HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:42:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: who(M) do you trust

Uh, I do think I explained that one.  As opposed to Dan Quayle who supported
the war and still got out of it.  My biggest objection to Clinton is that he
thought that preserving his career opportunities was a more important factor
than opposing a war he thought was unjust.  You might also say that he weaseled
his way out of it, too.  I also don't like the idea that he or anybody else
committed adultery.  Of course, if anybody who committed adultery was not
allowed to hold office, Washington would be a ghost town.  In any case, I
think it is not the most important thing to consider in the election of a
President.  Roosevelt and Kennedy did all right, although I think we would
all prefer they lived more moral lives.

I remember when Carter was running for President, he was interviewed in
Playboy magazine and said that he had at one time lusted in his heart.  The
head of the Quaker church said this disqualified him to be President.  I
thought that the statement disqualified the head of the Quaker church from
running a major religion.  As for the TV preachers, they all hold their
hands in the air, pray and blubber, holler and bang their Bibles against
the lecterns.  They are about as genuine as a $3.75 bill, and I especially
mean this about Jerry Lee Lewis' no-good cousin, who seems to repent every
week to vast admiring audiences.  At least Jerry Lee is honest about the sort
of life he lives.

No, the main reason I plan to vote Democratic is that I believe that Bush's
world order plans, what there was of them, have completely fallen to pieces, and
 I think that the Democrats should have a crack at it.  Had I been British
I might have voted Conservative, even though I really did think that
it was time for a change I thought Major was the better choice.  In
Israel, I would have voted Labor even though I think there is a good
argument for keeping the Territories.  In this country I nearly always end
up voting Democratic, even though there is a lot about them I don't like.

                          Chris Morrison
                          CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:06:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: getting blood from a turnip

Roger:

Actually, it's not really about selfishness.  It's about not knowing when
the stupid books are due in the first place.

BTW, if I think I have a book that anyone else is likely to want access
to, I try to make a point to get to that one first.  My topic happens to
be obscure enough that few people check out the books I need (and many of
them are hidden away in "storage" because no one has checked them out in
*years*.)

Plus which, only students are ever "punished" for keeping books out.
Faculty can keep them forever, without any problem.  (I guess that makes
this an appropriate topic for "politics." :-)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:56:17 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Hi all:

I forget who started this, but Lynn Yeakel is *not* a political
newcomer.  This is the first time she has run for office, but she
runs a public relations firm advising women candidates how to get
elected.

Incidentally, Carol Moseley Braun is not a newcomer either.  She
has held a number of political patronage jobs and small electoral
offices in Chicago, and was a Jesse Jackson delegate to the 1988
convention.

Just clearing things up.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:09:27 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Campaign pledge ...

No matter what promises, slams, or baiting are offered by the other tickets,
DuNcaN/ValeNtiN pledges not to attack other tickets, or otherwise engage
in negative campaigning. We get enough of that as it is! VMS
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:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 09:42:27 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

> Tell ya' what.  Pick an AIDS case, oh just any one of 'em.  Trace the chain
> ALLLLLLLLLLLL the way back to its origin.  Just what did you find?

An African monkey with a perfectly harmless virus. . .
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:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:17:04 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>           ..................  Does Jerry Falwell represent the majority?

No, quite the contrary.  He represents the "moral majority."

        Maybe Falwell represents the majority of the moral.

        j.b.

        "I'd rather walk through a fire than around it."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:34:55 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      re: homosexuality

 *** Resending note of 09/08/92 16:19


 >  ....I can't say I've particularly gave a flying fuck what you
 >have babbled so far...
 >Dave

 How did we arrive at a discussion of "America's Funniest Home Videos"?

 ---Robert
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:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:24:48 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)

Having read many posts at once(over 400) I am now going to
respond to a few.

On this issue of overpopulation:

We are still overpopulating even though we have the
physical/geographic space.  We are using up more resources
than are being replinished.  If this isn't overpopulation,
I don't know what is.

j.b.
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:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:59:43 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Martin:

I basically agree with what you have said, but
I only want to express the distinction between
politics and out political system.

Morality, philosophy, etc all have a place in
politics because politics is the struggle for
power.

Government should be devoid of all of the above.
It should merely govern.

When discussing  politics, one has to discuss
moral choices and other issues--the distinction
is in implementing policies.

An example:

We have a person who is opposed to homosexuality
and has said so repeatedly.  This person, however,
wehn in government pursues polices which, while
not promoting a gay lifestyle, protect it.

Does this make sense?

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:24:19 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

Hi again :)

My esteemed running-mate wrote:
>I think we have all strayed from the real question involved with
>vouchers.  The question ought not to be whether public education is
>better than private.  Rather, the question that educational choice
>advocates and theorists ask is why there should not be a way for
>parents to send their children to whichever school is best for the
>child--as Bush puts it, "public, private, or religious."
>
>Is there a good reason not to encourage such competition?

In principle, I think it's a good idea.  One question we have to ask,
though, is this:  if we provide tax dollars to support private and/or
religious schools, then what distinguishes private from public schools?
Another question is the extent to which the competition among schools might
result in *lack* of choice locally.  That is, if a majority of parents in
my area opted for Christian schools, would there still be a secular school
for my child?  What if a majority wanted schools focusing on math and
science -- where would parents with other goals send their kids?

What do you think?  Is there a way to ensure a range of local choices
within a more-or-less competitive framework?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:58:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates
              11 Sep 1992 07:54:42 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

What's going on in Sweden?  There must be a *reason* for the jump.
Do you happen to know?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:07:38 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: various information

liese:

I'm just curious, and you can answer this privately if you like, but
how does your school handle library fines?

I ask this because here they have this really bizarre system by which
they let you (as a grad student) check out books for 2 months, then if
they are late you get a bill for all of them, plus a $10.00 activity fee.
When you take them back, you get another bill revised to reflect the
fact that you no longer owe the cost of the books, but you still owe
them the $10.

I have a really nifty letter from this summer asking me for $1350 in
library fines.  I'm thinking of having it framed.  I'll get to the
$10 next week, when the U *finally* gets me my first check for the
year.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:01:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Jamie:

I will say it again.  A union between two people of the same gender
is not now and has never been "marriage."  If you want to recognize
such unions, go ahead.  But call them something else, and create the
new laws regarding that union from scratch.  (Why not?  Everybody on this
list seems to hate marriage laws anyway--why not develop something
entirely different?)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:38:18 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Travis.

Thanks.  I'm glad *somebody* got my point.  You are right.  The segregation
of gender in public restrooms is based on "public morality."

Good call.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:22:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>               My primary question about private school vouchers is
>really one of principle:  we don't (as far as I know) provide federal funds
>for private roads, private security forces, private parks . . . so why
>should we provide them for private schools?

But, we do provide federal funds for people to buy food from private
food producers, shoes from private shoe producers, and so on.  (BTW -
We do use public funds to pay private security forces.  On a different
note, we usually use public forces when we provide security for
individuals, but not always.)  We pay private firms to build public
roads, parks and so on.  So much for the principle.

The argument for public support of education is that society benefits
from having educated individuals.  What benefit do public schools
provide that private schools don't?

>My secondary question is whether switching kids from public to private
>schools (absent other reforms) will really do anything to improve their
>educations.

The switch may not do any good, but the competition will.

>As I said earlier, kids in private schools don't seem to do
>any better than their socioeconomic counterparts in public schools.  So I
>don't really see the point.

Why are people so intent on keeping people from having a choice EVEN
if it doesn't provide any benefit?  Control over one's life is a GOOD
thing.

-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:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:00:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

missy:

yup, you dieserved what you got, but your husband and kids didn't.
so what you did caused them harm.  therefore it was bad.

i know a number of people who have open relationships or group
marriages.  when one begins a new relationship in these situations,
it is done openly and honestly, with consent of everyone involved.
how is this bad?

lets put it this way:  if one is sleeping with someone other than one's
primary lover without his/her knowledge or consent, in violation of the
agreement by which the relationship exists, that is bad, because it
is harmful to the other person.  if one is acting in accord with the
agreements which the relationship is operating on, then one is not
harming the person (usually: sometimes one finds that what one is doing
is hurting the other anyway, and then it is really one's responsibility
to stop that activity).

now does this sound like i am immoral, ammoral, or am operating under
a different (non-fundamentalist-xtian) morality?

brni
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:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:15:27 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

> How about if each taxpayer contributes 1/4 of 1 cent toward the purchase of
> Bibles for use in the public schools?
>
I have no problem with contributing .0025 dollars for purchase of the Koran
for public schools.  Or would that be the writings of Confusius?  How
'bout the Kama Sutra?

Ohhh..... You mean the "Good Book".  That shouldn't cost a dime.  Just
snag them from hotel rooms and let the Gideons replace them.

        You shouldn't have to snag them from hotels.  Twice in
        my educational career, the Gideons brought Bibles to every
        student.  If I have the years correctly it was 5th and 9th
        grades.  Of course they were only NT, Proverbs and Psalms,
        but we still got one.

        j.b.
    todddddddd
> ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:07:29 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hollywood is evil but i'll take their money
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:57:57 CDT fred said:
>use the hollywood influence to pick up big bucks. I know that some of
>you will think that bob hope is a pure and virtuous (sp?) man, but he
>doesn't have all those well endowed women on his shows because he is
>a puritan.

So well-endowed women cannot be virtuous?

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:40:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:17:34 EDT MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET said:
>   "Congress shall make no law recognizing an establishment of religion"
> This means that our system of law is OBLIGED to ignore religious expression
> in every form, rightly leaving it to PRIVATE CONSCIENCE. The principle
> couldn't be more clear: your religion is your business, you NEVER have the
> right to use the state to inflict it on anyone else..
It means no such thing.  All it says it "Congress shall make no law
recognizing an establishment of religion."  Even that's not verbatum.
I don't see private conscience, business, or system of law anywhere in
the first Amendment.  Y'now, these founding fathers you praise with
such insight counted black slaves as 2/3 person for representation
when they couldn't even vote.
And let's all (including me) get one thing straight...the founding
fathers did not make the first Amendment...Congress introduced this
amendment, approving it by a two-thirds majority of each house of
Congress.  Why did they do this?  So that other at-the-time sovereign
states would agree to give up their sovereignty.  And look what hap-
pened--states were forced to ratify constitutional amendments at the
whim of Congress.
> Michael Morse
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:49:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Little answer

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>>Of course its okay.  Employers can hire or fire for whatever reasons they
>>please, given the terms of the initial contract.

>No, they can't. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 prevents employers
>from hiring or firing on certain bases. Racial prejudice, for
>example.

>Jason may be confusing what he thinks people OUGHT to be allowed to
>do with what the law actually allows them to do.

Yes, I am talking about contract rights in the theoretical sense.  And yes, I
think the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '65 (and '68?) ought to be repealed (fat
chance of THAT ever happening).

BTW, in a few areas, hiring discrimination against homosexuals is already
illegal, so the question is moot there as well.

>Jamie

Jason
From: GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The War Between the Jasons
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:32:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>Jamie:
>
>Gender segregated bathrooms do not occur because of (what you think of as)
>bigotry?  Why not?
>
>During the ERA debate, Phyllis Schlafly argued that the consequences of
>a gender-neutral society included the potential for unisex bathrooms.
>The public went mad.  They clearly did not favor such a thing.  Why not?
>Don't most people share their bathrooms in their homes with mothers
>and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends?  Might it not be assumed that
>this fear of sharing restrooms with people of the opposite sex has much
>to do with the (possibly unfounded) fear that such might lead to physical
>consequences (rape, for example.)  Bathrooms (at least women's bathrooms)
>have doors, you know.  There is no need for the users of a public restroom
>to have any unpleasant interactions with one another, or any interaction
>at all.  Precisely what is the rationale behind gender-segregated
>restrooms?  How is such a rationale constitutionally sound?
>
>Many laws are based on what you are calling bigotry.  Others call it
>publicly shared moral and cultural values.


    When I read this, I realized that many college campuses these days
  have unisex bathrooms.  In reality, once they are in place, it's
  perfectly natural for members of opposite sexes to use the same
  bathrooms.  Hell, I took showers in one and certainly don't feel
  violated in any way.  Giving thought to the reasons for segregated
  bathrooms, I have come to the conclusion that we still feel the need
  for segregated bathrooms because 1) it's been that way for a long time
  and people feel threatened by change and 2) our society has been waging
  wars across sexual lines for centuries.  The bathroom issue seems
  related to the topfree equality issue.  I'm not sure if everyone knows
  about the "topfree seven" in Rochester, NY, but they recently established
  the legal right for women to wear no top in public, provided they are not
  "behaving ludely".  Of course, there wasn't exactly a stampede of women
  topfree in the streets the next day, but I think this is an important step
  towards complete social equality between men and women.  Unisex
  bathrooms and topfree equality seem trivial, but it is the first step
  in dismantling the patriarchy that harms us all, male, female, straight,
  and gay.

>--Missy P 2 B

      --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:20:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

Richard:

"Aversions" are a type of *feelings.*  Therefore, your scheme is
every bit as subjective as mine--more even, since mine is derived
from an *external* source.

--Missy P 2 B

*************

actaully, "aversions" (and "desires") are more intersubjective than
subjective.  i think that a case may exist for "feelings" in general
to also be intersubjective phenomena, but is really besides the point.

desires and aversions are not simply personal things; to think so would
be to imagine a subject that is wholly independant from outside forces/
stimuli.  however, the subject is not independent, but rather, interacts
constantly with the rest of the world, in all its various guises.

brni