HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:30:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30650

>From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
>Subject:abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:55:46 EDT
>Message-ID:<tfilt380789@drew.edu>

>In article <00963523.C24F41E0.22710@alpha.hendrix.edu>,
>erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU says:
>>
>>No, Nazis were NOT anti-abortion. In fact, the scientists who were in charge
>>of murdering the Jews in the concentration camps experimented with many vaired
>>ways of killing people...gas chambers...firing
>>squads...hanging...starvation...
>>They also experimented to find out what hurt people the most both physically,\
>>emotionally and psychologically. They found that for killing future children
>>it was better to kill them before they were born. Thus they killed the
>>children
>>who were already born and they killed unborn children. They found that by
>>using abortion to kill unbron children, they could not only kill the child but
>>infict great emotional and psychological distress upon the mother. Thus, they
>
>There is a difference between abortion by choice and forced abortion,you know
>
>>used abortion exclusively to kill the children of those in concentration
>>camps.
>>--Steve
>
>Yes, but they didn't consider Jews to be human so they didn't see that as
>a problem. Abortion was banned for "aryans". Please look these things up before
> you go spouting off in a huff. Abortion was banned not only in Nazi Germany
>but in Stalinist Russia and most of Eastern Europe especially Romania under
>Ceausescu. Consider the orphanages in Romania. Also consider that the greatest
>cause of death for women of childbearing age in Peru, where abortion is banned
>is death due to complications from botched, backstreet abortions. This is not
>uncommon in states which ban abortion. Women still seek them, they just are
>more likely to die in the process.

Just out of curiosity, do you support China's abortion laws?
Also, would you prefer the death of all those children in Rumania, and
should we kill all babies that will be born into horrible conditions,
just wondering?  Those orphans in Rumania are all not there because
their mother could not have an abortion, but because Ceausescu had
their families butchered.

-Paul
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:41:14 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.....

>      - The stated reason for the aforementioned tarriffs is the
>agricultural subsidies of European (primarily French in this case) farmers
>by the government, while the US continues to subsidize the sh*t out of its
>own farmers, thus hurting the poor little consumer.

I was just wondering if somebody might have some stats on how much the
government subsidizes farmers and to whom the money goes; in particular
I am wondering if Bush's activism on this issue has more to do with
Archer Daniels Midland than your average small farmer.

>Chris Sloffer

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:54:38 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      The Electoral College has more members than Congress

The number of electors (members of the Electoral College) from each
state is equal to the size of its congressional delegation, but there
is at least ONE region that selects electors that isn't a state.  That
region, discussed in the 23rd amendment, is DC, which gets three
electors even though it has NO congressional delegation.

Various "territories" participate in the primaries, such as Guam
and Puerto Rico (?); I don't know whether or not they have electors.

-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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:22:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject: Re: Kill Bush? *Gasp!* Confessions of an anarchist...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt380500@drew.edu>, SWIFT@HARTFORD.BITNET writes:
> From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>>       Around 1989 or so, someone on Usenet posted a message with the title "I
>>WILL KILL PRESIDENT BUSH".  He lost his account, got grilled by the SS and
>>probably will be monitored until the day he dies (or Bush does).
>>       Yes, he said he was joking, even though the article was
>>quite...inflamitory.
>>       You'd be a lot safer joking about bombs in airports.
>
>>Brett'
>
>
> About 3 or 4 years ago, on this very list, I too submitted a post entitiled
> something like "I will Kill President Bush."  Nothing ever happened.  I did no
   t
> lose my account, and as far as I know, am not being monitored.  I do not have
> to go to jail when political figures come to town, either.  The post was
> severely threatening, yet tounge-in-cheek.
>
> --STeve McDonald
>
A chance for me to inject constitutional first amendment right
material.  Oh boy.  Relax, this won't be one of my long civil
libertarian tirades.  I'll just note that this was actually a subject
of a Supreme Court case.  It seems a low level gov't official
(clerical) made some comment that she agreed with some one that Reagan
dying after he was shot wouldn't be that bad of an idea.  Since she
wasn't in a major policy type job, her first amendment rights kept her
from being fired.  I don't think she was hounded for life either.

    -Joe
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Justice
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:58:02 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>>> Who is J. Kilpatrick? Just wondering.
>
>>>He is a newspaper columnist, somewhat on the conservative side.
>
>>       *She* is former US ambassador to the UN, and currently speaks/writes on
>>generally conservative issues.
>
>Not to be too picky, but I think that this is a prime example of conservative
>error...

	Conservative?  Ick.
>
>Brett, you're thinking of J. Kirkpatrick, former ambassador to the UN
>(appointed by Reagan) and one of the *last* people I would expect to
>find on Clinton's list.

	Yes, I was.  Fifty lashes for not reading thoroughly.  Although Jeane
has been floated by Reps as high-cabinet level (even VP) material.  So I
wouldn't be surprised to see her in the SC list of lists.  I was wondering
(needlessly, as it turns out) why Clinton would want her, but then he is
rumored to be thinking of Volcker for Treasury.

>>       A very good choice for VP, but not for the SC.
>
>As long as "VP" stands for "Vicious Primate" that's fine, I agree that
>she would be a poor choice for the Supremes.

	What's so vicious about her?  She was a very good UN rep.

Brett'
Who promises to read more thoroughly.
(Note that this is why you'll never see me flame spelling eror or tpyos. :)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:56:20 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)


In article <9211101950.AA17117@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, Andy Freeman
<andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> says:
>
>>Even the United States Navy reports that in their Subic Bay Naval Hospital
>>(figures are for 1989 - 1991) there has been a SIGNIFICANT increase in
>>complications resulting from abortions obtained off-base after the order
>>outlawing abortions for members/dependents became effective.
>
>That's not particularly interesting as Subic Bay is in the Philipines
>and it isn't reasonable to assume that its off-base medical facilities
>are necessarily like those available "under the counter"* in the US.
>(BTW - The order didn't "outlaw" anything.  It said that the US govt
>wouldn't pay for them.  It wasn't an order either - it was a law
>passed by Congress.)
>
>>We know that women who receive illegal (therefore covert/back
>>alley/whatever) abortions run a great risk of complication and death.
>
>And, we also know what that risk was.  It wasn't all that large.  If
>you can't make your argument without lying about it ....
>
>BTW - "post abortion" syndrome has nothing to do with complications of
>abortions.  It is supposedly a psychological condition.  If it doesn't
>actually happen, that says nothing about the death and injury from
>"under the counter" abortions.

Yes, and it was precisely this "syndrome" that Koop dismissed as baseless
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Acceptable Behavior
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:35:19 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Roger,
  I, too, am outraged over someone talking about killing Clinton and Gore.
Like it or not, they were elected President and Vice President.  We have
to work with them to make this country better.  If they don't meet our
expectations, we have the chance to vote them out in 1996.
  I always feel a little sad this time of year because I remember a
young, vibrant President who was murdered at the peak of his life.  I
hope this doesn't happen again.  It would be a tragedy.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:03:48 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: QUINCENTENIAL: "We Are Still Here"

Good post
I'd repeat it but it's way to long.
How exactly was genocide against the natives commited?
Agree there was a high motality, I think the figure came close to 90% but
this was mainly due to disease, something even the Europeans had a hard time
dealing with. This unintentional although tragic mortality could hardly
be called genocide.
Let's not forget that the Aztec and there predesessors performed human
sacrifice on a monumental scale.
I won't argue with your other statements, he was a slave trader and so on..
but genocide...no
That's the same logic that blames humans for high CO2 levels when human
activity only produces 3% that of non-human activity.
Don't try to find evil in everything, something just happen and they aren't
controllable.

----mike....
From: BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE (james p mcbride)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just in case you missed them
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:44:22 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:18:47 EST Jamie said:
>
>LOGIC CZAR ANNOUNCES AWARD
>
>James McB.'s posting including the POLITICS etiquette notice and the
>nicely expressed summary of some fallacies wins this week's Homo Logicus
>award for posting best advancing the Cause.
>
I'd just like to thank the Logic Czar for the award, and before I break into
an uncontrollable sob, all the people who made this award possible.  My mum,
dad, all the list members, and most important, you, the folks at home.  This
award is for you.  I LOVE YOU ALL!!
>
>Jamie

james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:30:08 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate

>    You seem to be very exited about the fact that a liar has a chance to be
>elected to the Senate.   Why such enthusiasm?

Huh?  If we're not going to get excited about candidates who've lied,
there aren't any candidates to get excited about.

-andy doesn't know enough about a candidate whenever he doesn't
      know of several examples of said candidate lying.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:01:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Days of the Week

From:         "(Andrew MacRae)" <acm@SUN.COM>

> ..........................................  Is there anywhere on Earth these
> days where this method of dating years is not the standard in everyday life?

Yes, Iran.  Should I arrange for a passport?   :-)    :-)

> Andrew MacRae

--KAT  (I am sure this joke would fall deaf on Andrew's ears but the
        rest of the list will enjoy it.)
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:14:43 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      I'm going to regret this, I just know it
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

. . . but Jayce's exposition on flag burning hit deep.  I'll try to keep
this short and sweet (and y'all can yell at me later).

Jayce:
Burning a flag is a symbolic gesture.  It derives much of its strength from
the kinds of reaction you illustrated in your post.  Just thought you'd
like to know that.

Please take a moment to consider the internal contradiction of your
position.  You love the flag because it symbolizes our country.  One of the
things it symbolizes is freedom of political expression.  Yet, were I to
act on that freedom, your response would be to (1) deny me that freedom;
and (2) take violent (and illegal) action against me.  I can think of a lot
of words that describe that type of repression.

Kerry
I'll see your WWII vet and raise you two Vietnam era vets ....sheesh
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, 5 Nov 1992 07:26:53 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: question from my 9-yr-old

>home.  They are under no legal obligation to vote the results of the popular
>vote - but unless Perot comes up with a few million apiece (pocket change?!?),
>Clinton will be elected.  That's about it.  Hope this clears it up for you
>
>-T.


Actually, some states do have laws that require electors to cast their
ballots for the candidate for whom they are elected (I think that North
Carolina and New Mexico are two, and there are others).  To my knowledge,
no state has ever tried to enforce these laws, but if they did it would
make for a very interesting state versus federal government case.  My guess
is that Congress would count the electors votes as they are cast, even
if a state tried to punish an elector or change his or her vote.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:09:03 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: World View of America

>First off, whites are the minority in South Africa.
>
>Secondly, it is the African National Congress along with a great many
>more black South Africans who have expressly ENDORSED santions against
>South Africa.

And, the Zulus, who are also black South Africans, expressly rejected/
opposed sanctions.

>I do not feel that it is my right to tell them what is good for them.

Sure you do - you're going along with the ANC and rejecting the Zulus.
(On this issue, you can't go along with both.)

Even if we go with the "The Zulus were bought off" theory, the fact
remains that they preferred the price they got to sanctions.

>I strongly support divestment because so many South
>Africans and people who have visited and studied South Africa have
>presented their cases to me and, basically, the case against divest-
>ment is virtually non-existent.

I was at Stanford through the whole divestment hoo-ha,* and I ran into
lots of people who said that, but a bit of investigation revealed that
most of them had "confused" themselves with someone who had actually
had those experiences.  It's nice to run into another of the few who
did.

So - how many Zulus did you talk with?  Oh, they were non-existent....

Everything is clear cut if you listen to only one position.

-andy

* - My favorite part of the whole time was one of the protests when
Chief B. visited to speak against sanctions.  Some of the more
enlightened students sat outside the talk wearing car tires around
their necks.  The other reactions didn't show nearly as much style.
Others tried to get the visit cancelled and managed to keep him from
speaking in most university facilities; he ended up in a closet.  The
lack of support from the student office that had spent thousands on
pro-sanctions speakers wasn't surprising.
--
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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:37:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Poor losers!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30347

>From: "(MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)" <mit2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>
>Subject:Poor losers!
>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:33:07 GMT
>Message-ID:<tfilt378672@drew.edu>

>This is to all you Republican's who are crying about the ass wipping that
>George Bush took on Nov. 3, from "Slick Willie."  I'm sick to death of your
>whining and complaining.

  What about all the whining and complaining that occurred in America
in 1988.  I can still remmber all the complaints by the liberals.

  Why don't you just let Clinton take office and do
>his job.  Give him a chance!  If you don't, America will be in bad shape.  We
>need unity now, and the only way to get it, is to support Clinton.

  Now, I find this absolutely amazing.  Why should the Republicans
stand behind Clinton.  The Democrats in Congress were determined to
destory Bush in 1988 and at the same time undermine the Reagan record.
 Unless you forgot, the leader of the Democratic Party in 1988 said
that the American people made a mistake by electing Bush, but that it
will be okay because the Democratic Congress will take care of that
mistake.  Furthermore, to prove the Dems disgust over Bush's victory
in 1988, they destroyed his crime bill and refused to accept several
other bills that Bush proposed.  So, before you start lecturing us
Republicans, look at what your own party did 4 years ago!


  Why can't
>you just give it up.  Clinton will run the country the best way that he knows
>how.  We might as well help him with it.  Whether that means that you will
>have to swallow your pride or not.  Maybe you should follow your fearless
>leader George Bush's example and accept defeat with dignity.

  Republicans are accepting defeat with dignity, but we also realize
the mistake that has been made.  We have no choice but to accept
President Clinton, but we should not compromise our principles and
beliefs just because Democrats and liberals want us to.  At this time,
conservative and moderate Repulicans should not lose their conviction.

P.S.   KEMP/BENNETT in '96
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:10:09 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Saddam Hussein & his little PARTY

In article <1992Nov7.184645.62215@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>
>In article <01GQTVQLFE7C8WW36F@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,                       U
>JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CM
>.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>>Jayce:
>>
>>Just remember who built Iran's arsenal enough that it could get to
>>this point in the first place.  Before you blame Clinton for the problem
>>look at the source.
>>
>>--Julie
>>
>I wasn't blaming him for the "problem" I just don't know if he will be able to
>handle such a potentially difficult situation.  From what I've seen, Mr.
>Clinton doesn't deal with criticism too well, and that is not a good trait in
>our President.

Oh yeah, and Bush has such a thick skin. I'm sorry but people tend to react to
ad hominem, personal attacks in an emotional way. Remember how Bush reacted
when he was questioned about Jennifer FitzGerald?  Or Iran/Contra for that
matter?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 1996
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:54:53 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110611493275@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, SSTSTJB@VCUVM1.
BITNET (Tom) writes:
>
>          If the conservatives on this list (ie...Republicans) are
>          so convinced that a terrible mistake has been mand, AND
>          that Bush/Quale are the best possible choice for America,
>          Why are you not promoting Bush/Quale in 1996?  I hope this
>          does not come as a surprise to you, but both of them can
>          run again in 1996.  I personally believe that Republicans
>          have unknowingly admitted that Bush/Quale are not who
>          they really support at all.....but instead extreme right-wing
>          values that the American public has voted-out-of-office.
>
Wow.  I love to be accused of abandoning my ride thus far.  I would love to
have President Bush and V.P. Quayle run again.  I think that Dan Quayle will,
indeed, run for the top spot in 1996.  I was just being realistic about
Republican candidates that the American public would give a chance.  How's
Rush Limbaugh sound to all you liberals?  Frightening thought, eh?  Or are you
just scared that he can let the truth be told......
                                                Jayce

                                                
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:59:33 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Exactamundo! I cold not have said it better myself!!!! Way to go Mike!
--Steve