HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:25:48 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Promises, promises
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' scores:
>>10. Civil Rights and Diversity
>>[B]     A. End the ban on gays and lesbians in the military
>
>Perhaps you mark with too much haste.  This morning on NPR, there was word
>that an intermediate step towards this goal might be taken, by executive
>order, as early as the end of next week.  The order would put a stop to
>the questioning of those entering the armed forces as to whether they are
>homosexual or bisexual.  There were also a couple other things involved,
>but this was before I was sufficiently awake.

        It does seem like he'll actually do it, after waffling for a couple of
months.  We can only hope.

>Don't despair.  Politicians make so many promises, it's statistically
>impossible for them not to keep *some* of them...:)
>Gary W. Olson

        :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:47:00 -0700
From:         Dom Maddalone <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU> wrirtes:
> >    pcs$1703@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU from Southeastern Louisiana University writes:
> >
> > > For a informative view on politics listen to Rush Limbaugh on the
> > > AM dial.
> >
> >     Golly, what an informative opinion from an anonymous-chicken-shit-brain-
> >
 dead-non-thinking-zombie-like-drooling-over-another-radio-broadcasting-droolin
> g-
> > slob.   Pretty typical of the audience, I believe.
> >     Anything else you like to inform us of, oh, holy of holies, oh master
> > of anonymousness?
>
> Little harsh now, don't ya think? Maybe Rush and his audience are slightly
> maladjusted/brain dead  but golly Goob, let's not get carried away (you might
> just be flaming a bit here.....sounds like fighting words.....the 1st won't
> protect this sort speech.

    Um, sue me, Gomer.

     Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:00:06 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: honest question seeks honest answer

I am gratified to have SEVERAL reasonable interlocutors these
days. Just thought I'd mention that.

>From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>

>
>I think that Rawls posited a theory more acceptable to Western
>philosophies, yes.   In the real world, though, from a very real and
>logical approach to preservation of life--- Spock (and John Stuart
>Mill's concept of Utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the
>greatest number) do appear more acceptable.

Not to me.

Let me put it this way. If enslaving all Asians would maximize
the greatest good for the greatest number, would you find that
"more acceptable"? It is PRECISELY this sort of problem that
inspired Rawls to write his book. It is, in particular, the
problem that utilitarianism has no room for individual rights.
(Where are all the part-time libertarians when this unabashed
Millian shows up? I guess I'm on my own, huh?)

>Ok.  So the military allows anyone that wants to join the military
>in, and then--according to their utilitarian right from within--
>fires them.  Is that more acceptable?

Cleverer, but not more acceptable. :-)

I understand the need for draconian measures IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE,
but certainly not in time of peace.

> The basic concept here is that
>the military must operate to preserve the most life in a combat
>situation.  If there is sufficient evidence to prove that allowing
>gays into the material would violate the preservation of life by
>causing troop demoralization, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the
>military to the soldiers (gay and/or straight) to prevent the loss of
>life by prohibiting gays from being re-admitted (after they are fired
>from within...)

I reluctantly admit that if there were MATERIAL evidence of that
sort, you would have a very good case.

(But there isn't.)

>I've also heard that those that oppose the draft could argue on
>religious grounds against joining the service in the event that gays
>are allowed in the military.  I don't quite understand how that would
>work, but in theory, if people could get out of a draft because of
>it, that could potentially constitute a national security threat.

I doubt it very much.
People can already get out of military service on religious grounds.

Jamie
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Health Care Reform
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com


As Jay noted, the same arguments keep on appearing.  Here we have one
that was thrashed out ad nauseum last spring...

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.930126143616.672@suzy.law.ucla.edu>,         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU> writes:
 > Well, list members, we have nothing left to fear when it comes to
 > Health Care Reform...  This morning's Los Angeles Times' major front
 > page article was on Clinton appointing Hillary to lead the Task Force
 > on Health Care Reform...  There are quotes within about his
 > confidence in her ability to "get the job done"...
 > 
 > The article, interestingly enough, points to a parallel.  As Governor
 > of Arkansas, Clinton appointed Hillary to lead the education reform
 > of that states school system.  What the Times *DID NOT* mention was
 > the fact that Arkansas now ranks 48 out of the 50 states in
 > education...

As you may remember from the various Time, Newsweek, etc articles of
last spring when it began to look like Clinton would take the nomination,
his (and Hillary's) education reforms in Arkansas are widely accepted
as major steps forward.  Before those reforms education in Arkansas was
in very poor shape.  Clinton's administration has enacted changes that
have already had some effect and continue to have effect.

Please Stan, don't just repeat failed RNC propoganda.  If you feel you can
indict Clinton (and Hillary) by pointing to education in Arkansas, back
it up with at least one reputable assessment.  (BTW, I think you will have
trouble doing so.)


						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:03:56 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@CS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court decision

[retry]
>> Nice weasel words.  It isn't a threat of violence when people scream
>> fuck the draft, but screaming "ban abortion" is.
>
>Nice try, but there's a world of difference between screaming at the
>government, and screaming at a fellow citizen

Really?  Where in the 1st amendment do we find this difference?

>while simultaneously trying to impede

If that was true, that would be the charge.  Trespassing laws would
seem to apply, as would blocking traffic, yet ....

Of course, I could have mentioned the "multiculturalism" protests.  No
govt involved, yet lots of screaming "at fellow citizens".  But, since
the screamers and impeders were "correct", that's okay, right?  Those
nasty abortion screamers are a different story.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:47:44 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Harlequin Romances, pound for pound, outsell everything on
the market (we all know they just sell the same book, over and over
with just a different cover tacked on...)  Great literature?  By your standards
I'd say- Yes!  (Mass sales=Greatness)
        Soap operas, 4 hours a day, three times the followers... Again, the
mass market determines greatness->Soaps Win!!!
        Nice standards, Kerry...

                                        Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:00:45 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling

Hi, y'all:
Brett' said:

>        Now, claiming your dead brother is really the killer might be
>convenient, by why didn't he bring this up earlier, like when he was arrested
>and when his brother was still alive?
>
>        Seems mighty fishy to me.

Possibly.  The newspaper account I have doesn't mention when the new
evidence was found relative to the original conviction and subsequent
appeals.  If it was found 31 days after, then, as I understand it, Herrera
would still be out of luck.  I think I agree with Dunstan on this one --
even if the guy were already executed, new evidence should have its day.
In this case, I don't see how justice is being prevented by looking at the
new evidence and deciding whether or not it's sufficient for a new trial.
I sure don't see how this decision is "just" in any sense of the word that
I'm familiar with.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:35:19 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> >The Constitution grants specifically grants Congress the right to
> >declare war, and the President the right to wage war.  Unless the
> >Congress is willing to give some of its "war-declaring rights" to the
> >President, they should not assume any of his "war-making rights"...
>
> I don't get it. Please explain to me how the War Powers Act
> usurps the right of the President to "wage war." As far
> as I can tell, it only restricts the right of the President
> (which he doesn't have!) to decide against whom to wage
> war. That decision is properly made by Congress, since
> it is precisely what "declaring war" amounts to.
>

The War Powers Act requires the President to officially notify
Congress within 48 hours of military action, and grants Congress a
time period in which they can choose to withdraw the troops.  If
Congress can withdraw the troops, they are crossing the line.

You say that the President doesn't have the right to decide against
whom to wage war.  Wrong.  Congress has the POLITICAL right to
Declare War.  The President has the MILITARY right to fight whoever
he well pleases.  (If the people think he is acting incorrectly, the
alternative is called Impeachment, not WPA.)

--STAN JACOBS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:01:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

-T:

If you would like to privately discuss pre-natal development, I would
be more than happy to.

Otherwise, don't assume there is no evidence for that which you *choose*
not to believe in.

I don't want to dreck up the net discussing this, since no one else does
either.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:03:42 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A renewal of my argument about "rightism" ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> Later the movement was expanded to Austria. They printed national-socialist
> literature with a hakenkreuz on it, long before Hitler was released from the
> army. The Parties were not very popular, but there are always some lunatics
> who believe in better world.
>
> Caius

   so much for working for a better world . . .

rtf, lunatic
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: A clarification on the "gay issue" ...

I agree with Val that civil rights for gays shouldn't stop with
the military....I keep hearing that "they" don't deserve equal
protection because, "unlike race or gender, homosexuality is a
_behavior_."

If we should exclude equal protection based on whether or not
the situation is chosen, then why do we grant the status based on
religious _preference_?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:dunstan@gec-epl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:00:37 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      JSS (was Re: Homosexuals in the Military)
Comments: To: sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU, politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Well shucks. I was hoping my timezone advantage would give me the
chance to be the first to quietly welcome Jay back to the list, but it
seems NINAR Kerry was burning the midnight oil - and has assaluted us
with much hyperbole.

Still, Hiya Jay. How was the South ? I still don't really understand
what grits are.

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:33:50 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Musical Presidents
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Well, Alex, I'm glad to be on Jeopardy, and I'll take "this morning's
two parter" for $1000.

> This morning's quiz for the list members is a two parter:
> 1) Who was the last president of the US who was a proficient musician?
> 2) Assuming that such an inclination is not a bogus and irrelevant
>    indicator, how does this bode for the incoming administration?


1. My guess is Richard M. Nixon, who entertained world leaders at
diplomatic functions by playing the piano-- including Happy Birthday
to some famous person.  (I recall not whom at this moment.)

2. It depends how you look at Richard Nixon...  Unlike Clinton, he
HAD some clue about foreign policy.  Unlike Clinton, he had the media
against him.  Unlike "Slick Willy" Clinton, he did not have a good
public image.  I honestly believe that in ability alone, Richard
Nixon was a great President that Bill Clinton can never compare to.
Sorry, Bill, I just don't like your tune...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:12:43 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Saint Richard
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Brett writes:
>      Nixon's crime was not Watergate (Break-in, etc.) but his attempt to
>cover it up and prevent prosecution(s).
        Part of this will be cleared up shortly, but tell me Brett, isn't the
cover-up and obstuction of justice something you'd prefer a Prez
not to do?
>     The Republican party (elements) decided  they needed to bug the
>Dems and find out strategy for '72.(!)
        (!) is an understatement, Brett, even if you've got the facts wrong.
The Republican Party as such, didn't have a thing to do with the break-
ins--it was the Commitee to Re-Elect the President (affectionately known
as CREEP-true-) headed by John Mitchell, working in conjunction with
the "White House Plumbers" (led by E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy
and several Cuban expaitrates) that conspired to bug Dem HQ offices
in the WG office complex.  Of course, I'm leaving out many other nasty
bits (such as the actions of the "Rat Fuckers" led by Donald Seggretti)
but these folks weren't just looking for strategy aids.  You're right,
though on one count, Watergate wasn't the beginning and end of the
subject, it's just a stopover on Mr. Nixon's journey through paranoia,
illustrating his abiding distrust of the Democratic Process to the
extent of having to fix every little irritant along the way...
>    As for any White House tapes... this has been done by every
>President since (at least) FDR.
        While I didn't say anything about this (after all, it's no crime to
bug yourself) it is true FDR and Kennedy did it, though nothing's
ever come out about Truman, Eisenhower, or Johnson...  Anyway,
one might wonder at the wisdom (or sanity) of keeping such
incriminating evidence laying about as Nixon did.  Well, stupid
or not, it did serve to get rid of the guy...

                                        Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:09:15 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Saint Richard
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>According to some sources, some people were running a prostitution
>ring out of  (among other places) DNC headquarters...
        By that token, some sources
have been quoted as saying that Elvis is still alive, and aliens
had a pre-election parley with Bill Clinton...
        The book you're referring to, "Silent Coup" has been relegated
to the same section as the JFK conspiracy epics.  Honestly, when
you got to the part where Al Haig was helping John Dean in the
unseating of Nixon, didn't you begin to get the drift?

                                Travlr...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:54:21 EST
From:         JDUTTON@YORKVM1.BITNET
Organization: York University
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.930126150338.672@suzy.law.ucla.edu>, Stan Jacobs
<JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU> says:
>
>
>Ironically, the best position for Hillary--prohibited by this law--
>would have been as Attorney General.  That is where she is most
>qualified.  (Certainly not in health care, and as we've seen in

I'm not completely familiar with govt process and appointments in the
US, but shouldn't the question be not what position Ms Clinton is best
qualified, but rather who is the most qualified individual for the position.
While I've read that she is a very good lawyer, wouldn't it be in the best
best interest of the public good that this job be given to one of the
country's top lawyers?  In a country that is stuffed full of lawyers, the
law of large numbers would dictate that she isn't one of them.

>Arkansas, not in education...)   The L.A. Times also had another
>article this morning about Hillary's mother--  somebody Rodham--
>being disappointed that Sandra Day O'Connor beat Hillary to the
>Court.  Interesting... to say the least.

I use the same argument here for the Supreme Court.

I'd like to comment about the Clinton administration's claims about having
the "most diverse cabinet in history".  Of the 18 cabinet appointments made
by Clinton, 14 are lawyers.  God only knows how many of them are in sub-cabinet
appointments.  Not that there is anything wrong with being a lawyer; some lawye
rs, sometimes, do perform valuable services.  Others do not.  But given the
image of brief-carrying lawyers, complete with cellular phone and BMW,
parachuting onto the white house lawn, its hard to argue that an administration
stuffed full of them is going to be much of a breath of fresh air, let alone
that they are going to lead a renewal of "idealism" or "selflessness".
I never miss an opportunity to bash lawyers :-)
>--Stan

--JD
  "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils
   in this world are to be cured by legislation"
                                                 Thomas B. Reed
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:19:19 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>Brett':
>  Churchill was still alive when your mother was carrying you.
>
>Evelyn

        I haven't noticed any flies gathering on Jay.

        (But maybe it's just me :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU