HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:26:30 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

Travis:

>> >Divorces should be illegal except in extreme circumstances.

The first couple of times you made this assertion, I thought you were
kidding or something.  Now I get the impression you may actually be serious
.
>> Why?
>So that children don't have to live in torn families because "it just
>didn't work out."  I mean, if divorce is easy to get, marriage loses
>its meaning.  There should be strong proponderance of the evidence of
>an act (such as adultery, if I had my druthers) that would, if proven
>beyond a reasonable doubt, result in someone going to jail before a
>divorce would be granted.

Now, just out of curiosity:  would you also make it more difficult for
people to get married, in order to prevent those awkward situations?  Or do
you prefer to allow people to make their mistakes and have their kids (as
well as themselves) pay the consequences?

Maybe we should just forget about marriage all together!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:59:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

sigh.  i had hoped to come back to something better than this.  i had
hoped that the list had moved on a bit, but NOOOO, y'all are still
arguing about whether quayle is pro-choice, whether babies are humans
at conception, and etc, and travis is still making statements that range
from the absurd to the revolting.

********************
On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:20:00 EST linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said:
> i do not hold the same beliefs as you do robert. i do not believe that abortio
n
> is murder. i do not believe that human life begins at conception. the evidence
I do not hold the same beliefs you do, linda.  I do not believe that
raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.  The evidence is not
there.

        i am not surprised that you feel this way.
        i am also not surprised at your inability to distinguish between
        evidence and belief.  when there is no evidence of something, then
        peoples beliefs can run rampant.  when there is evidence to the
        contrary, certain people will still believe it because God whispers
        sweet nothings to them in their sleep.

> here's the reality check. i have 2 kids. i am divorced and receive no alimony
or
Divorces should be illegal except in extreme circumstances.

        any situation that is bad enough for people to want to separate,
        even at the risk of losing money, property, or visiting priveliges
        has got to be extreme.  so give it up, already.

> child support. i must work 2 jobs to feed and shelter my family. (yes, we are
a

> family with values and everything). if i had to lose even a few weeks of incom
e
> to have a baby, and place it for adoption (and considering the medication i'm
on
> no one would adopt that baby if it lived), it could spell financial ruin for u
s.
I know this may be a little absurd, but I was brainstorming and the idea
suddenly popped into my head that maybe a great way to solve all these
problems is for a woman not to get pregnant.  Kinda supid, huh--just a
thought.

        and here are the best ways to avoid this little unpleasantness:
        1) have your ovaries removed.
        2) do not have sex.
        3) have your (male) partner's testicals removed.
        4) only sleep with women.

        see what happens when travis thinks?

> i will not post on the abortion again.
Whatever you say, linda.

> and no, robert, i do not think you are a bully. i think you are wrong.
Fair enough.

> -linda
-Travis

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:27:27 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Jamie:
>
>How did you and linda get where you are now without having been
>fetusus? (feti?....unborn babies.)
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Well, I'll answer the question, but I'll also try to answer the
tacit premise.

Linda and I used to be fetuses. But now we are persons.

Suppose for a moment that god one day turned a puppet into a real
live boy (there may be precedent). The boy used to be a puppet.
And the boy is a person. But that doesn't entail either of these:
     a) the puppet was a person, OR
     b) the boy can imagine what it is like to be a puppet, OR
     c) cutting a puppet to pieces is murder.

Clear enough?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:35:31 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: falling off the culturally elite pedestal

>Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:49:21 EST
>Reply-To:     Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>anneliese:
>
>Depends.  If you read Zen and the Art in the 60s or 70s and consider it
>a manual for living, you are among the cultural elite.  If you read it
>recently and thought it odd, you are not.

Bah. If you will admit to reading it, you are out of the cultural
elite.

>If you read Bright Lights, Big City, Less Than Zero, or Slaves of
>New York, and liked them, you are a gold-star member of the cultural
>elite.  Just thought you might like to know.

If you LIKED them, you can't be cultural elite material. You're
probably an incurable New Yorker, though.
If you thought they were revealing and devastating, but flawed,
you might qualify for cultural elite status.
Of course, if you were IN one of them, you got it made.
-------------

Mandatory Serious Content

Local polls do tend to be badly done. One reason is that they tend
to be one-day polls. If you do a poll all in one day, or night,
you get a built-in bias: you haven't reached anyone who isn't
in that night.
Of course, the CBS/NYT poll wasn't a local poll.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:58:17 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?

 *** Resending note of 08/24/92 14:13
 >   Many of my ancestors were Native American so I know only too well the
 >   history of culture-smashing the United States government has. Please
 >   forgive me if I become slightly terrified at hearing a national
 >   political leader use inflammatory and divisive language such as this.
 >   You'd probably be a little sensitive too if YOUR relatives were beaten
 >   to within an inch of their lives in government and church schools for
 >   speaking their native language. It wasn't all that long ago.
 >   Diane

 Diane,

 I'm on the *rolls*, from your comments I assume you are too.  Pat Buchanan
 hasn't said anything that particularly alarms me.  Maybe it's because I
 think of myself first as an *American* and secondly as having Indian heritage.
 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:18:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's up?

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 09:27:58 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET> sa
id:
> I am back and incredibly glad.  Orientation went well and tomorrow
> I start Russian 101.  Wish me luck.
>
> I suppose I'll see soon enough what has been going on, on the list.
>
> Json

Zdravstvuytye!  Nadyeyus', chto tui budyesh' dyelat' khorosho v
klassye russkogo yazuika.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:23:27 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      State Polls

Does anyone know of any nationally available newspaper that is regularly
breaking down polls on a state by state basis?

Is Bush beating Clinton in any state's poll at present?

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:48:26 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>

>> I am back and incredibly glad.  Orientation went well and tomorrow
>> I start Russian 101.  Wish me luck.
>>
>> I suppose I'll see soon enough what has been going on, on the list.
>>
>> Json

>Zdravstvuytye!  Nadyeyus', chto tui budyesh' dyelat' khorosho v
>klassye russkogo yazuika.
>-Travis

Vye izder zomini mor orziz aziz dander iz orziz?
                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
   AND NOW.....

   Another in the series of topical George Bush quotes...
   ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)

"As you know, I planned a trip out there for some time, so it fits in very
nicely."

    - on his visit to Los Angeles after the riots, May 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:34:45 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill

>Sorry to tell y'all this, but according to Forbes (?), Sioux Falls,
>South Dakota is the most livable city, aka the Shining City on the
>Hill.  I'm going there today to get replacement glasses.

  Um, and how many of the Forbes editors actually live there?
None, you say?  Astonishing.

  Not that I would doubt what they said for a minute....

                                      -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:47:21 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness
              2 Sep 1992 17:22:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

What *makes* you "desire an aversion"?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:42:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gore on the Environment

>I disagree with censorship.  but....  it brings to mind all the
>"inconclusive" studies that have already been done on the degradation
>of the environment which Reagan and Bush have held up as evidence
>that "more studies need to be done" and "we don't want to act too
>hastily". Meanwhile the planet is turning into a trash heap.

In other words, anything for a good cause.  That's a principle all right.

>It is difficult if not impossible to fight a clean political battle.

No it isn't.  It's easy.  All you have to do is respect the electorate
EVEN though they might not go along with your plan when honestly
presented.  That's easy for a "good" person....

>The GOP folks have made it clear that they will use any tripe they
>can get their hands on to justify inaction on domestic or
>environmental problems.

Not so fast.  The GOP folks claim that certain measures don't make any
sense.  Maybe they do, and maybe they don't, but their ACTUAL claim
doesn't justify Leader's misrepresentation.  If you can't make your
argument without misrepresenting your opponent's position....

>At this point(early a.m.) I can't imagine
>what sort of "news" could in any way offset the realities of
>environmental degradation that we have been bombarded with over the
>past 15+ years.

You mean like the reduction in air pollution, the reduced leakage from
landfills, and other cleanups?  We really should have a national
legislature and state and local govts.  What?  We did?  And they had
democrats controlled some of them?

Sure, things aren't perfect, but if you have to distort the direction....

BTW - Remember Love Canal?  That was a GOVT failure.  It took the
threat of emminent domain to get that land from Hooker Chemical Co,
and it was govt that decided that building houses on a chemical dump
would be a great idea.  Hooker can't win an emminent domain fight, and
it can't force govt to monitor appropriately, as Hooker had been
doing, but it can be held liable, because govt isn't.

-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:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:52:48 SET
From:         Hansjoerg Klein <HKL@CERNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Please Help me un-sub!!!!!
              25 Aug 1992 13:42:33 EDT from <S0HEAT01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>

please tell listserv that I want to be off the list.
the whole chatting is rather unrealistic and full of "shit"
Hansjoerg Klein
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:56:31 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Changing topic?!?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Andy:
>Does anyone remember how many divisions that Germans used in WWII to
>"pacify" Yugoslavia.  WRT the relevant details, modern soldiers aren't
>any more effective.  That's why the UN peacekeepers think that
>accomplishing modest goals will take 100k troops and that lots of
>those troops will die.
>
>-andy

I read in my Sunday paper a couple of weeks ago (so I've thrown it out
and can't remember the exact details) that the whole business of tying
German soldiers down in WWII is a myth. The author of the article had
been to Munich to consult the relevant records and found that there
had been 6 divisions in Serbia, of which (as I remember) 2 or 3 were
locally raised (so not exactly over enthusiastic about the
occupation), and several of the others were German soldiers who had
had a tough time on the battlefield and Yugoslavia was looked on as
light duties for them. I think they may also have used it as a posting
for rookies to break them in gently to combat.

Anyway, although the details are sketchy, the bottom line is that they
did *not* tie down  whole load of German soldiers, and there is no
evidence that any force going in would get bogged down in this way.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:58:01 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      cold chillin' with the ministry of information

gilbert,
there is no need to get so huffy.  i was trying to point out that informed
people usually concur that there are no simple, one-word answers to why
countries do anything.
and i must say that i am puzzled as to why you are determined that it is oil
and oil alone that is to blame for the state of affairs as they now stand.
you a big vinaigrette fan?  own stock in exxon?  why is it so important to you
that i agree that oil, in and of itself, is the key to the issue?  you want
to convince me to go electric, car-wise?  you want me to switch to kerosene
lighting?  wait...i've got it.  you represent the franklin stove company.

whoops, gotta run.  better go try to enrich my poor, starved little feminine
brain.  maybe i can post what i've learned today so you can explain it for me.

                            * * * anneliese lorson
                                  b.a.'s, m.a.'s, a.b.d., lecturer in anth.
                                  reporter and assistant programmer,
                                  minnesota public radio; announcer,
                                  university public radio, mpls/st. paul
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Deadly Force
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:39:23 GMT

Before I begin, a disclaimer: this is a serious post.  I've been
slamming the Christians around here pretty hard (they can take it,
hell, they enjoy it!) but this post will not slam them at all.
This post will attempt to explain why I think (whatever position
they take vis a vis moral rights relative to God) Christians are
bound by the Bible to take a rather strong stand in favor of
legal rights.

First, I want to thank Kerry Stephenson (Missy Justice) for typing
in the lines from Matthew that (I think) best define the proper
Christian attitude toward political issues.

Kerry Stephenson writes:
>  You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and
>hate your enemy.'
>  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do
>good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you
>and persecute you."  (Matthew 5:38-44, NKJV)
>
>So, yes.  I respectfully disagree with you, Robert, regarding the use
>of deadly force.

How ought one to vote regarding the legal right to smoke marijuana?
Remember that a vote for prohibition is a vote to use the instrument
of the police and courts to send people with guns to use force against
those who we think are behaving immorally!  I don't think that Jesus
meant that you love your enemies while sending the police to lock
them up!  I think that Jesus meant that the best (most effective) way
to change people's lives is to 'turn the other cheek' and teach by
example.

And I don't think that God will let people off on technicalities!
I mean, Jesus surely wouldn't say: "And if you see people smoking
dope, be sure to drag them forcefully from their homes to be locked
away for a year or two."  And it is surely just a technicality if
we get some agent to do our dirty work for us.

Don't the scriptures demand that we let people be free from physical
force in such matters?  Don't the scriptures demand that we not use
force against those we disagree with?  Doesn't Jesus seem to be saying
that love is more powerful tool?

--Jimbo, professional atheist, weekend theologian



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:21:35 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The City on the Hill

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>
>Jamie:
>>I agree that the smart Republicans are starting to position for
>>'96, if that's what you're implying. (And I guess I've just
>>unintentionally called Quayle a "smart Republican," go figure.)
>
>Maybe not.  On a short clip from a Quayle interview, he said something to
>the effect of "our first priority is to get the president re-elected.  Then
>we'll think about '94."

That's what he SAYS....

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:33:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: i've finally figured out danny's problem

so okay roger,
i didn't quote the very beginning and end-but it STILL sounds like dick and
jane to me.
-linda (better be nice or i may not flirt)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: nope
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:47:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Make My Day (Jamie)

>> 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.
>
>WRONG!  Weren't you listening to Andy when he was explaining the
>difference between shoot to kill/wound and shoot to.....er....
>what was it?

Stop.

>See it is like this.  After the first or second BANG, there is no more
>(reasonable) danger of the intruder harming you, so it believe
>you would be charged with attempted murder.

Wrong.

The person may be mortally wounded at that point, but they may still
be a threat.  (In fact, shooting until they've taken a mortal wound
and then stopping even though they continue the attack seems, at least
to me, to be an inappropriate/illegal use of deadly force.  That is a
use of deadly force to kill, not to stop, although most people think
of the difference as being continuing the use of deadly force after
the attack ends.)

However, it is also wrong to assume that a person is a threat until
they are incapacitated.  If they voluntarily break off the attack,
there's no immediate threat, and no legal excuse for the use of deadly
force.

-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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:10:39 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

From:       Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>           Joe, baby, you blew it again:

> 1) the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting
> religion", not talk of established churches.

>           It would have behooved you to call for the line before
>           attempting to deliver it; most of your audience has
>           read the script.  The line is "Congress shall make no
>           law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF religion, nor pro-
>           hibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Bit archaic,

He might have blown it, but assuming that your latest
version is correct, I say Joe's version was much more
accurate than your first version.

>           perhaps, but meaning there will be no Church of the
>           United States (a la Church of England.)  You may well
>           want to argue the meaning, but try to get the text
>           right.

(But you didn't get the text OR the spirit of it correctly
in your first version either.)

Ok, let's argue the meaning (assuming that you got the text
right :-).

The constitution does not say "....respecting an establishment
of **A** religion.  It seems that your "Church of the United
States" argument would be correct only if the Constitution had
that "A" in the text.  It seems to me the Constitution is
prohibiting the establishment of ANY religion.

>           --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
From: TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET (Travis Kidd)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: he keeps thinking that it's by degrees; she says thanks,
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:04:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: OHSTVMA.POLITICS%92083117050783
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:43:03 -0500 ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET said:
> travis,
> i am curious as to the scale you are using to determine *degrees* of
> detestability of a crime.  man/woman rape is bad;  man/man rape is worse.
> uh-huh.  okay.  women are expendable, after all.  if you say so.  fine.
> tell you what, maybe you better not talk to me, i might contaminate you with
> ritual pollution and the like.  watch out, i might steal your power in the
> middle of the night.
Well, OK how about this--an 80-yr.old man murders his 85-yr.-old. wife
because he found out she was cheating on him for the past 40 years.
A 35-yr.-old man murders a 13-yr.old girl because she refuses to have
sex with him.  Which crime is worse?


> tsch.
>
> speaking of constitutional law, i have a case for you on your fave-rave
> topic, the meddling of the government in personal religious practice:
> reynolds vs. united states.  deal with it.
Tell me more, tell me more, hey does he have a car?


>                           * * *anneliese "pick a little, talk a little" l.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU