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, 28 Aug 1992 10:11:50 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      remember thalidomide?

take a powder if you are stressed?  like powder your nose?  like, go away
to forget about the fact that you are pregnant?  or take a powder like
"dr. snakeoil's magic happy powder"?  not while you're pregnant, bub.  or
is it okay with you to bring profoundly differently abled children into the
world, just as long as they are alive?  wait...i know the answer you will
give on that one.
in a perfect world, folks, this would not be an issue.  but, as i have
reason to know, this is not a perfect world.  abortions *will* occur, no
matter what anyone or any institution does to stop them.  you are right,
there will probably be a lot fewer if they are outlawed.  but do you really,
really want to make the tradeoff of individual liberties for this?  i don't
think you fully understand what you are proposing.... you think it's worth it?
more power to you.  just remember that when legislation goes through that
will not allow you to worship your precious god, thanks to the abridgment of
civil liberties that you all set in motion.  i wash my hands of the whole
affair and of the whole issue.  that's right, just like pilate.
callous?  probably.  cold-hearted?  no, not really.  i don't care about the
4000 dead per day?  sure i do.  but i'm realistic, and can see the big picture.
    the greatest good to the greatest number.  for every action, there is an
equal and opposite reaction.  what kerry s. and robert propose is not a minor
thing.  it will affect every sphere of american jurisprudential practice.
and it certainly will not stop with allowing the government to control
decision-making in the arena of pregnancy.

this list is so unbelievably depressing.  all right, what the heck, i'll send
this out and prepare for a hailstorm of personal attack and hateful messages
to be sent my way from people who love me (although not my actions).

                                 anneliese lorson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:11:56 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: is Clinton being anxious? and is NBC being less than

>Hi, folks:
>For what it's worth, Tom Brokaw (is that the NBC guy?) prefaced a taped
>interview with Clinton -- shown during the R. convention -- with the
>statement that NBC had contacted Bush and Quayle about providing responses
>during the D. convention.  They declined.

Since standard procedure has been to let the other party get a free
ride during the convention, that decline is "biz as usual"?

When did "the rules" change?  Is there an obligation to tell the other
side "in time"?  (If the Demos told the repubs well BEFORE the Demo
convention, the Repubs have no biz whining.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:23:11 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              26 Aug 1992 11:26:30 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

>>> you is/was: would you also first be an American and then think
>>> about your Christianity?  Or do you think your Christian feelings/
>
>> obligations supersedes your obligations as an American citizen.

> I dropped it because it didn't apply to the issue at hand.  A relationship
> with "G"od is not comparable to patriotism.  My relationship with "G"od
> is beyond earthly concerns.

What you keep failing to understand is that to an Indian, his
heritage might also come before his American Citizenship.
Now, why would you want to reserve that right for you and then
deny it to others?

> ---Robert

--KAT
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:29:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs

I said:
>>Hmmm.  Since the speed of response to areas devastated by the hurricane and
>>the promising to rebuild a military base are not integrally related, Bush is
>>not in a catch-22 situation here.  He could have, for example, responded
>>with greater quickness and still promised the rebuilding of the military base.

Please, pay a bit of attention to the overall gist of the paragraph.  A catch-
22 is a situation in which seeming alternatives cancel each other out, leaving
no means of escape from a dilemma.  What you gave as an example of a catch-22
were two seperate situations that were related in context, not alternative
choices that faced Bush in a single situation.

Jason Z replies:
>Of course these responses are integrally related!  They both are aspects of the
>disaster-relief program in Florida.

I see you have a rather flexible definition of 'integral'.  The actual speed
of Bush's reaction to Hurricane Andrew is not an essential component of
promising to eventually rebuild a military base, or vice versa.

>Either way, the media put as much negative spin as
>possible on Bush's actions, which is grossly unfair.

Odd - it was my impression that he came off relatively well.  If you're trying
to get me to feel sorry for Bush 'cause the big bad media is being mean to him,
it's not working.  I'm not convinced that the media is putting that big of a
negative spin on the whole thing, at least, certainly not as big a negative
spin as you're putting on the media.

>Jason

Gary W. Olson               "That's tonight's 'Unsolved Mysteries.' Next
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU week we'll present wildly inconclusive evidence
61 days and counting down... on the Amelia Earhart disappearance, U.F.O.'s
                             and God. Be there!"-Evan Dorkin's "Milk & Cheese"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:38:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

>I have a better idea. Lets castrate men. well, not all men. just most of
>them. dumb ones go first, with a rusty old hack saw.

i have two nicely buffed bricks out on my back porch that would be just
perfect for the job.  gives a whole new meaning to "hit the bricks".


>jcs
  &
-linda (the E tEam)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael jensen)
Subject: HELP: creating fact sheet re Quayle's Comp.Council
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:07:46 GMT

I'd like to put together a fact sheet on Quayle's Council on 
Competitiveness--the number of waivers it's given, the economic 
effects of the waivers, the companies/corporations that have received 
the waivers, and the effects of those waivers (economically, 
ecologically, politically, etc.).

If you have any information that would be of use, please let me know 
via e-mail. I'll post whatever information I compile.

.  Michael Jensen          Democracy in the electronic age  .
.  jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu   requires a nation of watchdogs  .
.  Any opinions are             each of us without a leash  .
.  exclusively my own.                      or boundaries.  .

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:15:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Gore on the Environment

> Pam Leader:
>
> Since you believe that the environment is the most important issue,
> I assume that you have studied it in some depth, and, if so, I
> assume you know what you are talking about.
>
> Could you please tell us where you get your information about the
> environment?
>
 You wouldn't be trying to set me up would you?
 I have not studied the environment "in depth". It is a subject I have
 had a strong interest in for many years, and have accumulated many
 sources of information. If you really want a bibliography, I suppose
 I could work on it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:02:28 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

>From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

> "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

We might ask Ross Perot....

Jamie

"It profits a man nothing if he loses the his soul to gain the
entire world... but for Wales, Robert? For Wales?"

(Thus alluding to ANOTHER Thomas whose theocracy I would prefer
to Robert's....)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:31:43 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Republicans take the High Road

Hello again,

I heard about the imitation Elvis riding with Clinton/Gore, its called the
'Don't Be Fooled' bus tour.

Great, great that's all we need...Sax, Gore, and Rock n' Roll.

Sounds like the Democrats take the low road again.  How low can they go?

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:23:08 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 11:06

 >>I ask this for the nth time.  What use other than birth control
 >>does abortion have????  What does it mean to say "The use of abortion
 >>as a from of birth control must be stopped"??? As opposed to what
 >>other use of abortion that seems to be OK to you?

 I don't know how many more ways you'll have to see this expressed before
 you're able to understand.  I hope not many.

 Abortion is NOT ( N O T ) OK!  I said, I am willing to agree to abortion
 in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.  I also said that I could
 not justify (morally) my willingness to do so.  Abortion is MURDER in ALL
 cases.

 By the term "birth control", I mean in cases where the reasons are similar
 to:  "I just don't need this right now" or "I'm not going to let some
 stranger adopt my baby, I'm getting an abortion" or "This is really going
 to screw up my cheerleading class".

 >Then why would you allow it in the cases of rape, incest, and life
 >of the woman?
 >KAT

 To stop the HOLOCAUST.  Clear enough?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:01:33 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: women in the military

>Maybe we could ask countries that have experience in this area . . .
>doesn't Israel use women in combat positions?

I understand that they don't in positions that involve contact with
the enemy because their enemy won't surrender to women.  They fight on
until they're physically unable to fight any more, which is more
costly to the Israelis.  (It's also more costly to said enemy, but I
doubt that enters into the Israeli decision.)  Should we take that
into account?  Is that even a factor for us?

>On a related note, I read an
>article in the Lexington, KY, newspaper about a month ago about how at
>least one Navy boot-camp is now training men and women together.

Except when captured, Navy personnel don't have personal contact with
the enemy.  (Many Marines do.)  Neither do air force personnel.  Some
army folk won't, even though they're expected to be under fire, while
some will if they do anything at all.

If we don't know what factors are important, we can't make useful
decisions.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:44:20 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order restored

Kerry K,
yeah, that's what I meant.

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> >From Jamie
> >Mistress Kerry, god does not give us rules of logic. God is bound
> >by rules of logic. Cf. St. Thomas. (You need this one to defend
> >against the Problem of Evil, so said Thomas.)
>
> Jamie,
>
> "G"od is not bound by anything but your personal (lack of) faith.
>
> ---Robert

"G"olly, Robert, if someone is bound by my personal lack of faith,
that is quite a limitation. My personal lack of faith is boundless.

In any case, if I have to listen to some authority on god's relation
to logic, I think I'll go with St. Thomas before I listen to "R"obert.

"J"amie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:36:21 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Make My Day (Jamie)

 Just for grins, here is the Oklahoma "Make My Day" law.

 21 @ 1289.25.  Unlawful entry of dwelling-Physical or deadly force
 against intruder-Affirmative defense and immunity from civil liability

 A.  The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of
     Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own
     homes.
 B.  Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of
     physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against
     another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling,
     and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person
     might any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant
     of the dwelling.
 C.  Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not
     limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B
     of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal
     prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such
     force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or
     death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

 --------------------------

 OK.  Section A - I can expect to be ABSOLUTELY SAFE IN MY HOME.

      Section B - ALL Denizens and guests within my home can use deadly
                  force against an intruder, EVEN IF they feel the intruder
                  might brush against them while carrying out the TV.

      Section C - I/they cannot be prosecuted civilly or criminally,
                  UNLESS someone can PROVE I/they are lying (i.e.)
                      1.  I really didn't think the punk would bump into
                          me on the way out
                      2.  I actually invited him over

 Example:  I am pointing a gun at the intruder.  He grasps the barrel and
           says "give me the gun sucker".  I notice a slight tug ( physical
           force ).  BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG.  My current
           bedside firearm only holds 8 rounds.  After cleaning the firearm
           I dutifully call the police.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 14:12:16 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              30 Aug 1992 13:02:01 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Sun, 30 Aug 1992 13:02:01 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>                                                      Second, a minority of
>migratory birds are game species (and we're losing migratory songbirds at
>an alarming rate -- mostly because of winter habitat destruction).

as well as the proliferation of kittycats in suburban areas....seriously-
this topic is making the rounds in a number of journals.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:43:21 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: War between the Jasons

Hi, Jason, and thanks for the clarification :)

>In the case of gays, I don't think the "prejudice" qualification applies.
***>First, I'm assuming that you don't consider a condemnation of homosexuality
   on
>religious grounds to be the same as "I don't like gays because they're
>different" or some other non-sensical argument.  Of course, even if you grant
>that piety does not equal bigotry, that doesn't inherently justify all the
>differences with which the law treats homosexuals, but it does justify some.

Um, do you remember the line about assumptions?  I can't speak for Jamie or
anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, condemning homosexuality on
religious grounds and condemning homosexuality because "gays are different"
*are* the same -- in that neither reason can legitimately be used as the
basis of discriminatory laws.

We've discussed this issue back 'n' forth many times, and I haven't yet
seen a convincing (non-religious) justification for not legalizing
homosexual marriage.  Or, to put it another way, laws that provide benefits
to legal unions of men and women seem, to me, to discriminate against
unions between partners of the same gender with no justification other than
prejudice.

Kerry
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:48:21 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      A couple of thoughts ...

It would appear that an inordinate amount of "bashing" is going on between
the believers of Christianity and those who, for whatever reason, disdain
an intrusion on the list by sheerly theological points of view. Having
complained about the latter, because I AM a believer in separation of church
and state, HOWEVER it is embodied in law and/or custom in this country. The
continent of America was peopled during the European expansion by folks
fleeing religious intolerance, and wanting to then come here and create
islands of tolerance only for their sect (witness what was done to early
Quakers by MOST of the colonies!). In the past 100 years, perhaps a bit
more, the United States has become a largely secularized state. I cannot,
will not, argue whether that was the right thing to happen. I happen to
think that it is good that the state is NOT involved in our religious lives,
and I also believe that there is reason for "state" and "government" to
exist. I would not want to live in a theological state, be it Muslim,
Christian or "pagan" (whatever THAT means historically and presently).
As a radical, believing the religion, like abortion or drug use or any
other act that infringes on no one but self, is totally a matter of choice.
I try not to impose whatever religious views I hold on the rest of the
world, and don't want anybody's religious views "imposed" upon me - MY
greatest fear about the "religious right" is their seeming desire to make
all of us conform to their views. But, the recent spate of "intolerant"
remarks against the "Christians" of the list will only stir up the list,
and will prove very little, save the both sides CAN be quite venomous AND
intolerant. I'm saddened to see us divert our energies in such a manner,
what are any of you proving? Will all the venom and spiteful remarks change
anyone's point of view? I doubt it. Understand that this post is only one
person's opinion, like many other issues, I believe both sides are wrong on
this one. With regards to all, VMS
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:23:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Clinton and Bush, state by state

Rick ponders:
>"Battleground" states:  Michigan (18 electoral votes)

In the last statewide poll that was done, I recall that Clinton had a
strong lead over Bush, close to 19 points.  What was even more impressive
was that Bush lagged with just about every subgroup, including women who
opposed legalized abortion.  I've been expecting some fresh poll numbers
to be announced for a while now - likely they'll be published before the
first presidential debate.

>...Rick

Gary W. Olson               "That's tonight's 'Unsolved Mysteries.' Next
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU week we'll present wildly inconclusive evidence
64 days and counting down... on the Amelia Earhart disappearance, U.F.O.'s
                             and God. Be there!"-Evan Dorkin's "Milk & Cheese"
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:57:30 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Speech and Evolution

linda:
>so okay, when do we order the pizza?
>jamie can bring the beer-(anything but bud or lite beer).

Whenever you're ready.  I suggest *you* order (being the food expert), and
Jamie pays (he probably earns more than either of us :)).  I'll eat, drink,
and wax pseudo-scientific about sociobiology :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:17:00 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape; violation, sex or whatever...

Well, you aren't a victim of abortion either, and I defy you to tell me
that you "know" that abortion creates "victims." Rape is victimization, but
you have offered no proof that abortion victimizes in a similar way to rape,
or any other way, other than to offer the platitude, as does Robert, that
abortion is "murder." If there is no "victim," how can their be murder? (I
do not accept that a first trimester fetus is any more than fetus, period.
After that, I would generally oppose abortion save of emergencies, threats
to mother or fetus' health, or severe trauma to one or the other. After that
time, you might make a case for fetus as "victim," even then I'm not sure).
You continue to belittle one behavior most awful so as to attempt to make
your point. I continue to believe on specious ground doing so. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:53:23 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
              28 Aug 1992 12:41:58 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

Sorry.  One more thing.  From the same source:

    "Birth control means the use of medically approved
    methods to *postpone pregnancy* until you are ready
    for it."  (emphasis added).

--Missy P 2 B
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:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:52:52 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: women in the military

Missy J:
Thanks for the clarification.  Did anyone say *why* they thought women
shouldn't be in combat?  I've only heard two arguments against it (the guys
wouldn't like it -- analogous to the reasons for keeping blacks out -- and
the "it violates woman's essential nature" bit).  Neither makes much sense
to me.

What do you think?  Anyone?

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