HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:08:09 -0400
From:         "The Gilded Age is Alive and Well... or maybe it should be the
              Gelded Age" <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: No Subject

reply... you're right.. the goddamn things were designed for violence.
But the violence thing is not limited to the American psyche...
it is in all psyches.. people haven't overcome that instinct of
the simple "It's mine, try to take it, we fight!" idea. Obviously
though you cannot fight for what you believe in because sometimes
violence is shocking enough to the human emotional and mental
faculties as to create some thought. The first ammendment makes
an outline of the rights that people have, the 2nd ammendment makes
sure they can keep them! You are making a fundamental judgement
that people in general are good and want to be nice.. not so! Also,
when you have heavy gun control such as in the north.. the people
without guns are the people who need them for protection. People
haven't changed that much in the last 600 years, they are still
greedy, still hate, still have all the other emotions that drove us
to kill with a sword or bow or a rock. When the people wrote the
Constitution wrote it, they made the assumption that government is
not good and the less there was, the better, however they also recognized that
a certain amount was necessary for people to get along peacefully and
to allow them to coexist. Now.. an armed society is a polite society
if nothing else... so perhaps, in keeping guns, people would feel more
secure one, and two they would think twice about disturbing a person
and his or her belongings!
    You're right.. guns are for violence.. but sometimes a little violence
is necessary to keep order!

                                john stith
                                stustith@eku
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:52:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

macp. said,

>It is a deterrent, just not in the way you think.  It's not a means of
>making people choose not to do it because of the penalty, it's to keep
>them from doing it again.

not to nitpic or anything, but accding to my dictionary a deterrent is
something that inhibits or dissuades someone from certain behaviors through
fear. a deterrent is before the fact. punishment is after the fact.
yeah, you can stretch the definition by saying the death penalty deters that
individual from doing it again, but i don't believe that is a valid definition.

some other thoughts....because of the way things are structured now, it is rare
that the death penalty results in death. we end up housing people for 10, 20, 30
yrs. on death row. i read somewhere (sorry don't remember where or when) that
it is more costly for taxpayers to sentence someone to death row than to life.
if that is so, i don't see how cost to taxpayers even enters into the death
penalty issue (maybe i can find some reference to this - but not today - its
friday after all).

i really am not talking about the "rights" of convicts etc. i think things are
so screwed up in the judicial system and the prison system that the whole thing
needs serious overhaul. decriminalization is one big step they could take.
the other is to eliminate notions of deterrents and to define what the function
of prison really is-to punish or reform. i don't think it can be both.

and i don't think the way to go is to hold parole officers accountable for a
parolees criminal behavior. you're just opening things up for more litigation
and taking the responsibility of the criminal away from him and dumping it onto
someone else. that's one of the things i see wrong. we allow people to get out
of all sorts of shit by blaming "others". it just gets the whole mess even
more convoluted.

-linda  (almost 3pm, and i'm getting thirsty)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:46:06 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Addendum on the Police-State (jails)

>A survey of american jails has found that more than half regularly
>hold people with serious mental disorders on trivial charges or no
>charges at all.
>
>"We were shocked to find that 29 percent of the jails we asked
>admitted to holding people in jail withou no charge at all, solely
>becuse they are mentally ill," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the
>Public Citizen Health Research Group,a  Washington health advocacy
>group that conducted the survey of 1,391 local jails, the first of its
>kind.

Why are they shocked?  The US has pretty much abandoned involuntary
mental health committment and decided to out-patient as many of the
mentally ill as possible, even people who don't want to be out.  Yet,
"the people" don't like to have people with serious mental health
problems wandering around.  Jailing the mentally ill is one obvious
response.

The mental health community "abandoned" these people, thinking that
they'd be better off.  Oops.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the kErry tickEt
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:10:46 GMT
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

James (aka seamus):
>I wonder if I could ask the candidates what their views were on the last
>series of the Cosby Show.  I need to know just what sort of taste in tv
>program my virtual vote is going towards.....

I've only watched the Cosby Show a couple of times, and did not
particularly care for it.  For that matter, I like relatively few network
sitcoms (Roseann is an exception, but I still watch it rarely).  Although
my personal TV viewing is limited (in the time I spend watching and the
shows I choose to watch), I support freedom of choice in TV viewing.  And,
although I choose not to watch sitcoms, I *never* get snobbish or arrogant
about those who do.

Kerry
who watches CNN, PBS, and the Disney channel
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the kErry tickEt
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:29:50 GMT
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

James McBride wrote:
>This, of course leads to the important Irish question.  What position do the
>candidates take vis-a-vis Guiness?  The votes of the Irish community (ie, me)
>rest upon this answer.

I want you to know that the KErry ticket takes the Irish question seriously
.  Which is why I'm still researching the matter :)  But I'll get back to
you on this.

>I don't know, Kerry is my least favourite part of Ireland, so I may have a
>problem voting for an all-Kerry ticket.  Speaking of which, Kerry is known
>in Ireland as 'The Kingdom', so do the candidates have an ulterior,
>undemocratic motive in mind.....B-)

I think I can speak for both my running mate and myself when I say we stand
four-square for democracy.  Even if we weren't, basing a claim to royalty
on letters patent issued in 1329 would be risky at best.

Kerry
or is that Chiarraighe? :)
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, 8 Oct 1992 22:38:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt348686@drew.edu>, todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET> writes:
>>yes the definition of a crime would be helpful.  Usually the death
>>penalty arises when the crime caused a death or maybe indirectly would
>>(talk of death penalty for major drug dealers).  Shooting a store
>>owner in the leg to rob his/her store is using a firearm in a crime,
>>but the death penalty seems a tad harsh.
>>
> Lemme get this straight.  A drug dealer is arrested with a gun in his
> car and should get the death penalty, but a looter deliberatly shooting
> a clerk shouldn't?  Is there any logical reason for this?  Or am I
> missing something?
>    toddddddddddddd
>> -Joe

yes you are missing something.  The idea is not a simple drug dealer,
but a major one who is in control of a lot of drugs that has the net
effect of causing society to suffer in a great degree.  A single
looter shooting a clerk is heinous, but so is a serious assault in any
case, but the crime isn't so heinous to warrant the death penalty, so
the argument goes.  In the debate over the death penalty earlier this
year I put forth arguments showing why I think it is in general wrong,
but my point was even for those who support it, assault isn't usually
up there in "death penalty cases".  Apparently others on this list beg
to differ.

   -Joe


P.S. I reposted this, I hope no one replied to my first post.  It
happened before...
From: U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET (Carl A. Lahetta)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Aztecs
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:40:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Aztecs
> To:           "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020>
>
> One cannot judge Aztecs by our standards. THEY believed that human sacrifice
> propitiated their gods, much as many of us believe believe that attending
> services propitiates ours - they weren't alone. The Hittites, the Zorastrians,
> the Persians and the Mongols, not to mention the crucifying Romans, were
> "barbaric" in their sacrificing large numbers of humans. (Also the Micronesian
s
> used human sacrifice). This was a process of earlier times, it does not appear
> to occur now save on the altar of war - and is that not the MOST barbaric? VMS

   This was one of the responses I was looking for to my Aztec question.  I
bet that alot of people who dislike what Columbus represents would agree that
we cannot judge the Aztecs, or other primitive peoples, by our standards.  Yet,
they are quick to use our standards to judge Columbus.  The other answer I was
hoping to see was the answer given by Martin, that the Spainards and Aztecs
were both barbaric.
   Listening to some anti-Columbus people one would think that everything here
in the New World was perfect, but how grand was it?  On one island emasculated
young males were fattened to be eaten, women were kept and constantly
impregnated so that the baby could be feasted upon, and other peoples had
human sacrafice.  Too bad these cultures are not around today, I mean people
being eaten and killed against their will.  Also, the Indians had slaves,
engaged in wars, and many other evils associated only with the Europeans.
   Columbus may not have been a saint, but he was not a devil, or the devil
that despoiled the New World.  It was already despoiled before he arrived.  To
be fair, these anti-Columbus groups should shed light on some of the activities
on this side of the Atlantic instead of attributing all these ills on the
Europeans.

Carl------+
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Did you vote for Carter
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:14:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>I was 2 years old in 1976.  I would have voted for Carter then, as well
>as in 1980.  Carter was a damned fine president who had several major

dammit martin, would you quit rubbing salt into my poor old wounds.
sheesh... this younger generation... no consideration... ohwell :).

anyway, i voted for carter both times.
at least he won once. usually the guy i vote for loses.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:38:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: The morality of nuclear deterence

        I think maybe a lot of people were like me, and thought "Gee, I'd
have to pull my textbooks out for this one.  Maybe I'd better sit back and
let someone else stick their neck out first."

        I am an international relations major, with three courses in defense-
related issues, with much concentration on nuclear strategies.  I will have
to go back to my textbooks and read up, then I will send something.  In the
meantime I have printed out your message.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Nice, thoughtful start.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:07:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: New kid on the block...

You wash a petry and you kill the culture.  You want to kill culture?  Are
you a supporter of Jesse Helms or something?

                                                Chris Morrison

I goofed up the next try too.
From: STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET (I am Looking For Signs Of Intelligent Life! Know Any?)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Bush Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:10:30 GMT
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

you know the problem with your whole argument is that Herbert Hoover
was not that bad a president because many of his plans were implemented
by FDR and FDR was reigned as the savior of the world. I am not saying
I like Dan Quayle, however the vigorous personal attacks get old after
a while and this is no difference. We hear enough about it on the
damned television. I don't see you vigorously attacking Clinton
and Gore after they admit to wanting to increase the size of government!
How could anyone in their right mind want to increase the size. We need
some strong states rights people to voice their opinions if their are any


   Now the moral is this, to be taken seriously you must have your facts
straight.... Hoover wasn't that bad.... just a victim of an already
coming depression and he didn't want to start a war to stop it!!



                                          John Stith@ We need state's rights
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:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:03:00 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Did you vote for Carter

Macphil:>
But you are looking at Carter in hindsight.  At the age of two, you were
incapable of making a decision.  I'm sure many people who didn't vote or
didn't vote for Carter could make the same claims you are now that
time has tempered their perspective.

Come now, Macphil -- let's not state the obvious.  In '76, I'd prob. never
even comprehended the word "Carter".  Your point about hindsight is sound
however.

As I was saying, though, Carter's been 1 of the few presidents we've had
who have has real values and been consistent to them (Wilson is another).
This, along with his putting blame on the Americans for their own problems
 made him, as a politician, a mediocre one.  Bush's empty messages this
year, as well as his waffling record can be contrasted to Carter, and show
him to be a much more wiley politican, but a horrible president.

> Your spelling is getting better

When was spelling a criterium for Politics forum?  Or Politics in general
( Although Dan Quayle is an idiot, he gets this destinction from things
beside the "Potatoe" incident.)

-Martin
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: p.s. on the whining
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:01:11 GMT
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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ooops.  That's three different courses *per semester*.  I actually teach,
um, let's see -- six different courses on a rotating basis.  I think.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:32:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

>From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>You are trying to weasel out of this.

No, actually, you're trying to weasle me INTO a contradiction, one that I have
so far gone out of my way to avoid.

> Look, we *all* agree that a tax
>is unfair if "it is used as a backhanded way of treating people unfairly,"
>whether it is a regular tax or a doubletax.

Good.  I'm glad we agree.

> And your example of a combined
>flat tax and sales tax being unfair has NOTHING to do with them being
>doubletaxed rather because sales tax is unfair of and in itself.

Doubletaxes generally produce an unfair tax system, but yes, that is generally
because the second tax (or both) is unfair in and of itself.  I said this long
ago, and don't quite see why you keep bringing it up.

>Then maybe you should have said so
>in the beginning and not imply that doubletaxation is somehow inherently
>unfair.  That would have saved us several posts.

I'm not sure I EVER implied that doubletaxation was *inherently* unfair, merely
that it is stupid when it *is* fair and that its results are typically unfair.
If you had not kept putting words in my mouth, you also could have saved us
several posts.

In any case, if I implied that doubletaxation is inherently unfair, I
appologize for doing so.  Happy now? :)

And about that remedial reading remark.  Look (like Jimbo pointed out
a very good example of inconsistency in your posts),

I must have missed this.  Please forward it to me.

>--KAT

Jason
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Who's scarier?
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:33:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:18:36 EDT Janet Perry said:
>Damn! Freudian slip... I meant Stockdale... not StockWELL?

Didn't Fraud (sic) say "Every dream is a wish?" :)

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:27:41 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Where did everybody go?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:58:57 CDT Teddy Jack Eddy said:
>
>>Unfortunately, almost anyone can learn to subscribe to a list, but
>>don't learn to be responsible by learning a few commands beyond that
>>of "SUB John Doe".  Rather than clutter the list, try a few status commands
>>which can be sent to the LISTSERV:
>>Arrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
>
>Should we also learn to salute when sending you mail?

No.  Cash will suffice.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:28:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: george on larry

>Did anyone else see Mr. Bush on Larry King last night? I thought it was
>very misleading to allow only bush supporters into the audience although

this is standard practice for bush. altho' i didn't see the broadcast, being
cableless and all... a friend of mine at penn state told me that a few wks. ago
bush and buddies decended upon their campus. the day before his scheduled
appearance, busloads of bush supporters arrived, security had cordoned off the
area, and the campus population were kept so far back hardly anyone could get
close enough to see let alone heckle.

this all created the wonderful illusion for medias sake that 1000's of students
at psu are in support of dear george.

george may be trying to emulate harry with the whistle stop thing and all, but
he's stacking the deck w/his people.

and *his* administration is waging war against hollywood???

i mean, good ol' cecil b. didn't have so many extras.

- linda

>fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:03:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: THe History of List Politics

        Archives of old politics?  You some kind of blackmailer or something?

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:06:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: "Profiles In Courage"

        I read the book when I was about 15 (1962).  The point was about
politicians who sacrificed their careers because their consciences forced them
to do things that were against the current politican beliefs and/or politically
suicidal.

        I thought it was a very good book.

        If anyone who had a book ghostwritten were tossed out of politics,
there wouldn't be anyone there.  Even authors sometimes have help in writing
a book.  Finally it isn't (so far as I know) established that JFK didn't
write the book.  In any case he had it written to his standards and put
his name on it.  Even editors get credit on the author line.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet

Mister E 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Original_cc:  HARRISR
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:15:00 EST
From:         CLINTON/GORE '92 <HARRISR@CERAMICS.BITNET>
Subject:      Profiles In Courage

>I've just picked up a copy of John F. Kennedy's "Profiles_in_Courage..."
>Is this a respected political work?

>  yes, it is an actual, respected, fairly good book. only problem is
>that ted sorenson actually wrote it. and was probably paid quite well
>for it . . .

        Well, it should also be pointed out that "Profiles In Courage"
        won a Pulitzer Prize for Literature."  Also, Ted Sorenson denies
        that he was the author.  This was a bit of a scandal during the
        1960 presidential race when an attempt was made to discredit
        JFK over this authorship business.  Sorenson denied it then and
        again more recently in a PBS special on JFK.

        Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU