HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:02:47 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      get those permission slips signed, kids

i have an idea!  let's take travis on a field trip.  destination:
the government-owned and operated mustang ranch.  y'all come!  (no pun
intended, there)
                                       * * *anneliese "maybe he'll change
                                       his mind when the opportunity presents
                                       itself" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:36:22 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Our beloved government and its duties Abroad

Hi, j.b.:

>The US should narrowly define its national interests and
>defend these and these alone.  These interests could be
>defined in many different terms including economic, but
>the key is that this doesn't include the entire globe.

Seems to me that different areas of interest might encompass different
chunks of the globe -- and some (like use of natural resources) might well
extend to most of the globe.  I guess I'm saying that the level of our
"global" involvement should perhaps be determined by the specific national
interests we're trying to safeguard.  We shouldn't exclude the possibility
of "global" policy any more than we should make it a fundamental assumption
.

I hope that makes sense.  I need more coffee :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:20:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style

i know  i know  i hit the 0 instd. of the O (oooops).
i also mispelled queasy.
i gave life to B+ cause that's what i am :)
i gave death to O- cause that's what my ex-husband is :D
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:30:23 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

>Seems like an appropriate time to raise (again) the question of how Iraq
>was armed in the first place.

Maybe this time we'll find out why the question is relevant.

US foreign policy for the past few decades has been to pass out guns
to anyone with a uniform, especially if there's oil.  Occasionally we
go in and stomp recipients of said aid when they don't toe the line.
Maybe we should change that policy, but it's not new or secret, or
even all that unpopular among Congresscritters.  Selective carping
that ignores these "unpleasant details" is merely partisan whining.

-andy

ps - Of course the Kurds are going to get hurt.  Every region has a
kick-dog and they get it no matter what we do.  Unless we decide to
arm them and carve out a country (pissing off Turkey), that's not
going to change, and it probably wouldn't change even if we did.
(Wanna bet that they'd go for expanded borders to encompass all of
greater Kurdistan?)  There's no place in that region that isn't the
ancestral homeland of at least three groups that hate each other.
Short of andy's "everybody out of the pool" approach, they'll fight no
matter what we do.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:40:37 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:33:03 EST Kerry Stephenson said:

>BTW, has anyone else been hearing rumors that Bush's health may *force*
>him to step down?  (Christopher Hitchens said on CNBC last week
>that it was common knowledge in DC).

And if someone were to announce the results of a credible "poll" over time
that showed Clinton /c 90% preference in the next month, that wouldn't
affect the minds of the voters either, would it?

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: This place is infested!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:22:53 GMT

Before I get started, let me warn the weak-stomached... this one
is just plain nasty.  (My back hurts, and I'm in a foul mood.)
------------

This place seems to have gotten just plain *infested* with
Christian critters since I left!  And, amazingly enough, they
seem to think that their mystical superstitions amount to something
like a rational position which we should actually treat as worthy of
discussion!

Let me make a very simple statement on the matter.  No appeal to
religious authority is a valid argument.  God does not exist, so
pondering what he (or she) wants, wishes, demands, etc. is a useless
and dangerous exercise.

This country was founded on (among other things) the principle that
all men have a right to speak their mind on the issues.  I fully 
support the right of Christians to spread their sophistries, fallacies,
and self-destructive philosophies.  But I also reserse my own right
to fight them with rational arguments for as long as is necessary to
show that they are the bearers of falsehoods.

I will be back on this list for a good while now, so I thought
I ought to get all of this cleared up beforehand.  

I'll be happy to argue/debate anyone here, Christian or otherwise.  
But be aware that I will immediately cut off any argument that contains
an appeal to the unreal.

Thanks for your time, and have a nice day.

--Jimbo

p.s. And Carl, I still work at Indiana University, in case you want
to call someone!


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:38:00 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Poll: Is Bush hurt by Quayle's presence on the ticket?
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

The local news programs have gotten rather hung up /c phone-in polls
as of late...the record for phone-in votes was in response to the
Tyson verdict (over 20'000 calls).

Anyways, last night's phone poll was "Is Bush hurt by Quayle's presence
on the ticket?".  7'200 votes were tallied; 54.6% said "no", 45.4% said
"yes".  Highly unscientific, but still interesting, considering it is
Indianapolis and the heartland of Quayle country.

P.S.

I know how unscientific it is as when a very controversial question is
posed and even results are expected, I'll set the autodial on my modem
to help one side or the other and create a lopsided victory.  Balancing
a sure win has been fun too.  I'm sure others have done it here as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:04:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      the upcoming war

i heard on pacifica news tonight that
bush is sending more ships and a bunch of
patriot missiles into the gulf, dispite the
acceptance of hussein of un investigators
and the un's acceptance of hussein's terms.

the spokesperson, when asked what would happen,
said something on the order of "just wait. you'll
see."

does everyone think this means what i think it means?

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:24:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

>is that a "short" military event (?) would help Bush more than anyone else
>-- partly because of the knee-jerk flag-waving kind of response, and partly
>because it would count as another "foreign policy victory".

well, that is assuming nothing goes wrong and we "win" again.

>Sigh.

double sigh.

>Kerry

-linda  no one likes us, don't know why, we may not be perfect, but heaven knows
we try....let's drop the big one now. Randy Newman "Political Science"
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, 28 Jul 1992 21:05:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

>People around the world look to the United States to lead the way into the
>next millennium, a new CNN/Angus Reid Group Poll finds.
>Forty-two percent of people polled in 16 countries named the USA as the world's
>leader at the end of the 1990's.  Japan was second with 20%
>"From the outside looking in, and I say this as a Canadian, America is seen
>as a force for good in the world," says pollster Angus Reid.

There is no correlation, based on what little you have told us of this poll,
between being a 'leader' and being a 'force for good'.  If asked whether I
thought the U.S. was the world's 'leader', I would have to say yes: the U.S.
wields the most influence in world events in virtually every sphere, from
economics to military usage.  I would strenuously deny, though, that this
implies that the U.S. was using this influence for noble purposes, despite
it's rhetoric and disinformation to the contrary.  The information Jamie
posted regarding how Iraq got it's armaments provides a clue as to how 'noble'
our government really is.

>The telephone poll covered| 4,510 adults-in the USA, Canada, Mexico, France,
>Britian, Germany, Spain, Iltaly, "Russia", Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South
>Korea, "Japan", India and Australia.

Ok, I understood why you put "Russia" in italics, but why "Japan"?  Is there
something going on that we should know about, or is your quotation-mark finger
just getting itchy? :)

Gary W. Olson                 "Mother America is brandishing her weapons,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   she keeps me safe and warm by threats and
                               misconceptions..."
                               - Drivin n' Cryin, "Fly Me Courageous"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:14:28 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jails and GE
              28 Jul 1992 10:04:00 -0400 from
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE>

Julie:

You mention some of the more ridiculous laws that are on the books, in
an effort to support the idea that anti-sodomy laws are of a similar
nature.  However, you fail to point out that those laws have not been
enforced for a very long time, while the Supreme Court has upheld
the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws as recently as 1986.

                                       --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:47:28 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

jb:

Marilyn said that her daughter would not have an abortion.  Quayle said
today that she would have the baby, even under current circumstances.
From what I heard Marilyn say, I believe she felt that the question
to Dan was a hypothetical set in the future (when, of course, they
are both smart enough to know that under current law their daughter
could do anything she pleased about it, but they would still support
her because they are her parents.)  Their comments today were based
on the hypothetical set in the present.  I kinda wish somebody would
ask...what's the kid's name, anyway?  And by the way, I know Clinton's
kid is Chelsea (real down-home, that.)  I could hardly miss it from
the number of times everybody on the show (DNC convention) mentioned
Bill "holding Chelsea and realizing that he was doing something his
father never had the opportunity to do"--you suppose they have a drill
on this at home?  Anyway, Clinton's kid is Chelsea, and  Poppy and
Bar have kids named Neil and George and Dorothy.  What are the names of
the Quayle kids?(I know one of them is named "Tucker," because there was
a big stink when the University paper interviewed Marilyn and referred to
her son as "Elvis" and she wrote a letter to the paper saying that she
had mentioned to the reporter her "eldest son, Tucker" in passing.  It was
quite funny.)   And what are the names of the Gore kids (aren't there
a bunch of them?  And, yes, I know the one who slid 20 feet on his face
is named Al, Jr.  I GOT that, already!)  So how many kids are there on the
2 "family values" tickets, anyway?
                                  --Missy Justice
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:33:27 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

>>This is how Quayle can make such a statement.  Of course, this is an easy
>>one, since we are talking about his own daughter.  I would have liked to
>>have seen the same question posed regarding a total stranger, since that
>>is where true conviction becomes visible.
>
>Two things.  First, didn't Quayle argue, back in the previous campaign,
>that an 11-year-old rape victim who became pregnant should not be allowed
>an abortion?  Would that qualify as the same (general) question regarding a
>total stranger?

So?  I'm reminded of the Bush-Dukakis "debate" when Duke was asked
what he thinks should happen to someone who brutally murdered his
daughter.  He blew the answer, but the proposed "correct" response was
"I'd want him dead, but that's exactly why I shouldn't be allowed to
decide".  I detect a double standard in the critics, which suggests
that the principle involved has little to do with the issue or the
facts, but the personalities involved.

In other words, even if Quayle did say "I'd say scoop that kid out, my
daughter is reserved for the Quayle breeding program", that wouldn't
be evidence that he is pro-choice, at least if we go by the standards
that people wanted to use for Duke.

I also note that when someone else says [of wayward kin] "I support
him", they aren't being accused of being pro-waywardness.

And, as long as I'm coming across as a Quayle defender, I'll point out
that he got the "potatoe" correction from a cue card provided by a
teacher at that school.  Sure, he should have caught it (except that
pols are trained to go with the cards in public) but I don't see that
as a big sin.

To balance that out, if I'm reading the constitution correctly, I'd
love to be Vice President.  Sure, you don't get a vote in the senate
unless it is divided, but you do get to be President of the Senate
whenever you decide to show up.  I'd be there every day; they'd
have to send someone else to funerals.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:59:53 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      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.

  Continue the tradition.

  JohnsoN for President.

  vote JohnsoN/OlsoN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:59:39 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      if the shoe fits

Dear listmembers:
Our honored and esteemed opponents have been pumping the shoe issue for all
it's worth.  Some may feel our reticence to date stems from an insole-ent
disregard for the importance of the issue; others may think we fear to
tread into the fray.  Such ideas are patently false.  Do not let the
opposition persuede you that we are too straight-laced, or that we will
claim the moral high-top for our own.  The Converse is the truth:

If elected, we will uphold the Bassic right of all listmembers to full
freedom of footwear.  We will neither flip-flop on this committment nor use
slippery rhetoric to clog debate.  Our goal is nothing less than to spread
the Red Wings of footwear freedom over the ether, where the reebok will
once again be free to roam with the ilk.

Adidas for now, and have a Nike day.

This message brought to you by the Kerry ticket.  That's Kerry for
President, and Kerry for other President.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:45:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: cost vs. return

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: cost vs. return

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:11:06 EDT K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> > Sex outside of marriage should be a jailable offense.
> > -Travis
>
> How about sex in the absence of (any) marriage?
>
> --KAT

I don't know about that.  But I think anyone caught having sex with
someone in the absence of marriage should not be allowed to marry anyone
else.  I also think that divorces should be VERY hard to get, and that
only one divorce should be granted per person.  (That's per person, not
per marriage.  Whoever asks for the divorce is considered the "person"
in this sense.)
-Travis

        um, how does this affect corporations, which are considered "persons"
        under the law?

        and, uh, what part of the country would we leave for those who
        have only had marital sex, or no sex at all (assuming that we
        construct a big jail for the rest of us)?  i recommend rhode island.

        brni
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 19:12:35 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 16:56:10 EDT Jamie said:

>Julie, I welcome the competition. But don't you think you'd
>have to be a czarina? In any case, you might be absorbed by
>the J-ticket. I mean, in case there is one.

>Chalk up another one for the Czar-to-be....

Of course we could pair Julie and Jamie and maybe they'd produce
czar-dines...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:35:03 EDT
From:         AASR23@SAKACS00.BITNET

             ********************************************
             What UN are Found in Ministry of Agriculture
             at IRAQ ?
             And  What they do after that .........?
             ********************************************



Abo-Hatan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:04:19 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      capital punishment/abortion

 Capital punishment has been dredged up in an effort to discredit the position
 of those claiming to be pro-life.  While many, of the pro-life persuasion,
 will undoubtedly be against capital punishment, that in itself does not
 uphold the case of the implied contradiction.  I, for one, see no conflict in
 the two positions.

 Capital punishment is the result of an arduous process, brought about by the
 recipient.  Extensive measures are taken to ensure the "accused" has a fair
 trial, not to mention years of appeals if convicted.  The "accused" has better
 than 50/50 odds to survive the process.

 Abortion is the result of many things, *NONE* of which are brought about by
 the VICTIM.  In this case, VICTIM is the correct term.  There is no trial,
 no appeal, no parole, no counsel for the defense and no plea bargaining.  If
 there is any such thing as *innocence*, surely an unborn child would be its
 purest manifestation.  Rather than running the *risk* of complicating our
 selfish existence we simply destroy our young.

 The attempt to present these two positions as somehow contradictory is an
 exercise in futility.  While Christians are to forgive, this does not
 automatically remove the civil or criminal liability of the perpetrator.
 Although I may forgive you for stealing my car, the police will still try
 for an arrest and prosecution.  My forgiveness does not indicate that I
 feel this subsequent arrest and punishment would in any way be wrong.

 I believe the Bible is perfectly clear in its presentation of abortion as
 wrong and capital punishment as appropriate.  If "G"od wanted us to know
 that capital punishment was not to be used, then why was it required of
 Jesus?

 ---Robert

 "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee; amd before
 thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee."
                                --- Jer. 1:5
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU