HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:20:22 EST
From:         Diane Alexander <alexandd@GVSU.EDU>
Subject:      re: Make My Day
Comments: To: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET, POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

   I've been following this discusssion and I thought I'd put my 2 cents
   in...

   Since being on this list I find that Robert & I don't see eye-to-eye on
   much, but I have to agree with him on this subject. Perhaps it's
   because my dad was a cop for over 20 years and saw too much of what
   people can do to each other; but I think that it's alright to use deadly
   force against an unlawful intruder. If some scumbag is arrogant enough
   to break into my home and think he can take anything, it's obvious he
   has no regard for my civil rights. Who's to say he'll stop at robbery?
   I'm not about to risk my life finding out.  I have a gun in the house
   and I know how to use it (dad taught me to shoot when I was 10.) My
   husband & I don't have kids nor do we have people over with kids (they
   scare our cats), so there's not much danger of an accidental shooting.
   He also have  "his and hers" baseball bats by the bed. We live in a
   marginal section of town and it pays to be prudent.  I'd rather get sued
   by some creep than killed by one. I've thought about the argument that a
   crook could just take the weapon away & use it on me. Well, I'd much
   rather put up a fight than just lay there.

   My folks lived in Oklahoma for a while and have said the law works. I
   wouldn't be against it if someone passed a similar bill in Michigan.

   Like my dad told me since I was a kid: "Don't be afraid to hurt someone
   who's trying to hurt you." I'm not Dirty Harriet, but I do believe in
   defending myself.

   Diane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:59:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Teenage rave.

hey, what is "rave" music??

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:44:18 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/labor unions

 *** Resending note of 09/04/92 12:54


 >        First, I am curious about Robert's definition of "exorbitant pay and
 >benefits."  If you define an assembly line worker's pay as "exorbitant," what
 >adjective do you use to describe the compensation of the CEOs?

 Exorbitant - An acquaintance of mine that sits in a chair with a rubber mallet
              watching for defective glass to come down the assembly line.  Upon
              spotting such defective material, or just being bored, he uses all
              the highly technical skill he can muster and strikes the offending
              item until its utter destruction.  For this superb performance he
              is compensated with a mere 40K+.  Exorbitant?  You tell me.

 CEO comp   - You'll get no argument from me that many CEOs are overpaid.
              I have more adjectives for describing my disgust, however, for
              professional athletes.

 >       Second, you quite rightly point out that a major factor in the
 >willingness of the American consumer to purchase foreign products is the
 >perceived high quality of those goods.  Who determines this quality? Is it the
 >worker on the line?  Placing the blame for low quality on the laborer ignores
 >management's responsibility in this area.  .......

 I have not tried to whitewash management.  I agree with you, they must share
 in the blame.

 >       Third, Robert suggests that labor unions are obsolete since many of the
 >immediate goals sought by more conservative elements of the labor movement(the
 >AFL, for example) have been codified.  Statutory protection does not decrease
 >the need for vigilance, as demonstrated by the fire in the North Carolina
 >chicken-processing plant one or two years ago.  In a scene reminiscent of the
 >Triangle Shirt Factory, management had locked the exits, thereby trapping the
 >victims inside.  Granted, we have organizations to enforce safety regulations,
 >but their workload is far beyond their means.  They have neither the time nor
 >the personnel to conduct adequate and widespread inspections of the workplace.

 I remember the incident but I do not know the eventual outcome.  I would hope
 that those responsible would have been tried for manslaughter/murder.
 The need for vigilance has not been questioned, of course we must continue to
 watch for abuses.  Let's compromise.  Why not skip the strikes, which benefit
 no one, and go directly to binding arbitration?

 >Mike McCarthy

 ---Robert
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:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:32:19 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      misc. responses

Hi, gang.  I'm not all the way caught up, so I'm just commenting on a few
things that caught my eyes :)

On the adoption gig:  did anyone read the long article in last month's
Atlantic?  The authors mostly discussed adoption of "special needs"
children (who make up a good chunk of kids waiting for adoption).  They
interviewed various pshycologists/psychiatrists, parents, adoption
providers, etc.  Two of the take-home messages, for me, were that (1) there
are currently more kids waiting for adoption than there are prospective
parents, and (2) adoption, especially of kids older than about 3 years, is
one helluva committment by the adopted parents -- it will typically involve
all kinds of problems that the "system" won't provide much help for.  So if
we're going to try to make adoption more available, we have to do much more
than simply make the process more streamlined.

Same subject: Robert:  OK, so no adoption for homosexuals and atheists.
Who *should* be able to adopt?

On the environment: -andy is right that the L.A. basin has long been known
for chemicals in the air.  However, I see a substantive difference between
the secondary aromatics trees produce and the kinds of toxics humans
produce -- primarily a difference in effect (both type and scale).  I, for
one, have never heard of anyplace having to issue smog alerts because of
the number of phenols in the air (although I have heard of hay-fever alerts
when pollen counts get high).

Same subject: although I don't know that I'd rank it #1, I agree with Pam
that environmental issues are *very* important -- I'd like to see them
considered in concert with economic policy.

Well, my daughter wants to use the phone, so I'd better hop along.

Have fun, everyone!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:13:54 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

Since Jamie asked:

Let me first point out again that the aim of this discussion (about
deadly force) was to try to find out what the *law* said about it,
not how we all feel about it.

Nonetheless, the question has been asked, and I will respond.  You
ask whether a Christian should use deadly force (something something,
I can't recall.)

As an Anabaptist, I cannot use deadly force for any reason.  As for
other Christians, I can only say that I think the imperative is to
use every other means possible before resorting to deadly force, and
even then to do so only if life is in imminent danger.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:40:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hopefully, my last comment on this ....

VMS:

Please explain how "first trimester" can be a "flexible term."

Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:43:25 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What Should One Belive?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              1 Sep 1992 16:24:29 GMT from <gpn0@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.E DU>

On Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:24:29 GMT GARY PHILIP NEWHART said:
>I heard on NPR last evening, that the Kuwaities had hired a public relations
>firm to find the "buttons" that were to be pushed to shore up american support
>for the then pending gulf conflict. What's going on? This is continuing
>evidence that what the US stands up for, and what the public believes via the
>published "facts"is a scam; I was coming down preety hard on the press because
>of the biased Presidential politcs reporting, but i believe that the press
>should very well be a stronger watch-dog if the "real" world of industry and
>government continues as it is. I feel a strong revolt under foot!


How is this any different than PACs interacting /c their CongressPeople?
How is this any different than the spin doctors for a particular issue?

When you see "experts" interviewed by the media, do you think the
media personnel went out and scrutinized various persons and determined
their ability to speak fairly (hah!), clearly, etc.?  No way.  I'm sure
that whenever a hot issue hits the wires, every Tom, Dick, and Mary
is phoning and faxing the various television and radio channels and
stations on behalf of various experts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:21:54 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:18:49 EDT todd pukanecz said:

>Am I to assume that more meaningful phrases would include "Ignorance is
>bliss"

>   toddddddddd


Let us not abridge Shakespeare:

"Ignorance is bliss, but to be wise is folly."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:54:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      The Virtual Elections

Please, I am interested in the biographies,platforms, and agendas of the

canidates in the virtual election.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:13:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      a couple things, i suppose

hi there,

i know that you all missed me something fierce, but i am back,
with a new computer and all (and considerably less money, as well).
my old computer got blowed up REAL good in a storm, despite being
off and surge protected.  ah well.  now i can use ultravga graphics,
once i can afford to buy the programs :(.

has brett been around?  did he ever post his health care plan?

liese, i'm afraid that you are too intelligent to be list idiot.
sorry.  maybe in your next life...

dave quotes:

"I do agree that the money recieved for hunting licenses goes directly
to wildlife management."

"The ends do not justify the means, except under certain occassions."

from what kerry (kilburn) tells me (and i have also heard this from
others who have gone into bio, wildlife management, or forestry),
"wildlife management" simply means maximizing the deer population for
the hunters who pay for said management.

when we talk about ends and means, the term "justify" is pointless.
the means *determine* the ends.  the ends are always only an extention
of the means.  read gandhi.  he knew.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:31:51 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Patriotism
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Missy:
>Kai:
>
>Regarding your "flag-burning" signature.  You might take a moment to
>reflect on the fact that you live in one of the few nations on the
>planet in which burning the flag is not considered to be an
>actionable offense.  American flags are burned in America and elsewhere,
>but in many nations, if you burn the flag of your nation, you are
>considered a traitor.

I can't think of anywhere ?

>Ironically, many people have died in order to safeguard your right to
>both ridicule them and burn the flag under which they fought.  Not
>to mention your free-speech right to criticize the governmental system
>they dug in their heels to protect.  They may have been right; they
>may have been wrong.  The fact remains that they believed that their
>personal, physical sacrifice was required to protect the families,
>friends, and ideals they held dear.
>
>We do them no honor, nor ourselves elevate, by trivializing their
>lives and their deaths.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Hey, lighten up.

D.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:42:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject: Re: cutting off one's nose...

Missy,
        I see we agree that the difference is Oil. I also agree about all your
justifications about oil being a commodity which has to be protected, but then
the US (and others) should stop claiming that they endorse justice, equality
and all the other moral values which are being repeated over and over again
If it's a matter of national intersts and national interests only, fine; but
at least let's t

at least let's admit this fact.

                                Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:02:23 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What is family values?

>I believe in tolerance and individual rights -- so I support any party that
>will support legalizing homosexual marriage.

Both major parties have the ability to implement this at the state
level, but neither has.  (I'm not convinced that marriage should be
recognized by govt, no matter who's involved.)

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:25:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:24:54 EDT Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> > You can think or read whatever you like, but your comments are common
> > among people who think they can understand something they have never
> > experienced.
>
>   Do you mean that the rapist is the only one qualified to discuss
> the motivations behind rape?  I don't want to stomp in my cleats
> all over anyone's personal and private and unpleasant experiences,
> but I guess it isn't obvious to me that a victim of rape is more
> qualified to speak of the rapist's motivation than, say, a male
> (and therefore potential rapist).
>
>                                        -Tim

I hate to think of all males as potential rapists, but, then again, I
can't totally refute the claim either.  I wish I could.
But then again, we all are potential bank robbers, potential income-tax
cheaters, potential murderers.  Of course, some women are potential
rapists.
One point I would like to make here in case I have not gotten it across
is that most crimes are based on what the feelings of the victim are.
For example, rape is a violation because the victim FEELS it to be.
Shoplifting is theft because the store owner/manager considers it to be.
But as we talk about abortion, I hear that the feelings of the PERPE-
TRATOR should decide whether it is right or wrong.  Do pro-choice people
not see a double standard here???  I may not like pickles, but I don't
care if you eat pickles.  However, if I thought eating pickles was mur-
der, I would definitely be against my and your eating pickles.
Perhaps we should ask the pickle :)
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:55:11 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
              31 Aug 1992 12:26:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

Excuse me, Richard:

Could you please explain what makes you such an expert on rape?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:11:11 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Are Quayles Pro-Choice?

I know, I know.  I will stop using this topic, probably.  :-)

Last night the Quayles were interviewed on Prime Time Live (for
you, Robert, that would be during the prime time :-).  They were
asked the same hypothetical question again.  Mike Wallace asked
Marilyn, "So your child would bring the pregnancy to term, huh?"
(I have to say these are not direct quotes but I am doing the best
that I can.)  She said, "if it does not affect her HEALTH and we
should also consider her MENTAL health."

Now, to Missy and others, did you notice that she did not say
life?  She was very clear to have wanted to say health (you
should have been there to notice it.)  And to top it off (thanks
Jamie) she added MENTAL health.  I guess Missy will say, "but that
is what a compassionate pro-life parent would do."  To which I would
like to say, "give me a break."   (Now, how would counter that last
brilliant argument.  :-)

See, this time she was not talking about whether she would support
her or not.  This time she was saying under what circumstances
her daughter should bring the pregnancy to term.  She explicitly
excluded the cases where the woman's health (physical OR mental)
is in danger.

There is no question in *my* mind that there is something fishy
here.  The Quayles are dancing to the public opinion tune in order
to win votes.  What they really are -- pro-choice or pro-life --
cannot be determined by their answers, but their level of sincerity
and conviction can.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:05:19 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Changing topic?!?

>Why then does the world stands against Irak, sends troops, navy, aircraft,
>etc.. etc.. while no such prompt and swift action is taken in Bosnia?

In Iraq, there was something to attack.  Hussein had all those nice
big war toys, fortifications, buildings, etc and modern armies know
how to attack them without losing too many people in the process.

The situation in ex-Yugoslavia is different.  The warring parties
don't have facilities that the big war toys can be used against;
destroying buildings is counter-productive and they don't have tanks
or fortifications.  They're just a bunch of people running around
carrying guns occasionally.  They don't wear uniforms and hide a lot;
they're really hard to find.  They have to be dealt with as
individuals and small groups.  That takes lots of foot soldiers and a
lot of them will die.

The various parties in Yugoslavia also have the nasty habit of uniting
against "invaders"; maybe they wouldn't this time, but ....

Does anyone remember how many divisions that Germans used in WWII to
"pacify" Yugoslavia.  WRT the relevant details, modern soldiers aren't
any more effective.  That's why the UN peacekeepers think that
accomplishing modest goals will take 100k troops and that lots of
those troops will die.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:52:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: speed, police, crime, hell

kat,
thought i might clarify...i didn't cry as a ruse (sp?) to get out of ticket.
i was really freaked at the $$. i think what got the cop was that when she was
trying to calm me down, i patted her on the arm and said something like i knew
it wasn't her fault, and apologized for crying. i think my effort to make her
feel okay was just too much for her to handle.

liked the way you got out of yours. seems that the honest responses are the
ones that work. i could never pull off a "story", since whenever i say something
that isn't true (even jokes -i'm pitiful) i turn red and stammer alot. guess
i lack whatever gene controls lying :).

happy speeding

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:38:42 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      double standards in the twin cities

Recently, Leise, or someone claiming to be the redhead with the southern
drawl, was complaining about LOPC (Lack 'O Political Content) in various
postings.

Wasn't she the one who treated us to a play-by-play of a trip to the mall?
Let's be consistent!!!

fred

Music trivia question: When the monkees toured in 1969, who was their
opening act?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:05:32 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

>Rape is not about sex.  It is about power and violence.
>
>I know.

Hmm.  Is that the voice of a rapist, a victim, an advocate, a
researcher, or someone who has some acquaintance with one of the
above?

I haven't raped, so any "I'd rape if" comments by me are arguably
suspect, especially if they include situations that I've been in.

-andy isn't getting involved in the rape discussion; he's using it
      to suggest a more general point
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:07:29 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              26 Aug 1992 14:17:00 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

>>  But isn't it at all embarrassing to realize that
>>you are no match for half a mind?
 >
>>                                 -Tim

> I guess not. YOU'RE STILL POSTING.

*Now*, I see why Robert prefers thinking of "you" as a
general reference, rather than a specific reference to
himself.

You must have been the subject of many remarks such as
this one (i.e. Tim's) throughout your life.   :-)

> ---Robert

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