.
They're free to buy elsewhere, but they want to make the trade.  While
I got it from them, I didn't "take it" from them.

There are differences between voluntary trades and "your money or your
life"; one of them is "what happens if I refuse?".  Which category do
taxes fall into?

Is all sexual intercourse involving males rape?  How about the "lord's
right"?  Does the answer depend on whether he's taking money or sex?

-andy
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, 17 Dec 1992 00:29:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      the masses make a tactical error...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>     I do not understand how you can consider "rightists" to be
>abnormal.  If that is the case, and normality has something to do with
>the average American, then why is it that Reagan (the only REAL
>rightist president of the last several decades) won with such
>overwhelming majorities in 1980 and 1984???  Sounds like the norm in
>America is to be a conservative...  Do not say that Bush's loss is
>proof that rightists are out-of-favor, since Bush is about as far to
>the left as one can get without becoming a Democrat...

...and so, to express their disapproval with Bush's dastardly leftist
tendencies, they elected a democrat.

The masses would seem to be confused on how they're supposed to vote.
Maybe they forgot they were normal or something.

Personally, I had thought that the "normal" American was quite apathetic
about political matters, save for an occasional burst of interest in
election years.  But then, I haven't met the "normal" American yet, so
I can't say exactly what he or she might be thinking.

>--Dr. Pizz--

Gary W. Olson, who has only one
  number (1), but has a seperate
  series of factors which you
  can multiply the number by to
  make it look like any number
  you want.                     "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:59:40 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jimbo

As I have previously stated vis a vis homosexuality, I think it is fine
for people to do their own thing in private.  I frankly do not want to
know details of ANYONE's sexuality, and think we'd all be better off if
everyone kept it on the QT.  I certainly think they should be allowed
to do whatever they want to as long as they do not try to proselytyze
to young children about its virtues.  I think if someone ends up there,
fine, but we should certainly not be presenting it to kids as an
equivalent lifestyle to the normal heterosexual family.  After all, in
some sense we are all on the earth for procreation, and everything we
do in life is in someway related to making the world more livable now
and in the future for our kids.  Homosexuals cannot have kids.  It
seems rather unnatural, therefore to have such sex drives, since the
evolutionary purpose of sex drives is to further the procreation of the
species.  Clearly such sex drives do not have this effect, and are thus
biologically counterproductive, and in my opinion somewhat abnormal.
Still, they can do what they want to, for all I care, in the privacy of
their own bedrooms.  In other places, we'd all be better off if we
stopped being open in our public displays of affection!

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:38:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: So that's what you meant! s
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >Brett' tells us about scams poor people use:
> >
> >>         And here's the scenario that most people use:
>
>         You've misread the statement.  "Most" refers to the people who are
> trying to scam, and not "the poor".

Thank you.  I stand corrected (well, sit).  I can accept this statement,
with some reservations.  I take it we agree that serious welfare fraud
(let's define that as cheating by people who would have enough income
for an adequate standard of living if their welfare disappeared) is a
relatively small problem.  After all, welfare recipients are a well-
examined segment of society, and it's hard to pull off a really big
scam under that kind of observation.

However, there is another dimension to welfare "cheating" that comes
up from time to time.  That is the non-reporting of small amounts of
income, because the standard allowances are too small to raise a family
on.  I don't really consider this as a problem (more an indictment of
the system as a whole), but it is often used to inflame public opinion
against welfare recipients with inflated figures on welfare "fraud."
(Again, the studies I have read tend to show that even this last is
overrated).

Best,
Peter

> >Peter
> Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:38:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Other Clark Returns

Sue:
>>I didn't catch all of the news, but did the Supreme Court refuse to h ear
>>another abortion case from the state of Mississippi on the grounds th at
>>they were not going to hear these state-by-state cases?
Well, the Mississippi law was nearly identical to the Pennsylvania law
just approved, so there was no reason to review it.

>>Does that mean they want to leave it up to the state courts?
If the state's law is like Pennsylvania's, yes.

Jamie:
>Well, they decided not to hear a case from Guam. Close, Sue.
Really?  I thought they heard the case and overturned the law...
Unless Congress has a treaty with Guam allowing "virtual sovereignty,"
the Federal Freedom of Choice Act would apply to Guam, since Congress
can make laws for a territory, but not a state.

>It doesn't mean they are leaving it up to the lower courts.
>It means that when lower courts decide in accordance with Roe,
>the Supreme Court will not consider arguments which would,
>if accepted, overturn Roe.
More accurately, if the arguments would overturn Casey.

> We've actually discussed this already, but you are forgiven
> for not paying attention.
What?  This man has power to forgive sins?  Blasphemy!

> Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:17:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Home ownership among poor

>         When you count entitlements, those that can be classified as "below"
> the poverty level goes down.
>

Brett, I still don't understand what you mean, especially not by that
statement.  Even though I have been keeping up with all the appended
conversation threads in the posts <grin>, I don't understand what you're
trying to say by that statement, other than the fact that entitlement
programs raise the amount of people that can be considered above the
poverty line.

This is not a rich vs. poor thing, as O'Andy I think was trying to say,
but if we took away the entitlement programs, would you say that the
amount of people classifiable as "below" the poverty level would then
>increase<?

This is not a challenge to your statement; I just am a little fuzzy
on the significance of your point.


Ellen
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:51:51 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> I don't see how this changes the argument.  Let's suppose that Spike
> Lee DOES have Asians and whites working for him.  He still said what
> he said, I still argue that looking only at who an entertainer has
> as fans and employees is insufficient to determine whether or not that
> entertainer is racist.
>
> --Jimbo

  i would agree completely, jimbo. i wasn't the one who brought up the
employees/fans bit to try to defend spike. i was attempting to show,
perhaps thru a poorly chosen argument, that spike can be racist even
if he has black employees and fans.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU