HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:52:26 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: BULLETIN! Candidate resigns, plug pulled, suggests alternate!

Thanks, Valentine, for agreeing to be my running mate.

Evelyn (more trains, fewer cars) Duncan
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, 21 Jul 1992 09:26:42 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: cost vs. return

One thing that some people overlook when discussing sex ed, is that
many parents do not discuss sex in any way, shape or fashion with
their children.  Most parents who are the age of my parents that I
know, aren't comfortable with their sexuality enough to discuss it
with their spouse, much less with their children, who might very
well be perceived in a threatening manner when discusing sexuality.

This results in the fact that many people I know, know about sex
in the worst possible way.  They learned about it from other
children their age, who knew as little as they did.

Values and morals have to be taught at home or in private schools,
but the facts can and must be taught in all schools.  There are
too many people who get pregnant, catch a disease or something
as a result of unsafe sex, for people to argue that the current
system is working.

-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:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:21:51 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

fred asked:
>> Hilary Clinton is a very intelligent, well educated woman. Her point is
>> that parents should not have total control of their children if the
>> control is not consistent with the best interests of the child. Sounds
>> like a good idea to me. I suppose you have a high opinion of Nancy "Let
>> me ask my astrologer" Reagan who is portrayed as a less than ideal
>> mother by her children ?

and Carl replied:
>  Fred, who id responsible for determining the best interest of the child?
>  I beleive that the average, sane and non-abusive, parents are best for
>  determining the best interest of the child.  The danger with the Hillary's
>  point is that if a sane and loving parent makes a decision that the child
>  does not like, the parent most likely will be sued by their child.  Just
>  because a child disagrees with a parent on an issue is not grounds to
>  steamroll the parents and their authority.

Carl, do you have any evidence to support the view that sane, reasonable,
non-abusive parents will be in any way affected by the establishment of the
kinds of legal recourse Hillary is proposing?  After all, for every
scenario you presented (and that I've deleted), I can present an equally
plausible one demonstrating how criminally parents act with respect to
their kids.

>Let's all stand and applaud Fred for supporting the destruction of the
>family, it seems to be in vogue and a requirement to be accepted by the
>Looney Left Radicals of a Socialist America.

Ooooh, look!  Another ad hominem attack!  And I thought those departed with
Jay :).  Much as I'm tempted to respond in kind, I'll listen to my better
self and simply point out that some of us sane, reasonable, and responsible
parents think Hillary's got some good ideas.  If anyone has access to more
details on her proposals (I only know what I've read here and there), I'd
like to see them.

Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:31:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:17:03 EDT K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> >>> FACT: He did not say he would support her, rather, he would
> >>>       support her decision.
>
> >>> False.  He said "I would support my *daughter*."
>
> >> False.  He said "I would ... support whatever decision she made."
> >> Mine is a DIRECT QUOTE typed word by word out of our local news-
> >> paper.  Is yours direct?  Where did you get yours?
>
> > I heard a playback of the Dan Quayle interview.  The emphasis on
> > "daughter" is his, not mine.
>
> I don't follow you.  Never mind about the emphasis -- did he say "support
> my daughter" or "support her decision?"

He said: "I would support my DAUGHTER."  (Emphasis his).


> >>> I don't know.  "Implied consent" to let a baby use your body is not the
> >>> same as implied consent to let the baby's use of your body destroy your
> >>> health.
>
> >> Let me get this straight.  You are saying a woman who is engaging
> >> in sex in order to get pregnant and have a baby has only consented
> >> that the baby uses her body but only if it does not affects her health.
>
> > Well, I mean, yeah.  I think pregnancy is a recognizable risk when
> > having sex.  I don't hold to the notion that you can get pregnant by
> > *accident*--even blondes know better (I think :)).  However, a preg-
> > nancy posing a severe threat to the mother's health is not a recogniz-
> > able risk.  When that happens, it is *truly* an accident.
> > (Headliner: Justice Kidd, Supreme Court adopt RECOGNIZABLE RISK
> > standard :))
>
> Come on! You cannot be serious!  What do mean by recognizable?
> We know condoms are 90 odds % effective.  That 10% defines a
> recognizable risk.  We also know that x% of pregnancies result
> in considerable health risk to the health of the mother -- that
> is a recognizable risk too.
What is x%??  Surely it's not enough to ban pregnancies...


> Let me push you to this logical corner a bit more.  :-)  Suppose our
> doctor tells us that a woman in my wife's condition would have
> a 50% chance of serious health consequences if she gets pregnant.
I would tell her not to get pregnant.

> pregnancy dangerous to my wife.  Either she dies or the fetus is
> aborted.  What does you moral code say about this situation?
Here the woman's rights and the fetus's rights are balanced.
If one must die, the woman can make the choice.


> >> to know how you arrived at that conclusion.  And what if the second
> >> woman's pregnancy is affecting the woman's mental health?  What
> >> about the risk of normal delivery on one's physical health.
>
> > Well, that is for doctors to determine.  But how many pregnancies cause
> > women to go insane??  Not many, IMHO.
>
> Does what you said mean that if a professional attest that the woman's
> mental health is in danger, that it would be OK to go ahead with the
> abortion?  Did you say THAT????
Yes.  I repeat your words...IN DANGER.

> --KAT
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:30:23 CST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Sean Mills <ST4226@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
Subject:      U.N. Inspection

FROM: Sean Mills

If there is information in the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, what's stopping
Iraq from destroying the information that's stored there?
Isn't it possible that they have copies stored in some place that no one
would ever think of looking?

                               -Sean
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:05:41 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A Good Tactical Move?

I think that it wouldn't have that great of a net effect.

It may come across as a vote-getting ploy, which could
actually cost Bush some of the swing vote.  I think that
the public is educated enough to realize that Bush and
his party aren't really open to the "opposition".

-j.b.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:06:17 GMT

I doubt very much that it would be proper to assign *either*
the 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' label to Danny Boy.

Like almost all the politicians available today (Republicans
and Democrats alike), he is a man fundamentally *without* a 
coherent set of principles of any kind.

In short, he is whatever he thinks people want him to be.

--J2
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:49:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Obfuscation Elimination

>Of course we could pair Julie and Jamie and maybe they'd produce
>czar-dines...

Interesting concept, but I'd just as soon not be seen as a
baby-factory (or a czardine factory, for that matter).

--Julie "me and a philosophy professor?  Forget it!" W.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:15:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: p.s.: linda, this one's for us :)

ummmm, i dunno abt. any of these terms...maybe i'll just call him jeff and let
the world wonder.

-linda  (just call me a woman of mystery, or should i say female, or working
          mother, or or ....
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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:53:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: is Quayle pro-choice?

Travis asks Mac(Phil) the Knife to explain those slashes:

From: Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>> authenticity to a story /p any basis in fact.
>> Now, /c this in mind, what obligation does your local newspaper have
>I'm sorry, I just gotta know--Why do you use /p for without and /c for
>with???

He does it because he loves being asked this question, repeatedly. :)

>-Travis

Gary W. Olson                 "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
                               Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
                               or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:11:56 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more fun with carl

>From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
>
>Can't Jamie tell the difference between me and O'Andy?

He can.
But then the Central Scrutinizer goes on to quote, at length,
from virtually everyone on the list EXCEPT me.

And once again, without identifying himself at the top.

Let's get some Posting Police, shall we?  I appoint Drew.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:23:32 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ?: Financing the gov't via taxation
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:08:11 EDT Jamie said:
>>From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

>>Unfortunately, that doesn't 1) define "wealthy"; and 2) doesn't say how
>>the remainder of his programs will be financed.
>
>Poster MacPhil has apparently not listened to Candidate
>Clinton's acceptance speech nor read his 22 page economic plan.

I heard (and listened to) the acceptance speech.  I have not yet had
time to read his economic plan.

>In the speech, Clinton defined "wealthy" (for purposes of his
>proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy) to be those earning
>more than $200,000.
>In the plan, Clinton names several ways that he will cut
>government spending; the most notable is to cut 100,000
>positions in the federal bureaucracy by attrition.

Cutting positions will put more people to work.  Novel concept.

>>If the wealthy were
>>defined as making > $100'000 per annum and were taxed at 100% + the
>>current taxation on everyone else, just how much smaller would the
>>deficit really be?
>
>I give up. How much smaller would it be?

I dunno either.  It was a curiosity question, not an attempted setup.

>might take a look at that part, in case you are actually
>interested.

Like you didn't think I really was interested?  :{(

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:43:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How to Defeat Aids

people were still being quarantined for tb through the 50's and maybe beyond-
not sure when the tb asylums were "no longer necessary. i knew two people who
were both in tb asylums. one guy got it while on tour in Korea. the other, a
woman, diagnosed 2 months after her baby was born. she was also quarantined
but they were never sure where she picked it up.

i don't think you can compare aids to tb since tb is a bacterial infection
caused by the tubercle bacillus and is responsive to antibiotics. it is highly
contagious through casual contact and infection can occur across species-we
can get it from birds, cows, and infected cows milk. when i worked in the psych
lab with the monkeys, we all had to get a tb test ea. year (tb is more prevalent
in NM) because if infected we could kill off the whole monkey colony.

there is no valid reason to quarantine aids victims since you can only get it
by an exchange of bodily fluids. nothing casual abt. that.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:31:59 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

>Just out of curiosity:  First, why do you single out the entertainment
>industry as prime purveyors of sex?  Seems to me the advertising industry
>would be as good (if not better) a target.
>

True enough.  I should have included advertisers in that argument.
They all need to restructure their approach to marketing and need
to take on a little more social responsibility.

>Second (and I think we've hashed this out before, at least a little bit),
>if you're going to identify the entertainment industry as prime
>participants in shaping "American's sex ethic", you might also want to
>identify them as shapers of our "violence" ethic.  At least the latter
>position can be justified with a bit of evidence.
>

Again true.  This is another example of how they should be more
responsible with their standards.

>Don't get me wrong -- I find *much* to dislike in the kinds of TV shows and
>movies I've been watching all my life.  But I think the problem (issue?) of
>the "American sex ethic" has less to do with General Hospital than with
>other socioeconomic conditions.
>

This whole problem needs to be addressed on many fronts.  The
industries themselves need to be more responsible.  Parents at
home need to take a more active role in raising their children.
Schools need to do more than teach the three r's.

It all has to start somewhere.

>Kerry

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:53:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Course for T. Kidd: History 530: Research & Methodology

The only point I wanted to make out was that never have the vast major-
ity of Southerners ever been adamantly in favor of subjugating another
race.  Granted they may not have been against it, but they were not
in favor of it.  And the fact that abolitionist societies existed in
the South as well as the North supports that.
And it must also be remembered that the early 19th century was a diff-
erent time.  Libertarianist-like thought was far less en mode than it
is today.  Maybe one day, people will wonder how those awful 20th cen-
tury people could ever think that homosexuality should be illegal.
(Of course, it's starting already :))
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:58:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      From the South Carolina Law Review...

From 1820 until the mid-1840s the South Carolina Court of Appeals,
the state's highest court during that period, judicially nullified
state statutes that restricted the emancipation of slaves.  The
proemancipation thrust of these judicial decisions and the anti-
emancipation directives of the statutes the court interpreted reveal
both the complexity of Southern discourse on slavery and race rela-
tions and the conflicting forces at work in Southern antebellum
society.  In addition, the extended debate between the state's
appellate court and the legislature improved our understanding of
nineteenth-century jurisprudenceand the roles played by the judi-
ciary and the legislature in the law-making process.
  The central slavery questions confronting judged and legislators of
the time were whether the institution should be continued and,
if so, in what form.  The emancipation issue compelled lawmakers to
confront the morality of slavery and the prospect of an interracial
society in which blacks greatly outnumbered whites.  As legislators
responded by passing anti-emancipation laws that made slavery in-
creasingly repressive, judges openly nullified the statutes to im-
plement reform.
  These judicial decisions were made at a time when it is difficult
to imagine that the legislature would tolerate opposition to its
will.  Yet the judges, all of whom were appointed by the legislature,
were neither censured nor removed, even when the legislature had the
clear opportunity and authority to act.
  During the period in which the judges decided in favor of emanci-
pation, strident calls for abolition emanated from both the North
and the South.  The ever-present fear of slave revolt was made real
by the slave insurrection led by Denmark Vesey in 1822.  Race war
was, as de Toqueville said, "a nightmare constantly haunting the
American imagination."  The abolitionist movement and the occurrence
of slave insurrections strengthened the arguments of those who
believed that the preservation of slavery depended on the enactment
of repressive laws.



----So in case people were wondering, the South was not exactly
    up in arms pro-slavery.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:42:23 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

>kat,
>i don't think you can reasonably infer from quayle's statement that his stance
>on abortion is anything but what he says it is because he would "stand by his
>daughter" in her decision.

>parents do that.they may hold firm beliefs, but if their child makes decisions
>contrary to those beliefs, or the kid gets arrested or whatever (believe me,
>kids do all sorts of things that make you want to tear hair :)), most parents
>will support their child. they may not like it, they may become heartsick, but
>they are always there for their children.

>youhear sometimes of parents who disown children for going against their wishes
>no stats on this, but i think this kind of parent rare.

>i hate to say this, but if this is what danny said (i didn't hear the
>statements), then he's finally said something i can admire him for.

>-linda

Let me see if I understand this.  If Dan Quayle's daughter
wanted to murder (yes murder) her 2 year old child because
the child was a nuisance, I am sure Dan Quayle wouldn't have
said "I would counsel my daughter but then I would support
her no matter what her decision," right?  So, according to
Dan Quayle, is abortion murder or not?

Also this is a guy who would want to make abortion illegal
on moral grounds.  That means he wants to FORCE others out
of this option.  Yet he would "support" her daughter no
matter what the decision?  Give me a break!  People like Dan
Quayle shout "murderer, murderer" at women entering clinics
in the hope that they might change their mind.  They even
block entrances for the same reason, but Quayle would
support her daughter whatever her decision?  Don't you see
the hypocrisy?  Don't you see the double standard?

I suppose Dan Quayle would her wife the same way too, right?
He would counsel his wife but then would support her no matter
what her decision, right?  What do you think pro-choice people
would do, force their daughters and wives to have an abortion?
No, they would do more or less what Dan Quayle said would do
with his daughter.

That is the way I see it.  But maybe you saw something that
I didn't.  I am willing to listen though.

And Kerry, you don't have to wait for someone else to answer
my post before you post about THAT response.  You can go ahead
and reply to my post directly, it is OK....    :-)

--KAT
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:46:43 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>


> ........................  I like Quayle, but I like Kemp more.  And
> Bush is on thin ice with conservatives, so he would have to be very
> very careful about any such substitution.

>                                        --Missy Justice

Let me ask you this question: say we know as mush about Quayle as
we do now, but let's say that Quayle was still a Senator.  And for
one reason or other Bush's V.P. was going to be replaced.  Bush comes
to you for an advice.  You give him your top 3 choices for V.P., would
Quayle's name be on it.  How about top 10, top 30?  How high would you
go before you put Quayle's name on the list?

An honest question!

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:42:50 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Obfuscation Elimination

I definitely approve of Groucho Marxism.  Peter, would you replace
"Hail to the Chief" with "Hooray for Capt. Spaulding"?

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:58:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Fetus Fracus

>You know KAT, it seems that no one ever really agreed *WHEN* life really
>began!  Only Robert, Missy Justice, Sean and others who leeeeeeeeean
>more toward the Christian side agree that life starts at conception.

I don't know if I'm on the Christian side, but I'm perfectly willing
to agree that life begins at conception.  Nevertheless, I'm
pro-abortion and believe that abortion is okay up to 18.  (Maybe 21.)
In the pro-abortion/life begins when aspects, I'm far from alone on
this list.

I realise that certain things support certain arguments, but one's
agreement with those arguments, or the conclusion, doesn't make those
things true.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU