HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:51:11 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Language of violence

> From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

> Robert:

> While I must have missed the post that has generated such condemnation, I get
> teh impression that you believe that homosexual acts are inherently sinful,or
> some position like that.  I agree with this position.

I, too, never received the original trash.  Would a kind soul please
send me a copy of it (no, Robert, not you, you would not qualify :-).

> However, stop and think about the ramifications of the "jokes" you posted.
> While I can understand how one justifies hating a particular action, I cannot
> understand a Christian rationale for hating the individuals who commit such
> actions.Moreover, your post contributed the the mistaken image (held by some)
> of Christians as gay-bashers,while Christianity teaches exactly the opposite.

> The next time you feel a need to make a wisecrack,please stop and think about
> what you're saying before you do it.

Better yet, next time that you feel a need to make a wisecrack, please
send it to some other list than you might be on.   :-)

> Jason Zimmerman

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:52:47 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

>Hilary Clinton is a very intelligent, well educated woman.

Let's look at the evidence.

>Her point is that parents should not have total control of their
>children if the control is not consistent with the best interests of
>the child.

So?  Parents don't have total control, so the argument will depend on
the program proposed.

I'm negotiating with someone who's actually compared the proposal with
the problem for permission to post that comparison.  (The person in
question has relevant experience.)  Ms. Clinton seems to have confused
good intentions with good effects.  Since the effects will be felt
repeatedly, I'm not willing to cut her much slack for her feelings.

-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:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:17:53 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> In addition, though I don't know Quayle's position on RU486, he might
> well be against it for medical reasons, since the French tests have
> noted a stong stimulating effect on the growth of breast cancer and
> "notably severe inhibitory properties on the immunitory system"
> (A direct quote from the International Inquiry Commission on RU486,
> 1990).

>                            --MJ

Oh, I didn't know Quayle attended medical school.  Maybe that is why
he cannot spell, er, that would be write.  Could Quayle write?  Has
anybody actually seen him writing?

--KAT :-)

BTW: my son tells me there is this picture that Dan Quayle have signed
for a fan.  The only thing is that he has failed to write Quayle correctly
three times and he has scratched it three times and finally he signed
"Dan Q."  Anybody knows anything about this?  Is this a joke made by
the infamous UL (er, the Underwriters Laboratories)?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:47:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Politics and Theology

Richard:

This is a fairly brief and superficial response, but it may serve to
get a discussion moving.

I see a difference between theological arguments (positions that are
held due to faith, revelation, scriptural authority) and moral positions
that may be based on those theological positions.  The theological
argument has at its base an appeal to a higher authority.  That makes it
a very poor tool for convincing those who don't accept that higher
authority, or whose interpretation of its instruction is different.
It's not improper, but it is useless.  A moral argument is a set of
statements about how we should behave, not what we should believe.
Anyone can look at the behavior and make some projections about its
probable consequences, or look at the real-world consequences of similar
behavior.  Some kind of debate is possible even if both of the parties
don't agree on the theological issues--it is possible to argue that
certain actions are a good or a bad idea, or will have positive or
negative effects on other people, or will advance or retard our progress
toward a goal.  King may have based his actions on his religious
convictions, but he also gave people other good reasons (based on
American ideals, shared principles of social justice, self-interest in
a free and peaceful society) to do as he advised.

As for your other question, I am reminded of the similar problem faced
by democracies--how do they deal with people who want to use the tools
of democracy to set themselves up as tyrants?  The argument for
tolerance is a moral one:  tolerance is a good idea because it makes for
a free society, it promotes cross-fertilization of ideas among people
with different beliefs, because a society that respects its minority
members will protect us if we happen to join with one of those
minorities (I'm talking about political or social "out" groups here, not
just racial and religious minorities).  That's the argument why the
intolerant should practice tolerance.  But also, when dealing with
intolerant people, the right to self-defense kicks in sooner or later.
One universal characteristic of the intolerant is that they can't bear
the existence of those different from them.  At some point, their
actions will begin to infringe on the rights of other citizens.  At that
point, those citizens have the right to insist that they be respected.
It's not a matter of forcing the intolerant to adopt new beliefs, but to
refrain from actions that damage their neighbors.  They don't have to be
tolerant, but they do need to act that way.  It seems to me that no
society can function if it doesn't have the means to do that from time
to time.  Does that answer your question?  (Reminds me of an old joke:
"We're a hate group--we hate hate."  :-)

Best,
Peter
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:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:13:13 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A few thoughts ...

Val, obviously angling for the position of Social Arithmetic Czar, should
his bid for election fail, posits:

>> That leaves roughly 80 million potentially sexually active people in
>> the country, who may not, under Travis' "rule" EVER engage in sexual
>> activity because they are not married. Let's be kind again. Let's say
>> only half of them engage in sex. Add that to the other 6.9 million
>> trangressors - hey, we got a whole new business in this country -
>> sex cops and sex jails!

To which Travis responds:

>Hey--I'd be willing to give up an island in SC and put 'em all there.
>Or maybe we will just slap them with fines or revoke their driver's
>licenses

Well, I have a better idea, we the Y's Guys, if elected, will identify
several large islands/land masses with sufficient natural borders as
Colonies for Those Whose Sexual Practices Offend Fundies wherein all
manner of fornicators may dwell, including those who merely have impure
thoughts. Access to the island sites will be made through bi-weekly
trips made by "The Love Boat."

Unfortunately the Gopher will have to vacate his seat in Congress, in
order to man the ship.

Since the fundies will be far fewer in number than those who may occasionally
wish to entertain an impure thought or two, we will likely designate
Georgia (in honor of Jay S. Sultan) and perhaps a couple of midwestern
states as fundie safe havens. Out of respect for the sensibilities of
these folks we will of course remove cable access and disallow deliveries
of the New York Times in these states.

-other andY
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:30:09 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Quayle and Choice (or watch our fer yer foot, danny)

     When I first read about our boy Dan's statement concerning his
daughter's (hypothetical) unwanted pregnancy, it didn't strike me as
to unreasonable.  He would counsel her *not* to abort the baby but
would stand by her decision whatever it was.  Hmm, ok, sign dan up
for the comeback of the Brady Bunch.  I was reminded of the question
that Dukakis blew during the last circus.  He should have realized
then that there really is no inconsistency in opposing capital
punishment and acknowledging that he would want to murder the SOB
who (hypothetically) raped/murdered his wife.
     However.  Quayle's statement *is* inconsistent with his stated
"pro-life" posture.
     What if Quayle's daughter had been raped by someone that she
knew?  Quayle counsels her not to murder the SOB, but rather to
seek other remedies.  She decides to murder the guy anyway - would
he stand by that decision as well?  If abortion is murder, and that
is why it should be prohibited, how can he be "pro-life" and
support the decision to abort his potential grandchild?
     The only way that Quayle's position here can be consistent is
if he does not believe that abortion should be prohibited because
it is *wrong* but rather because the government should be able
to control the citizenry in any way it sees fit.  I don't really
think Dan feels this way - in fact, he may be sincere.  You see,
his daughter, in her intact family with good values, is qualified
and morally entitled to make this kind of decision.  It is those
mythical someones who abort babies all the time again and again
with no remorse or moral distress that should not be entitled to
decide for themselves.
     You'd like to believe that he is just expressing good
parental concern here - and maybe he is.  But he cannot be honest
in his statement last night and also be "pro-choice".

His foot is bleeding badly.

Steve
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:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10:00:35 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

Hi, Travis :)
>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 :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:24:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flying in the face of logic, and history

linda:

Some would call it "murder."  Dr. George Tiller calls it "late term
abortion."
          --Missy Prez 2 B
From: TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET (Travis Kidd)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:02:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10:00:35 -0400 KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU said:
> Hi, Travis :)
> >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?
Well, I may not do those things directly, but I might give to charities
that do.  Regardless, it is not my responsibility, unless I am the
baby's father.

> If you don't want to help with those things, then quite frankly, tough --
> they're the right things to do also :)
And so is giving a cup of coffee a day to the starving children in
Africa.

> Kerry

The theme of women's magazines...

All men are evil: p. 27
How to get yours: p. 41

-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:42:01 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the Tall Boys - a shoe in

>From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>

>>>8) The M00se Illuminati will replace the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence/
>>>   coversion apparatusi
>>The otherwise positive effect spoiled by hideous mangling of
>>Latin plural. Again, perhaps a Lorson resurgence would help.
>
>How careless of me!  I, of course, meant apparati.

Ulp. Wrong again. You guys really need a Minister of Ancient and
Pretensious Languages.

Jamie, leading apparatchnik
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:14:24 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      hilary or carl? tough choice!

Carl, I don't mean this as a personal insult but your post on Hilary
Clinton reminds me of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing".

Hilary Clinton is a very intelligent, well educated woman. Her point is
that parents should not have total control of their children if the
control is not consistent with the best interests of the child. Sounds
like a good idea to me. I suppose you have a high opinion of Nancy "Let
me ask my astrologer" Reagan who is portrayed as a less than ideal
mother by her children ?

Hilary Clinton has great credentials. Your problems with her are at the
ideological level.
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: How to defeat AIDS
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:45:06 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Sean Mills writes:
> 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

(Of course you mean _future_ cases.)  These are good ideas, except that as a
lecture, they will not be very effective on people who are _not_ naturally 
sexually repressed because of their religion or something, in their present
form.  Perhaps if you added "use a condom while...." You see, what I mean i is
that no one who _is_ having premarital sex or adultery is going to stop just
because _you_ tell them to.  Also, people don't tend to think about the chances
of horrible things happening to them when there are other things on their mind,
because people takes chances constantly every day.  So instead of trying to 
alienate people with scare tactics into a complete change of lifestyle, I think
the idea is to convince people to _modify_ their behavior toward more-safe
practices, like wearing a (ughh!) condom (something they will be more willing 
to take action upon instead, of simply reject).  Besides, a balance is
neccesary--sexual repression causes people to get ugly, wrinkled, and
conservative, with stern glares and too much make-up, and become middle
management, slum lords, and people who start wars.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So maybe I could be a fly               |           Kai Alexis Price
and feed arachnid as I die              |       Inter-Dimensional Being
and view the ritual from within         |
the silken tunnel that they spin        | <--- "Guelah Papyrus" by Phish
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:24:11 EDT
From:         MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?
              27 Jul 1992 10:18:35 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

> Two things.  First, didn't Quayle argue, back in the previous campaign,
> that an 11-year-old rape victim who became pregnant should not be allowed
> an abortion?  Would that qualify as the same (general) question regarding a
> total stranger?

What!?!?  You mean he did not say "the parents should counsel her
based on their own morality and then support her decision?"  I cannot
believe anybody would want to impose their moral beliefs on others or
would want to support their own kid and meanwhile force other people's
kids not to have an abortion?  I am shocked!

-- sarcastic KAT

> Second, could you clarify your idea that true conviction becomes more
> visible when we discuss total strangers?  Seems to me the opposite would be
> the case -- our true convictions become most clear when we have the largest
> emotional stake in the effects of our convictions (e.g., I can take a stand
> against the death penalty, unless someone hurts my child -- at which point
> I might change my mind).  Does that make sense?

Good point!

> Your running mate,
> Kerry

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

--real KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:01:47 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> It is in the nature of the unregenerate to sin.  However, we are admonished
> to separate the sinner from the sin in passing human judgment.  Only God
> is permitted to determine that a sinner is forever lost.  Thus, as human
> beings we love the *person* that sins, despite the fact that it is part of
> their constitution to do so.  You admonish a sinner and condemn a sin, in
> the same way that you disagree with but do not hate a racist, while hating
> that for which he/she stands. If you fall to the level of hating the *person*
> that sins, rather than the sin itself, your hatred is equivalent to--and no
> more honorable than--theirs.

Well, I am not yet desperate enough to go and dig out your direct
quote.  However, I am at a loss.  How does one separate the "sin nature"
of the person from the person?  (Interesting that you are not using
the phrase "sin nature" anymore.)

What I want to know now is if "only God could determine that a sinner is
forever lost", then how do you explain supporting capital punishment?
(Jay's virtual body is turning over in his virtual grave.  :-)
Or maybe you have other justifications for capital punishment, or maybe
you are simply against capital punishment?

> This is how Quayle can make such a statement.  Of course, this is an easy
> one, since we are talking about his own daughter.  I would have liked to
> have seen the same question posed regarding a total stranger, since that
> is where true conviction becomes visible.

I already answered that question for you in of my earlier posts.
If it was someone else's daughter he would have called her a lost
soul and a murderer.  Then he would try to block her way to the
clinic and maybe even try to shove an aborted fetus in her face.
And after the abortion, he would find her address and phone number,
put embarrassing graffiti on her house, embarrass her at the working
place.  After all the more she suffers, the more innocent babies
will be saved.  And THAT is a very worthy cause.

But then again I might be wrong.

>                                   --Missy Justice

--KAT
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:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:34:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:46:41 EST
From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Questions, questions

>sjl:
>
>If you would read Roe, you would know that abortion is legal throughout
>the nine months of pregnancy.
>                               --M. Prez 2 B

        Which _Roe_ are you reading?  From my copy, Section XI:

        a.      For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first
        trimester, the abortion decision and its effecuation must be left
        to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending
        physician

        b.      For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the
        first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health
        of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure
        in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

        c.      For the state subsequent to viability the State, in promoting
        its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses,
        regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary,
        in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or
        health of the mother.

        Now, _Roe_ says that abortion CAN be legal throughout the term of
pregnancy, but it only prevents the State from regulating in any way for the
first trimester.


-------------
Mike McCarthy                   LADY ASTOR: Winston, if you were my husband, I
Marshall Univ. History Dept.      should flavour your coffee with poison.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       CHURCHILL: Madam, if I were your husband, I
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU         should drink it.
YEA003@MARSHALL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU