HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: freedom from discrimination
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:45:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

"Oh, I guess Blatant Ignorance for $400, Alex."

"And the answer is:"

>   "outrageous lies"? peter, if i and a black person apply for a job,
>and both of us are equally qualified, affirmative action dictates that
>the black person gets the job. even if the black person is somewhat
>less qualified, the black person still gets the job. would you please
>tell me how this is not a special right, denied to whites?
>
>
>rtf



"Oh, that's easy, Alex - what is The Second Most Blatantly Ignorant Statement
on Record?"


"That's right!"



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:33:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?

Hello,
   I was just wondering why the Liberals are not accepting Packwood's
apology.  He does seem to be sorry for what he has done and even seems
willing to be rehabilitated.  Isn't that the Liberal message for criminals?
Don't blame the person, blame the social enviroment and try to rehabilitate
the criminal to function in society as a productive individual.  I guess if
Packwood killed somebody then it would be allright, but harrassment is worse
isn't it?  Besides, everyone knows that dirty ol' white men can't be
rehabilitated.

Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:17:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Presidential Pardon
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be" <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.ED
> >1.      Conviction of a criminal offense does not automatically remove the
> >President of office (which would terminate power to pardon), but impeachment
> >proceedings would probably begin immediately if Congress convened.
>
> I don't think that there IS such a thing as a conviction of a president
> before impeachment. Impeachment must proceed a trial of the president.
> And impeachment removes him from office.

Well, conviction after trial would remove him from office.  I presume
that's what you meant.  But I think what Daniel was talking about was
the possibility of a criminal trial, without any relation to impeachment
proceedings.  Conviction at such a trial would not remove a President
from office, although a jail term might cause him to be removed due to
inability to serve.

Although Nixon's supporters argued differently, I don't see any problem,
at least as far as the Constitution is concerned, with the indictment
and trial of a sitting President.  It happens to lower officials all the
time :-(.  And, I think the Alcee Hastings affair shows that the two are
really unrelated--impeachment can only remove an official from office.
For criminal sanctions you would go to the criminal justice system.  In
fact, Hastings' impeachment took place even though he had been acquitted
of the criminal charges he faced.

Best,
Peter

> Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:00:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: War in Europe

Brett':


        Why not do us a favor:  get together with your pal Rush and maybe
_prove_ some wrongdoing on the part of Ms Braun?  Intimations of criminal
acts really don't cut  it - as "political thought" nor "entertainment."


        While I'm at it - you can let Rush know that using disparate, unrelated
persons and events to "prove" some kind of liberal conspiracy and/or denounce
"liberals" in general won't wash either...I'm sure he'd be upset if I used as
a personal example of the Reagan "revolution", oh, some crackpot fringe element
associated with that tragic period, someone vulnerable to personal attacks,
someone no self-respecting conservative would choose as their spokesperson -
someone like, say, Ronald Reagan?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:15:02 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 17:28:35 GMT from "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@EFF.ORG>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/04/93 11:34

From Carl
About a month ago, the Illinois Supreme Court said it was OK to
require student nonbelivers to say the Pledge because the phrase "one
nation under God" had become meaningless. The case illustrates how
government "support" for religion can backfire.

From  obert
I would suggest that the entire pledge has become somewhat meaningless.
However, when I choose to say it I do so of my own free will.  I can no
more be required to recite the pledge than you can be required to pray.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:14:44 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Colorado
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From:

A thank you to Ed Arnold for his lengthy but enjoyable posts.

Finally, the waiting is over.  The dread document has been wrenched from the
clutches of the realms of darkness and is revealed for all to see.  What
injustice, what intolerance, what hate.......?  But wait, what's this?  Is
this the evil amendment of which I've heard such wild-eyed claims?  Surely,
an error has been made in conversion or perhaps a joke has befallen our
confused gathering.  I see nothing to fear here, nothing to raise alarm,
nothing that threatens the traditions of American life.  Nay my fellow
senators, oops I got a little carried away, I see none of these things.
Rather than evil and hate, 'tis logic and common sense which has been
thrust into our unprepared bastion of souls in search of foundation, a
hardened core of logicians, philosophers and sundry other misfits unable
to see the forest for the trees, unable to perceive an absolute truth
were it stuck in their eye.

The truth of righteousness will not find rest for the night in a city
of self-serving, self-indulging and self-inflated, self-worshippers.
Not to fear, for righteousness will prevail and the temporary obstacle
of worldly beings will be swept away as readily as flying wind from the
anus in a tornado.

-Robert

For you KAT: I would take exception with the final clause which denies
             a claim of discrimination, when that claim was to be used
             against the government.  From the private vantage point, I
             don't see a problem with the amendment.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:21:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:23:56 EST Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET> said:
> Jimbo,
>   Does infinity count as a number, or do you consider it a concept.
>
> Evelyn

Infinity is a number. It is equal to k/0, k is a constant not equal to
zero (0/0 is meaningless--can be anything, including infinity--must use
limits.)

a(oo) + b = oo; a, b not equal to -oo

In many cases, oo shares an apparent equality with -oo because
        1  -1   -1
        - x - =  -
        0  -1    0
This is most apparent in tan pi/2 = +/- oo.
The only counterexample is 3^oo is not equal to 3^(-oo).

-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:21:15 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 17:13:00 PST from "Daniel R. Reitman,
              Attorney to Be" <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From:
*** Resending note of 01/05/93 21:05

From Dan...
Gary rights are a minority platform in Rhode Island?  Probably not.  Certainly
not in Providence.

From Robert...
*GARY* rights?  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

From Dan...
Straw man alert!  Alternately, why are race, religion, ethnicity, and gender
generally accepted bases for minority status?

From Robert...
The funny part is that the *straw man* is probably a minority too.  In answer
to your question, I don't really know.  IMO tagging a particular group with
the *minority* label is nothing more than a way to grant special rights.
The entire concept is basically a load of bull.

From Dan...
Straw man alert on addiction!  Addiction is generally considered a disease.
Homosexuality is not.  Further, I can tell you right now many of my friends
will dispute whether sexual orientation is a choice.

From Robert...
Careful, if you get too many straw men they'll lose their minority status.
I really love this *addiction is a disease* racket.  If there's ever been a
more blatant attempt to shed personal responsibility for one's own actions,
I've never seen it.

Let's see how this works.  OH NO! I'm a drug addict!  What did I ever do to
deserve this horrible affliction?  (hint: you purchase and use drugs) How
am I ever going to get well? (hint: stop purchasing and using drugs)  The
farce of the *addiction disease* claim has got to be one of the biggest
jokes in the history of mankind.  BTW, feel free to substitute alcohol in
the preceding example.

From Robert
>If my choice to be hetero does not qualify me as a minority then why should
>your choice not achieve the same result?

From Dan...
Probably because heterosexuality is the dominant culture and most of our rights
are based on that default assumption.

From Robert...
Dominate culture as in *choice* of the majority?  This is beginning to sound
a little like the democratic process.  I happen to be in the group that does
not like my drinking water fluoridated, that makes me a minority.  While I
recognize and appreciate my position as a minority, I don't expect the city
to operate a separate water treatment facility for me.  Instead, I've learned
to be happy in my little minority and to make adjustments at the personal
level to relieve the overwhelming burden of discrimination by the evil
majority of fluoride lovers.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:55:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A "right to discriminate?"

On Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:21:49 -0600 "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
said:
> What a repugnant idea, that someone in this year 1992 could actually
> espouse a "right to discriminate." The reason that "public" law about
> discrimination came into being was BECAUSE of PRIVATE DISCRIMINATION,
> and also public behaviors. Both have been found to be morally
> objectionable....
As has homosexuality.  Val therefore believes homosexuality should
be illegal.  How nice...we agree.

> It it quite obnoxious to see someone actually express a" right to
> discriminate," and howl indignantly that that there is a "civil
> right" to engage in such odious behavior. VMS
Obnoxious, of course, meaning "politically incorrect."
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:40:27 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: re: school daze
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From: sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet

I apologize if this has gone out twice.  My mail log has decided not
to cooperate today.

...edited for your safety

>Think about it.  When was the last time you actually needed to
>do a calculation similar to "546.23 x 1.78" ??  I don't recall
>when I had to do it.

>................. kids -- needs is estimating.  Yes!, estimating.
>Estimating makes kids THINK.  Doing endless and mindless divisions
>and multiplications does not.  What he needs is "word problems."
>KAT

Since I posted all the entries in my checkbook based on estimates, I
estimate that my checking account has a $100.00 balance.  Do you think
the bank uses the same method of estimating my balance?

Clerk:      "That'll be $22.53 sir."
Customer:   "He's a twenty, I estimate it's about the same."
Clerk:      "Thank you.  Have a nice day."
Shop owner: "You're fired!  Stupid!"

                     or

Clerk:      "That'll be $26.00 sir."
Customer:   "Here's thirty"
Clerk:      "Thank you.  Have a nice day."
Customer:   "But, where's my change?"
Clerk:      "What change?"
Shop owner: "You're fired!  Stupid!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:29:59 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: can oil do that?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> ok, who knows about chemistry?
I don't.  So take my words with a grain of salt.
>
> fred said that some british guy said, that since the oil spilled over there
> was "lighter" it should evaporate. i did not think oil could evaporate.
> so, somebody, ans. please....can oil evaporate???
You bet!  When I was a gas station attendant (lo these many years ago!), if
there was a gas spill (I don't know the diff between the light crude and
processed gasoline), we would just let it sit there, (maybe move it off to
the side if it was in the way) and it would evaporate very quickly.
In fact, when I started working at this gas station, we would spray water
on the spilled gas and wait for it to evaporate and it would take forever.
>
> -linda
>
I don't know if my experiences are applicable, but there it is!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:21:11 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio

>>
>>        These people *want* to die.
>>
>>        Why should we stop them?  If they are lucid, and it's their desire, we
>>have no right to stand in their way.
>
>Helping someone to kill him/herself bothers me; don't those people know what
>their suicides mean to their family and friends?
>
>>
>
>Evelyn

Making someone stay alive who is obviously in a lot of pain
is selfish.  Its selfish because you want that person to stay
alive just because you don't want to feel the loss.

i find the idea that someone could be left suffering in the
sometimes lengthy throes of death repulsive.

jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:16:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: school daze

>Think about it.  When was the last time you actually needed to
>do a calculation similar to "546.23 x 1.78" ??  I don't recall
>when I had to do it.

every year when i do my state taxes..... $(my paltry pay) X 2.2% = PA's cut.
or is that 2.3% now???
:(

>from time to time during the year, he has been given homeworks
>like what is "567 x 35".  I mean who cares about that.  A calculator
>could do it more efficiently and more accurately.  What he --
>and I guess other kids -- needs is estimating.  Yes!, estimating.
>Estimating makes kids THINK.  Doing endless and mindless divisions
>and multiplications does not.  What he needs is "word problems."

my younger son (5th grade) is doing the same thing. one night addition. one
night subtraction, next multiplication. its just keep busy time. he knows
his tables. the one's he forgets, he can figure out....big deal. they won't
let them use calculators.
i must say, they have started to teach estimating. i was amazed. but, still
the busy work goes on. jesse keeps asking....when do we get to do fractions and
percents...he's been asking that for 2 years, so obviously he is bored and
wants to do something new in math.

the other bone i picked w/his teacher at our last conference: why do they still
give spelling words, and why he has to put the list in alpha order?
i mean, he has had the *same* homework every night since 2nd grade, just
different words. jess knows the basics for spelling....he rarely spells even
new words wrong. and, unless he makes a career out of filing, why would he
need to practice alpha order? sheesh. then of course, after alpha order he
does sentences, then after that he writes each word 3X each. double sheesh.
i thought the answer to my question was abysmal. he said, we assign it so he'll
have something to do.
so i said, well, um, how about a *book report*....you know, read a *book*,
think about the *book*, write a critical report about the *book*?"
then he said, well yes, we could do something like that.
so i said, good, i'll be looking forward to some changes in his assignments.

guess what.
he is still doing ABC order every tuesday night.
and all the other mindless stuff.
just so he'll have something to do.

-linda

>--KAT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Visit Colorado - #2
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:17:44 GMT

"Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes:

>The only thing #2 does is to deny minority status.

The city laws that amendment 2 overturned prohibited discrimintion in
housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation. They said
nothing of "minority status".

>Homosexuals earn more than the average american, have a higher educational
>level than the average american, and hold higher job positions than the
>average american.

Not all people who are gay earn more, etc. etc. You are sterotyping.

>  Now, if the homosexuals are not suffering in earnings,
>education, and employment then why do they need to be a minority?

Suppose that Jews and Anglicans earn on average more than the American
average. Would you support an amendment saying that no person who was
Jewish or Anglican could make a claim when discriminated against on
the basis of religion?

>If they were a minority it would give them an advantage over other
>people above and beyond what they already enjoy.

The city laws that the amendment actually overturned gave no such
advantages.

What special advantages has decades of protection against religious
discrimintion given people who are Jewish and Anglican?

>   There are laws on the books that do prevent people being discriminated
>against in housing and employment.
[...]

Only the laws of Aspen, Boulder, and Denver prohibited discrimintion
in housing and employment on the basis sexual orientation. Everywhere
else in Colorado it was legal to fire someone for being gay.

With Amendment 2, discrimintion in housing and employment on the basis
*heterosexual* orientation is still illegal in Aspen, Boulder, and
Denver. Discrimintion in housing and employment on the basis of gay
sexual orientations is now legal through out the state.

- Carl K.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:42:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      start pouring

well, its 4:45 and i'm splitting this place.....

here's to a fine, foam filled, beery weekend.

til monday,

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:23:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: AA
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

>         "Better than what we had before" is both subjective and relatively eas
> to obtain.  Separate but equal is "better" than slavery.  Some jobs are
> better than none.

True enough.  So what's your point?  That we should have kept slavery
until we were ready to institute complete equality overnight?

>         But to say that since the laws have worked somewhat, that we shouldn't
> try something new is a bit short sighted.

We are all on the edges of our seats waiting to hear the details of your
plan.  You've been asked at least five times already.  If you have
something so much better, how can you justify keeping it to yourself?
:-)

>         Why lock into results that have not reached equality?

You will search in vain for that statement in anybody's posts except
yours.

>         The GM job process is well known to all.  But, like white males
> everywhere realize, proving reverse discrimination is almost impossible withou
> written proof, and the GM process will not be found in any memo.

I am interested in two questions: is it permitted by the law, and is it
an inevitable consequence of competently obeying the law?  In both cases
the answer is no.

Best,
Peter

> Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:15:25 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Brett's dubious propositions

Brett,

>  Which is why hate crimes will always (hopefully) be struck down.  You
>can't pove what people are thinking.

Brett chooses to ignore a lengthy exchange between me and Joe
and Andy. (Me on the one hand, Andy and Joe on the other.)

A great many convictions depend on proving what people are
thinking. Are you, Brett, willing to say that all such convictions
result from laws which should be struck down?

A separate issue:

> You're missing the point.  Quotas were supposed to enable minorities
> proportional access.  According to an earlier post, black
> professionals still have a low (2.2%) participation rate in
> some professions.

As it stands, this is a pretty silly argument.
Laws against murder were supposed to stop people from being
killed. But in some places murder is still a very serious
problem.

It obviously does not follow that murder laws are ineffectual,
nor that they ought to be scrapped.

> I'm not an employer.  But if I was...

> Say I had a business in a 90% black area.  Yet the quotas say I "must"
> employ at least 10% blacks....  If I was racist, that would enable
> me to *only hire 10% blacks, even though the area I live in has a
> much greater proportion of blacks living there.  The government
> mandated system enables racists to use quotas as a shield.

That, clearly, would be a silly quota law.

Let's see if Brett can cite an example of such a law. Let's
see if he can give one example of a "government mandated
system" that works that way.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:09:10 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: school daze
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >From Robert
> Carter's daughter went to public school.
For a short while.  He took her out and put her into a private school at
a later time.
>
> I point it out because it's one more knick in the shining armor of
> Billary.  Mr. Gonna-Rebuild-Public-Education wants nothing to do
> with it.  I don't blame him, in fact I'm happy for his daughter.  It
> was indeed a wise parental decision, albeit quite inconsistent with
> his campaign trail image.  I'd say that yet another character flaw in
> our illustrious president-elect has a lot to do with politics.
I just wonder what you would have said had the Clinton's decided that
public school was the best choice for their daughter?

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