HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:30:28 EDT
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Youthful punks
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET" at Sep 3, 92 10:21 am

A person going by the name of SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET forged:

|  Did I say mandatory military service?  I don't think so.  I said *military
|  type* service.  I don't automatically see anything wrong with required
|  military service, however.  Did I say that someone needed to atone for
|  something?  I don't think so.  I said  "...repairing the loss of guidance
|  and discipline...".  I don't see anything wrong with this either.

	A) Whether or not the service is in the military or not, what
you are saying is something that ONE has to do, possibly AGAINT the
person's will. That is against the person's civil liberties.
	B) You should re-read what you wrote. I'll restate it for you:
"Every (Young?) Person in the United States must be a part of a
Mandatory Federal Service Program which will repair the loss od
guidance and discipline that (young) people in society have lost."
That is my understanding of what you said. If I'm wrong, could you
clarify your thoughts.

|  Beyond your effort to misrepresent my comments I see something a little
|  unsettling amid your ramblings.  There is a very definite chord of a
|  vehemently anti-patriotic attitude throughout your whining.  Are we to
|  understand that you find military (or other) service for your country
|  somehow distasteful?  Are you enjoying the benefits of freedom at the
|  expense of our dead patriots?  Are you BILL CLINTON?

	(Actually, through someone elses writing, But...) I am
enjoying, as is everyone on this list, enjoying freedom, which I have
to thank many veterans, dead AND alive for. I do not filt goverment
service distasteful. However, I do find MANDATORY goverment service
disabled. I am not unpatriotic, If I am needed to fight for the
defense of MY COUNTRY (as opposed to supposed threats, or to "our
national interests"). If There had been a draft for the Gulf War, and
I was picked, I would have ran. If I was alive and drafted during
WWII, I would have gone. One example shows a bogus use of "our
national interest", the second was for the defense of our country, and
a very reasoanble use use of "our national interest." As far as the
Bill Clinton statement goes, Of course I'm not.... I'm not silly
enough to present an economic plan as bad as his.

--
 Cousin It                                    cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
    I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't
         always agree with them    -President George Bush
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, 10 Sep 1992 20:21:22 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy:
>Even if you believe the "they'll slaughter their own sheep" theory,
>they'll do so less quickly than people who know that someone else will
>kill the elephant if they don't.  An owner can afford to wait.  Owners
>benefit from protecting his elephants from others; are they really
>going to ignore their self-interest?
>
>Care to name an owned and in-demand species that has gone extinct?
>That's the option we're talking about, not un-owned in-demand species.
>Has anyone killed their own flock of golden geese?

Oh!  I get it (finally :)).  Hm.  It seems, from experience, that this
ownership strategy would only work if individuals own the resources -- not
the state (or, rather, the state or federal governments).  Also, it will
only work for those resources that have an immediate market value.  And for
some resources, at least, it will only work if people can perceive a
benefit that might accrue after their deaths (so they don't just figure
"hey, I'll protect it as long as I'm alive, but then who cares -- gee,
guess I'll just manage my resources so they last only as long as I do).
I'm not at all convinced that most folks (or most businesses, or most
governments, or whatever) are really capable of planning over ecological
time.  I'm also concerned about resources that won't work within this model
.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:26:45 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      A correction to Andy on the Environment

>Corn producers don't eat/sell their seed corn when the price goes up;
>why would elephant producers be any different?  Only starving people
>kill THEIR golden goose, others protect it, milk it, and breed more.

Actually, the hybrid seeds used by American corn farmers cannot be
used as seed corn. Think of it as a biological "copy-protection,"
forcing the farmers to buy more next year. I personally think a
good conspiracy theory could be hooked in, explaining the death
of the family farm, but then again, I'm paranoid.

>-andy

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions
and have a tremendous impact on history.
              --Vice President Dan Quayle

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:55:43 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>No, only those who can afford *expensive* art deserve *expensive*
>>art.
>
>  1)  I belive we set the cost of government funded art at around
>         0.064 cents/person. (I may be missing a decimal point)

Wowsers!  0.064 cents/person-year is $160k/year in the US.  We've
gone from being off by a factor of 250 to a factor of 1000.

Those who can't do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.

-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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:27:19 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      marching at p.parenthood

Two things: first when spending the weekend at
my mother's (she is very liberal, and her spousal quivalent
is a crazy liberal) her s.e. told us that in the late '60's
and early 70's George Bush was nicknamed "rubbers" Bush, because
he was such an advocate of family planning that he wanted to
send condoms to every country, have them in school...etc etc.
Anyone know any more details on this? I can try and get more
info if anyone is interested. Mom's boyfriend is the singlemost
bush-hater in the entire world. when the marine and i got married
we sent the bush's an invitation just to piss off mom, and we
got a little card back from them congratulating us and Gordon
wouldn't even touch it. Said it was evil.

Anyway: on a sorta related note, I noticed that
there was a group of anti-abortion people hanging
out down by the ole Planned Parenthood.  There hasn't
been anything going on around here concerning abortion
(as far as i know) and was wondering "why now"?

Do Groups like that just have arbitarary days where they
march and harass people? or is there a schedule?

jenna
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:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:09:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

> Don't like homosexuals?  I've never made that statement.  It's also not
> true.  I have a very good relationship with one in particular.  ( no not
> sexual )  I don't see how his lifestyle has anything to do with our
> relationship (currently).
>
> I *DO* see how it is immoral, but for now that's his dilemma not mine.  I
> *DO* see how as a result of immorality our country is suffering.  I *DO* see
> how his lifestyle could *become* a problem to me/my family.  If he ever took
> the initiative to verbally justify or otherwise defend his lifestyle, to me
> or my child, our relationship would most certainly experience a radical
> change.  You see, I can accept *him* but not his way of life.  The homosexual
> lifestyle was/is/will always be immoral and completely unacceptable.

       Ahhhh, it's the old "hate the sin,, not the sinner" approach.
    So, do you wish to have your friend's rights to be taken away?
    If someone beat him while he was walking through a park solely
    because he was homosexual, how would you feel.  Would you think,

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:35:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

I think one of the reasons for segregation of restaurants in the 50's was
that whites were uncomfortable sharing the same counters and tables and
waiting rooms as blacks.

                                          Chris Morrison
                                          CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:01:06 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      5% pay cut

Now, maybe it is me but if I was a federal employee, I would
have preferred a 10% (if that is how much it is) tax
increase by Clinton, than a 5% salary cut by Bush?

Am I missing something here or do you guys agree with my
math?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:19:31 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Teachers (was Re: read my lips: I have family values)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Missy:
>Chris:
>
>The real reason people without teaching certificates aren't allowed to
>teach is that they haven't completed the requisite educational
>indoctrination courses.  And they haven't made enough bulletin boards.
>
>There are many fine people in business, private industry, and government
>who would make excellent teachers but are not allowed to teach at the
>lower levels.  I think this is particularly stupid, since they *are*
>allowed to teach in colleges and universities, whether they have any
>degrees or not.

Interesting. Over here a scheme for "Licensed Teachers" was started a
couple of years ago, aimed precisely at enabling those in business or
industry to move into teaching. Suitable candidates are given a pretty
short but intensive spell of training (the bulk, I think, in the
classroom), and can then go out into a teaching job. I dunno what the
uptake has been or how successful - I think one motivation was a way
to cope with the shortage of Maths and Science teachers.

>
>Go figure.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:11:00 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

(Much meaningful/thoughful/full of logic materail by Richard
deleted.)

>> .......

> Your entire discourse leaves me somewhat speechless.  I am surprised to
> find such a total void of morality *even on this list*.  Your comments
> are a perfect representation of what's wrong with America.

> ---Robert

Hey!  This deserves a rule.  Robert's Rule #11:

      If I can't answer your points and if they disagree with
      my prejudice, then at least they must be void of any
      morality.

Which is very close to one of Carl's Rules.

Carl's Rule #2:  If I can't answer your posts, it must be an
asinine respond.

Well, I am not at all surprised at the similarity.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 10:39:04 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality
              5 Sep 1992 10:37:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

Richard:

"Aversions" are a type of *feelings.*  Therefore, your scheme is
every bit as subjective as mine--more even, since mine is derived
from an *external* source.

--Missy P 2 B
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Private versus public schools ...
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Missy Justice writes...

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


	Hey!

	Here in New York State we have the nation's second highest 
level of per pupil spending.

	And New York State ranks second from the bottom in SAT scores.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:58:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: response to Brni

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      response to Brni

Brni:

Yes, you're employer can fire you for any reason he chooses, including firing
you becuase you voted.  Actually (to satisfy Jamie), I'm arguing that your
employer OUGHT to be able to fire you.  I'm pretty sure such practice would
violatate some law somewhere, but my response would be to repeal that law.

Jason

        so jason, you believe that we should not be slaves to a communist
        society where the government can act to control your every action,
        not because you believe that we, as individuals, should have a
        significant amount of personal freedom, but because you think that
        the right to control the behavior of individuals belongs to the
        bourgoisie, to companies.  because, after all, business knows what
        we need much better than we do.

        that is rather a repugnant view, (although it is much better than
        some views which have been championed upon this list), and a
        rather unfortunate one, at that.

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:35:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Article V

In article <tfilt320036@drew.edu>, Mike Fessler <MIKEF@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:13:00 EST JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET said:
>>>> Really????  I am going to have to check this out.  But the constitut ion
>>>> also says that no state shall be deprived of its equal representatio n
>>>> in the Senate.  (Art 5, I think, the same one that deals with amendm ents
>>>> to the Constitution)
>>
>>> Article V pertains to amendments.
>>But does it ONLY pertain to amandments?
>
> An interesting Constitutional question, but I think so. Here's Article V

> Distilled down, it says:
>
> The Congress shall propose amendments to the Constitution in such-and-such
> a way; provided that (condition a); and that no state, without its consent,
> shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

yes
>
> At least to me, it seems as if the "provided that" makes the clause about
> states' suffrage in the Senate contingent upon the amendment process. In
> other words, it seems to me that this is a restriction on what sorts of
> amendments may be passed, not a blanket prohibition, at least according to
> the strict sense of the language, to which you may or may not be loyal.
>
> Anyone know what the case law is behind this clause?

none referring to if it applies to something besides amendments, to my
knowledge, but a couple cases such as one about the XIX amendment for
women suffrage brought the clause into dispute.  The Supreme Court
found the claim that that  amendment infringed on the clause not to
be of much note.

>Am I a budding young
> Constitutional scholar

perhaps; this list has an interesting bunch of such types

> or have Justices of much superior rectitude and
> insight run circles around my argument?
>
they never was given the chance, but how superior they were in those
areas is often a matter of dispute

 -Joe
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:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:31:07 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

>Why not look at federal matching funds as an equalizer,
>that is something that equalizes the unfair and unwanted
>advantage by an incumbent.

>We can say no matching funds for the incumbents or a rate
>half as much as that for the challenger.

I don't quite agree.  I think that just matching funds is
appropriate.

There is no reason to hurt the incumbent.  The goal is to
make things more fair.

j.b.
>--KAT nice to see back.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:08:14 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1% Tax Cut
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              15 Sep 1992 11:49:05 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFOR D.EDU>

On Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:49:05 -0700 Andy Freeman said:

>their increased taxes).  Clinton has also proposed various savings
>from defense spending.  We can ignore the "waste" savings because
>they're mainly democrat pork and he's not going to have any more
>effect on them than Bush did.
>
>Then we look at the new spending.  To the extent that it exceeds
>the transfer from defense, it has to come from somewhere.  The
>first $20B comes from taxing the rich, but then what?

I'll try to find an editorial the Trib carried about two weeks ago
which pointed out just how little revenue will be raised by taxing
the rich as Clinton proposes.  It's a vote getter, not a revenue
raiser, hence my touchiness about them paying "their fair share"
vs a way to "generate usable revenue".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: A light snack
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:03:24 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Oh yeah, and just so you can think the worst of me, I think the age of consent
should be puberty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeesh, it takes a long time to catch up when you've been gone a week.
                                                               Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:34:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: response to Brni

> >>When is the last time someone starved because an employer didn't like
> >>their beliefs?  (I can point to hundreds of thousands of people jailed
> >>because "society" decided to lock them up.)
> >
> >     Well, lets see.... we have all sorts of people blackballed
> >  during the MacCarthy era.
>
> Considering that was GOVT action, you don't want to bring that up.

WHAT?  First of all, McCarthy was a relatively minor feature of the era
that was named after him.  Blacklisting started before he began about
Communists in the State Department, and it continued after his censure.
Also, his focus was on government employees, not the general public.  I
suspect that if he had had to express a preference, he would have picked
jail over unemployment for his targets.  Other groups dealt with making
"subversives" in private life unemployable.  While they sometimes
(though not always) took their cue from HUAC, the actual blacklisting
was done by the employers themselves and the various pressure groups
(American Legion posts and such) that could be called upon to complain
when necessary.  In New York during the fifties, one man was able to
rule on virtually all candidates for employment in radio and television,
both on-air talent and technical staff.  He made a good living at it,
too.

> >  On top of that, of course, there's the
> >  fact that jobs at, say, IBM and McDonalds are hardly comparable.
>
> It depends on the job, now doesn't it.  I suspect that being a janitor
> at one is a lot like being a janitor at the other; I know that being a
> programmer at one is a lot like being a programmer at the other.

Ah.  That makes it different.  But why do you want to be a janitor
at Sun, then?

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:00:48 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Campaign Reform vs the 1st Amendment

>public financing (you are allowed to check off, and designate, up to $20
>on your tax return to the completely publicly financed election process
>at the Federal level), changes in terms are necessary reforms, it
>seems to me. What's gathered by a certain cut-off date
>every four years is what gets spent - no more, no less.

In other words, "unknown" candidates need not apply, because their
"here I am" spending would leave nothing for their actual campaign.

Also, this can't be done without significantly changing the 1st
amendment.

Right now, you can't give a single dollar to the Clinton/Gore (or
Bush/Quayle) campaign.  What you can do is contribute to groups that
are INDEPENDENTLY supporting various candidates.  Killing them
requires gutting the 1st amendment.

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU