HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:22:40 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Planned Parenthood

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> According to Planned Parenthood, birth control is "a safe and simple
> way to plan for your children and to have them when you want them....
> It is not an operation of any kind."  In 1965, birth control was
> about child spacing and family planning, not damage control.  I
> have no problem with this.

> Sorry.  One more thing.  From the same source:

>    "Birth control means the use of medically approved
>    methods to *postpone pregnancy* until you are ready
>    for it."  (emphasis added).

So what's your point?  That Planned Parenthood USED to be
infallible and now they are advocating "murder"?

Look, I might not even agree with them now.

Birth control pills actually don't control birth, they
control (prevent) conception.  However, I let that
inconsistency go since so many people have used it this
way for so long of a time.

On the other hand, abortion looks to me to be a "birth
control" measure no matter what is the rational behind
the decision.

Abortion in the case of rape is still a measure of birth
control and therefore falls under Robert's category of
"Abortion as a measure of birth control should be disallowed."

However, I would agree with Robert if he means this: consciously
deciding not to use birth control measures (such as pills,
condoms, etc.) and consciously deciding to rely on availability
of abortion in lieu of those other measures is a wrong thing
to do.  But, I don't think the way to combat such behavior
is the force of law.  How about education?

--KAT

> --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:44:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: The City on the Hill

What's the point of worrying about what Quayle might say or mean...
it seems fairly obvious to the vast majority that he is not playing
with a full deck.
Ah, but look at the alternative......Al Gore!!!!My dream man!!!
Think of it, there is actually a self-proclaimed environmental
activist on the ticket!!!! I love it!!! Come on America...
give him a chance... give America a chance... give life a chance...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:37:50 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      discrimination

 VAL,

 On the surface, I would say that idealistically most would like to be able
 to agree with your basic premise, *no discrimination against anyone for
 anything*.  I'm afraid that just isn't possible, never has been and never
 will.

 You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.  There ARE such
 things as right and wrong.  Our *new* way of thinking has no bearing on
 things that are unchangeable.  We can all decide to believe the sky is pink,
 but it doesn't make it true.  Stealing, lying and greed are wrong, even if
 you employ all three to provide for your loving family.

 For us, as a society, to defend and/or accept wrong as right is surely to
 place our country on a path of self destruction.  Where is it supposed to
 stop?  If homosexuality is fine, is incest, bestiality or pedophilia?  We
 cannot assume that we are able to determine at will the values by which we
 should live.  Would that not be the fast track to anarchy?  Pray tell, upon
 which mortal will this power be bestowed, you or me?

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:10:39 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>
> What's a few million among friends?
>
> How ironic that poor little Adolph has been treated so shabbily.  When
> compared to what we've done, he begins to look like Mother Theresa.
>
> ---Robert

Ok, another show of hands. whomever thinks Robert is the dumbest
person on this list, reach for the sky.

jcs
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:50:07 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: War between the Jasons

Hi, Jason.

>Equal protection of the law means (meant?) that a state cannot pass a
>law guaranteeing everyone health care and then not enforce that law for a
>particular group.  The laws can still exclude whoever they want (so long as it
>doesn't violate the constitution), its just that exclusions cannot be enforced
>without being made explicit in the original law.

I'm trying to make sure I understand you here -- I find this general line
of discussion interesting, and want to make sure I'm getting it right :)

So, it would be no violation of the equal protection bit for a state to
pass the following laws (laws in which exclusions are made specific, but
laws that don't violate the constitution):
   a) Blacks to be excluded from all state employment (like teaching
      positions or serving as state troopers)
   b) Women to be excluded from receiving state funding for education
   c) Persons of Irish ancestry to be "legal" to drink at age 12 :)

I'm not trying to be cute or sarcastic -- but from what you've written
above, it would seem that all of these would be perfectly OK as long as the
relevant laws were explicit.  Somehow that doesn't seem right.

Help?
Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:07:41 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>>Yes, hunters do tend to ignore non-game habitats.  As long as the rest
>>of us do too, the appropriate response is to expand the definition of
>>game to include more habitats.
>
>Huh?  I'm not trying to find ways for hunters to pay more than they are;
>I'm just trying to point out that funds from hunters aren't a magic cure.

I never claimed that hunters were a magic cure.  (I "hunt" in
supermarkets.)  I claimed that they "do the right thing" for the
environment when there's game involved and that the rest of us
basically drop the ball.  We can get hunters to do more by giving them
more species to care about; we know what happens when it's up to us.

>We probably have different definitions of "scarce."

My definition of "not scarce" includes "pets become lion-food in
significant numbers and kids are attacked".  Maybe things are
different elsewhere, but that's how things are getting in CA.  We'll
develop "the problem" away....

>And I suspect our philosophy about preservation is somewhat different
>-- but maybe we need to discuss that off-list.

I don't really have a preservation goal, I have a conservation goal.
Death doesn't bother me either.

I do like pointing out that there are healthy and thriving herds of
elephants in every country that had legalized elephant hunting, that
the only places where they're endangered are those where elephants had
no legal commercial value.  (You'll notice that domestic farm animals
aren't endangered either.)  Preservationists value their values more
than they value elephants....

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:38:24 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jamie a.k.a. 'Lone Ranger'

>        Sometimes an attempt to display your mind may
>        result in showing that you only have half of one.
> ---Robert

  More words of wisdom from Mr Sprgoo.

  But isn't it at all embarrassing to realize that
you are no match for half a mind?

                                 -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:13:04 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Regarding an asinine response

>carl correctly says that most criminals are also drug users.  this is
>true because drug use is a crime.  since there are so many persons in
>this country who use drugs, either occassionally or every day, they
>represent a large percent of the criminals out there.  however, most
>people who commit the crime of using drugs do not commit other non-
>drug-use crimes.
>
I read a statistic a few years ago that in roughly 85% of all arrests
where drugs were involved (i.e. selling, using, crime committed while
on drugs) alcohol was also involved.  Most criminals *are* drug users
because the most used drug is also one of the most addictive and is
*legal*; the drug is alcohol.

Drug abuse is a medical, psychological, and social problem.  To deal
with it as a legal phenomenon counterproductive and wasteful.
    toddddddddd
>
>brni

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "LSD has been known to cause
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   psychotic reactions in those
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    who don't use it." - TL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:21:06 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Sgt Friday: Just the facts

Since the 50's - early 60's dragnet mentality fits in well with the
republican platform, let us examine a few facts.

Fact #1 - GHWB promised a balanced budget by the end of his first term.

Fact #2 - GHWB was most likely awake during those meetings that ron can't
remember about arms for hostages and the contras in central america.

Fact #3 - prior to joining the ticket GHWB referred to Reagan's economic
plan as "voodoo economics". What besides a soft job changed his mind?

Fact #4 - the last time that a political party referred to a large group
of americans (read >25% of the population) as a threat to america, they
were lead by another republican named Joe McCarthy. (Didn't he later
play with the beatles and get busted for pot in Japan?)

On the subject of deadly force, I think that it should be legal to use
slightly less than lethal force on outbound telemarketers and people who
show up on your doorstep and want to read the bible with you.

Does congress have any role in appropriating funds for disaster relief?
Will the republicans try to take credit for helping Miami in spite of the
godless democrats?

Sue, I think that the person who gave you their impressions on the conventions
must have mixed their notes. I had the same impressions but in the opposite
order.

The republican platform and actions on the abortion issue are very similar
to martin luther king's civil disobedience activities in the sixties.
Do you think they will give him credit for being their inspiration?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:03:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness

>What *makes* you "desire an aversion"?

>--Missy P 2 B

usually when the aversion becomes more reinforcing than punishing.

i smoke.

when someone first tries to smoke it makes them sick. aversive.
but, if your peer group reinforces you to a greater extent than smoking
sickens you, you may decide to continue. at some point (after nicotine
addiction takes hold), it is more aversive to quit smoking than to continue,
even when to continue means compromising your health. i have tried to quit
many times, but withdrawl is so punishing that i have failed each time and
with one drag on a cigarette, i am reinforced by complete cessation of
withdrawl symptoms. man, that's hard to fight.

so, if the behavior becomes reinforcing (either physically or emotionally),
the person is more likely to continue the behavior.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:50:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Woody dumps daughter fer Fergy. Film at 11
              27 Aug 1992 00:49:00 GMT from <bush@WHITEHOUSE.GOV>

Bob:

No, no, no!

Haven't you been paying attention?

Clinton didn't *sign* the letter.  He *typed* it.

NOT.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:49:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

jamie,
what about my nicely buffed bricks?
linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:22:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Teenage rave.
              4 Sep 1992 09:45:38 BST from <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

Dunstan:

I'm not sure what the "E" is that you're referring to, but I think it
is a good sign that they are actually asking *permission.*  Most
raves don't involve asking anyone for permission, which is why they
are such a problem.  BTW, in case it makes you feel any better, there
is such a thing as *Christian* rave music.  (The atmosphere is a bit
different, though.)   (But if, as I suspect may be the case, the "E"
to which you refer is a drug, just say NO).

Hope that helps.

Good luck.  And if you have to go, wear some earplugs (they'll probably
think of them as a "cool accessory" anyway. :-) ).

--Missy P 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Bush Interviewed On Atheism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:47:48 GMT

Recently, I had the ill-manners to pull a post from a Christian list
in which certain discussants argued that we actually HAVE no rights.
I was chastised from nearly all directions for my rudeness (and perhaps
properly so).  The discussants in question argued that the discussion
on the Christian list was using the term 'right' in some special way
so that no impact upon political theorizing should be inferred.

A couple of posters indicated that if I meant to say that the Christian
right intends to deny us all our fundamental human rights, then I
was just being hysterical and paranoid.

But let's just check out what Mr. Parsons has to say on the topic:

Gary Parsons <PARSONS@FAUVAX.BITNET> writes:
>    Lets get a life here folks.  This "wall of separation" idiocy  is
>    based on a quote from a very minor speech by Jefferson and has
>    nothing to do with American cultural or legal traditions. It
>    is one of those"rights" created out of thin air by an ideological
>    and wrong-thinking court.

I am not going to run through the entire history of the United States
to demonstrate the folly of Parsons's particular claim.  He is of course
demonstrating a profound ignorance of American history.  But I don't
adhere to the theory that we ought to derive our laws from the intentions
of the founding fathers, so I want to just point out the implications
for modern politics of the position advocated in the posting.

What if there were no separation between church and state?

What if Missy Justice, Carl "I'm gonna call your sysop" Lahetta,
Robert "I believe it, so it is true" Moss, and Gary "athiests
are nuckleheads (sic)" Parsons were to make the laws.

Just how long do you think that *I* would be permitted to roam free?

The political position of the religious right is authoritarian and 
leaves no room for individual liberties.  The advocates of the position
generally reject, on principle, the idea that reason should be applied
to political questions.

I offer as evidence the cold-hearted drivel they post to this list
every day of the week.

Gary Parsons writes:
>    And atheism, you nuckleheads, is just plain wrong.

Oooh... 

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:47:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      Bosnia/Irak

Hi Linda,
        I strongly back you up in your reponse. I am absolutely sure that
OIL is a factor, more precisely it is THE factor. I am fed up to hear all
kinds of justifications on "how the two problems are different", or even
that "the Bosnian problem is an "Internal!" problem" etc..etc......
I also think that it is a shame, in fact an absolute disgust that today's
world functions that way.

-Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:17:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      i've finally figured out danny's problem

his speaking problem that is.
those of us old enough (how i hate that), think back to 1st grade (go on, try,
you can do it).

remember dick and jane readers? remember spot? see spot? see spot run? run spot
run?
think about the way danny talks....jimmy. jimmy carter. jimmy carter grain
embargo.

SAME THING, RIGHT?

he just never got over those readers.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:46:04 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "J"amie "G"
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              26 Aug 1992 15:16:55 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:16:55 -0400 Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet said:
> But in his (yes I remember) case, the G is for gibberish.
>
> Jamie,
> Do you never tire of twisting other's comments?  Admittedly, you are
> a master of the technique.  I believe you missed your calling.  You
> should have worked for the State Department.  They love guys that can

Jamie makes plenty of sense (*most* of the time), it is usually just
a matter of whether one agrees /c his position.

He wouldn't do well in the State Department, regardless of party
affiliation of the Executive Branch...the SD believes things like
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and other fun sayings...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 28 Aug 1992 17:17:00 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Love is grand

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 14:17

 >Robert might be many things, but he also seems to be an honest
 >kind of a guy.

 Pick me up at 7:30 honey.  I'll be the one in blue.

 >So you are telling us that you are against any and all abortions but
 >since a total ban is not feasible, then you are taking a relatively
 >moderate stance so that a limited ban might become a possibility, right?

 Very good.

 >You might not be "naive" enough to think that a total ban on abortion
 >is possible but you are still pretty naive if you think you can stop
 >abortion by outlawing it with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life
 >of the woman.

 No, I'm not that naive either.  No crime has ever been *stopped* by a law.

 >That I engage an intolerant (yet compassionate :-) person like you in
 >endless and fruitless discussion so that you cannot go out and be
 >the intolerant person that you are, I think is doing something
 >constructive.   What do you think?  :-)

 In this case, I held this position prior to our discussion.  But, there is
 always room for another opinion, as long as we agree that only I can be
 right.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 14:29:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:53:00 CDT Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET> said:
> >
> > >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
> > >
> > >On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:20:00 EST linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said:
> > >> i do not hold the same beliefs as you do robert. i do not believe that ab
or
> > >n
> > >> is murder. i do not believe that human life begins at conception. the evi
de
> > >I do not hold the same beliefs you do, linda.  I do not believe that
> > >raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.  The evidence is not
> > >there.
> >
>   Travis,  if you were raped, would you feel like your body had not
>   been violated? Perhaps not if you were raped by a woman. How bout
>   if you were raped by a man?
If you were aborted, would you feel (assuming you could) that you were
murdured???

-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:08:35 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      inquiring minds want to know

Robert says: "God comes first".

Does that leave you feeling unfullfilled and religiously frustrated?

THAT'S A JOKE SON! - FOGHORN LEGHORN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:21:44 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: About Buchanan

>> >Say what?  You apply the pre-1981 rate structure to current incomes,
>> >and calculate the result.  That's how you figure out the revenue changes
>> >that will be caused by changes in the tax laws.
>>
>> You can't do that if you don't have information about deductions that
>> aren't available now but were then.  Tax law does affect behavior.
>> Moreover, we don't know that people would have earned the same.  You
>> can't argue that tax preferences affect behavior while claiming that
>> tax rates don't.
>
>We were talking about what would happen if the pre-1981 tax structure
>were restored, not what would have happened if the 1981 cuts had never
>occurred (at least that's what _I_ was talking about).

The two are basically the same.  If the 81 changes hadn't happened,
people wouldn't have changed their behavior to reflect those changes.
If the pre-81 structure was restored, people would go back to their
pre-81 behavior.

>This grew out of a discussion on the predicted revenue effects of the
>Clinton tax plan.

The 90 changes (tax and spending increase) are a move from the 86
structure toward Clinton's plan.  It appears to have been a mistake.
Will more of the same do better?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:59:17 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Republicans take the High Road

From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> I heard about the imitation Elvis riding with Clinton/Gore, its called the
> 'Don't Be Fooled' bus tour.

Is it *with* Clinton/Gore or behind them?  In other words,
who is doing this, Democrats or Republicans?

> Great, great that's all we need...Sax, Gore, and Rock n' Roll.

> Sounds like the Democrats take the low road again.  How low can they go?

What "sounded" to you like that?

And what do you mean by "again".  You are not referring to
Willie Horton type activity, lying about not raising taxes,
questioning the opponents family values and patriotism, etc., are you?

> Sue Clark

--KAT praying for an answer :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU