HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:54:52 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

>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.
>
This is an indication that the movie ratings system is screwed up.  In
some European countries, ultraviolent, Rambo-like moves are given very
harsh ratings while those with sexual themes are given lighter ratings.
I would agree that graphic violence deserves an NC17 rating, while
soft-core porn could be PG13.  Although I'm not a parent, if children
are really that influenced by entertainment I think I'd rather have
my kids smooching than smashing.
    toddddddddd
>-j.b.

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "What good is all the vio-
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   lence unless it is tempered
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    with limitless sex?" - GWAR
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:35:09 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
              22 Jul 1992 14:35:24 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

> I know we've touched on this before, so excuse me if I've been too dense to
> recognize the answer to this question :)  My d.p. and I were talking about
> the possibility of Bush dumping Quayle.  I said that I thought that would
> be a bad move, as many conservative voters seem to like Quayle, and are
> sticking with Bush largely for that reason.  He suggested that dumping
> Quayle would be a good move if Quayle were replaced by a Kemp or Dole-type.
> He argued that the more right-leaning conservatives would stick with such a
> ticket simply because they'd have no other choice.  Such a ticket might,
> however, woo back some of the Regan Democrats from the Perot camp.

> What do y'all think?

I always thought that Bush would dump Quayle as soon as he feels
the election is close and that dumping Quayle would help his
chances.  (I don't buy into "Bush rewards loyalty and would not
dump Quayle."  Bush's foremost loyalty is to winning again.)

*If* Bush dumps Quayle, my guess is that he might go after Cheney (sp?).

> Kerry

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:47:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: i didn't know that toni morrison had a big hasidic following

oh
gee
sorry.
guess i jumped ahead.

never mind

brni
(pout)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:25:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jails and GE

Kerry-- I also pointed out that while the Supreme Court has upheld the
laws, I don't think it was a decision made with any sembelance of integrity.

What possible argument is there to support the existence of anti-sodomy
laws?  What possible benifit do they hold towards _anyone_?

I believe that the Supreme Court in upholding the anti-sodomy laws has
behaved foolishly and without just cause.  I think that rather than work
towards upholding the consitution they made a specific attack on its very
nature.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Resent-Organization: Samford University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:41:55 CDT
Comments:     Resent-From: Renee <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD>
Comments:     Originally-From: Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
From:         Renee <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:22:13 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET> sa
id:
> 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?
I TOTALLY 100% AGREE!!

> For record, I am not pro-choice.  Everyone should be given a chance to
And neither are most Americans.
I would bet that no more than 1 or maybe 2 of the women senate can-
didates will actually win.  One of these is Yeakel, who is running
against a pro-choice Republican.
The guy who ran the graphic anti-abortion television ads in Georgia won
(or was winning, last I heard) his primary.  Granted, that doesn't speak
for the election, but neither do all these women senate primary wins.
Remember, in the case of Braun and I think Boxer, both won their primar-
ies with only a plurality.  Braun got what--38%--I would hardly call
that a convincing victory.  And she got that much only because the two
other candidates bashed each other.  Pro-life will win elections, as
long as there is no wishy-washiness.   And, BTW, I believe Anita Hill
lied her ass off at the Clarence Thomas hearings.

> 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.
Me neither.

> -j.b.
-Travis

Travis,
       The polls I have seen show that the majority of Americans do support
the right to choose an abortion with some restrictions.  What is your evidence
for the statement "and neither are most Americans"?  And what does Anita Hill
have to do with anything?
                                            SRA
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:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:37:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Suggestion for another virtual ticket

>The Jimmy/Olstone ticket idea isn't a bad one, at least superficially.
>But the press would probably dig up a bunch of old allegations having
>something to do with a Loompanics catalog, a certain resident of Washington
>state, and something about 3 foot tall beer.

Not to mention the issue of the critical shortage of carpet the ticket would
be immediately faced with.  And since I can't remember the name of the yard
of beer I drank (it was german and had a dozen or so syllables, of that I'm
sure), this may be for the best.  Besides, the JohnsoN/OlsoN ticket is
already making dramatic inroads among people who feel that shoes are the
most important issue in this election year...

Gary W. Olson, renegade       "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
  candidate and infallible     they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
  navigator                    Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:47:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What will they think of next?

On Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:15:01 EST 92price@GW.WMICH.EDU said:
> Hmmpf...  Some woman from Florida is suing Ross Perot for him to live up to hi
s
> agreement to run for President if he makes it on the ballot.
She can't make him do it.  Thirteenth amendment.
>
> Kai Alexis Price
-Travis
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, 20 Jul 1992 22:11:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: if A then B

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.

>-Travis

Gary W. Olson                 "Come on, baby, let's do the revolution,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   $6 for the record, $7 for the T-shirt,"
                               A picture of the band
                               and a ticket to the promised land."
                              -Chumbawamba, "Come On Baby"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:38:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

>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.

        lets see.  we had toy soldiers, gi joe dolls, toy 6-shooters
        with bang caps, toy machine guns, water pistols, light
        sabers, and models of tanks, warplanes, and battleships.

        now they have paint guns, toy soldiers, gi joe dolls, water
        uzis, models of tanks, warplanes, and battleships...

        yup.  very different.

>>  Perhaps so, but now we've got Tipper wanna-bes censoring Bugs Bunny,
>>  Wile E. Coyote vs. Road Runner, etc. claiming the cartoons are
>>  showing violence isn't really harmful...

I was hardly referring to the cartoons, though the level of
violence and the graphicness of such in today's cartoons is
quite different from the cartoons of "my day".  I was
addressing the level of violence on television and at the
cinema.  Just think of some of the largest grossing movies
of the past two years.

        dunno.  johnny quest showed people getting killed. and the old
        superman cartoons showed lots and lots of japanese getting
        blowed up real good by the all american hero.

        violent movies?  like "Big" and "Kindergarden Cop"?

>-j.b.
>>  MacPhil
-j.b.

        brni
        "how can i sit and eat my tea
        with all that blood coming from the television"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:07:56 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Course for T. Kidd: History 530: Research & Methodology

>        Travis has taken quite a buffeting from the soon-to-be-appointed Logic
>Czar.  Since politics is historical and history is political, let me make some
>comments concerning the Kidd Interpretation of Antebellum South Carolina.

  The JohnsoN/OlsoN campaign would like to reaffirm it's commitment
to the importance of history in discussions of politics.  While the
role of Secretary of History has been downplayed in recent administrations,
we intend treat that cabinet position with all of the consideration
that is its due.

  The value of the historical has certainly been a cornerstone of
the Tall Guy campaign - it is not our campaign which is either unaware
of, or chooses to ignore the importance of history, even in the
recent role of Stimelyism, shoe control, and other issues of pressing
concern.

                            -Tim
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 20:07:41 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      the press secretary shuffle

i will reiterate for you, brni, and others who might have deleted it...

i will not seek, nor will i accept a nomination at this time.

in regards to the shoe question:
i will say at this time, and this is a reiteration as i said of the things
which i said earlier, my personal opinion on shoes can be successfully
integrated with the official johnson/olson ticket shoe line (with a little
bit of creative, um, footwork).  the outrageous claims that our candidates
are sidestepping the footgear issue are nothing but egregious sneaker attacks.
our opponents know very well that we are carefully formulating a complete
national shoe policy...not like the hurried plans they themselves have been
slapping together for a hungry voting public.  where, i ask you, is the
comprehensive pedicure plan?  does the kerry ticket, the schledorn ticket,
the jamie/jimbo ticket make any kind of allowances for *brannock devices*?
what the hell good is a shoe that doesn't fit?  i say to you...none.
the johnson/olson ticket cares enough about the shoe-wearing public (which
is not to say that they cannot address the needs of those who are differently
footgear-abled) to consult with experts in the field, with people who *care for*
    and love shoes...namely, myself, thom mc an, connie, and dr. scholl.  this
national shoe policy won't be pleasant.  but we sat down with the best experts
in this field and made a *commitment*...that we'd do whatever it takes to get
this problem under control.  "twelve years, at the minimum", the economists
said.  but we couldn't accept that.  our policy, when presented next week,
will be *coherent*, will be *comprehensive*, and most of all, will be
*treated with that waterproof stuff*.

                                 * * * anneliese "these boots were made for
                                       walkin'" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:31:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What the constitution REALLY means, etc.

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:56:28 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET> sa
id:
> Also, in Louisiana, there are many people who can't continue running
> when redistricting occurs.  They can run, but the odds of them being
> elected in their new district are so slim that they don't.
>
> -j.b.

I thought La. elected their reps at-large, statewide.  Maybe I'm wrong.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:51:00 CST
From:         Ghost of Abbie <AHOFFMAN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      My position on shoes ....

(have to ask my more material, and munificent, running mate separately).
I think any person who wants shoes ought to be able to have them, I favor
American made shoes so folks have jobs, and I think if folks don't want
to wear shoes or have them, they oughtn't have to. Abbie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:43:11 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

>From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
>
>EvelyN DuNcaN:
>
>Aside from CaliforNia and VirgiNia, you also have:
>
>ArizoNa
>ArkaNsas
>CoNNecticut    **
>IlliNois
>INdiaNa
>KaNsas
>KeNtucky       **
>LouisiaNa
>MaiNe          **
>MarylaNd
>MichigaN
>MiNNesota      **
>MoNtaNa
>Nebraska      **
>Nevada        **
>New Jersey    **
>New Mexico    **
>New York      **
>North CaroliNa
>North Dakota
>OregoN        **
>PeNNsylvaNia  **
>Rhode IslaNd  **
>South Carolina
>TeNNessee     **
>VermoNt       **
>West VirgiNia **
>WiscoNsiN.
>
>Shouldn't this cynch the election for you?
>
>your supporter,
>
>-j.b.

** denotes that these states also have E's in them.
   you may not have noticed, but all of my N and Y words
   were bad words without E's.

   duh. (which , by the way, doesn't have an E in it)

jEnnifEr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:38:12 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: AIDS Wars

>if these people are "beyond help" and as you say, obviously unable to function
>meaningfully in society anyway,

[rant deleted]

>think about what you're saying. you are basically talking about a very real,
>urban problem. think about the populations that inhabit the inner city, that
>are doomed to attend sub-standard schools. your position is very lily-white.

One of the things that makes these discussions so frustrating is that
the "victim" folks fall back on "oh, you just want to round them up
and put them in camps" when nothing of the sort is proposed.

It's a nice rhetorical club, but it is dishonest.  One can honestly
believe that "more of the same" isn't a useful way of dealing with
a situation where "more of the same" has failed.

Intervention, let alone particular types, doesn't necessarily work, no
matter how much we might prefer otherwise.  As my Mom used to put it
"I can try to teach him not to do that to the dog, but I know that the
dog can".  Cruel?  Maybe, but that's not the only important criteria.

Effect always matters, intentions rarely do, especially if the bad
effect doesn't result in change in action.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:45:02 CST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Sean Mills <ST4226@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
Subject:      Good-bye

FROM: Sean Mills

After giving it some thought, I have decided to leave the list. This will be
my second retreat, and I guess I just don't have an interest in taking part in
the discussions (not that I talked a whole lot). I wish you all the best and
may God bless everyone of you. Bye.

                                       -Sean


P.S. Perhaps I'll return at a later time.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:48:17 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

>>                  [NOTE:  In Sweden, abortion is available at the
>>             woman's request until the 18th week.  However, after
>>             the 12th week, there is a mandatory consultation with a
>>             social worker.  After 18 weeks, abortion can only be
>>             obtained with the permission of the National Board
>>             of Health and Welfare and then only if there are
>>             "substantial grounds."  The Swedish statute speci-
>>             fically states that abortion may not be performed
>>             at all if the fetus is viable, unless the woman's
>>             life or health is seriously endangered by the
>>             pregnancy.
>That is pretty close to what we feminists here in the US are aiming at.

Really?  The objections I heard were "mandatory counseling is wrong";
I didn't hear "mandatory counseling before 18 weeks is wrong".  I
don't see much stated support for intervention after viability either.
Maybe we're only seeing the opening bids, and the acceptable outcome
is different, but ....

>We are not a third world nation. We are not a homogenous European nation. We
>are a unique conglomerate of different peoples and cultures with different
>ideas and idealogies. We should respect those idealogies by giving people the
>right to make their own choices on personal issues --

It would be nice if there were personal issues that were non-sexual....

>without imposing someone's rigid religious beliefs upon them.

The first refuge of an American scoundrel is "don't push your religion on me".

There is a coherent "pro-life" view that is no more religious than the
pro-choice views.  If the best argument you have is to caricature your
opponent....

-andy believes in abortion until the state/someone else is willing to
      accept full responsibility
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:30:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: real men don't suffer consequences

travis said i should be careful, my son may sue me for divorce.
i'm waiting impatiently for him to finish college, get a job, move out so
i can have his room!
give 'em everything and whatcha get in return - a lot of heartache and the
small bedroom :)

- linda    (cramped in space)
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 11:35:53 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      oops, my foot is bleeding too

The last line of my last post should end

     " . . . and also be "pro-life"."  <sigh>

Please try to rectify this error in your minds before filling the
net with more syllogisms.  ;-)

Maybe Dan and I will share a room in foot rehab.

Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:11:01 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

Ahem, LiNda!

The DuncaN/ValentiN ticket declares ThaNksgiviNg to be the first among
all American holidays because it is for all Americans to give thanks for
whatever we have and to express hope for the future.

We care for all aNimals, whether or not they are babies.

All states, being part of our couNtry, are important to us.

We are here to represent all persoNs (meN, womeN, and childreN).

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:34:55 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: N-tickets

>The whole thing smacks of Physics Correctness,
>and the American people will not stand for it.

>How's that, Missy?  Think we've got 'em on the run?
>Kerry

  Ha!  The Kerry Campaign has apparently found it
necessary to resort to smear ads.  Negative campaigning!
The People of the Politics deserve better.  E Gary Olson
and I plan to run a clean campaign!

  (And, on behalf of Mr. Olson, let me reiterate that while
he has looked at the Schroedinger Equation, he didn't actually
solve it.  Besides, everyone did a little theorizing in their
college days.)

                          -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU