HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:31:13 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Holiday Cheer

Hi kids,
  Here's hoping heaps of holiday happiness, gigantic, jingling jars of
joy, and alarmingly altruistic allocations of alliteration.
  Lemme toss a few pennies around before I go NOMAIL for the holidays.

  Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that has been documented in most
cultures and in many mammalian species.  Homosexuals should have exactly
the same rights as the rest.  The debate, it would seem, should hinge on
whether opportunities for jobs, housing, serving in the military, etc.
are *rights* or simply opportunities that are afforded by having rights,
which can then be limited based on who is offering the opportunity.
  Freedom of speech *is* a right.  We all have it and it should be
exercised freely and often.  Howard Stern is as obnoxious about his
right as Rush Limbaugh, however Stern's sophomoric humor is funnier than
Limbaugh's sophomoric humor.
  Libertarianism is a fine and consistent philosophy around which to
base a system of government.  However, it is designed for a race of
humans that doesn't exist, since we are not used to taking responsibility
for our actions at every turn.  Communism is similar in that it is a fine
ideal, but we aren't comfortable with taking care of all our neighbors
all the time.
  Left and right are bogus political descriptions.  They are an attempt
to model a multidimensional entity on a one dimensional scale.  "Utne
Reader" had a cool chart last year that had the various political
stances as a circular cloud of points, with the more radical elements
being farther from the center.
  Clinton's cabinet *does* look like America:  a bunch of old people
sucking money from the young.
  And remember folks, mistletoe spreads mono.  Happy holidays!
     todddddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Jesus died for somebody's
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   sins... but not mine."
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    -PATTY SMITH
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:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:54:37 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      War in Europe
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Here's a likely scenario for the next six months:

        Serbia completes takeover of Bosnia, moves against internal province of
Kosovo (sp?).

        Albania moves to aid Kosovo, which is 90% ethnic Albanian.  Serbia
gives ultimatum to Macedonia: help or be (re)absorbed.  Macedonia is faced with
a difficult decision, if it fights Serbia, it will also be fighting Greece (it
will be fighting Greece either way).  Macedonia, relying on gaurantees from
Turkey, enters on the side of Albania.

        Greece and Bulgaria enter on the side of Serbia.  Turkey joins Albania
and Macedonia.

        Possible entrants at this stage:

        Likely:

        Hungary against Serbia.  Remnents of Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia
against Serbia.  Germany against Serbia.

        Possible:

        Romania against Serbia and Bulgaria.  Moldava against Romania.  Ukraine
against Moldava.

        Questionable:

        US, France, and Britain against Serb led coalition.  Italy to the aid
of Albania.

        Syria, Lebanon and Armenia against Turkey.


        Of course, at this point, things will have spead to the point of a
general regional war.  If it cascades into the Middle East and Asia, we will
have World War III, but not the one we thought we would have.


        Serbia is taking heart in the paper threats the UN and US/UK/France
have been making.  We prepare no forces to back up our threats, we remove no
diplomats from Serbia.  As long as we make it clear that we are willing to sit
by and watch Holocaust II, Serbia will continue to "cleanse" the region.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:03:13 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: POLITICS FAQ, part one: purpose, rules, terms, etc.

>>The list hierarchy:

[listing deleted]

>Ahem.

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

Since I seem to be the only one on this list espousing the idea that
the UN might be good for anything...

Perhaps we could cut a deal. B)

But you'd have to promise that there would be no mumbo-jimbo. B)

>--Jimbo

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 13:39:46 GMT

From Carl...
>In Boulder, Denver, and Aspen you *were* protected against job
>discrimination based on your heterosexuality.

Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

>Perhaps I was, but that doesn't make the protection any more legitimate.
>I choose to engage in a heterosexual relationship but I don't expect,
>want, need or deserve any special protection based upon that choice.
>Personally, I wouldn't want to work for or do business with an establishment
>that believed that I was a pervert.

Do you also oppose laws that prohibit job discrimination on the basis
of religion? After all, you won't want to work for or do business with
an establishment that believed that you were destine for Hell and
likely to encourage others to follow your path.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
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, 29 Dec 1992 15:06:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Catching up on "old mail," I believe that blacks constitute roughly 20%
>of the population, and Hispanics between 12-15% of the population, both
>might be larger groups than the estimated 10% gay population. VMS

        As of 1990:

Race    % of Population
=======================
White   80.3
Black   12.1
Native   0.8
Asian    2.9 (includes Pacific Islander)
Other    3.9
-----------------------
Hispanic 9.0 (can be of any race)

[American Almanac, page 17, 1992-3 edition.]

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:42:54 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From Carl...
In Boulder, Denver, and Aspen you *were* protected against job
discrimination based on your heterosexuality.

From Me...
Perhaps I was, but that doesn't make the protection any more legitimate.
I choose to engage in a heterosexual relationship but I don't expect,
want, need or deserve any special protection based upon that choice.
Personally, I wouldn't want to work for or do business with an establishment
that believed that I was a pervert.

---Robert

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
 that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
 everlasting life." John 3:16
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:35:23 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: I suspect ...

>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
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:33:08 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

--KAT,

I agree with you. It is better to appoint people who are SYMPATHETIC
towards gays than appointing gays. Some gays, especially the closeted
ones, can be more anti-gays than some of the straight homophobes.
That is one of the reasons why the magazine "Advocate" started the
practice of "outing" closeted gays. I don't agree with that policy
but I can see why they want to do that.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:23:41 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Queens controversy yet again

>> A friend of mine wants to have sex, but Madonna hasn't answered his
>> letters.  Is she restricting his ability to have sex?  Another person
>> I know can't get anyone s\he knows to sleep with him/her.  Who is
>> restricting her\his "right to have sex with a consenting adult"?
>
>Welcome to another episode of Andy's Asinine Examples.  Will someone
>please explain to Andy that the inability to find a consenting adult
>does not restrict one's right to have sex with a consenting adult?

Really?  It doesn't?  And to think that inability to find a Ferrari
dealer willing to meet my terms restricted my right to have a Ferrari.

>(Hmm.  Andy seems to have trouble recognizing a difference between
>transactions that involve having sex and those that involve buying a
>car.  Remind me never to buy a car from Andy.)

Andy has no difficulty with the idea that sex can be a commercial
transaction, one common in the service industry.  Andy doesn't see any
good reason to distinguish services from products, especially products
that are mostly image, like Ferraris.

>> The Ferrari dealer thinks that its biz depends on controlling the
>> "quality" of Ferrari drivers.  The circus thinks that its biz depends
>> on controlling the quality of its jugglers.  What's the huge difference
>> here?
>
>The difference is that the circus is in the business of hiring and
>presenting competent jugglers.  The dealership is in the business of
>selling cars to the public.

Really?  Its ads say "For the special person".  Why can't it define
its desired customer-base?

I've no objection to forcing people to live up to their agreements.
I'm objecting to forcing them to make agreements.  If the Ferrari
dealer says "walk in with $65k and ride out in style", I expect them
to live up to that, but I think that they should be allowed to offer
different terms.

>If the dealer wants to sell cars one at a time from his living room,
>he is free to restrict his clientele as he wishes.  When he makes a
>public offer he should be prepared to serve the public.

Most every car is sold one at a time.  Does it really matter where the
showroom is or how big the biz is?

Is a "public offer" any offer made in public, or is it an offer made
TO the public?

-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:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:11:13 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      why gold - oz.
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Caius:
>No, the currency will be oz (one ounce of gold). We can express value of
>merchandise nad services just in oz. Dollars are not needed.

other Andy:
>Ok, but the question is whether the value of gold will be allowed to
>fluctuate? When one says "standard" one assumes a constant value,
>regardless of whether you express it as dollars, gold certificates
>or foobars.

Sure, on the free market value of money usually fluctuates measured in units
of merchandise. And vice versa.

"standard" means that paper is backed by underlying metal.

Today, dollars are backed by the gov't authority and good will, nothing else.
Today it may be enough, tomorrow maybe not.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:53:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      More cabinet follies

Apparently there is now a heated battle erupting over the Department
of the Interior appointment...the environmentalists and the Hispanics
are fighting over it.  Environmentalists want Bruce Babbitt; Hispanics
are demanding Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is of Hispanic
descent.

Richardson has a decent environmental record, but the environmentalists
say it's not good enough.

Babbitt has a good environmental record, but the Hispanics want one of
their own; they're angry that Clinton has appointed only one Hispanic
(Henry Cisneros).

Meanwhile, Clinton is reportedly surprised at his sudden attack of
acute laryngitis.  "Forgive my voice," he gasped at his press conference
yesterday.  "I'm trying to meet my Christmas deadline.  I just can't
sleep very much...My doctor checked me out Friday and said my voice
was completely healed.  I'm just completely stunned by this."

Maybe if the partisans would shut up, we could hear him.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:32:12 GMT

Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

[...]
>If my choice to be hetero does not qualify me as a minority then why should
>your choice not achieve the same result?

In Boulder, Denver, and Aspen you *were* protected against job
discrimination in based on your heterosexuality.

The Colorado antidiscrimination laws (like most antidiscrimination
laws) listed charactistics (e.g.  religious belief, race, sex, sexual
orientation) that may not be used as the bias of job and housing
discrimination. They said nothing of majorities and minorities.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:32:17 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      disclaimer
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Views and opinions expressed by Caius are solely his own.

Insisting that they ALL have been submitted by other POLITICS subscribers
is a infringment od copyright law.

Insisting that they are shared by ALL members of a group Caius claims to
belong to, is an error of genaralization.


Caius(SM)*

----------------
* Caius(SM) is a speechmark of Caius.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      On Bosnia, Serbia and a Potential "Third Balkan War," #800
Date: 28 Dec 1992 12:07 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212241550.AA08918@icarus.montclair.edu.montclair.edu>,      
   Thomas Varouhakis <varouhak@ICARUS.MONTCLAIR.EDU> writes...
>Greece actually has no quarrel about whatever arrangements the
>populations of former Yugoslavia decide to form, as long as its
>national security is not in any danger. By insisting to call itself
>the name of the northern part of Greece, the so called state of
>"Macedonia" actually presents such a threat. . . .
> 
>Obviously "Macedonia" is in no
>position to be a threat to Greece now, but how about the future? If
>Greece recognizes them as "Macedonia" doesn't that imply that it
>accepts their claim of been just that? A legitimate contender of what
>throughout history has been an indispensable part of Greece: Macedonia.
> 
>. . . .
> 
>(quiz: Which was the
>first country in a rush to recognize Croatia, when the "cunning"
>English were arguing for a negotiated break-up of Yugoslavia? -that's
>right: the best qualified: Germany). Ethnic animosity goes even
>further back in history.
>. . . .

This reminds me of the argument several years ago over the eastern border of
the soon-to-be reunified Germany.  Poland's objections were satisfied by
treaty.

								Dan, ad nauseum 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:02:06 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re:re: freedom of speech

Dr. Pizz says:

>do you support howard stern because you like him?

I don't support him at all. I wouldn't know if I like him because I
have never listened to his program.

>do you only support left wing groups and not right? Be consistent.

Consistency is exactly what I am trying to point out (or lack of same).
If pro-choice people say they have a right to picket OUTSIDE clinics,
how can they deny that same right to opposing viewpoints? I never said
anything about entering the facility, be it a clinic or a cathedral.

If one group has freedom of expression, all groups do. If it is denied
one group, others must follow suit. Something to think about next time
you say someone doesn't have the "right" to express their opinion.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:32:36 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >> One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
> >> that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
> >> secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.
> >
> >My point is that that President Reagan said specifically that
> >given a choice between doing something illegal and not doing anything
> >about the hostages, he would choose the illegality.
>
> So?  Is "willing to break the law" a crime?
No, it's not.
But doesn't it bother you that the president of the United States is
willing to break the law?
And then willing to break the law to pursue a misguided and IMO erroneous
policy?
>
> >Further, according to Weinberger's note, at that particular meeting,
> >Reagan agreed that what he was doing was illegal.
>
> Yet, the finding made it legal.
I thought that the finding was made after the fact.
>
> Or, is Reagan guilty because he could have broken the law?
Obviously Reagan isn't guilty of anything because he isn't even on trial.
I think that he is guilty of incredibly bad judgement and history
ought to remember him as such.
>
> -andy
> --
>
Jonathan
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:30 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Ellen:
>Number one, the last I heard, most estimates of the homosexual popula-
>tion in the U.S. run from 10 to 15 percent of the population. I hardly
>think they're the most sizable minority.

Could you name a minority that is more sizable?

>But it is ridiculous to claim that he doesn't have any real feelings for
>women or minorities.

I never said that Clinton doesn't have any real feelings for women or
minorities. All I meant to say was that he is not going to ACT on those
feelings.
Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:40:44 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Let's have a contest.
>
> Who can be MORE in favor of freedom of speech for those with whom
> you disagree?
>
> I'll go first. (oops, too late for that.)
>
> I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
> Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
> Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.
>
> Wow. Controversial, huh?
>
> Jamie
>

  i'm in favor of freedom of speech for all of the above, plus nambla,
holocaust revisionists, and straight white republican males. so there.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:09:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >But it doesn't stop there--if the employees are being asked to share in
> >the risk they may very well want to share in the decision-making power,
> >as well.  Currently they possess almost no power, yet they bear a
> >substantial amount of the risk.
>
> So what?  They're being PAID for accepting that risk.

It's amazing what a minimum wage job will stretch to cover.  Risk of
unemployment, risk of long-term health damage. . .

You must share your budgeting secrets with us someday.

> >To anticipate the inevitable comment,
> >they actually risk more than the "owners" of the business.  Few
> >stockholders throw everything they own into a single enterprise
>
> Not so fast.  Sole proprietorships employ a huge fraction of the
> workforce.  Those owners lose everything.  When a worker loses a job,
> he's right where he was before.  When an owner loses a biz, she's
> worse off than he was before; the assets are gone.

Huge fraction?  Exactly how huge?  Most businesses are props or
partnerships, but most jobs are from corporations.  And lots of small
businesses are corportations, too.

And how much a proprietor loses when a business closes depends most on
when the business is closed.  I've closed sole proprietorships (no
employees) and come out ahead.

> >So you might want to think twice about this proposal.  If you follow
> >it to the logical conclusion, you may well see an unexpected outbreak
> >of democracy.
>
> Why would anyone invest in a biz in that situation?  They might LOAN
> money to a "probably can't fail biz", or one with sufficient assets
> that can't be easily destroyed (so foreclosure works), but they're not
> going to go for anything risky.

Actually, the quality of a firm's workforce is a very relevant question
to an investor.  Why should it make so much difference how business
decisions are made, as long as the decisions are good ones?  Unless,
of course, you think people in general are idiots and only dictatorships
work.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU