HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 28 Jul 1992 09:02:12 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Questions, questions

If I may, allow me to raise a couple of questions on
abortion.  Anyone please tell me why I'm wrong, if you
believe me to be so.

1)  Not-withstanding any Supreme Court action, legislative
    action, etc., shouldn't the mother bear the burden of
    proof in explaining why the child is not a living
    person entitled to all rights under the Constitution?
    It is she after all who wishes to abridge those
    rights by terminating the pregnancy and thus take
    away the right and liberty of life.

2)  Why is abortion the explosive issue it is in the US,
    when it is not so in other developed countries?  Why
    is it that the US worries more about this issue
    than about race relations and minorities?

3)  Why is it that a mother has the right to determine how
    her body is used by a child, but not how it is used
    by a grown adult?  Why couldn't she have said no to
    the sex and not no to the child?  When will people in
    American society start taking responsibility for their
    actions rather than trying to find the easy way out?

    I am not advocating outlawing sex outside of marriage,
    but women should be aware that having sex brings up the
    possibility of having a child.  Consequently people
    should not have sex without being willing to handle a
    child.  What is so hard about this?

-j.b.
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, 31 Jul 1992 10:41:19 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: can the disabilities act be extended to cover foreign policy?

Also, isn't this called imperialism?  something which even our
government condemns?

Just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it should
continue.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:36:07 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              24 Jul 1992 15:56:57 BST from <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO. UK>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:56:57 BST Dunstan_Vavasour said:
>"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
                                                       or the one
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:33:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      magazine stuff

>So just what is keeping those advertisers & publishers in business?  They
>can't live on ideals alone.  Someone is purchasing goods somewhere to keep
>them afloat and believing in their principles.

well, there are always those, who's perception of themselves, being less than
ideal, will fall for all the junk out there, thinking it will help them
attain perfection. the good 'ol quick fix.

of course, those of you who support the E-ticket, know better. and we will
help you to achieve your own personal idEal.

you can depend on us.

linda suE saboE
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 08:47:38 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't...

Missy J:
>BTW, as I recall, the much vaunted "luxury tax" only served to run
>the luxury item maker out of business, and put those of the working
>class who manufactured the items out of work.  If you want to tax
>something that will generate revenue, you have to pick something that
>large numbers of people can't just stop buying.  (Food would seem to
>be the most likely candidate, but no one would suggest that.  However,
>it would seem likely--to me, anyway--that a small tax on food items
>would generate very large amounts of revenue, given that there are no
>members of the population who would be able to simply avoid buying it
>for very long.  I suppose the rich would find some way of generating
>their own personal food, but since the rich are a miniscule portion of
>the population, perhaps those who could not--or who chose not to go
>to the trouble--would more than make up the difference.)

Our "read my lips, no new taxes" governor raised $400 million in new taxes
his first week in office.  Part of that increase came from a fairly small
food tax (I don't remember what the rate was, but it didn't make much of a
difference in my grocery budget).  Because it's a state tax, it had some
interesting consequences for small stores (and maybe even some of the
larger chains, although I'm less sure of that) located near the borders of
Kentucky and Ohio.  Shoppers in those areas simply started patronizing
stores across the state lines, driving some of the Mom & Pop groceries out
of business.

Of course, a federal tax would not have this problem.  But I'd guess that
adding a federal food tax on top of existing state food taxes would start
to hurt lower-income folks.

Just some thoughts :)

Kerry
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 16:42:02 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Help! ! ! ! !

I have a weekly column in my college paper for which I write 6 page
essays on a variety of topics.

Next year, I intend to focus on national issues and topics local to
our campus.

Can anyone suggest a name for my column?  I have to come up with something
that is provocative.

If you have any ideas, you can send them to me directly to avoid overloading
everyone's mail with things that have no relevance to them.

Thanks a billion.

-j.b.
From: dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK (Dunstan_Vavasour)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Financing the gov't...
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:37:17 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.edu

[stuff deleted]
Missy:
>BTW, as I recall, the much vaunted "luxury tax" only served to run
>the luxury item maker out of business, and put those of the working
>class who manufactured the items out of work.  If you want to tax
>something that will generate revenue, you have to pick something that
>large numbers of people can't just stop buying.  (Food would seem to

The safest bets are tobacco, petrol (gasoline) and alcohol. If petrol
was taxed in the US as heavily as it is in Europe, it would take a big
chunk out of your deficit. All three items are notionally
discretionary spending, but in practice they are the least price
responsive items.

Dunstan - Who's trying to keep all his posts down to one 24 line screenful.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:23:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>>Remember, though, that the U.S. has a structural deficit, which means that
>>even if we grew to full-employment GNP, our tax
>>revenues would still not match expenditures.  Thus, while growth can CUT the
>>deficit, it cannot ELIMINATE it.

>That depends on the productivity of labor. If wages grew, full employment
>could eliminate the defecit even without tax hikes.

True, since an increase in labor productivity translates to a higher
full-employment GNP.

>In any case, the point is not really relevant to what I was saying,
>because (a) Clinton DOES have a plan to cut spending, (b) Clinton
>DOES propose to raise SOME taxes, and (c) Clinton does not foresee
>eliminating the deficit.

Also true.  While Clinton does not forsee eliminating the deficit, many people
(myself included) want to see the deficit eventually eliminated.  In fact, the
gov't will sooner or later have to run large budget surpluses to reduce the
national debt (if it wants to do so).  And in my experience, a lot of otherwise
intelligent people, who are concerned about the national debt, don't realize
that cutting the deficit can still cause the national debt to rise.

>Why would you be puzzled that Clinton has a different standard of
>fairness from yours? I certainly would have predicted that he would!

I suppose you're right again.  If Clinton had agreed with me, I would certainly
have had to reconsider my position. :)

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:56:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd
              26 Jul 1992 09:55:40 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

    KAT and Travis engage in a spirited interaction:

>> 2. What was anita hill's motive for lying?

> Doesn't she get tens of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements???

You mean alleged or possible motive, right?  Anyway, do you
recall what you just wrote in another post about truth and the
whole truth?  Well Thomas also had alleged or possible motives
for lying.

      So what?  Thomas didn't make the accusation; Hill did.  Certainly,
      his motive would be self-defense if he were lying; that is self-
      evident.  But the burden of proof rests on the accuser.  Therefore,
      her motive for making the accusation must be definitionally more
      suspect than his for defending himself.

                                         --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:23:12 EDT
From:         Mike Fessler <MIKEF@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jails and GE

>The question  was asked, 'Why aren't people going to jail?'  The police
>are so busy with anti-sodomy laws that genuine criminals are not going
>to jail.
>
>Entrapment?  What is the difference between using police male/female to
>bring prostitutes to jail as well as gay men?

The scenario Julie presented, if accurate, went far beyond the acceptable
legal boundaries. Entrapment, as I understand it, is defined as a law
enforcement official convincing or persuading someone to commit a crime that
s/he would not otherwise have committed. For example, in enforcement of laws
against soliciting (for prostitution), the putative prostitute must both
be the one to propose sexual activity and the one to mention payment. In
Julie's example, the officer not only solicited the accused for sexual
activity, but was the one to suggest the criminal action.

>should it not apply to the other?  If a community has an anti-sodomy or
>an anti-prostitute law, it has to be enforced, and most local business
>people would certainly agree with the enforcement of the law.

Just a quick question -- what have the opinions of local business people
got to do with it? Since when are they the arbiters of public morality?

>When a
>community decides to overturn such a law, then they will, but in the mean
>time if it is in the books such a law has to be carried out.

This argument has been made on this list in the past (notably by Jacob
Levy), but I'll make it again. There are some categories of criminal offenses
under the law that are a) victimless (in the strict sense. Being offended
by the presence of homosexuality does not make you a victim of it.) and
b) impossible to adequately enforce without substantially compromising
Constitutionally protected civil liberties. If a "crime" under the law meets
both of these criteria, in my view it should not be a crime on the books.
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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:04:07 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

Dear list members:

>Folks, I think Kerry should dump Kerry and look for a new running
>mate.  :-)

I wish to state, for the record, that we have no intention of dumping each
other.  One of the (many) strengths of our ticket is our demonstrated
ability to offer rational debate as the genuine foundation for sound
consensus-building.

Kerry
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: ratings for tv
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:42:45 GMT
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

>>I think that children at an impressionable age are far more likely to
>>be exposed to sex and violence on televison as opposed to the theatre.
>>Any guesses as to why we don't have a ratings system for television?

        true.  children aren't likely to go to theater productions,
        and especially not opera.

        because tv is already censored heavily, so that most of the sex
        is subliminal or abstract, and so that the bad violence is always
        done by bad guys and the good violence is always done by good
        guys (aka Hunter).

>>We don't see many ads for "watch tonight as the beverly hills teenagers
>>just say no to sex and drugs".

        the current trend in tv is toward realism ("Real Cops Kill Evil
        Drug Dealers in Your Neighborhood" and the like) as opposed to
        fantasy ("Beauty and the Beast," "Teenagers Say No," etc.)

        brni

I think that the "realism" tv and film has done more creating
reality than the reality has influenced the tv and films portrayal
of reality.

The reality we see on television right now didn't once exist.  Of this
I am certain, because the games and play that I experienced is nowhere
near as violent as that of the children who are playing right now.
To my recollection, violence wasn't nearly as accessible to children
just ten years ago when I was playing my less-violent games.  True
that doesn't prove cause and effect, but I think that it does say
a good deal.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:08:46 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pavlov's dog vs. schrodinger's cat
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              27 Jul 1992 12:08:05 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:08:05 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>Fellow listees:
>Our distinguished opponents have offered the following:

>>  The question of the superposition of states (the so-called "state's
>>rights" issue) is one of obvious importance to the very foundation of
>>this nation.  No candidate unprepared to address this issue can hope
>>to keep the nation strong.

>Perceptive readers will immediately take note that Messrs. JohnsoN and
>OlsoN were not willing to explain the relevance of their concern for this
>issue until we challenged them to do so.  The statement above is a tacit
>acknowledgement that our position is, in fact, concordant with that held by
>all informed virtual voters.

You should dig through the POLITICS archives and I think you'll find
all the explanation necessary.  One should check on the keywords
"CIVIL WAR" (aka "WAR BETWEEN THE STATES"), etc. and that should
help solidify the position on increasing the power of state rights.

P.S.

I'm rather surprised the archives & previous comments haven't been used
for mud raking in this virtual campaign.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:47:09 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              27 Jul 1992 10:18:05 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:18:05 EDT <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:

>POLITICS was a better list /c Jay and /s MacPhil.  Just kidding!

Hence the inspiration for books such as
_101 Uses for a Dead KAT_

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:29:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: More on olympics

> >Your tax dollars at (not much) work....
>
> Nope, this is part of the wonder of "Privatization," can't you just wait
> till they privatize the school system?

Yes, our beloved Postal Service was one of the first big experiments
in privatization.  I remember that it wasn't all that popular when it
was first being discussed, either.  Its behavior since (substituting
advertising for service and pushing costs on to their employees) has
been typical.  Of course, they'll always do it better the next time,
or the time after that, or . . .

Best,
Peter  (running a dignified campaign for jobs and against mistreatment
of working people)

> >                                       --Missy Prez 2 B
>
> -other aNdY - cynic at large
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:41:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: if A then B

On Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:11:00 EDT "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
 said:
> From: Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
> >If 2+2=26, then 3+3=90.
> >Prove the above statement false.
>
> Very well.  If 2+2=36, it can logically be surmised that 4=36.  In order for
> such a statement to be true, which is the assumption that must be made in
> order to verify the second statement, it is logical to assume that the units
> being compared are not the same.  While, on the right, 1=one unit, on the
> left, 1=nine units, or one scad.
>
> Now let's look at the second statement.  3+3=90 is a falsehood.  6 scads
> (3 scads + 3 scads) are equal to 54 units, not 90 units.  Thus, your statement
> is proven false.  QED.
>
> Now, prove that my 'proof' is a load of crapola.
Well, first of all, the statement is true, as any knowledgeable high
school geometry teacher will tell you.  Second, you never showed why
the two sides of the equation must necessarily involve different units.
In fact, they don't.  I never mentioned scads in my equation.

> Gary W. Olson                 "Come on, baby, let's do the revolution,
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:51:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Is anybody out there?

its a problem at your end, but i guess you'll never get this .....
:)
-linda   vote E for mE
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Democrats Policy Papers
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:44:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Can anyone provide an address to obtain Clinton and Gore's policy papers,
particularly on foreign affairs? Thank you.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:39:02 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More on olympics

Jamie:

Ten million dollars from the POST OFFICE?  The POST OFFICE?

Now, if we're talking about the one on the Hill.....how many drugs
do you have to deal to sponsor the Olympics?

If you're talking my own personal local bunch--they probably
mailed the money to Guam, by accident--Okay, Iceland (it *does* start
with an *I*, you know.)

Your tax dollars at (not much) work....
                                       --Missy Prez 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:57:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

On Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:59:56 EDT K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> > Well see, he can't do anything (legal) to stop her from having an
> > abortion.
>
> He can do all the things that I listed above.  Of course I know
> that he cannot legally force his adult daughter not to seek an
> abortion, but that was never my point.  I am asking him to show
> an attitude that corresponds to committing "murder," I did not
> expect him to act upon it as if it was murder.
Humans have a way of accepting that which they can't control.  I believe
torture is wrong, but rarely do I wake in the middle of the night in a
cold sweat thinking about all the people in the world who are being
tortured.  At the same time, I do not think about all the abortions
going on all the time (being on this list is a major exception).

> Now let me ask you this hypothetical question.  What if murder
> was not illegal in of the states.  Quayle and his daughter and
> her two year child are visiting that state.  She goes to daddy
> and says she wants to murder the child.  Would Dan Quayle say:
> "I would counsel her but then would support her decision,
> no matter what?"  Of course not.  Why?  Because in his heart
> Dan Quayle does not think abortion is murder.
Now hold a minute.  Think about what you are saying.  Dan cannot do
a thing to stop his daughter from murdering the child.  He is not a
law-breaker (such as Operation Rescue), so he will not interfere.
But he will counsel his daughter to make the right decision (not to
kill the child), but he knows it's her decision and, since he loves
her, he will support her no matter what decision she makes.  That in
no way means that Dan thinks murder should be legal.  Acknowledge?

> >> Also, the way Quayle gave his calculated cold-blooded answer
> >> was no indiction that we were talking about "murder."
>
> > Are you being sarcastic here--I'm not sure.  His answer could not have
> > been calculated as he was put on the spot!
>
> I used the wrong word -- "calculated" was not what I meant to say.
> But I also believe that his answer WAS what he really believes.
Oh.  OK.  I see what you are saying.  His answer WAS what he really
believes.  But look at his answer.

> --KAT
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU