HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:05:03 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: prolife support for children

From: fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
>Half of the kerry for president ticket says "I have yet to meet a pro-life
>activist who would abandon his or her child for any reason".
>
>In the interest of broadening your base of experience as you enter the
>campaign trail, I would be happy to introduce you to several "pro-life
>activists" (your term) who have abandoned their children. The reasons
>for dumping the kids include:
>
>1. disapproval of life mate choice
>2. disapproval of sexual orientation
>3. committing a crime
>4. inability to maintain gainful employment or school performance

There may be some "pro-life activists" who would abandon their
children, but I believe this group to be a very small and highly
unrepresentative sampling of the overall group.

I also think that there is a difference between abandoning a
child (-What age are talking here anyway?-) and letting that
child learn lessons the hard way, with minimal interference.

As I see it, there may be a parting, but to my experience, it is
usually of the child's instigation.  The parents still love the
child just as much as always and are usually waiting for the child
to return.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:13:59 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Obfuscation Elimination
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:03:26 EDT Jamie said:

>Julie W.,
>You could try:

>_Mere Christianity_,
>_The Case for Christianity_
>both by C.S. Lewis; or,

>_Christian Reflections_, ed. by Hooper (essays by Lewis),
>_Owen Barfield on C.S. Lewis_, by, well, you can guess.

>Jamie, possible logic czar, open to alternative suggestions

Perhaps Bertrand Russell's _Why I am not a Christian_ ?

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:44:55 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Dunstan_Vavasour writes:
>>Given kind, loving, supportive, parents:  are the parents always right in
>>the following:  (2) Pregnant 13-year-old is "forced" to carry the child
>>and give it up for adoption against her will;

My mother (who is pro-choice) believes (I am undecided) that anyone, especially
minors, who have babies but cannot afford to take care of them without parental
assistance, should in all instances be forced to give it up for adoption.

Personally, I think that since a father cannot choose abort the unwanted
pregnancy of his partner because that is purely the woman's choice, that he
at least ought to be able to give his half of the child up for adoption (thus,
"escape" child support payments.)  Of course, he would then have no visitation
rights.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you date someone, make sure they are pro-choice.  |  Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:19:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A Good Tactical Move?

Sue:

I think having Casey speak would be an excellent idea.  The Democrats
couldn't yell "foul" because they already violated tradition by trotting
in those prochoice GOP women, and Casey is really in a tight spot.  I've
heard him speak on this before, and he is genuinely frustrated in the
Democratic party.  If the Republicans will give him a platform, I think
he'll take it.
              --MJ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:51:00 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

>From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
>
>Ahem, LiNda!
>
>The DuncaN/ValentiN ticket declares ThaNksgiviNg to be the first among
>all American holidays because it is for all Americans to give thanks for
>whatever we have and to express hope for the future.

oh pullllllEEEEEEEze. gag.
>
>
>We are here to represent all persoNs (meN, womeN, and childreN).

That's mEn, womEn, and childrEn.
>
>Evelyn Duncan

votE E-tickEt.
wE won't makE you gag.

jEnnifEr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:02:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what does this mean?

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:38:00 EST linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said:
> everytime i have posted something today, i get a message back saying that the
> list is held and my post delayed.
> what does that mean?
> has anything gotten through?
> please respond personally-i don't want to take up too much space w/this.
>
> -linda
> (didja get the martyr routine? don't wanna take up too much space....
> think if i try this with my kids they'll let me have the big bedroom??)
> :)

I didn't see anything about martyr's, but I don't read all my mail.
It doesn't take long at all for your mail to get to the list when it
is held.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:39:13 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

EvelyN DuNcaN:

Aside from CaliforNia and VirgiNia, you also have:

ArizoNa
ArkaNsas
CoNNecticut
IlliNois
INdiaNa
KaNsas
KeNtucky
LouisiaNa
MaiNe
MarylaNd
MichigaN
MiNNesota
MoNtaNa
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North CaroliNa
North Dakota
OregoN
PeNNsylvaNia
Rhode IslaNd
South Carolina
TeNNessee
VermoNt
West VirgiNia
WiscoNsiN.

Shouldn't this cynch the election for you?

your supporter,

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:38:32 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      A non-announcment of my non-candidacy, pro tem.

Fellow Listees,

The recent surprise development has cast a new light on the horserace.

Until today, I was content to support the Tall Guy ticket, with its
promise of appointing me Logic Czar (NOT, dear brni, DRUG Czar--That
must have been one of your vaunted Freudian Slips, but I'll not
speculate on what it reveals about your subconscious). Logic Czar is, in
my opinion, the List's highest and most noble non-elected position.
The idea that I would even consider drawing a salary for such an honor
is absurd, a patent smear invented by brni and perpetuated by the
Kerrys. All of them seek to confuse voters, perhaps intentionally
confounding me with my selfish, greedy, capitalist potential running
mate, whom I of course respect greatly, despite his myriad
intolerable defects.

That out of the way, I must decline for the present to run. I do not
rule out a J1&2 candidacy in the future. However, there currently appear
to be some severe practical obstacles.

First, there is the formidable difficulty of deciding between ourselves
which of us is Smartest. Jimbo still entertains delusions of grandeur
(incredible, isn't it?). On the other hand, our supporters could be
absolutely certain that a vote cast for us would be a vote for the
Smartest.

Second, there is the annoying problem of our N-lessness. Some critics
allege that my utter lack of a last name (despite a recent Wall Street
Journal rumour to the contrary) could be a handicap. I might
conceivably petition to adopt the last name "Lorson,"
which has been languishing without a bearer these past weeks.

Finally, it is not at all clear to me that any elected
position could be as satisfying as Logic Czar. Then again,
I see no constitutional obstacle to appointing MYSELF
Logic Czar should I win elected office.

On the other hand, here are some tidbits listees have
to look forward to if in fact we do announce our
candidacy:

1. A battery of proofs that God does not exist.
2. A true and cogent position on the shoe question.
3. A crushing rebuttal to the Kerrys' mind-boggling
program to subject innocent citizens to mandatory
psychiatric testing.

A most difficult decision, and certainly one I will give
due consideration.

In the mean time, I have set up a 24-hour phone bank,
sentential operators are standing by for your call.

Jamie, envisioning a prosperous future as a waffler
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:36:39 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: on the lam

For the record:

I would like to take this opportunity to state that I categorically
reject the notion of a "logic czar."  This is a democratic republic,
in which there is no room for czars.  Furthermore, adding another
position would fatten the federal government, which we are trying
to reduce to a manageable size.  In addition, I would like to go
on record as saying that I have *never* been tranquilized.

                                   ---Missy (Hail to the Chiefs) Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:53:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS

no no not the point. no one can control their partner's history...if someone did
something that was high risk ten yrs. ago, how is anyone to know? short of
ordering a complete blood work up and psychological profile, how do we control
what may be old behavior?

what would be nice would be research into a protective device that women could
use to protect themselves. i know something of this sort was reported in the
media some time ago (this past year maybe-don't remember-sorry). didn't appear
to go over in a big way.  oh well.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:51:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: on Virginia

>  In all this concern for letters, one should not
>lose sight of where the best (and most) presidents
>have come from.  Washington, Jefferson, Madison,
>Monroe, Wilson....  From Virginia, the Old Dominion,
>home of the Declaration of Independence and the
>Constitution.

uhhhhh, yea, so?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:24:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:02:25 EDT K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> When asked on "Larry King Live" tonight what would he do if
> his daughter got pregnant, Dan Quayle said he would counsel
> his daughter but then he would stand behind here no matter
> what the decision.
>
> Now, I would like to know what is going on here:
>
>       1.  Is Dan Quayle a closet pro-choice?
>       2.  Maybe Dan Quayle believes in "choice" for his
>           daughter but wants to deprive everybody
>           else's daughter of it.
        3.  Maybe Dan Quayle is pro-life but will stand behind his
            daughter no matter how wrong her decision is because he
            loves her.

> BTW:  I thought Dan Quayle handled himself relatively well tonight.
>
> --KAT
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:34:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Hillary Clinton's Kid Proposal

andy,

does the author of that know where we-all might be
able to get a copy of the proposal?  is there one
on-line somewhere?  or where can we look?

thanks
brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: BASGD
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:10:48 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

J.B. says:

>If I may, allow me to raise a couple of questions on
>abortion.  Anyone please tell me why I'm wrong, if you
>believe me to be so.

>1)  Not-withstanding any Supreme Court action, legislative
>    action, etc., shouldn't the mother bear the burden of
>    proof in explaining why the child is not a living
>    person entitled to all rights under the Constitution?
>    It is she after all who wishes to abridge those
>    rights by terminating the pregnancy and thus take
>    away the right and liberty of life.

     Abortion rights advocates have explained this time and time again.
     In fact, fetuses have never been considered "living persons entitled to
     all rights under the Constitution."  Abortifacients were available even
     in the seventeenth century -- the Puritan era -- and were not made
     illegal in most states until the mid-nineteenth century.  Even when the
     laws against abortion were made, abortion was not considered murder --
     as it would be were the fetus a "living person" under the Constitution.

>2)  Why is abortion the explosive issue it is in the US,
>    when it is not so in other developed countries?  Why
>    is it that the US worries more about this issue
>    than about race relations and minorities?

     Why don't you ask Randall Terry?  The American obsession with abortion is
     largely due to the religious right.

>3)  Why is it that a mother has the right to determine how
>    her body is used by a child, but not how it is used
>    by a grown adult?  Why couldn't she have said no to
>    the sex and not no to the child?  When will people in
>    American society start taking responsibility for their
>    actions rather than trying to find the easy way out?

     You seem to be forgetting that women can be raped.  Besides, what about the
     man's responsibility?  You seem to want to go back to the Victorian ideal
     when it was the woman's duty to say no--but the men could visit prostitutes
     any time they felt like it.

>    I am not advocating outlawing sex outside of marriage,
>    but women should be aware that having sex brings up the
>    possibility of having a child.  Consequently people
>    should not have sex without being willing to handle a
>    child.  What is so hard about this?

     I think that most women ARE aware that having sex can lead to pregnancy.
     Perhaps men should be more aware; after all, it is usually the man who
     refuses to wear a condom.

>-j.b.
-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:47:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sex and marriage, sex and marriage, go to . . .

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:36:55 -0400 Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET> said
:
> jail per offense?  People demanding trials.  Just plain impractical -
> not to mention what would constitute a reliable witness.
Guy's car at girl's house at night with lights off=prima facie evidence.
(And vice versa.)

> In addition, my libertarian bent makes me comment that the state
> cannot demonstrate a real compelling interest in anyone's sex life.
Fare enuff antser.

>
> Third (least political but perhaps most important), such legislation
> would *trivialize* marriage.  It supposes that people get married
> to have a live in sex partner; it supposes that people would stay
> married to continue to have a live in sex partner - even one they
> didn't love, or even like.  The state's intrusion in marriage is
> *never* justifiable.
No, marriage would not be trivialized because divorce would be almost
impossible.

> StevE
-Travis
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: This place is infested!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:24:17 GMT

In article <01GMV9H6LASI000DJE@RHODES.BITNET> CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier) writes:
>Jimbo when discussing the error of Christian arugments:
>
>>This country was founded on (among other things) the principle that
>>all men have a right to speak their mind on the issues.
>
>If you please, didn't the 1st Amendment come after the country was
>sounded on the sentiment expressed in the statement "In God We Trust"?
>
>-j.b.

Actually, no.  Check around for an encyclopedia; there must be one
_somewhere_ in Memphis.  The statement 'In God We Trust' was added
to U.S. money considerably *after* the First Amendment.

Anyhow, neverminding your chronological errors, I don't really see
what logical point you are trying to make.  I mean, even supposing
that the founding fathers were Christians (which, by and large, they
were not), I don't see how that invalidates anything I wrote!

After all, even if the country *were* founded on the statement
"In God We Trust", wouldn't that be a part of the 'among other
things' I referred to? 

Everyone keep cool about one thing: I fully support the right of
Christians to be Christians.  What I do *not* support is the use
of religious arguments in political debates.  I don't care _what_
anyone's supposed God told them; and I refuse to admit such
claims into the arena of rational discourse.

--Jimbo



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:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:49:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      the 'N' factor...

Today's posts are sponsored by the letter 'N'.

I came across an article in the Lansing State Journal today that some of you
may find interesting, or at least amusing.

It occured to Corey Ruzicka, a market researcher in Indiana, that a lot of
U.S. presidents have had names than ended with 'N'.  He investigated and
discovered the following:

* 22 of the 51 presidential elections have been won by candidates whose
  names ended with 'N'.  For example: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,
  Nixon, Truman, Reagan...

* 33 of the 51 elections have included at least one candidate whose name
  ended in 'N'.

Ruzicka also notes that only 5 or 6 percent of the names of U.S. citizens
end with 'N'.

So, does this mean that Clinton's slogan should be "Just say 'N'?" :)

Gary W. Olson                   "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
Cthulhu in '92...                Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
why settle for the lesser evil?  or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
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:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:27:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

Jamie pours some partisan wine on Andy:
>>(Wanna bet that they'd go for expanded borders to encompass all of
>>greater Kurdistan?)
>Sure, I will bet (pointlessly) on ANY counterfactual claim.
>Maybe Gary would care to set odds?

I would, but odds are probably irrelevant, too.

>Jamie

Gary W. Olson                 "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
"relevance is irrelevant"      Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
                               or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:23:39 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The theme of men's magazines ...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:40:00 EST linda said:
>>That too, of course one has to remember the inverse is also true of men's
>>magazines--"the American women's ideal of masculine perfection" is someone who
>>is a self-centerred, egotistical, womanizing ass who is not only a jock, but
>>apparently extremely wealthy too.  Of course, in both cases we are
>generalizing

>maybe these male/female ideals have more to do w/advertiser & publisher ideals
>than with what real people actually think about each other.

So just what is keeping those advertisers & publishers in business?  They
can't live on ideals alone.  Someone is purchasing goods somewhere to keep
them afloat and believing in their principles.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:49:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: congressional criminals

>you meaN ale czar ?

you have that spelled wrong...alE....

alE is good, bEEr is good, winE is good, all this stuff is really good
*but* because the E ticket wants to represent good stuff for all the
pEoplE, from all Ethnic backgrounds, wE believe that a generic term for
this office is more appropriate....therefore, bEvEragE.

but what the hell....any name is pretty much cool with us....if frEd wants
to be czar of alE or minisEr of bEvEragE or even ad-ministrator of wEt stuff
is okEy dokEy with mE

>DuNstaN

-linda suE saEb0    -this brEws for yousE
From: CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (VALENTINE M. SMITH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:38:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL

I think if Bush dumped Quayle, which he denied vigorously today that he
would do, that the conservatives would not vote rather than vote for a
"betrayer." No way they'd vote for the Democrats. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:26:03 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A Good Tactical Move?

From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> Hey all you Liberal and Conservative POLITIC-NICS:

> Here's an interesting question....

> ..........

> What about it?  Good/Bad?                 Sue Clark

Interesting question, maybe.  But if we comment and in the
process raise some questions for you, will you answer them?

This is a **discussion** group.

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