HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:23:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)

>Dunstan is right.
>
>Population is not the problem.  And it is even less of a problem in
>the United States, where the population growth has remained below
>replacement level since 1972.
>
>We aren't having too many children; we are having too few.


    Actually, the problem for now is distribution of the resources, but
  by most accounts, the world poputlation, if it grows at the present rate,
   will exceed our resources (which, of course, are decreasing as they are
  used) early in the next century.

>--Missy P 2 B

     --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:25:51 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Homosexual Adoption

One of the reasons I get so goddam mad at ghoulish moral frauds like
Quayle is that they systematically ignore the human suffering they cause.
To such beasts, the trauma of a pregnant teenager excites no deeper
reaction than "Nyeh Nyeh! Told Ya so!"; they have a book which guarantees
them the right to delight in the midery of others..
In a similar vein, our book-enlightened cretins take it for granted that
sexual orientation is a legitimate qualification for parenthood and adoption.
Never mind the fact that child abuse, sexual and otherwise, is overwhelmingly
the handiwork of "Godfearing" "heterosexuals"; in this wantonly cruel,
stupid view of the world, to be gay is to be disqualified as a parent.
  What this ignores is the one valid criterion for parental care:
love. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom may determine your sexuality,
but it has nothing at all to say about your capacity to love, especially
your capacity to love and care for children. My wife and I have two beautiful
children, and I trust them with our gay friends who love them absolutely
and unconditionally. More than one gay couple I know would make better parents
than any hetero couple I've ever met.
  To me, the whole shocking prejudice against gays as parents comes down to
the ignorant, superstitious equation of love and sex. Because most heteros
have some ignorance-born hangups about gay people, they can only think that
sexuality rules their lives, and totally dominates their ability to love.
This is hogwash, in fact probably the opposite is the case: the courage
required to face up to one's homosexuality seems to be a great teacher of
compassion and patience with others; the very qualities that make a super-
lative parent.
  I apologize; I cannot be "objective" about this issue. All I can say is
that anyone who doubts the ability of gay men and women to be wonderful
parents and caregivers has never met a gay person, and hasn't the least
clue what loving a child *really* means.

MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:50:54 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      re: homosexuality

 *** Resending note of 09/08/92 23:19

 >Rulekeeper, I'd like to register another Robert's rule. I believe
 >it is number 12.  "If there is no way you cannot respond to the
 >issues involved in a post without showing your ignorance and
 >bigotry, concentrate on a minor language point."

 With a little research, you will find that Jamie is the most avid
 practitioner of your rule.

 >...stuff deleted about Dave's favorite T.V. show

 >You don't like homosexuals. Fine. I have no problem with that. You
 >want them to be oppressed. Unless you find a very good argument
 >to defend that, I have a very serious problem with that. So far,
 >your arguments are a kin to the earlier "I don't like them," and
 >that doesn't cut it with me. It may cut it with Pat Buchanan and
 >David Duke, but not with me.
 >Dave

 Don't like homosexuals?  I've never made that statement.  It's also not
 true.  I have a very good relationship with one in particular.  ( no not
 sexual )  I don't see how his lifestyle has anything to do with our
 relationship (currently).

 I *DO* see how it is immoral, but for now that's his dilemma not mine.  I
 *DO* see how as a result of immorality our country is suffering.  I *DO* see
 how his lifestyle could *become* a problem to me/my family.  If he ever took
 the initiative to verbally justify or otherwise defend his lifestyle, to me
 or my child, our relationship would most certainly experience a radical
 change.  You see, I can accept *him* but not his way of life.  The homosexual
 lifestyle was/is/will always be immoral and completely unacceptable.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:40:29 CDT
From:         Walker on Earth <UC369801@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Vitriol & boiled eels in broth, Mother

Robert, do you like to whup on darkies too?  By your own reasoning,
'scripture' gives you every justification to do so.  To the rest of
you- please.  I have been underwhelmed recently by the sustantive con-
tent of most recent posts.  It gives me no pleasure to delete a post
solely on the basis of the name of the sender, but this is what I
have been forced to do.  Post if you must but _please_ talk about
something pertinent to the intent of this list, such as the recent
forced resignation of the commisioner of football, Fay Vincent :-)




                                          Weary of all this
                                          Poisonous cavailing,

                                            Walker on Earth
======================================================================
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it!  I daresay he does.
And some die that deserve life.
Can you give it to them?  Then do
not be so eager to deal out death
in judgement.  For even the very
wise cannot see all ends."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 07:41:31 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      gifted programs...do they work or not?

Since we're all sharing Gifted Program stories...

I was in a program from 1st grade-Graduation. I had learned
to read long before my 5 year old counterparts, and wouldn't
pay attention in class, so i had my own little class where we
read actual books instead of dick and jane.  We also went
on little field trips, to a photography studio, to a weaver's
studio, to a cardboard plant...Did special projects involving
science, etc. We all switched to a different HS after 8th grade.
Most of the other kids in the program (there were about 6 or us)
went on to Private School (Pomfret, Andover, Deerfield). I went
to the regular old public hs because i was poor white trash.

there i was able to do what liese did. roam the halls, play backgammon,
work as an apprentice for the art teacher who had a screen printing business
on the side. I was editor of the Newspaper, hung around in the library,
and even after this busy schedule, i was able to leave school at 1 pm
every day for a Piano lesson.  I did ok enough in all my classes, except
algebra and calculus. I just never "got" it. So, they figured, i was smart
enough to catch on at some point and they passed me anyway with B's.

I ended up scoring so low on the Math SAT that i think i owed the college
board points.

I took 4 classes my last year of school and received 9 college credits for
my efforts. I went to college and realized it was full of "slackers" like me.
People who were able to just sorta breeze through 12 years of school without
much effort.

Needless to say, i didn't fare well, and now i'm a janitor at Brown Univ.
I sneak into the clusters when i'm supposed to be vacuuming and read my
mail.

jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:33:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Excuse me, but:

I think this has gone about far enough.  (And, I confess, I have participated
as avidly as anyone.  Mea culpa.)  However, I think we are again straying
into "pure theology" postings, which, as I have been told, and as I
have tried to remember, belong elsewhere.

Interestingly, the Politics list and the Christia list are currently
embroiled over many of the same issues.  Maybe we should just give
up this pretense that politics and religion are not inextricably
entwined--and just merge the two.

That was a joke.  I'm not sure the one could deal with the level of
reasoned discussion of the other (I leave it to you to determine which
is which.)  (That was not a joke.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:50:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: War against the patience of the users of this list

Joe:

You quotation of the ERA is, indeed, correct.  But what the text
*said* is not the same as the way in which it was to be *applied.*
When asked, the Court indicated that such things as women in combat
and segregation in public places of various sorts might well be on
the table.  I am not saying that the ERA was a good idea or a bad
idea.  That is not the point.  The point is that merely appealing to
the text without reference to its implications does not demonstrate
that it was unreasonable to discuss such potential effects.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:04:19 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: welfare for the wealthy
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:18:55 CDT fred said:

>Does everyone remember what george's favorite snack food is? Pork rinds!

Guess you forgot it was a publicity stunt?

>Macphil, I still think the bucks for school choice is welfare for the rich.
>If you can't afford to send your kids to private schools, 1k will not make
>any difference. If bush passes perks for the upper class, guess who will be
>paying the bill?

Please reread my earlier posts.  I specifically want to discuss the
concept of private school vouchers, not the means test or the
quantity of financial support.

And as far as who pays for whom, do you really think there are so many
wealthy individuals in this country that they could pay for all of
the poor?

Just out of curiousity, how much redistribution of resources are
you in favour of?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:56:16 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Chris(topher,tine,tabel ?)
>I keep saying this on this net:  nobody really knows what the treasures of
>tomorrow will be, only that they will probably be something we don't expect
>them to be.  Also that they won't be the same as the treasures of the day
>after tomorrow.  And that they will be something that speaks to people's
>conditions at the time.

Now this is a good thread to develop. I reckon precious metals will
always have value but, for instance, we have already seen the market
in classic cars bubble and burst. My money in the longer term is that
the treasure will be water - we keep increasing our per capita
consumption from a limitted supply.

What do other readers think ?

Dunstan - "Sorry honey I can't water the garden, there's not enough water"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:41:24 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RE:Re:Bosnia Conflict
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              9 Sep 1992 09:04:00 +0200 from <HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS>

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:04:00 +0200 <HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS> said:
>Well, at last someone is talking sense here. Thank you G. Racz.
>
> I strongly endorse you on your opinions that we should have done
>something a long time ago. I agree with you that the US is morally
>responsible for what is happenning now. Finally I admire you for
>your honesty and self respect.

>-Gilbert

So you're going to go enlist today into the military and perform your
moral & civic duty and promise to be on the front line when we send
troops over there?

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:58:35 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92091223091857@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:

> You attribution of the Wiccan Rede to Jesus cannot go unchallenged.
> When asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied that *first*
> we are to love God and *then* love our neighbor.  This is *not*
> the same.

Several things.

First, Jesus specificly stated that the second comandment is as important as
the first.

Second the second commandment is not "Love thy neighbor", but "Love thy
neighbor as thyself."
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:19:13 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bosnia conflict
              6 Sep 1992 10:38:00 +0200 from <HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS>

Gilbert:

Why is it *our* responsibility to do "something" about the situation
in Bosnia?  Is it the responsibility of China or the former Soviet
Union or even Bosnia to send relief to the hurricane victims in
Florida?  Or to rescue the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
from the tyranny of the Israeli government?  Or to invade the
United States to bring military action to end the slaughter of
4000 unborn children every day?  Or to feed those who are starving all
over the African continent?

If the government feels it can do nothing, and you think "something"
should be done, then *do* something.  Go there.  Take up arms.  Fight
for whichever side you prefer.  Organize a relief effort.  Take those
who agree with you and bring aid and comfort to those who are in need.
Something.  Whatever you think is necessary.  Just do it.

The government's interest is in not invading a (semi-) soverign nation
to become embroiled in a conflict for an undetermined period of time,
with an inestimable number of casualties, on a mission that has little
chance of success.  That's the way the government sees it.

Wars go on all over the world.  Outside nations involve themselves only
when it is in their interest to do so.  The Bosnian conflict is not
intricately enmeshed in the interests of the United States.  We are not
the world's police force; that is supposed to be the job of the newly
strengthened United Nations.  That is the world of realpolitik.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:48:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: rest rooms

Uh, do you mean minimally disfunctional or minimally functional?  Don't forget
we were all that way once.  Try to act like you wish somebody had acted toward
you when you were like that.

                                           Chris Morrison
                                           CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:17:16 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

>Sex with children?  "If it doesn't harm the child?"  How can it not?

What's a child?

My mother thinks her 30 year-old daughter is still a child.  However,
most of us would agree that it's upto said daughter to decide whether
or not a given sexual act/partner would harm her, no matter what said
mother thinks.

When does a "child" become competent enough to make that decision that
society should stay out of it even if things don't work out?  Or, do
we go with a "if it ends up causing harm, the state should step in"
standard?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:58:11 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      various information

hey.  chris, howdy-do, nice to see you again.  my address has changed due
to the federal witness protection program.  not true, okay.  it's
kind of similar, though...i kind of owe this university an exorbitant
sum in library fines.  i'm kind of hiding from them...i just pull up
stakes and keep moving, since it's harder to hit a mobile target.

clinton has now acquired an enormous lead in the electoral college, according to
    the associated press.  yawn.
new blade runner director's cut out, sounds good t'me.
what
ever
there
is
nothing
new
under
the
sun.
hey, what's the deal with the george bush/freddy krueger references...
can this be a new trend????   splatter politics?????
wake me when the election's over.
oh, and incidentally, i'm not all that wild about the nea, either, just
not for the reasons the list gestapo cited.  i'm a libertarian, i'm
not big on government interventionism, pure and simple.
gotta go.
                                       * * *liese
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:28:11 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      New York Senate Race

Tonight, the four candidates trying to win the right to take on Al
D'Amato for his seat in the Senate will have the first of their two
scheduled televised debates (the second debate will be Sunday at 11:30 a.m.,
but I don't think that one will be televised state-wide--it looks like
it will just be shown on WNBC-TV in New York City).

It will be interesting to see the approaches that Holtzman/Abrams/Sharpton
take in attacking front-runner Ferraro.  The tone of the campaign has
gotten nastier in recent days, with Holtzman and Abrams seeking to
portray Ferraro as questionable on the ethics issue.  Sharpton really
hasn't gotten into that (and I think is far more interested in using this
race to establish himself as a credible political figure).

There have been reports that D'Amato is hoping that Ferraro wins the
nomination, because his people have damaging information relevant to
all the allegations of Ferraro/Zaccaro involvement with organized crime,
and they are just waiting to reveal it.  Even if the D'Amato side doesn't
have such information, a Ferraro-D'Amato race probably would not focus
on ethics (which is to D'Amato's advantage).

Governor Cuomo's feelings about this contest are interesting to speculate
about.  Much has been written in the past about a pact (formal or informal)
of non-criticism between Cuomo and D'Amato.  Within the past year or two,
there was some friction between the two.  I think that Cuomo knows, however,
that if D'Amato loses his seat in the Senate he becomes a formidable
potential challenger to Cuomo in 1994:  D'Amato has a huge campaign
warchest ($3 million + in hand) and the Republicans have never thrown
a strong candidate against Cuomo (Lew Lehrman had money but was a political
novice, Andy O'Rourke is an experienced politician but was more or less
sacrificed by the state GOP, and who knows where they came up with Canadian
Pierre Rinfret to battle Cuomo last time around).

Bob Abrams already has a spot on the November ballot, having secured the
Liberal Party line.  While this sounds like 1980 all over again, where
incumbent Republican Jacob Javits, having lost the GOP primary to D'Amato,
ran on the Liberal Party line and took votes away from Democratic candidate
Holtzman, allowing D'Amato to win the seat, Abrams is not expected to
mount a campaign if he does not win the Democratic primary as well.  He
could change his mind if he loses in a close primary, but I doubt it since
I don't think he's at the point in his career where he'd want to anger
the Democratic party powers-that-be.

The primary is next Tuesday.

...Rick
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, 8 Sep 1992 15:48:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>     The actual amount that each individual pays for the NEA each
>>   year makes it kind of a minor point to argue about.
>
>Really?  Then ELIMINATING the NEA is just a minor thing.  If the money
>wasn't important, it wouldn't be protected so vehemently.


    What I meant was that people spend, in reality, far less on the
  NEA than they seem to think, and that it is an infinitessimally
  small part of the Federal budget.  It is merely being used as a tool
  of the Religious Right to make people believe they are spending
  hundreds of dollars every year (which they are not) on "pornography"
  so that people will be more likely to be fooled into believing that
  they represent the mainstream in the US.

         --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:45:29 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>How about if each taxpayer got to *keep* that 1/4 of a cent (and a lot
>more besides) and buy and sell whatever art, architecture, literature,
>drama, and entertainment he or she prefers?

Great idea Missy, and I'll keep the part that goes to defense and buy the
kind of bombs that I prefer. While we're at it I think I'll keep the part
that goes to paying off the domestically held portion of the national
debt since I think that I could spend that money better than the rich
people.

There are just a whole buncha things that I can think of that I'd rather
not pay for and in some cases find just plain obscene...

>--Missy P 2 B

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU