HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:12:23 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      clinton appointments

Brett' says: "clinton gave a post to gennifer flowers that was supposed
to go to a black woman'.

Gee, brett, would you mind giving us a couple small items:

1) Your source for this statement

2) The name of the woman who didn't get the appointment? If this is
true, why didn't she sue clinton for not giving her the appointment?

3) The qualifications of the alleged other potential recepient

I find it interesting that you choose to present this information in the
manner you did rather than saying GF received an appointment previously
promised to someone else. Is there a reason for your identifying that
person as "a black woman"? Wouldn't your opinion be the same if it was
a straight white male?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:53:20 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>>It's simply not true.
>
>Very convincing, Brett.
>:)
>
        Thank you :)

>If I'm not supposed to think that libertarianism allows for no
>common social interests, why do some people assume that socialism,
>or even our current form of government as it stands, allows for no
>individual freedoms and enterprise?
>
>The libertarians just want it MORE >their< way.  I suspect America
>doesn't work quite that way.
>Ellen

        Libertarianism isn't a cult, their (I hate to say "our") goals are the
same as most Americans: protection of individual rights and freedom to pursue
economic endeavors.
        I think Socialism has a bad name because governments are usually not
efficient allocators of resources.  Bureaucracies bloat and barrels fill with
pork.
        In addition, social planners try to socialize things in the name of
social engineering.  Not a good concept in a land born of revolution from
arbitrary rule by hereditary monarchs.
        The same thing happens as you get further down the "right hand" side.
The label "neo-nazi" starts getting applied.

        Americans seems to be centrists.  Anything that smacks of "ultra" or
"far" left/right wing scares them.  Libertarians get it from both sides as
liberals accuse them of being ultra-greedy republicans and conservatives accuse
them of being anarchists.

Brett'
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 15:03:29 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      child abuse
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Abuse of children usually results in charges of assualt, domestic
violence and battery.

        For example, a 20 year old man threw his 6 week old son and shook him
violently.  This happened over at least a two week period.  When the infant was
finally taken to the hospital, it had broken ribs, arms, wrists, multiple
concussions, bleeding in the skull, ...

        The father was charged with assault, domestic violence (and if the
infant dies) murder.

        The man said he was agitated because the infant was crying all the
time.
        Sick sick sick sick sick.  No kidding the infant was crying all the
time.  It had broken bones!

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:26:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bobbie Riconosciuto speaks o

Hi, umm...

This is very interesting, but I am not sure what it is actually ABOUT.
I recognize the Spiro case but I'm having trouble following what the
conversation is about.

Some explanation, please?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:10:33 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Look back and wrangle...the poverty thing again

>>Peter was wrong.  The "more money" argument is "there are x%/million
>>poor people".  It turns out that the defn of "poor" being used is
>>"interesting".  The fact that, in some cases, said "poor" aren't even
>>eligible for the aid argued for doesn't significantly affect the
>>dishonesty of that argument.
>
>Andy, I agree with you that the official poverty number is poorly
>drawn up, I agree that the criteria used to generate it are not
>the correct ones. I maintain though, that the number is low.

Fine - let's see the evidence.  How about some "I'm not going to use
that bogus number to support my position" as well?  And, while we're
at it, how about some "the size of the problem does not tell us the
size of the unmet need"?

>>Hmm.  Does O'Andy now want to argue that my grandfather is poor?  (He
>>transferred almost of his assets to my grandmother.)  How much aid
>>should he receive?
>
>Is he applying for government assistance? Why don't you ask him to
>give it a try and see what he gets...

Is O'Andy now claiming that the govt criteria for assistance are the
correct ones for measuring "poor"?  If he isn't, then said GF's success
at getting a buck from uncle sugar isn't relevant.  If he is ....

-andy
--
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: taurus@agora.rain.com (Scott Burch)
Subject: Re: nambla
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:39:42 GMT

BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG writes:

>Jonathan:

>>Please explain to me how one could have sex with children but
>>not be molesting them.

>I never said anything about having sex with children. I said
>'loving them', meaning being attracted to them.

   What about the stories of NAMBLA's childrens calander, and their
   book on how to have sex with children and get away with it.
   This does not sound like a support group to me, but an active
   crime plotting group.  Or, are these just stories?

	
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Burch                            "Homophobia is a sickness"
taurus@agora.rain.com
Portland, OR R
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:29:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

In response to all of the responses about the Cincinnati cross
controversy...I don't believe that the city tried to prohibit the
KKK from putting up their cross in any way.  (I think they were
happy when they could order it to be taken down due to it being a
"health hazard," but that's a different story...)

What prompted me to post the original message was that I was
disturbed because so many citizens seemed to be marching in protest,
actually carrying signs that said that "Hate speech is not
protected under the constitution."

Sorry, but...it is.

I don't believe the city of Cincinnati did anything to obstruct the
KKK.  I don't think anyone was officially calling for them to do that.
However, just the sight of people carrying signs around like that
gives me the willies.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:00:37 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech

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

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:40:22 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      the spirit of xmas

The real meaning of christmas, to those of us not affiliated with an
organized religion, is to help out those less fortunate then ourselves.
Since Robert hasn't been able to come up with a new closing line for
his posts in months, would someone with a good closing line please
offer it to him in the holiday spirit? I find myself ignoring the
content of his postings because of the same old tired track playing at
the end of the album.

It seems to me that private organizations do a much better job of
distributing items to the needy than the government does. How about if
we dump all of our welfare programs and make helping those less fortunate
strictly a matter of conscience?

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

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:57:54 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pardon me. No, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> In article <01GSYWWHJFOY001J1X@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,
>  The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
> >        Bush could always resign and let President Quayle :D pardon him.  Boy
> >would that mess up the people who have already engraved 42nd President on the
> >Clinton collector's plates.
> >:)
> >
> >        Then Quayle could resign and let President Baker pardon him and....
> >
> >        The Republicans could then claim a string of N+1 presidents in a row
> >:D.
>
> Flaw in your logic:  Foley is next in line, not Baker.
But, wouldn't Quayle get to choose his vice-president (subject to congressional
approval).  Of course, he wouldn't choose Baker.  He would probably choose
someone like Bennett (sp?).  And, of course, this wouldn't work because
Congress would drag it's butt on something like this, so that Clinton would
get inagurated before Quayle's potential VP was confirmed.  But, the question
is, what would Quayle have to pardoned for? He wasn't in the Iran/Contra
loop.  ***Cheap shot**** no, I won't do it.  It's a new year and he's
history anyway! :-)
>
>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum
>
Jonathan
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:37 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212231619.AA07936@wizard.netx.com>,     
    Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM> writes...
>It could also be that there aren't any or maybe very few openly gay
>people who are qualified for cabinet positions.
> 
>Do you know of any?

I would suggest Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), but I haven't thought out which
department he should head.  His district is safe enough for a Democrat, but his
minor scandal over consorting with a male prositute (before he came out) might
damage his chances for confirmation.  Also, Clinton may want to keep his wit in
Congress, where it isn't as potentially damaging.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:41:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      libertarianism

>
> Either you're easily amused, or you need to find some other variants on
> "it cracks me up"...:)
>
So sue me, Gary.  I was trying to write a post in five minutes because
like everyone else, I also have a day job.   :)

> A lot of groups want it more their way.  The government, since it's the
> biggest group, usually gets it more their way than other groups.  Why do you
> think the U.S. doesn't work this way?
>
>
>
> Gary W. Olson                   "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'


I think America doesn't work this way because I don't think the people
and the government are separate entities.  The people may >think< they
are, the government may >act< like they are (I think the people act
like that too), but they aren't.  I don't think the answer, for this
country, is to continue acting like they are separate entities.

Now if libertarianism is a course-corrective for a bunch of people in
government acting like they're not the same entity as the citizens who
elected them, I can understand that.  As an ideological stance, though --
a permanent way of looking at the relationship between people and
government -- I think it's bunk.  At least in this country.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:53:36 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
              28 Dec 1992 10:58:24 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

Which of the Iran-Contra defendants, besides MacFarlane, has admitted
in open court to his guilt?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:41:55 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)

>> I note that KAT is ducking the question about my neighbors holding an
>> election and deciding that they get all my stuff.  I wonder why.
>
>What??!!  ANDY wants ME to answer hypothetical questions?  Well if
>I answer that then Andy is gonna ask me to consider making laws
>against neighbors ganging on each other.    :-)

Nope - I'm not going to ask that.  If KAT thinks that my neighbors
should be able to vote me out of my stuff, I'll just remind him of
that from time to time.  If KAT thinks that my neighbors shouldn't be
able to do that, I'm going to ask why govt's are special.  His choice.

>Let's see....there are many other occasions that I leave out some
>of Andy's points from my responses.  Why Andy is inquiring about
>this one?  Could it be that Andy thinks his other arguments were
>not worthy of reposes?  I wonder.

Maybe I used dice.  Maybe I used alphabetical order.  Maybe I picked
the last question from an article.  Maybe I picked a question which
emphasizes the differences.

-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:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:47:07 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I think that you are right, it shouldn't matter whose freedom of speech
is being curtailed. It is dangerous even if it is directed against the
KKK. When the ACLU defended the neo-Nazis in Skokie it was totally
justified. I hate neo-Nazis and the KKK people, but I am convinced
that if we don't defend their right to freedom of speech, our rights
can eventually be curtailed as well. It is important not to set
precedents.

Sam.
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:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:43:42 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      The best present I've received ...

since 1988 is my continued life since being diagnosed with lung disease. VMS
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:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:11:19 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      crosses, kids, and rape camps
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
I love days off.

Linda:  the menu sounds great.  When's dinner????

Joe:  Jamie's one up on you -- better hurry :)

Ellen:  I'm with you and Brett' -- the Klan was perfectly within its rights
(from what I heard, as Brett' said, they had a permit and all that).  If
some anti-Klan group wants to protest the Klan, fine -- I might join in.
But I wouldn't join in a march to rescind their rights to speech, assembly,
etc.

Caius:  "Homosexual", in our usage, doesn't necessarily imply *only* same-
sex sexual liasons.  Even if it did, a homosexual (an homosexual??) woman
can certainly become impregnated through artificial insemination.  Anyway,
I think the main point is that many folks who identify themselves as
homosexual and live with same-sex partners have kids.

Bosnia etc.:  Sounds like we're getting closer to sending planes, doesn't
it?  I admit I'm feeling a bit more hawkish since I heard about the rape
camps (according to the clip played on the MacLaughlin group the other
night, 50,000 cases of Serbian rape of Moslem women have been documented,
along with 30,000 pregnancies resulting from same.  A new sort of ethnic
cleansing -- ughh and ughh and ughh).  What do y'all think -- is there
anything at all to be gained by enforcing the no-fly zone?  How about
letting the Bosnians arm themselves?  Or do we just have to sit it out?

Thanks
Kerry
p.s. to Gary:  I'm not a czar, I'm an apparatchnika -- of the logic of
discovery :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:49:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      More cabinet appointments

>
> Could you name a minority that is more sizable?
>
Well, off the top of my head I know that according to the 1990 census
records, blacks are 12 to 13% of the U.S. population.  Of course, that
is an official census count, and not an "estimate" so I guess it
couldn't possibly be as significant as the "10 to 15%" of homosexuals
that are >guessed< to be in the U.S. population.  Although I believe
the guess is probably accurate.
>
> 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.

You're obviously a member of America's smallest (and therefore, I imagine,
least significant) minority:  Psychics.

Why don't you talk about the REAL important minority group in this country,
and the largest:  anyone who is not a white male?  But then again, who really
has the most power?  White protestant males?  White males of English
descent?  Where does it end?

We are all in this together.  I don't want to play percentage games with you,
Sam, because I am a member of a 53% "minority."  It doesn't matter.  What
matters is that progress is being made in a timely manner.  Some will argue
that it is not being made with these cabinet appointments.  I feel it is.
I don't feel that all minorities are adequately represented.  I am not
totally satisfied.  But it is clearly the most diverse cabinet this country
has ever seen up to now, and it is not just tokenism.

If the cabinet has to look just like America, are you sure that one
homosexual would be sufficient for your demands?  Wouldn't you rather
have 1.8?  That would be perfectly reflective of America, wouldn't it?

As for Clinton's commitment to lifting the ban on gays in the military,
apparently you feel he will not do anything towards that either; if he
takes his time and focuses on establishing codes of sexual conduct, which
would benefit women in the military as well as homosexuals, I sense that
would not sit very well with you, because it would not be just a
homosexual-specific solution to the problem.

The solutions to all these injustices that must be changed -- they will
have an effect on ALL minorities.  We've got to stop playing quota and
percentage games.  It's not the way out of our problems.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:06:54 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Cc:
Bcc:

>        Private citizens' civil rights end where they infringe on the public's
>interest.  Private businesses are only private in relation to their owners;
>if they do business with the _public_, then they are quite different than just
>"a bunch of private citizens".

Note that the above does not distinguish buyer from seller.

Should customers be allowed to use race/politics/orientation to pick
suppliers?

-andy sees nothing wrong with gay bars
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:07:38 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?

In the Lt. William Calley case, Nixon reviewed the case after Calley was
sentenced to life imprisonment.  That August 20th, Calley's sentence was
reduced to 20 years.

Evelyn Duncan
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 13:50:37 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Clair George pled guilty to at least one count of lying to Congress. VMS
>

Actually it's my impression that even though George admitted to lying
to congress, he didn't plead guilty.  In fact, in his first trial, the
jury was hung.  It was in his second trial that he was convicted on 2
felony counts.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:20:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      checkpoints

> don't know how many drunks they catch, but the cops make a *haul*.
>
>
> -linda


Here in CNY, it's called "harvesting."


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:41:16 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:42:02 EST Evelyn Duncan said:
>
>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:35:54 GMT james p mcbride said:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:40:44 CST rufus t. firefly said:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>I'm in favour of freedom of spelling for all of those, plus people who
>>spell color, favor, etc, with a 'u', ie, colour, favour, labour, etc.
>>
>>top that
>
>What is this:  King of the Mountain?
>
>>james
>
>Evelyn

No, it's more end of term boredom.  When you've spent eight fruitless hours
trying to get a map out of GIMMS, despite doing everything according to the
manual, you'll find anything fun.

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