HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:27:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>Could we get real here? What's the authority for the statement that
>heterosexual couples do, in general, make better parents?

    That the huge majority of good parents are heterosexual couples?

  - Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:23:01 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              21 Dec 1992 16:11:19 -0500 from KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: crosses, kids, and rape camps
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 12/21/92 15:13


>Bosni etc.:  Sounds like we're getting closer to sending planes, doesn't
>it?   admit I'm feeling a bit more hawkish since I heard about the rape
>camps(according to the clip played on the MacLaughlin group the other
>night 50,000 cases of Serbian rape of Moslem women have been documented,
>alon  with 30,000 pregnancies resulting from same.  A new sort of ethnic
>cleansing -- ughh and ughh and ughh).  What do y'all think -- is there
>anything at all to be gained by enforcing the no-fly zone?  How about
>letting the Bosnians arm themselves?  Or do we just have to sit it out?
>Kerry

Arm themselves?!?  How unfortunate that they have found themselves in a
condition of having been disarmed somewhere along the way.  Wouldn't it
be wonderful if they had something similar to our 2nd amendment?

I'm excited that the logic and intent of our forefathers has been
demonstrated in such a powerful way.  But, it is sad that these poor
people did not possess our heritage of extremely wise founders.  Let's
wish them well and send them arms, much the same as we did for Britain
which also found itself with a disarmed populace.

---Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet
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:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:45:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      appointment strategies
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ellen:
>In fact, I can't think of any >one< strategy he is using.  He is not
>picking people by mere ideology alone.  He is not making "token" racial
>and gender selections.  He is not picking insiders over outsiders, or
>vice versa.  He seems to be picking, for the most part, people whom he
>can personally work well with.

I read an interesting perspective in an opinion column last sunday (can't
remember who wrote it - was at my mum's house when I read it over).  It
suggested that Clinton has been making some appointments in order to make
friends out of potential enemies.  That is, by appointing Bentsen as
Treasury Secretary, Leon Panetta as Budget Director, and Les Aspin as
Defense Secretary, among others, Clinton is removing from Congress some
formidable obstacles for his plans.  Each of these three men have their
areas of disagreement with Clinton (Panetta comes to mind, since he places
more importance on deficit reduction than Clinton apparantly does, and
Aspin disagrees with some aspects of Clinton's defense priorities), and
controlled key committee leadership positions.  By getting them on his team,
while they may still disagree with him and will try to steer his ideas more
their way, they will be championing his programs, rather than fighting
against them.  Their replacements on their committees won't have the same
influence as they did, at least, not right away.

Certainly, there's a lot in what you suggest, that he's picking people he
can work well with.  He'd be a fool if he didn't.  But he's also showing some
canny strategic thinking, as well.

>Ellen

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:42:06 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>Some members of this forum have indicated that only heterosexual married
>couples are capable of raising children the way they "should be raised".
>How do you reconcile this  view to the Chicago couple charged with
>child abandonment for leaving their 4 year old and 9 year old daughters
>home alone over christmas while they vacationed in Mexico? By all
>appearances, they lived in a very respectable neighborhood and would
>certainly be labled middle class. Just another myth about child abuse
>shot down by reality.

I don't think anyone suggested that _ALL_ "heterosexual married
couples...[raise] children they way they 'should be raised'."  Let's not
distort a bad situation to support equally bad arguments.

Exactly to which "myth" about child abuse were you referring?  That it can't
happen in middle class neighborhood or that it doesn't happen in hetero
couples?

>fred

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"belief-L@brownvm.brown.edu,politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:49:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Comments: To: belief-L@brownvm.brown.edu, politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Monday, January 4th, is the expected date for the passing into law of
Colorado's Ammendment #2.  To mark this day as a day of hate and rage
Act-Up/RI (The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power /Rhode Island chapter)
is joining groups throughout the nation in protesting Colorado's law
by staging a demonstration condemning its newly validated form of hate.

The demonstration will be held from 5:00-6:00 PM at the Federal Building,
Kennedy Plaza, Providence, RI.  Please bring flashlights or some other
sorce of light, since the teme is to flash light on intolerance.

Please spread word around about this.  Organize boycotts in your own
city.  The ammendment in Colorado can not afford to stand.  We must
rk it as the state of shame until the ammendment has been lifted.

--Julie Waters, PO Box 23040, Providence RI  02903-0394 -- 401/273-4851

:The above comments are the opinions of the author of this post and
:hers alone.  They do not represent any affiliation with any organi0
:zation or individual and are not officially endorsed by anyone but
:the aforementioned author.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:02:05 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What constitutes "proof" for you, telepathy? ...
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

It was a tupo, folks, a typo! It should have said "mumbo-jumbo," and no,
I was not slamming Jimbo by my mistyping. Sorry about that. VMS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Rightist or Libertarian?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:29:10 GMT


I should have a copy of that quiz the Libertarians like to pass
around, but I don't.  Perhaps some other libertarian minded person
(Brett'?  Andy?) could post it...

I think that Caius would find that quiz very interesting, and I think
that the list might benefit from a consideration of the points it
raises.

The basic idea here is that the 'left-right' spectrum is simply
inadequate to really classify the varieties of political belief.

My own judgement of Caius is that he should be classified as
socially conservative, politically libertarian.  He perhaps
fails to realize that the differences between the position of the
right and his own position are quite enormous.

He's promised us that he will calm down, and I hope that he will.
Otherwise, when I return from my vacation, I'm apt to find the rest
of you turned into a bunch of raving totalitarians!

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:09:27 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: POLITICS FAQ, part one: purpose, rules, terms, etc.
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>libertarian: One who wishes to maximize individual freedom, even at the cost
>             of some other social goals.

        I'd remove the "even at the cost..." since it's a) not true and b)
implies some evil side effects.

>Supply-Side
>economics:   Economic doctrine stating that the gov't can positively affect
>             long-term economic growth, and thus long-term economic stability.
>             Largely, they advocate lower tax rates and deregulation as ways
>             to encourage reinvestment, and to increase business' efficiency.

        Peeeyyyuuuuuuuuuu!

        Supply-side economics:

        Stimulus of _supply producing_ economic factors and sectors to make the
produciton of goods (supply) easier.  As opposed to demand side, which moves to
stimulate consumption (demand).

        Either can be done by the goverment.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:50:16 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: War in Europe
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>         Here's a likely scenario for the next six months:
> [...interesting stuff deleted...]
> Brett'
>
Brett',

While I agree with the scenarios, I think that you should credit
MacNeil/Lehrer which talked about all of this in great detail
last night!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:03:28 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>> Walsh is incompetent.  He even has accepted the same kind
>> of gifts that he broiled North for accepting.
>Walsh may or may not be incompetent.  But he certainly hasn't been
>given a fair shake by the powers-that-be.  I'd like to hear more about
>this gift-receiving.  Of course, compared with North's gift-receiving,
>it's probably minor.
>Jonathan

        It's the exact same kind of gifts that North received:

        Security systems
        Fence around house
        Reduced rate hotel rooms and services
        etc.

        All of which violate the federal gift guidelines.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:37:47 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Ellen:
> >Finally America gets a president who genuinely does care about
> >women and minorities...
>
> With all my due respect for Clinton, I don't believe he really cares
> one way or the other. He acts under pressure of all the interest
> groups and of his own promises. In politics personal feelings ('care'),
> moral or humanitarian considerations don't play any role whatsoever.
> If he appoints women or minorities to high posts, it's not because he
> cares, it's because of Realpolitik. There is something wrong with the
> system in which the most sizable minority (gays) can be so blatantly
> ignored.
>
> Sam.
>
With all my due respect to you, I don't think that you know (or even
care) what Clinton believes.  If you had followed his career at all, you
would know that Clinton has consistently shown that he _does_ care about
minorities.  He has appointed more minorities to his available posts than
any previous governer of Arkansas (OK, that by itself doesn't mean
anything!).  He has been applauded by women's groups, gay groups, black
groups, etc for his appointments and the laws that he has passed.
While I think that you may be accurate to a certain extent regarding the
ethics of politics, I think that it is important to point out that one's
real feelings come out when you look at appointments and laws that were
pushed for.

Jonathan
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:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:25:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: rape after rape after rape...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Amazingly, Brett' wrote this:
>        I've been arguing for intervention since the Serbs invaded Slovenia
>many months ago.
>        I hope those who have been arguing that "it's too hard" or "we'll just
>make it worse" are enjoying the harvest of the Muslims and Croats.

Ok, everyone who thinks that Brett' was possessed by the spirit of Jay
Sultan when he wrote this, raise your hands.

It's the only possible explanation.  After all, we know Brett' wouldn't stoop
so low as to suggest that those who disagreed with him must, by that token,
enjoy watching mass murder.

(For the record, I support intervention as well.  Not necessarily from the
U.S, but intervention nevertheless...)

>Brett'

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:28:21 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Tim

I responded in detail, outlining more specifically what I was saying,
and filling in the gaps for you.  Check the archives.  It was kind of
long, but if for some reason it didn't go out, I'll try and recreate
it.  Unfortunately, I no longer have your original message.  I will try
and get it from the archive...  I'll have some new response for you if
you like in a day or two...

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:29:44 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Milosevic wins
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Sometimes Milosevic is called 'a fascist'. If it is just an emotional
statement, I don't disagree with it. But, strictly speaking, Milosevic
can not be called 'a fascist' because it would contradict the definition
of fascism. In my view, fascism is a dictatorship based on the market
economy. Communism, as opposed to fascism is a dictatorship based on
state-controlled economy. According to this definition, Serbia is
a communist country. Therefore Milosevic is a communist (which is not
better than if he were a fascist, because both systems are equally bad).
Does anyone agree with my definitions? Does anyone has other definotions
of fascism and communism? (Sorry Ellen for changing the subject a little
bit).
Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:07:51 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon

>> >From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>> No, that's definitely wrong. It is Triply wrong.
>>
>> First of all, before he is convicted he must be impeached. If he is
>> impeached he can't pardon anyone, let alone himself.

>But, if he pardoned himself _before_ he was impeached (which as we know from
>the Nixon administration is a long drawn out affair), then he could get
>away with it.

Ok, as a prediction, I think this is wrong. I think there is no way
he would get away with it.

>As you stated later, people can be pardoned even before they had been
>convicted of anything. And I believe that I have heard that the constitution
>doesn't address this specifically.  It just gives the pardon power to
>the president.

You are right, it just says the president may pardon federal crimes,
except those involving impeachment.

So, reading this MOST strictly, MOST literally, it follows that he
could pardon himself for anything for which he is not tried or
indicted until after he leaves office. I mean, he could do that in
advance. (Because, see, if the legal proceedings don't begin until
he's out of office, there would be no impeachment. That's why Ford
could get away with pardoning Nixon.)

However, that seems to me to be too literal a reading.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:24:04 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: why gold
              21 Dec 1992 11:52:31 GMT from <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:52:31 GMT Dunstan_Vavasour said:
>
>
>BTW, if I was to take up the Bank of England on their statement "I
>promise to pay Bearer on demand the sum of five pounds", what would
>they give me ?



Umm.....five pounds, I think.

james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:26:38 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: nambla
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I think it's unfair to mention NAMBLA in a company of unsavory groups.
> I believe that there is nothing wrong about loving children (that's
> all NAMBLA is about). It is wrong to molest children, but not to love
> them, even sexually. NAMBLA is created as a support group for people
> who are attracted to children. It is not a cabal of child molesters.
>
> Sam.
>
I don't know about the rest of you, but this whole paragraph is a
mass of contradictions to me.  Please explain to me how one could
have sex with children but not be molesting them.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: More cabinet appointments
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:02:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan:

>one's real feelings come out when you look at appointments and
>laws that were pushed for.

Politics is similar to chess. You don't appoint people because you
have personal preferences, just like you don't move pieces because
you like their form or shape. Everything is usually calculated to
satisfy certain political interests. Personal feelings, no matter
how strong, are usually put on hold.

I think I can guess which of the following explanations of Bush's
adventure in Somalia you are likely to choose:

         a). President Bush wants to revive the New World
             Order doctrine.
         b). He wants to deflect world attention from Bosnia
             to escape the pressure to intervene there.
         c). It was dictated by Somalia's strategic location
             (sea routes from the Mediterranian to the Indian
             ocean). The former USSR had a Navy base on the
             nearby Socotra island as well as an Air Force base
             in Somalia itself.
         d). The desire to have US troops not far away from the
             explosive Middle East region. Iran seems to become
             the next 'villain' there, needing constant attention.
         e). Both Bush and Clinton seem to want to establish the
             Rapid Deployment Force. The operation Restore Hope
             is a good dress rehearsal for that.
         f). President Bush wants to create a foreign policy
             problem for Clinton.
         g). The need to save starving children in Somalia.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:31:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      More cabinet follies

A cabinet of 14 people that "looks like America" should look like
the following, at least:

7.4 women
1.8 blacks
somewhere between 1.4 and 1.7 homosexuals
1.2 Hispanics

And I know I'm forgetting the Asian population too.

I don't mean this to be facetious, but doesn't anyone else see how
ridiculous some of the demands are getting?  I >don't< think 3 women
on a cabinet "looks like America."  But...

now I hear that women's groups are miffed over the fact that Clinton
has already appointed "too many black >men<."

Great.  Let's tear each other all apart now.

Better yet, let's go back to the good old Carter, Reagan and Bush days
when at least 10 of the original cabinet appointments were >white men<.


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