HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:28:05 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: response to Brni

>>>>Tyrone--who said anything about business controlling your beliefs?
>>>>They can't throw you in jail--all they can do is fire you.  Don't
>>>>you think if I put my hard-earned money into owning a business
>>>>that I should be able to hire and fire whom I wish?
>>>
>>>    So they can't throw you in jail, but they can make sure you
>>>  starve to death for your beliefs.
>>
>>Really?  If I don't get the job at Sun, I'm going to starve?  I can't
>>accept the offers from SGI, HAL, IBM, McDonald's, etc?
>>
>>When is the last time someone starved because an employer didn't like
>>their beliefs?  (I can point to hundreds of thousands of people jailed
>>because "society" decided to lock them up.)
>
>ok.  lets try a hypothetical situation.

The fact that we can imagine a situation doesn't make it a reasonable
basis for public policy.

I can imagine a perpetual motion machine.

>is an extreme case, and would never happen in *this* country, but bear
>with me, i'm just making a point).

Brni forgot to tie it into reality.

>who knows.  it could even happen to alleged communists.

As I pointed out, to the extent that it actually happened, it happened
BECAUSE govt encouraged it.  A govt that encourages something obviously
isn't protecting against it.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:42:56 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Sex (was Re: ERA)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Robert:
> Sex by definition covers not only the male/female anatomy, it *ALSO*
> covers sexual acts.

Sex can be used both as a noun and a verb - in GB there is currently a
shotage of people to sex chickens.

Dunstan - enough of this frivolity
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:33:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: getting blood from a turnip

I guess you don't know, Roger, that they both work pretty hard for a
living.  I have to take my books back after work, at around midnight,
and drop them in the night suppository.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:34:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
              14 Sep 1992 12:32:59 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

macphil:

If brighter students choose to drop out of school, let them.  If they're
so smart, maybe they can take care of themselves.  Or maybe they aren't
*really* so bright after all, hmm?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:39:44 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
              11 Sep 1992 09:33:15 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

We should consider funding private schools and not private parks
because the state requires that *everyone* (for a certain period--
the Amish are exempt after a particular grade, I can't recall
which one) go to *some* school.  No one is *required* to go to
a park.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:44:16 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      real solutions for real problems

Something along the lines of the Clinton plan for increased emphesis on
trade schools is long overdue. As far as I can tell, there is no reason
that the other ticket couldn't present a similar proposal. You would
think that the education president would have thought of this four years
ago!  With millions of persons losing their jobs in car plants and other
heavy industry they have two choices; work at crap jobs or go on welfare.
It will cost some money to re-train these people but if we turn them
into taxpayers instead of burdens, it seems to me that the money would
be well spent.

I apologise to the christians on the list but george bush reminds me of
a televangelist promising you a spot in the afterlife in exchange for
your vote. How many middle class americans can afford a 2,500 a plate
dinner? If your wallet isn't thick you don't have a spot on his agenda.
His employment plan seems much too reactive, attempting to protect a
few jobs in select industries such as logging, oil, and weapons. This
does not seem like a focused plan for national employment. I would like
to see more specifics on trade policies as well.

I have a hard time believing that we cannot have spotted owls and the
timber industry at the same time. I am very afraid that if bush is
re-elected the next step will be to remove park designations for vast
tracks of land in alaska and open them up to the timber and oil
industries. This would be a tremendous mistake with irreversible
consequences for the wildlife in this area. It would be more efficient
to improve methods for farming forests that are already under cultivation.

fred
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:43:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ERA

> Well, you better get a letter off to Roget's Thesaurus, they don't seem to
> know.  "Gender" is the first alternative for "sex" in their handy little
> reference.

     Thesauruses do NOT give meanings to words -- they give alternate
  words which are similar, but not exactly the same.

> My other handy little reference, it's called a dictionary, defines gender as
> classification into masculine, feminine and neuter. Gosh, this sounds like
> it could mean differences in anatomy.  Along with this same general definition
   ,
> the word sex also contains *activities*, thus the potential for use/misuse
> of the term in the amendment.

       Masculine, feminine, and neuter do not refer to parts.  They refer
    to, in humans, personality traits, and as was stated in the post I
    just read before this, we all have both feminine and masculine traits
    (even you).  Now, I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean we're all equipped
    with the plumbing of both sexes.
        Of course, if we are, it doesn't matter what bathroom we use.

> The use of the term *gender* would have removed the implied endorsement of
> perverted sex acts.  That's why they refused!  The largest amount of support
> for the ERA came from the homosexual community.  I wonder why?

      I guess some people need to corrupt the language just to
    find things to complain about.

> ---Robert

--G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:13:51 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      re: An easy answer to a little question

 >From Json ( I think )
 >.................However, I know
 >of no one who thinks that because they engage in an immoral activity, gays
 >should therefore be denied the same rights which everyone else enjoys.

 >>From Jason Zimmerman ( I think )
 >>really?  open your eyes.  robertsprg is posting all the time.
 >>and , like it or not, he represents the mainstream of america.

 I believe a delineation of what you (you all) are calling rights would serve
 to make the above exchange more meaningful.  Personally, I wouldn't consider
 adoption or employment to be rights, rather privileges.  Privileges are
 earned in some fashion and are therefore subject to qualification.  Rights
 will continue to exist in the absence of morality, whereas privileges may
 not.

 If morality is a general qualification for a given privilege, then there is
 nothing inherently wrong with denying homosexuals said privilege.  This is
 not illegal or unconstitutional.  If we decide to remove moral qualifiers
 from the adoption process, then of course homosexuals will not be the only
 beneficiaries.  We can look forward to allowing adoptions into homes run by
 known pimps, thieves, drug addicts and rapists.  Gosh, if we open it up just
 a little more, even Democrats will be able to adopt!

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:00:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Virtue of Rationality

That's why I said that.  It sounded to me like he was telling us all that
in his great sense of modesty, he was going to talk things over and settle
them with the person who had offended.  Perhaps I am wrong.  His halo was
so bright it set fire to his Pilgrim hat, and the smoke sort of got to me.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:33:44 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>If you force the Nazi to deal with people he doesn't like, you have to
>force other people to deal with the Nazi.
>
>        the nazi shop owner can't disallow people he doesn't like
>        from shopping in his store.  i can't disallow the nazi from
>        shopping in my store.

Fine.

>        but i don't have to go to his store,

Why not?  We're going to force the Nazi store owner to buy from a
Jewish supplier.  Why aren't we going to force the Jewish store owner
to buy from the Nazi supplier?  Why do consumers get exempted?

It's "evil discrimination" when a Nazi does it, but "an ethical and
righteous boycott" when "good" people do it.  That's an interesting
set of principles for people who claim that they don't believe in
discrimination on the basis of political beliefs.

Note that we can place requirements on govt that we don't place on
"the rest of us", but we've got to be careful to avoid using the
"you've got a govt contract, therefore" club.

-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, 10 Sep 1992 11:26:42 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

 *** Resending note of 09/09/92 17:32

 >       Ahhhh, it's the old "hate the sin,, not the sinner" approach.

 That's right.

 >    So, do you wish to have your friend's rights to be taken away?
 >    If someone beat him while he was walking through a park solely
 >    because he was homosexual, how would you feel.
 >GRACZ1

 I still haven't seen anyone advocating taking rights away from homosexuals.
 Have you?  If not, why do you keep bringing it up, just to confuse the
 issue perhaps?

 If you took the time to read beyond the word *immoral* in any of my posts
 concerning homosexuals, you would know better than to ask such a stupid
 question.  Again, I haven't seen this advocated either.  So just why did
 you suggest it?  Is it sooooooooooo difficult for you to understand that
 certain behaviors are perverted but that the perpetrators may not be
 beyond help?

 ---Robert
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:35:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>G. Racz:
>
>Where do you think the Greeks got it?
>
>--Missy P 2 B

       Hmmmm....    Seems to me the form of the tragedy
    in literature would predate 2000 "B. C.".  Any experts
    in the field of literature around who can figure this out
     for us?
         --G. Racz
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:45:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Robert, I notice that you say "Christ-centered" rather than "God-centered".

Chris Morrison
From: CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (VALENTINE M. SMITH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Private versus public schools ...
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:25:45 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>Date: 11 Sep 1992 10:42:33 -0500 (EST)
>From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>Subject: RE: read my lips: I have family values

>Kerry:

>Oh, yeah.  One more thing.  Children who attend private schools
>average 100 points higher on the SATs than those who attend public
>schools.  And they do so at 1/3 the cost on a per-pupil basis.

>--Missy P 2 B

This is a rather unsubstantiated assertion. Cite us some facts here,
like from what source did you get this information. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:42:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
              11 Sep 1992 09:33:15 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

Oh, yeah.  One more thing.  Children who attend private schools
average 100 points higher on the SATs than those who attend public
schools.  And they do so at 1/3 the cost on a per-pupil basis.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:51:43 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Pennies From Heaven

> >To Robert:  (from Roger)
> >In all seriousness, if we DID give 1/4 of a cent to put the Bible in the
> >classroom, who's doctrine would we follow?
> >
> >    Would we allow discussion of the Virgin Mary?
> >    Would the Mormon view of taking more than 1 bride be taught?
> >    Would we allow healings?
> >    Could we have a tele-conference with Jim Bakker?
> >
> >Please help.  I just don't understand!

> It's odd that you would be concerned about *whose* doctrine we would follow.
> Do/did you have those same concerns about the alleged pieces of art?  Why are
> you placing a restriction on the Bible usage that does not apply to the
> trash labeled as art?  Isn't it funny how liberals twist the rules when they
> start to lose?
>
> ---Robert

Isn't it funny how Robert never answers the question?
                                                           ---roger
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:30:00 EDT
From:         Domestic goddess <GU091AED@ITHACA.BITNET>
Subject:      Greetings and some thoughts on queers

Hello all,
I was on this list last spring, and have just resubscribed.  Many of the people
I was talking to before are gone (Come back to the five and dime, Jay Steven
Sultan, Jay Steven Sultan) but it appears that they have been replaced with
an equally good crop of folks.
Ok, I have been reading the stuff on gay rights, and i have this to say:
Homosexuality is not a choice.  Acting on homosexual desires is.
I was certainly gay long before I did anything about it.
Since studies are never done on lesbian brains, I have no idea what the deal
is with my hypothalmus or testosterone levels.  I just know that ever since I
knew what sex was, I've been attracted to women.
I am not an immoral person.  I am kind to animals, I bathe often, I pay my bills
   I eat 3 square meals a day, I pay my stereo softly as to avoid disturbing my
neighbors, and I never play with matches.  I even turn the lights out when I
leave the room.  I am a good student, a conscientious citizen and a good
daughter and sister.
My description of immorality is someone who does bad things, like poisoning
apples, or raising veal, or being a slumlord.
I certainly don't do any of those things, but if I DID, it wouldn't be because
I'm GAY, for heaven's sake!  I certainly know immoral gay people, but I also
know immoral straight people.
As for the bible, yes, it has endured for many centuries.  Yes, it contains
some neat stories and some pretty words, but it isn't the authority on life
and morality simply because it's old and a lot of people believe it is.
There are a lot of ridiculous notions in the bible as well, that we don't try
to incorporate into our lives (such as dietary laws, for those who are gentile).
   Why should our entire country be forced to comply with a "morality" set up by
people who believe that one book is the be all and end all.  Separation of
church and state still exists, and I intend to see that it continues to.

*Sigh*
Well, I have a lot more I could say, but since I'm sitting here with what
could turn out to be the chicken pox, my ideas are rapidly losing coherence.
I'm going to go try not to scratch now...

peace,
amy

ps. As you can see, I'm also from ithaca.  They must put something in the water!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:23:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

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.

Chris Morrison
CMorriso@SNYESCVA.bitnet
PS-- Peer review isn't better than the marketplace, it's just a counter-
balance to the marketplace.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:27:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Virtue of Rationality

There should be something about not allowing people to wear Pilgrim suits
on this list.  Now Jimbo's wearing one.  I'm going to write Travis a private
letter now."  ("I will do my best to enlighten his soul").

Chris Morrison
:)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:39:56 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      French & EC

 Just wondering, what's the current prognosis on the French EC vote?
 Last I heard, the "No" side had the advantage.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
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, 6 Sep 1992 18:34:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bosnia conflict

In article <tfilt317490@drew.edu>, Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes
   :
>
> 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
>

my 2 cents on the subject, do with it what you will

   The idea that the US is somewhow more charitable and idealistic
than China and the Soviet Union may seem a tad naive, but there's
something to it.  Besides this, is the fact that the U.N. needs
funding, and being one of the richer countries of the world with the
idea we should be kind to others (isn't that what a Christian Nation
does?  what's the point of all this talk of prayer in school etc. if
we don't act like Christians?), so we have the motive and opportunity
to do much for relief in Bosnia and Somalia.
    ON the subject of realpolitik, as many much more capable in
foreign affairs can tell you, there is cause for our involvement.
The Bosnia conflict comes at a time when large parts of
Central Europe and the former Soviet Union is having similar conflicts
and ethnic problems.  A worldwide effort (Western Europe should have a
big part in this) in dealing with this crisis will serve as a model or
practice run in dealing with other conflicts that add up to a big
problem in a major part of the world.  Western Europe especially has a
refugee problem leading to Nazi like groups in places like Germany
rising up.  Czechoslovakia is at a fragile point where it might very
well break apart with Havel voted out.  Such conflicts will be a major
concern in the post-cold war era with the world changing shape
greatly. The possiblity of world markets alone in the problematic
areas warrants us to have concern that they don't collapse.  Finally,
international law protects sovereign nations and isn't that the reason
Saddam Husseins can't go into places at will?  I'll let others debate
the particulars, but there is surely reason for the US to be concerned
about Bosnia.

            -Joe
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Interest Rates
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:45:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

There was a recent book review in the NYT that said business school was
usually a combination of big words and little ideas.

Chris Morrison
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 16:14:16 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:54:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
>                                                               The 15th
>does that.  So, the states can still prohibit voting for a variety of
>reasons.


The two most common being homelessness and convicted felons?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
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, 8 Sep 1992 17:23:57 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      let's rephrase the question

Instead of me explaining why homosexual partnerships should have the same
legal standing as heterosexual partnerships, why doesn't someone explain to
me why heterosexual partnerships get those legal benefits in the first
place.  That is, what compelling state interest is promoted by things like
special tax filing categories, spousal job benefits, etc.?  What is the
overall purpose of providing these benefits?

Remember that the legal benefits of a state-sanctioned marriage are gained
after meeting whatever state requirements pertain (like blood tests,
paperwork, etc. -- these vary from one state to the next).  They are not
predicated on the quality of the partnership, the degree of sexual fidelity
of the partners, the presence of kids, the proper parenting of kids, or
even love.  At least, not in the states in which I've been married :)

Kerry
(welcome back, Derrick!!!!!)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU