HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:10:49 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>         Lower, definately lower.  He is, after all, a mafioso-butt kissing "do
> anything" power hungery politcal hack only admired by those who want the power
> he has so they can srew as many people as he has.
>
> Brett'
> :)

   now, now, brett. just imagine the arguments cuomo and scalia could
have! if willie picks somebody like tribe, it would all be formal and
rather boring. cuomo, now, he'd call scalia in the middle of the nite
and rave for hours. imagine the dissents cuomo would write!can you
say "asbestos paper"?

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:47:50 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sounds
              27 Jan 1993 02:12:45 EST from <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>

Hi Dan:

As a certified political scientist, the best reason to be in PS is
to *observe* politics.  Once you understand how it works, you
figure out what a game it really is.

Don't worry if you feel like you don't "belong" anywhere in the
political system.  You don't have to be a dog to be a good
veterinarian.  In fact, you're better off if you're not.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:50:13 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:33:36 CST rufus t. firefly said:
>
> >  it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
> >is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.
>
> Well, it seems that the advocates (including me) want
> no more favor for homosexuals than say for satanists.
> So, is the military officially approve of satanism?
> How about KKK, does the military officially approve of
> them too?
>
> >rtf
>
> --KAT

   as to satanists; they are, as i understand it, tolerated. barely.
they seem to be on the edge between tolerate and suppress. ditto any
other non-judeo-xtian religion.

  as to the KKK; military personnel are, as i understand it, officially
barred from membership in it any any other similar organization. i guess
you give up a few rights when you join the military, freedom of speech
and of association being two of them.

  apparently, the military can and does regulate behavior of many kinds.
i fail to see why sexual behavior should be exempt from regulation. or
are there different standards for straights and the poor, persecuted
gay minority?

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:16:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
              28 Jan 1993 10:04:07 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:04:07 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>..........................  Why do you need a body total?  Whether
>one person died or a million, the results don't change when N more people die.

WRONG!  That should have been "N+1" not "N".  A big
difference, you know.

>Brett'

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:55:24 -0700
From:         Dom Maddalone <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:

>Dearest Dom:
>
>Ah, I see the problem.  Your macho attack when ridiculed response is
>predicated on the assumption that I am a fellow, er, fellow (hence,
>the curious assertion that my girl will be yours within the week.)

    "A fellow, er, fellow?"  Difference?

>Such is not the case.  The "my girl" bit is a reference to executive
>nomenclature, used in a form of witty repartee with which you are
>apparently unfamiliar.

    I honestly have to say that I fell for the "my secretary."  My fault.

>Hopefully we can continue this spirited discussion with the understanding
>that you need not impugn my manhood to make points.  Indeed, I fear
>it makes you look a bit ridiculous.

   My sincere apologies.  However, it is not a macho attack.  Please, no
feminism attacks at me, Kerry, baby.  It is, though, a lack of paying attention
to the sig., yet focusing on the "my secretary" line.  It was out there, with
the quotes, like bait.  The entire blame rests on me for the gender-specifc
role playing though.  I just couldn't resist the quoted my secretary.  You
are right, I'm not accustomed to those rapid witty quoted remarks.

>As for the language of the playground, I'm afraid that stringing
>together obscenities and other words that make fourth-graders
>giggle doesn't qualify as either argument or satire.  Not even
>when you use hyphens.

    I was not aware that those dirty words offended you.  My apologies again.
My quote was directed towards an anonymous post, as you will recall.
    Anything else of which you'd like to inform me as to list protocol?

    Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:11:21 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Jamie, come on:
>
>You don't understand "declare war?"

???
I DO understand it, and in fact I explained what my understanding
is, so I'm a little puzzled by KerryS's question.

I said, the power to declare war is the power to choose with
whom our military forces shall be engaged.

Thus, the War Powers Act fits snugly within the power to declare
war.

>It's a pretty simple concept, and yes, it does require another party
>against whom to declare.  Once the Congress has declared it,
>(or passively accepted the President's decision to act militarily),
>it's up to the President to determine how it gets done.

I agree.

And the War Powers Act is entirely consistent with this view.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:42:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: DC

On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:02:54 EST Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> Large U.S. cities, with the exception of Washington, already have
> representatives in Congress. Washington has none. That doesn't
> seem very democratic.
Who said anything about democratic?  2 senators from each state is
not very democratic either.

> By the way, I don't think D.C. itself CAN get statehood, not without
> a constitutional amendment. I think Congress will have to pull a kind
> of trick. It will have to shrink the Capital down to a very small,
> non-residential area. The rest of Washington it can make into
> a state.
Actually, I imagine, with the permission of Congress, DC could easily
become a state.   Since Congress is the true "state legislature" of
DC, Congress could apply for admission for DC as a state, and, since
Congress can approve the application, I see no trouble for DC state-
hood.  I think it would be stupid, though.

I have another question: constitutionally, does a person have a right
to move to another state without the state's permission?  If so, where
is this right listed in the Constitution (explicit or clearly implicit
is fine with me)?

> Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reunion on the Mall

I find it odd how some "true believers" are disappointed, frustrated, etc
in finding out that groups like the Presidential Inaugural Committee actually
have to PAY for things.

If business pays, it's "business as usual - only with a new party!"

If private (therefore rich) citizens pay, it's "he's no man of the people -
just of the wealthy!"

If the taxpayer pays, it's "boy, stick it to us just like the rest of them!"

Perhaps Clinton should simply have taken the oath in the Oval Office and
started the business of government.  Although, some disillusioned naysayer
no doubt would come up with a treatise complaining how the democrats are too
serious and don't know how to express joy.


Wake up, Fester!  In the world we live in (and, therefore, support) things
cost _money_.  If something as minor as the Inaugural gets you all this upset,
we all can't wait until the first budget hearings - or the first "health care
or deficit reduction?" dilemma.   Easy, breezy.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:14:07 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Organization: York University
Subject:      Re: Musical Presidents

Stan's pathetic and irrational comments in "defense" of Richard Nixon
point to a genuine difference between right and left in the United States:
the standard tactic for the right is to kill the bearer of bad tidings.
While no centrist or leftist was especially pleased by the embarassment
of Ms. Baird, I didn't hear any rush to denounce even those who made hay
out of the matter. She did something illegal and (by the way) good & goddam
dumb, and therefore had to take her lumps. But from Watergate to Iran contra
to Quayle's submoronic grotesquery, all we ever hear from the right in
"defense" of these selfish, thick-witted scumbags is "Oh yeah? you're an
SOB for bringing it up!" The jin-yoo-wine American rightist believes in an
older, simpler theology, in which rightness & justice are inherent in
persons by their mystical essence, and not a matter of their choices and
actions. Reagan, Nixon, Quayle, and even North are good because they're
*born* that way, because they are God's people, and no amount of chicanery,
crookedness, deceit, fraud, self-serving, incompetence, and spitting on
due process can change that goodness. (Though not in itself a racialist
philosophy, this is just down the hall, metaphysically, and it doesn't
take much of a walk to get there from died-in-the-wool rightism.)
  I think this is what makes sense of the otherwise baffling alliance of
libertarians and soak-the-poor types on the right. They seem to share the
comforting delusion that there is some magic hand that will *of itself*
repair the damage of criminal mismanagement. They both say "all we have
to do is spend less, and the situation will fix itself." The tragedy is
that no matter how many times this fairy tale gets repudiated by history,
the wheel turns round to give these amoral crackpots another chance.
MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:08:05 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: "On Gay Rights ..."

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:40:00 EST Carl A. Lahetta said:

>This absurd!  Not all heterosexuals rape.  Did I write that all homosexuals
>are pedophiles? No! ....

Well, although you did imply that, but I will give you
another chance.  Don't blow it.

>     ...  I wrote that some pedophiles want to specifically have
>sex with male minors.  Homosexuality is a desire to have sex with someone of
>the same gender regardless of age.

No sooner than I gave you another chance, you went
ahead and blew it.  If "homosexuality is a desire to
have sex with someone of the same gender regardless of
age" and if "pedophiles are people who desire sex with
children," then one may conclude that all homosexuals
are pedophiles.     (Logic Czar: a ruling please.)

Using your asinine logic, we could further say that
"heterosexuality is a desire to have sex with someone
of the opposite gender regardless of the age".  Now, 1)
that would be asinine AND wrong, and 2) it would also
conclude that heterosexuals are pedophiles too.

>I suppose so, but that doesn't change the fact that some homosexuals are
>are also pedophiles.

And "some" murdered are fundamentalist christians too.
What does THAT prove?

You are a confused heterosexual.  :-)   A few lines ago
you said:  "Homosexuality is a desire to have sex with
someone of the same gender regardless of age."  So
which is it?
>

>Carl---+

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:44:12 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [abortion case]

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>
>Hi again :)
>Joe wrote (in part):

[Jose Prose deleted]

>Now, I'm way out of my depth here, but this line of reasoning looks a lot
>like what I read about a recent freedom-of-religion decision.  I posted a
>summary to the list, and naturally forgot all the details.  The idea,
>though, was like this:  formerly, a law could be held to violate freedom of
>religion if it had as an *effect* a restriction on that freedom -- even if
>that wasn't the intent.  But that precedent was changed so that a law must
>have as its *intent* the restriction of religious freedom.  It doesn't
>matter if the *effect* is there -- intent is all that matters.

I don't remember seeing that post of yours.

In any case, some laws (including parts of the Constitution)
are about intent, and others are about effects. The 1985 bill
that was relevant in Bray (sorry--1985 is the name of the bill,
not its year of passage!) mentions some specifics about intent.
The Establishment clause of the Bill of Rights doesn't, nor does
Free Exercise clause.

In Schempp and Murray the Court used the standard of "purpose
and primary effect." NEITHER of those may be to further a
religious purpose if a law is to pass this test.

I don't know of later cases restricting the test to purpose only,
but I'd be quite interested to hear of any.

Again, keep in mind that the Bray case was not a constitutional
case at all (well, it did perhaps involve some constitutional
questions tangentially). It was a case about an old federal statute.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:32:55 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > >uhh, I don't think so.  By 'tracking', these units are in fact turning
> > >on their radar.  With their radar turned on, it is a simple matter to
> > >push a button and launch missles.  You don't launch missles until your
> > >radar is on.  These planes are only acting in self-defense.
>
> No, you are not quite correct there. What you are talking about
> is having the radar assemblages spinning around, "let's see what
> is out there." What (if I heard correctly) happened was the radar
> was specifically looking at the planes, the radar held a track,
> and a little light and and a little buzzer started saying to the
> pilots "someone could fire a missile at you and you'd be dead."
Right.  I guess that I phrased my sentences poorly.  There is
passive and active tracking.  Passive tracking happens all the time and
you don't even have to have a weapon system attached to your radar.
Active tracking is what happens immediately before a missle launch.
> > >And if you
> > >are flying a plane and want to wait until you actually _see_ a missile,
> > >that's your death-wish.
>
> > I hope you don't advocate this action _everywhere_; the US regularly orders
> > fly-overs of other countries for intelligence purposes...if and when those
> > countries activate their radars (again, their right - since the planes would
> > be violating international law), would it be OK for the US planes (ie,
> > the violaters) to bomb the radar sites?
>
> 1) a SR-71, for example, does not have weaponry. Few spy planes do,
>    as the cameras are very bulky, carrying all those telephotos and
>    all. As such, they cannot bomb the radar sites.
> And, by the way, a good jet can go about Mach3, maybe. Missiles
> go up to Mach 4, with *MUCH* better maneuverability. If you can
> eyeball a missile, you are dead. Simple as that.
And don't forget that there are serious rumors that the USAF has developed
a super top-secret very high-speed plane. They say that this plane can
go MACH 6.  Yes, I said MACH 6!  If such is the case, then they can just
outrun those missles.
>
> > -T.
>
> Dave
> t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL, @VAL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:04:26 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      A clarification on the "gay issue" ...
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
          kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet,
          srdjan%cathy@kri.fer.yu

My comments were prompted by the business with gays in the military, but
I really think my view is that gay rights needs addressing in other ways
even more than in the military. I think "integrating" gays into the
military should be done gradually, and done by law, so as to deal with
the issues of housing, dependent benefits, "fraternization," etc. But,
"civil rights" for gays seems to me a more basic issue, and also ought to
be addressed. VMS
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:34 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93012322241909@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes...
>Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
>in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
>And climbing. . . .

Disappointed with all the executive orders, are we?  :-)

								Dan, ad nauseum 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The longest line
             contained 0 characters
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:34:45 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Dom are you the fat guy on TV ?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>    Golly, what an informative opinion from an anonymous-chicken-shit-brain-
>dead-non-thinking-zombie-like-drooling-over-another-radio-broadcasting-droolin
g-
>slob.   Pretty typical of the audience, I believe.
>    Anything else you like to inform us of, oh, holy of holies, oh master
>of anonymousness?
>    Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu

Judging from your remarks, the target of your ire would appear to be
about 2 pegs above you.

The roll of the dice... oh, you're on Community Chance.  Take a card.

It says, "For being a pin-headed jerk, tell each lister you're sorry".

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:14:00 EST
From:         TOBY FENWICK <TFENWICK@MIDD.BITNET>
Subject:      "Fatherland" (was RE: where liese is.....)
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

-jbc

>Brett':

>Have you read _Fatherland_ and if so, what'd you think?

>I found it interesting to say the least.  I didn't think that its
>the best-written book of the decade, but the intricasy, etc was
>fascinating.  I did like the way Stalin was the one denounced--
>it sort of worked along the lines that the one who loses the war
>is always made out to look like the devil, while the winner always
>is the angel.

Isn't his interesting- finally! a discussion on why history is always written
by the winners. I did enjoy "Fatherland", a nice quick read, although the edind
is wierd... I think that the chances of the Prussian military allowing
something like this to occur is remote...[no doubt Ninar Kerry will correct me
on this... hi kerry :) ]. But the premise of the book made it an interestin
red, I thought.

>-jbc

Toby
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Inaugural
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:39:02 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>In article <Pine.3.05.9301192020.U8551-8100000@grits>,
>     Ude Eko <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU> writes...
>Someone told me
>today that today [Jan. 19] is "the last free day in America".  What are your
>thoughts on this subject, for me to inform him about??

Tell him that is 100% correct.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:38:06 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: i just don't get it
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Can someone explain how Ed Meese was able to be confirmed as Attorney
>General with his background while Clinton's first choice never got
>past first base? It must be because the press is so pro-republican
>don't you think, rtf and brett'?:)

        That's what Clinton gets for targetting the rich, then picking a rich
corporate lawyer :).

        Remember that Reagan was stressing the fight against crime.  If Clinton
would have stressed empathy for the underpriviliged, then no problem.  (Okay,
smaller problem.)

        She just couldn't duck the issue of making $500k and not being able to
find help in economically depressed Conn.

>...
>Randall Terry was in town last week. He told the woman pastor of a
>local church that she is a jezabel and stood outside the church
>admonishing those about to enter service that they would go to hell
>if they took communion from this woman.Any of the lawyer types on
>the list know if this could be interpreted as slander?

        Not for a public figure.  If I was her, I would have replied (to Terry)
"and I'm sure you'll be there to greet them as you are today".
:)

>Are the pro-gulf war people happy that Clinton has not halted our
>military venture in this region?
>fred

        It should have been finished two years ago.  This is simply searching
for a way to declare victory.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU