HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:18:43 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: N-tickets

Jamie:

I accept your nomination, but I will be forced to step down from the
Supreme Court, in order to serve in another capacity.  And I will
have to change my signature line.  I would take either spot, but
would leave it up to the people, as the Founders originally intended.
If Kerry K. accepts as well, I will consult with her and submit an
official acceptance speech.  Until then I remain,
                                          --Missy Justice
                                            (President/Vice President in
                                                         waiting)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:17:48 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: BULLETIN! Candidate resigns, plug pulled, suggests alternate!

Abbie, I'm sorry to see you go.  As a fan of Death in the Discworld
series, I was happy to have a dead person as my partner.  I shall
certainly take you up on your suggestion to ask Val to be my running
mate.

Val, would you please do me the honor of being my running mate?

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:25:00 CST
From:         Ghost of Abbie <AHOFFMAN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Whaddya mean?

I have too declared my candidacy, as VP of the DuncaN/HoffmaN ticket! Abbie
PS, I'm sure Evelyn is in the race, after all, how often do you get to run
with a ghost? A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:52:39 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:10:48 EDT Tim Johnson said:
>>It does have sounds of Coma, but there was a sci-fi book
>>that I either read or read about, where all people convicted
>>of crime were sentenced to death in order to use their
>>body parts for non-criminals.
>
>Larry Niven, I think.  I once talked to someone who had
>a friend who read a review of it.
>

_The Jigsaw Man_ ?

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:37:31 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style

MacPhil, et al:
>This is keeping in mind, of course, geography.  Different blood types
>show dominance/recessiveness in different parts of the world.

Not to be picky or anything :)  Blood types arise as a consequence of the
co-dominance of the three alleles (A, B, O) involved.  No difference in the
dominance/recessiveness relationship exists; what varies geographically is
the distribution of blood types within the population.

I think I need more coffee :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:11:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: N-tickets

> > If my supporters will get me on the ballot in all 50 states, I
> > hereby solemnly promise to run for President.  Okay, 45 states
> > and Guam will do :-).
> Guam ne vote pas pour president.

That's all right.  It's the thought that counts.  And, of course, if
I'm to involve the uninvolved I might as well take on a REAL challenge!

(I was wondering whether anybody would feed me that line--thanks,
Travis)

> > Best,
> > Peter SchledorN
> >
> -Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:12:00 CST
From:         Ghost of Abbie <AHOFFMAN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      BULLETIN! Candidate resigns, plug pulled, suggests alternate!

This is a sad moment. I must resign from the campaign, it seems our
sysops has discovered a dead person is running a political campaign
from an account here, and is to yank the account in the next few
days, whereupon I return to the sleep of the dead. I commend to my
MOST esteemed running mate my friend and goad/instigator in getting
on the ticket, ValentiN (Valetine's name in Russian) as my
replacement. Unlike the changing of running mates in the past, this
improvement from dead to living could only help, given the vicious
charges by persons best left unnamed (THEY know who they are!) that
dead people have no interest in here and now. Why in hell do you think
I was here?

However, a ticket rooted QUITE in the future can only spice up the
campaign a bunch! I predict a DuncaN/ValentiN ticket would be
pretty solid, though ol' Val has a tendency to be too serious.
Sorry for flaking out, seems to be the story of my life, but at
least, Evelyn, ask Val if he'd be interested. Don't let the Red
baiters get you down! Abbie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:59:56 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>> However, if my daughter comes to me and says "Dad, I am going
>> to go out and shoot someone random in the freeway" my answer
>> would NOT be "I'll counsel her against her but support her no
>> matter what her decision."   I think Dan Quayle answer should have
>> been: "I would be very unhappy, I would block her way, I would
>> call her a murderer, I would show her aborted fetuses, I would
>> even threat her with disowning and dropping her from my will, etc.
>> In short I would do anything (legal) in my power to stop her.
>> However if she goes with that decision, I would support HER
>> afterwards."

> Well see, he can't do anything (legal) to stop her from having an
> abortion.

He can do all the things that I listed above.  Of course I know
that he cannot legally force his adult daughter not to seek an
abortion, but that was never my point.  I am asking him to show
an attitude that corresponds to committing "murder," I did not
expect him to act upon it as if it was murder.

>> You see the difference?  In one the action is done and in the
>> other the action is contemplated.

> Yes, I see the difference, but do you see the difference in that
> abortion is legal and murder is not??

Good that you "see" the difference.  It would have been nice if
you would elaborate on the difference and make a comment regarding
whether you thought Dan Quayle's response was adequate.  And yes
I had already noticed the difference, that is why I expected
him to express his attitude and not act upon them and force her
not have an abortion.

Now let me ask you this hypothetical question.  What if murder
was not illegal in of the states.  Quayle and his daughter and
her two year child are visiting that state.  She goes to daddy
and says she wants to murder the child.  Would Dan Quayle say:
"I would counsel her but then would support her decision,
no matter what?"  Of course not.  Why?  Because in his heart
Dan Quayle does not think abortion is murder.

>> Also, the way Quayle gave his calculated cold-blooded answer
>> was no indiction that we were talking about "murder."

> Are you being sarcastic here--I'm not sure.  His answer could not have
> been calculated as he was put on the spot!

I used the wrong word -- "calculated" was not what I meant to say.
But I also believe that his answer WAS what he really believes.

>> --KAT
> -Travis

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:31:07 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: The Romantic Tragedy of the Electorate

Did anyone read Mike Royko's column about Perot (yesterday or the day
before)?  Since I've studied managerial accounting, the reason Royko
gave for Perot's quitting makes sense to me:  Perot reached a point
where the costs of continuing were greater than the benefits, so he
quit.  Perot's a businessman; he's had to make similar decisions before.

BTW, I don't mind theological discussions about political issues on this
list.  Keeping them off this list is like keeping them out of history
lessons:  you eliminate a great deal of the reasons behind decisions
made by world leaders.

Now for something completely different:  If A, then B.  For the whole
statement to be true we have to consider these:
       a)  Is B true?  If yes, it doesn't matter what A is, the whole
           statement is true.
       a)  Is B false?  If yes, then A has to be false for the statement
           to be true.

The only way the whole statement can be false is if A is true and B is
false.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:12:35 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Sex and marriage, sex and marriage, go to . . .

In article <01GN0Y4GTE2C000JED@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> you write:
>>-Greg, The Objective
>> Vote Republican & keep gov't out of our lives
>       
>Isn't this---- a contradiction in terms?  At least with current
>administrations...

The party of the president isn't necessarily relevant.  Apart from
federal income tax, most of the by-govt interference in private lives
comes from local govts.

Also, one might make the argument that the repubs are evil, but less
evil than the demos.  (The election isn't between Bush, a force of
evil, and someone good, it is between Bush and Clinton, who may or may
not be any better.)  Or that a stalemate is less evil than either
party controlling both the executive and legislative branches.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:38:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: ratings for tv

From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      ratings for tv

I think that children at an impressionable age are far more likely to
be exposed to sex and violence on televison as opposed to the theatre.
Any guesses as to why we don't have a ratings system for television?

        true.  children aren't likely to go to theater productions,
        and especially not opera.

        because tv is already censored heavily, so that most of the sex
        is subliminal or abstract, and so that the bad violence is always
        done by bad guys and the good violence is always done by good
        guys (aka Hunter).

We don't see many ads for "watch tonight as the beverly hills teenagers
just say no to sex and drugs".

        the current trend in tv is toward realism ("Real Cops Kill Evil
        Drug Dealers in Your Neighborhood" and the like) as opposed to
        fantasy ("Beauty and the Beast," "Teenagers Say No," etc.)

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:41:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The theme of men's magazines ...

kerry,

see??? no matter whatcha do, ya can never satisfy them. bend over backwards,
read all those goopy magazines while waiting in check-out line, and are they
grateful??? naaaaaah

i betcha kai is a male....any takers? is there a bookie on the net?

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:08:36 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A response to "Another Gulf War"

A friend of mine who is a military expert, was quite upset
by the handling of the Gulf War.

It is the accepted opinion in the military circles that
a government should never stop fighting a war until its
political objectives are accomplished.  This is what we
did.  The two objectives were to free Kuwait and remove
Hussein from power.

From what I've heard and recall, it was a political
decision to stop the war before completing the objectives.

If it was Bush's idea that postponing the completion of
the war until closer to election would help him, I think
that he is mistaken.

For one thing, I think that many people don't see how the
US national interest is hurt by Hussein being in power.
His removal now after being left for how many months, seems
almost petty and certainly discredits his "real threat".

I also think that the risk of it going in the least bit sour
is too great.

Bush should support strongly the French and British and anyone
else who wants to tackle Hussein, but should leave it
alone and keep the US out.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:41:18 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
              22 Jul 1992 14:35:24 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

As far as I can see, Bush will stick with Quayle for the same reasons
he picked Dan:  Dan's a conservative and will bring the conservative
vote, and Bush doesn't want someone like Kemp or Dole because that
person may overshadow Bush.  So, my money's on Bush keeping Quayle.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:58:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      The Irish issue ...

Ireland's beer, bairns and bonnie lasses are welcome here any time, even
their skirling pipes, but you'll na be imposin' Irish law on us now, we
won't be a standin' for it! VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:45:38 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

Kerry's hypothetical situations are interesting.  I think that the
question it raises is whether or not the State has that kind of
vested interest in a child.

I think not.

To give the State the ability to override a parental decision even
in one of these areas, is opening the door for giving total control
to the State of the family unit.

Whether or not the "decline" of the US has anything to do with
the "decline" of the family, I can't really say, but others
would.

To put all far speculation aside, I do believe that laws such as
Hilary Clinton is proposing, would have a negative effect on society.
It would encourage children to be more disrespectful than they already
often are.  It would encourage breaking a family up even more than
it already happens.

Children don't vote and aren't responsible for their actions legally
(-by and large-) for the simple reason that they don't know enough,
haven't experienced enough and aren't mature enough.  There are
exceptions to every rule, but parents have the responsibility to
make these decisions because they are presumably more mature than
their children.

Parents have responsibility for their children.  At this time,
there are laws that can have that changed, when these parents
are abusive.

I think that this is as far as it should go.  To give the State
the ability to meddle into individual affairs of a family I
believe goes against everything for which our country has stood.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:12:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      response to vms' proposals

vms::

i agree with a lot/most of what you proposed.
due to the way my disk space here at vanillanova is arranged, and
how pathetically little i have of it, i hatd to delete your post,
and am working from a hard copy.  being lazy, i don't feel like retyping
it all.

so, onward.

B) tax divorce, etc, etc etc.

you use a good deal of taxing to balance things out, especially in cases
where a "vice" is involved.  i tend to be a bit leery of the practice of
using vice taxes to dictate some sort of morality, even where i feel that
there is a breech of morality.  the taxes should really be even across the
board, applying to everything that is not necessary (but not applying to
food, clothing, computers).

G) you say "continue the preservation of land, animals...."

i am still waiting for any *real* effort to start in these areas.  the
government has been operating on the j. watt "if god wanted us to destroy
the ecology, he would have let us develop the means of destroying it"
theory.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:15:03 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What will they think of next?
              20 Jul 1992 22:15:01 EST from <92price@GW.WMICH.EDU>

Kai:

I told you so.  The woman in Florida *ought* to be suing him for
"alientation of affection."  :-)  (Maybe I should write a book
about this.  It's deep, it's metaphorical, it's artsy, it's virtually
useless information, and if I can get the right Polaroids of Ross,
it could top Geraldo's book in sheer trash value.  Then again,
maybe I should just write a thinly disguised romance novel, and
let the elitist critic types figure out what I'm talking about.)

                                        ---Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:48:47 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

Maybe the violence wasn't as accessible on TV 10 years ago, but it was
20 years ago during the Vietnam War:  the war itself and the protests
against it were on TV all the time from 1968-1973.  Other violent acts
on TV were the murder of Oswald by Ruby and the murder of the Israeli
athletes in Munich during the 1972 Olympics.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:43:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prolifers and informed discussion
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

        I really have reservations about saying what follows in
this post; but I believe it is correct.  I'll feel bad enough
about sending it shortly, I'm sure.

        This shall be my last word on the abortion debate.  I
believe that Peter is correct in his diagnosis as to why the
"debate" gets no where.  In a discussion, all that can be done
is to offer reasons for and against one's position.  However,
the major proponents of the "pro-life" faction on this list have
decreed that their positions are above reason and above proof.

        In placing a belief above reason, one need not (indeed,
can not, without contradiction) hold that there is any reason
for others to accept his view.  And, accordingly, may brush
aside any reasons which others offer against that view as being
mere reasons or proofs; much too lowly to be considered a real
threat to one's beliefs.  Communication and dialogue with such
people is impossible, for they have declared themselves above
anything which may be expressed in mere words.

        I expressed my reasons for believing that women have
a right to abortion (even granting that the fetus is a person).
From pro-life activists all that I read in return were slogans
that my conclusion must be wrong.  Surprisingly, it was indiv-
iduals who were pro-choice who were doing their best to provide
objections to the line of reasoning I was attempting to advance.

        Anyway, when a person metaphorically places his/her
finger in her ears and begins shouting as loud as possible, "I
am right! I am right! I am right!" it is a fool who attempts to
continue to talk with such a person.  Words are useful only in
discussion and dialogue, and only among individuals who believe
it is important to have reasons for one's positions.  I would
accept that only among children would one find people resorting
to the fallacy that the people who shout the longest and the
loudest are right.


                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
From: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET (Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Quayle
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:14:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


 Summing up the Quayle abortion position, I think it is safe to make several
 observations.  Dan clearly and precisely stated that he is totally, partially
 unequivocally against and for the decision process of determining a course of
 action based upon the right to not choose abortion in light of the alternative
 means of controlling the non-existence of a life problem.

 Now, this can quickly become confusing when one's own daughter is involved in
 the situation.  In that case he has steadfastly with wavering commitment made
 the case for allowing freedom of choice to decide the pro-life course of
 action on behalf of his daughter by Marilyn.  While Marilyn is eager with
 great hesitation to exercise this parental authority, she maintains the lack
 of need for her participation based upon the proper decision making logic of
 her daughter who as yet takes no position other than her own.

 I believe this is perfectly clear.

 ---Robert

 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you,
 and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
 ...for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
                                --- Matt: 5:11-12
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:57:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      step on my punchline, will ya? :)

From: MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
>>Now that we've finally established
>>how odds work, I feel fully confident in offering the following:
>>    Clinton/Gore                    -2.5                  Bush/Quayle
>Now you look like you're calling pointspread, not odds at the track.

I'll give you 1:1 odds that you're correct.  Now, what is the probability
that it was a joke, that I was fully aware that the odds should be
expressed as 2:3 for Clinton and 3:2 for Bush, as Jamie stated, and that
I felt a quick change-up would provide a good "capper" for this whole
thread?

>MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

Gary W. Olson                 "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
This post not close-captioned  Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
for the smiley-impaired  :D    or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU