HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:51:35 PST
From:         John Wical <UNCJWI@LLUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ?: Financing the gov't via taxation

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:08:11 EDT Jamie said:
>
>Candidate Clinton's acceptance speech nor read his 22 page economic plan.

Where can I get a copy of Clinton's economic plan?

John
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, 24 Jul 1992 15:11:18 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: A response to "Another Gulf War"

j.b.
>It is the accepted opinion in the military circles that
>a government should never stop fighting a war until its
>political objectives are accomplished.  This is what we
>did.  The two objectives were to free Kuwait and remove
>Hussein from power.

Removing Hussein from power may have been one of Bush's motives, but it was
not one of the U.N.-sanctioned objectives (am I remembering this right,
everyone?).

>From what I've heard and recall, it was a political
>decision to stop the war before completing the objectives.

As I recall, this interpretation depends on whom you ask.  If you ask those
who didn't mind the U.S. exceeding its mandate from the U.N., they'll say
we chickened out (possibly because all those nasty war-protestors would
scream too loudly).  If you ask others, they'll say we stopped when the
objectives stated by the U.N. were met -- no more, no less.  If you ask
Bush, who knows what he'll say :)  Seriously, what I remember of his "war"
rhetoric was awfully confusing -- we were fighting to free Kuwait, we were
just doing our part in a coalition effort that wasn't of our making (it was
the U.N.'s doing), we were fighting to take out Hussein.  But we weren't
fighting for oil -- just remember that :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:14:59 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

Hello everyone,

KAT:
Concerning the agreed consent that if the fetus is a human being and a person,
and an assaulter attacked the pregnant woman causing her to lose her
child.

1) If the woman was also killed, would the assailant be charged with a
'double' manslaughter charge?

2) If it is premeditated, would it then be considered a 'double murder'?

I know that this steers a bit away from the original content of the question,
but I was curious if such a charge were enacted, would such a charge be held
up in court?

Sue Clark
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 09:30:49 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

>Bringing the child to term is not a punishment in the legal sense.
>If you feel it is a "punishment" then, quite frankly, tough--it's the
>right thing to do.

Although it may not be punishment in the legal sense, it may result in
punishment in the physical, social, and economic senses.  But let's say I
do the right thing and bring the child to term.  I did the right thing.
Now what are you going to do in return?  Pay for my prenatal care?  Pay for
delivery and childbirth?  Help me obtain a good education and find and keep
a decent job so I don't need welfare?  Work to ensure that I'll have access
to decent and affordable daycare so I can work?

If you don't want to help with those things, then quite frankly, tough --
they're the right things to do also :)


        these are the right things to do.  the problem is convincing the
        rest of the country that this is the case.  to do this, we need
        government leaders who are more willing to look at this issue
        fairly and not under the old mindset of the cold war.

        -j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:39:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:22:13 -0500
From: Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention
>
>If men must share legal responsibility after a child is born, why can't
>he share legal responsibility before?  Why is the right to abort purely
>the woman's perogative?
>
>For record, I am not pro-choice.  Everyone should be given a chance to
>live.  That is the way I see the issue.  I couldn't speak with a woman
>who chose to abort my child.  I would share responsibility in raising
>as is my right and duty, I couldn't accept losing a child that is as
>much mine as hers.

        What you seem to be advocating is a requirement for spousal consent for
abortion.  As the list's owner of Barrett and Cohen, let me explain why the
Supreme Court struck down such regulation.

        In _Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth_ (1976), the
Court found by a 6-3 majority that the requirement of spousal consent for
abortion was invalid.  In the opinion, Blackmun focused on two arguments.
First, _Roe v. Wade_ had ruled that the State government did not have the power
to proscribe abortions in the first twelve weeks.  Whatever power the State
itself does not possess, it cannot delegate to another agent (in this case,
the spouse).  Second, in the case of any disagreement between the wife and the
husband, only one of the two partners can prevail.  "Since it is the woman who
physically bears the child and who is more directly and immediately affected by
the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor."

        White, joined by CJ Burger and Rehnquist, dissented, citing that
Missouri also had a law which prevented a woman from putting a child up for
adoption over her husband's objection.  "This law represents a judgment by the
State that the mother's interest in avoiding the burdens of child rearing do
not outweigh or snuff out the father's interest in participating in bringing up
his own child."

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
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:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:39:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: N-tickets

Missy J:
>I accept your nomination, but I will be forced to step down from the
>Supreme Court, in order to serve in another capacity.  And I will
>have to change my signature line.  I would take either spot, but
>would leave it up to the people, as the Founders originally intended.
>If Kerry K. accepts as well, I will consult with her and submit an
>official acceptance speech.  Until then I remain,

It would be an honor and a privilege to serve with you :)  But I thought up
a couple other tickets we'd have to beat:
       #3:  Peter SchledorN and Lorin KusmiN
       #4:  Anneliese LorsoN and Jay SultaN

I dunno -- I think the four tickets would *really* give the American people
some choices!

Kerry
From: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET (Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Wichita (AP)
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:30:09 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


 A state judge freed an abortion clinic protester, agreeing with her
 that life begins with conception.  "She was trying to prevent a
 greater harm".
 ----------
 Mark this down as a proud day for justice.  Congratulations to Sedgwick
 County District Judge Paul W. Clark!

 ---Robert
 "Wages are an equal exchange of time for money, while income
 requires profit.  Therefore, wages should be free from
 taxation." --- Anony Moss
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, 23 Jul 1992 20:16:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new CNN polls

From: Ben Delisle <delisle@ESKIMO.CELESTIAL.COM>
>> From today's CNN/USA Today poll of registered voters:
>> 49% for Clinton
>> 28% for Bush
>> 20% undecided
>> 2% for Perot.
>       20% undeciced? I doubt that, I beleive that they are
>skewing their data and saying that people are ``undecided'' when
>they are really voicing their stand for an alternative or third
>party such as the Libertarians.

Hey, I just reports' em.  I'd like to see some numbers that include
Marrou as well.  Unfortnately, none seems to be forthcoming...

>It makes little sense to me that
>so much coverage was goven to H. R. Perot when he was on the ballot
>in states numbering in the 20's; while someone like A. Marrou is
>on the ballots of states numbering in the 40's.

If it made sense, it wouldn't be politics...:)

> | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |    Nothing is fool proof,

Gary W. Olson                 "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
well you know you can't stop   Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
it when they start to play,    or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
you gotta get outta the way...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:33:03 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
              22 Jul 1992 16:46:43 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Kat:

I think my list would go something like:

1) Kemp
2) Bennett (sp?--rather ironic, I admit, but I don't want to be "Quayled"
            by the rest of the list)
3) Buchanan
4) Powell
5) Cheney
6) Quayle

My ideal ticket would be Kemp/Bennett, and Bush would be some kind of
undersecretary of state (like Elliot Abrams) (Bush hasn't done that
yet, has he?  We're running out of new positions for him!)

BTW, has anyone else been hearing rumors that Bush's health may *force*
him to step down?  (Christopher Hitchens said on CNBC last week
that it was common knowledge in DC).

                                    --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:35:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: libertarians

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RE: libertarians


On Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:06:00 EST the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said
:
> mj:
>
> one thing that concerned me was that you basically said that the
> government should turn social concerns over to the individuals and
> the states, and not involve itself.  i am concerned that the states
> often will become overly intrusive in social concerns, which, imho,
> is generally something that the states should remain as neutral
> as possible on as well, leaving open the widest possible range of
> personal freedoms.  this means that the fed. govt. needs to keep
> the state govts. from becoming intrusive, a position that travis is
> bound to scream bloody murder about, but then, i'm not a state's rights
> person, and he is.  so its not completely clearcut.
>
> brni

And I suppose you think it is the Federal government's duty to make
sure that Ireland doesn't become intrusive too??
Our constitution grants liberty, not Libertarianism.
-Travis

******************************

yes.  i think that the federal government should not allow Ireland to
impose it's laws in our country.  do you have a problem with this?

actually, i am surprised that none of our virtual candidates have mentioned
this.  is it possible that they are all Irish agents?

brni
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: capital punishment/abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:41:29 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Robert writes:
>  If
>  there is any such thing as *innocence*, surely an unborn child would be its
>  purest manifestation.

Please excuse my theological inquiry about a theological statement, but if
Xians still believe in "Original Sin," when does it begin--at conception or at
birth?  Or is that just Catholics?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lobotomies for Republicans--IT'S THE LAW!         |      Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:12:08 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: button your fly
              28 Jul 1992 22:12:07 GMT from <holzman@FNALNO.FNAL.GOV>

Hi All:

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of amusing that the national
gay rights organization (sorry, the name escapes me at the moment) is
calling for a boycott of the United Way for its support of the Boy
Scouts at the same time that the National Right to Life Committee
is already boycotting the United Way for its support of Planned
Parenthood?

Could this be termed the strangest of "strange bedfellows?"

                               ---Missy "Candidate for President" Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:14:35 EDT
From:         Mike Fessler <MIKEF@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

>You are incorrect.  Quayle is right.  If a D & C is done *immediately*
>after a rape (key word: immediately), there is almost no chance that
>conception has taken place, if the D & C is done within 72 hours of
>intercourse.  Sperm and egg do *not* meet instantaneously.  It takes
>a *little* time.

That's not true. Fertilization itself takes place rather quickly, if the
woman has ovulated at the right time. Sperm are capable of staying alive
in the female body for a few days, though, so intercourse slightly before
ovulation can still lead to fertilization.

A D&C has *nothing* to do with preventing fertilization, however! It prevents
the zygote from implanting in the uterine lining, or (more likely, since
implantation generally occurs within 24 hours of fertilization) acts as a
method of early abortion. If you truly believe that human life is sacred
from the point of fertilization, Kerry, then a D&C prior to
implantation is just as much a murderous act as using RU-486 eight weeks
later.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:45:00 EDT
From:         BAFEI@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      Another quote to munch on

>From TFTD-L:
>
>                     When a government project is described
>                     as 'imaginative', you know it is going
>                     to be almost as expensive as those that
>                     are called 'bold'.
>
>                                        -Bill Vaughn, NANA
>

Regards,

Brett
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:26:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pavlov's dog vs. schrodinger's cat

i know this isn't very high-brow, but after interval t and also after the toxic
gas dissipated, i would just go in and check the cat out...you know if i picked
it up and dropped it and it landed on all 4's like a good cat and then took off
for the hills, well i'd say, yup, that cat's kicking. but if it just landed with
all 4's pointin up and stayed in that position awhile i'd say, yup, deader'n
a door nail.

-linda (who has no grasp of quantum mechanics at all...and i used to think the
people in the psych dept. were weird :))
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:30:39 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

Travis, Linda, and Kerry:

I would agree with all of you if the question was about supporting
the daughter rather than supporting the daughter's decision.
However, in my opinion the context of the statement implied
that Dan Quayle would support his daughter's DECISION to have
an abortion.  Let me explain my reasoning.

The question wasn't "what would you do if you found out your
daughter had already had an abortion."  The answer to that question
would be: "I would support my daughter."  I respect that answer and
accept it myself.  If my daughter is convicted of murder and if
she is sorry about it, *I* would accept her and would support
her though not her action.

However, if my daughter comes to me and says "Dad, I am going
to go out and shoot someone random in the freeway" my answer
would NOT be "I'll counsel her against her but support her no
matter what her decision."   I think Dan Quayle answer should have
been: "I would be very unhappy, I would block her way, I would
call her a murderer, I would show her aborted fetuses, I would
even threat her with disowning and dropping her from my will, etc.
In short I would do anything (legal) in my power to stop her.
However if she goes with that decision, I would support HER
afterwards."

You see the difference?  In one the action is done and in the
other the action is contemplated.

Now, I wish I had the exact transcript.  Till then you can
believe or not believe me.

Also, the way Quayle gave his calculated cold-blooded answer
was no indiction that we were talking about "murder."

I still maintain that Quayle was hypocritical in his answer.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:26:46 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pavlov's dog vs. schrodinger's cat
              27 Jul 1992 12:08:46 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

MacPhil,
  This, unlike the campaigns that have gone on before, is a civilized
campaign.  There will, I hope, be no mudslinging.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:15:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

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.

you hear 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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:37:26 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS

>From:         Sean Mills <ST4226@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
>
>FROM: Sean Mills
>
>I have a suggestion as how to reduce the number of AIDS cases that exist at
>this time.
>
>(1) Avoid premarital sex
>(2) Avoid adultery
>

Brilliant. But how do lesbians and gay men fit into this? or do they
not count?  Since neither group can get legally married....
                                        ~~~~~~~
jcs who believes that people will never practice abstinence, so
    education is the next best thing.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:36:36 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pavlov's dog vs. schrodinger's cat

Gary Olson says:

>Consider the paradox of Schrodinger's Cat.  A cat is in a locked room where
>it will be killed eventually by a poison gas pellet activated by a quantum
>decay process.  After an interval, t, is the cat dead or alive?  The
>theoretical physicist cannot go into a laboratory and try this experiment
>(which only gives the result in one case, anyway).  He calculates, by
>quantum mechanics, what has happened after interval t.  He finds that the
>equation yields a minimum of two solutions.  One shows that the cat is
>alive after interval t, the other shows the cat is dead as a doornail.
>Both solutions are accurate.  So is the cat alive or dead, according to
>boolean/geometric logic?

And his running mate looks frantically for the power switch to turn off
the microphone.

The Spin Handlers rush on stage, grab the big swede and drag him behind
the curtain.  Muted sounds of a struggle, then Tim comes on stage,
straightening his coat and tie.

"What my running mate meant to say was not that at all.  What he meant
to say was that while the solution to the Schroedinger Equation involves
a superposition of states which include "live cat" and "dead cat," it
is *not* true that the cat is both alive and dead.  It is one or the
other - but the current formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide
a way to reduce the wave function to the single observed state.  He's not
really sure what this had to do with boolean logic, but he felt it was
important to clarify exactly what he meant, to demonstrate that he did
have a proper grasp of quantum mechanics and the meaning of Schroedinger's
Cat.  I'm sure when he recovers from his mild flu, he'll be willing to
clarify this for you himself.  Thank you.  Goodnight."


                   -Tim
                    c/o Other Tim
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 23:28:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: obfuscation elimination

J.B. obfuscates:

>I would like to warn you, that when C.S. Lewis attempted
>to prove the non-existence of God, he actually proved his
>existence (-actually the existence of the Christian God
>and his son, Jesus Christ-).  At that point, Lewis
>converted and became a prolific Christian writer.

This reminds me of the following 'proof' of the non-existance
of God from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."  The
Book was describing the Babel Fish, an enormously useful creature
that you stuck in your ear, whereupon it would translate any language
into your own language for you to understand...:

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-
bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
non-existance of God.

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,'
says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?  It could
not have evolved by chance.  It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't.  QED.

"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in
a puff of logic.

"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black
is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing."

>-j.b.

Gary W. Olson                 "I thought that I saw God,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   but I lost him in the crowd..."
                               - Chainsaw Kittens, "Never to Be Found"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU