HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:33:17 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      reagan and clinton
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Check this out!

According to my local paper (SJ Mercury News) coming out in next
week's TV guide (Of all places!) is an unattributed quote from
someone high in the Clinton transition team that says that
during Clinton's meeting with Reagan earlier this year,
Reagan told Clinton that he (Reagan) voted for Clinton!
A Reagan spokesperson says only that Reagan supported Bush's
re-election effort.  The person in the Clinton team says that
Reagan's primary reason for voting for Clinton was that he (Reagan)
was disgusted with the way that Bush was running his (Bush's) campaign!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:50:28 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: it's a wonderful life
              6 Jan 1993 15:00:07 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>anything to him, he knows that it bothers her.  But not only does he
>smoke a lot, but he smokes a lot around the children.  My opinion is
>that this is very close to child abuse and that she is an accomplice.
>Of course, (and I say this because of another thread), I don't think that
>the police or the legislature ought to be involved.  I wish common sense
>would take over.
>What do you think?
>
I think that smoking in a home with children is a form of child abuse
and is properly handled through whatever channels are used to deal
with such abuse.  I do not dispute the dangers of second hand smoke
or the detrimental effects on those confined with it in enclosed
areas over long periods of time.  What I dispute is that occasional
exposure to second hand smoke that has been diffused over a large
volume of air is more than minutely dangerous.  From what I've been
able to glean of the EPA report, their findings are unsubstantiated.
      toddddddddd
      (Quitting smoking is easy.  I've done it a dozen times.)
>Jonathan
>(I was never a smoker.)

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I figure I have the same
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   chance of winning the lottery
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    whether I play or not." - FL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:54:24 EST
From:         Anne Diffily <ADBAM@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Notorious

I read back a week through subject headings and didn't see anything
that looked pertinent, so perhaps I won't be repeating anyone's
earlier news-flash here.

     "...A list called POLITICS-L generated a barrage of
contentious messages.  The participants seemed to include
political scientists, policy wonks, and campus activists,
but the tone was less academic than anarchic, with vehemently
opinionated laypeople and outright crazies adding their voices
to the mix.  Nothing I saw matched the oddity of a harangue
entitled THE 'MARK OF THE BEA$T,' which warned against "bar-code,
OCR-number, and magnetic-strip scanning systems (as found in
local libraries, supermarkets, retail establishments, etc.), which
... THREATEN to SUBVERT Individual Privacy and Freedom.' The author
singled out UPC bar codes as especially dangerous because they
have 'the "NUMBER OF THE BEA$T," 666, ALREADY CODED INTO THEM.'
Response to this post was swift and merciless.  One reply ended,
with, '666, you say? or sick sick sick?' Another asked whether
the author had discovered the conspiracy on his own: 'I mean,
it is coded, so no one would have noticed it till you brought
it up. Unless you are also part of this.... :-) '
     "[somewhat later in article:] ... I had sampled E-mail
for ten days or so when I fell in love myself. She signs her
posts 'anneliese,' eschews the uppercase a la e. e. cummings,
and rambles on, mixing irony and whimsy in exact proportions.
She first captured my heart by explaining high voter turnout
in Minnesota: 'if you ask real nice, they'll give you warmed
stones to place at your feet in that little booth.'  And then
there was her take on the bar-code lunacy: 'according to the
church i grew up in, the mark of the beast was not precisely
defined, coulda been anything.  as a matter of fact, there was
a lot of hooha at my church, according to my sister, when
gorbachev took office in the ussr because of that thang on his
head.  barcodes.  i love this list.' "

        - "Electrotalk Therapy: Sex, Politics, and Paranoia
           on the Net,"  by Adam Begley   (who was at least
           for a while last fall a lurker using this account:
           BEGLEAC@WKUVX1)     in _Lingua Franca_, January/-
           February 1993, pp 49-51
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:47:51 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The Show Mosst Go On

Mr Sprgoo mentioned in an earlier post the biblical
prohibition of homosexuality - and even did us all
the great service of quoting chapter and verse.
Now, it so happens that I have a copy of the bible
with me.  Leviticus (where Robert's quote comes from)
Numbers and Deuteronomy all have lots of laws from
God to man.  I'm wondering how many of them Robert
actually subscribes to.

For instance, God commands us to wear tassels on our
clothes, for all time.  Robert, do you wear tassels
on your clothes?  He also forbids us to wear clothes
made of mixed fibers.  Robert, are you careful not
to wear rayon-cotton mixes?

Well, if you have unintentionally sinned in this way,
the Lord your God has given detailed instructions on
how you can atone for your sin.  They involve sacrificing
a female goat without any blemishes on the north side
of an altar.  I suggest you take care of this, and
ensure your eternal bliss with all do haste.

Without meaning to pry into your personal life, I wonder
if you have any children.  There are explicit rules as to
sacrifices that must be made after your children are born.
A one year old lamb and a pigeon or dove, I believe.  I
hope that you remembered, or will remember to take care of
this.

If you have forgotten, Leviticus also details how you can
make up for sacrifices you have missed.  I'll let you look
it up.

What is especially interesting is that Leviticus and
Numbers and Deuteronomy all have sexual rules and regulations,
but in my browsing last eve, only Leviticus condemned
homosexual behavior.  On the other hand, tassels were
mentioned in two books.

Here's something interesting, too, sprgoo.  There is a
prohibition against pork (we all know that) but there is
also a prohibition against eating fat from cattle, sheep
or goats.  This is a problem because McDonalds hamburgers
are made by mixing very lean meat with beef fat.  I think
you owe a few more goats, if you've ever been for a fast
food burger.

I'll tell you what, Robert, if *you* live by the rules
of leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy yourself, then
I'll support your little war on homosexuality.  However,
I don't think you will.  And if you won't live by the
laws of tassels, or keep the feasts of atonement and the
7th month and 7th year festivals, which God considered
very important; how can you insist on the laws of sexuality
from leviticus?

And if tassels and festivals and sacrifice laws are mentioned
multiple times in those three books, and the prohibition
against sexuality but once, how can you pretend to argue
that the other laws are no longer valid, but that law still
is?

Worry about your own sins, big guy.

                          -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:47:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>"Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes:
>
>[...]
>>    Homosexual behavior is not only
>>   unnatural, but it is dangerous to both partners.
>[...]
>
>Lesbian homosexual behavior is safer that hetrosexual behavior.
> Carl K.

        Homosexuality among various animals also disproves the "unnatural"
part.

        And "dangerous" only in the sense that almost every human activity has
an element of risk associated with it.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:16:43 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Tue,
              5 Jan 1993 16:50:25 GMT from "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@EFF.ORG>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Colorado
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From:
*** Resending note of 01/05/93 10:56

From Robert
 For you KAT: I would take exception with the final clause which denies
              a claim of discrimination, when that claim was to be used
              against the government.  From the private vantage point, I
              don't see a problem with the amendment.

From Carl K...
I would think this would be enough of a flaw to object to. We are
talking about a constitutional amendment after all.

From Robert...
If it had been any of my business, an amendment in my state, I may have
voted against it.  However, the good people of Colorado didn't see it as
all that relevant.  There is nothing wrong with citizens of the state of
Colorado amending their constitution as they see fit.

From Carl K...
Don't you also object that it singles out people who are gay? If you
really object to all laws prohibiting private discrimination in
housing and employment, it seems only fair that blacks, whites, Jews,
born-agains, atheists, women, gays, straights, etc. should loose their
government protection at the same time.

From Robert,
The private sector should be allowed freedom to choose with whom it desires
to associate.  A convent should be allowed to deny admission to Baptists.
An all girl school should not be required to admit males.  Not all forms of
discrimination are *bad*, sometimes a little discrimination is a wise thing.

From Carl K...
Even worse, (I would think) the amendment doesn't even prohibit claims
of discrimination based on sexual orientation, but only on *gay*
sexual orientations. In other words, straight folk are still protected
against discrimination in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver.

From Robert..
As I said above, sometimes a little discrimination is a wise thing.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:33:34 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: caius-wing
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Dec 21, 92 10:36 am

>>
>> Caius, don't you have any >work< to do today???
>>
>> Ellen
>>
I had some >work< the whole week, and they complained about undefined
terminology.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:11:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio

Evelyn said:

>Jenna, those women weren't dying.  None of them were suffering from a
>terminal disease.  If they were, I would understand why they wanted to
>die.

I have to take issue with this; although it's possible that everything I've
read and seen about Jack Kevorkian is completely false, I believe that
Evelyn is mistaken.  In fact, I was under the impression that was the key
requirement for him to become involved: being terminally ill.

Am I mistaken?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Encoding: 24 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:20:00 EST
From:         AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV
Subject:      Health insurance & TN story
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I was wondering what any of you thought about a story I heard on the CBS news
last week.  My memory of the details is a bit fuzzy (and I'd appreciate more
information you may have), but it had to do with an apparent health insurance
"fraud."  A man was critically injured and rendered unconscious in Tennessee,
and his friends rushed him to the ER (Vanderbilt).  Since he did not have
insurance, they were afraid their friend would be turned away from the
hospital.  So one of the friends signed him in with his own name because he
did have insurance.  The injured man did regain consciousness and presumably
maintained the pretense of being the other guy.  The end result was that both
men have been sentenced to prison.  The man who HAD health insurance ended up
losing it because he lost his job as a result of this decision he made to
help his friend.  He said he'd do the same thing again.  The news story then
proceeded to a discussion as to whether the man REALLY would have been turned
away because he lacked health insurance.  My feeling is that he probably
wouldn't have been turned away from the ER (since he was unconscious and
apparently spine-injured), but that he would have been discharged prematurely
from the hospital ... and therefore not enjoyed the full recuperation that he
had.

I'd appreciate hearing more of the details about this story if you should
know any, as well as any opinions you have.

--Anjani
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:20:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio

Assisted suicide has been around as long as doctors.  Naming it, giving it
sensationalist press, and arguing about it doesn't change that fact.

I find it interesting that an announcement about what the state of Ohio is
doing would lead someone to proclaim the above Subj line.

To my knowledge, Jack Kevorkian seeks no one out; they come to him.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:58:54 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Billary
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From:    Daretobesquare

Having already excused himself from one on his most important campaign
promises, the middle class tax cut, Billary is now positioning himself
to deliver the next in the series of slated letdowns.  This time Billary
is going to renig on his promise to: rebuild America instead of continuing
massive spending abroad.  The "globalists" have now successfully destroyed
a sitting president and embedded their hooks into his successor.  Poor
Mr. Bill is coming around to the *old* New World Order way of thinking.

The good new is, Perot's "United We Stand" will become operational again
next week.  Perhaps, millions of not-so-surprised-by-lies Americans can
exercise at least some influence through Congress.

---Robert

"Laugh and the world ignores you.  Crying doesn't help either."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:06:32 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom from discrimination
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> No, it doesn't.  That's one of the outrageous lies I referred to.  There
> is no affirmative action law that dictates that lesser-qualified blacks
> get jobs in preference to better-qualified whites. I invite you to post
> the text of one to the list.  There may be some private set-aside
> programs undertaken voluntarily by private employers, but those are
> not mandated by Federal law.  And even those would be struck down if
> they contained such a blanket provision as you outlined.
>
> Perhaps "outrageous lies" was a little inflammatory (though I think it
> fits in certain circumstances).  Think of them as urban legends instead.
> The myth that minorities get some kind of preference by laws against
> discrimination is not borne out by the evidence.  The laws do help them
> get equal treatment (and loss of their own special priveleges is what
> a lot of these opponents are screaming about), but it is the talents and
> efforts of minorities and women that help them succeed afterwards.  And
> that's as it is supposed to be.
>
> Best,
> Peter
>

   ok, peter. what *does* affirmative action do? apparently my idea
that it mandates special treatment for blacks/women/etc is incorrect.
minority set-asides, changing the scores of non-whites on things like
the gatb, and lowering the requirements for jobs like firefighters so
more blacks/women/etc qualify are all attempts to make things more
equal.

   apparently, judging people by the content of their character and
their merit in a given situation is out of fashion. i wonder how
mlk would feel about a government that makes judging people by their
skin color the bedrock of much public policy.

rtf
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, 11 Jan 1993 12:20:39 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Happiness is a warm nuke...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Brett' (obviously channeling Jay Steven Sultan) says:

>        It's been amusing to see the various "peace movements" that campaigned
>for freezes and unilateral disarmament become very quite as first Reagan then
>Bush effectively reduced the number of warheads here and in the XSSR by 2/3.

Yeah, and kind of a shame too, since this would be a good time for activists
to bring this issue forward so that a) these reductions actually occur (as
opposed to becoming "paper" agreements) and b) to remind america of why it
is that the economy is in the dumpster.


>        The latest attempt to badmouth START II is to say it ignores
>submarine launched missiles.

Geez, and I thought we were supposed to complain because START I had never
been implemented... boy I better get a subscription to one of those lefty
newspapers...

>        Back in the 80s I was a supporter of the notion that many of these
>movements were Soviet inspired and partially staffed with Soviet sympathizers.

Why does this not surprise me... c'mon did Jay Sultan get to you and do some
re-programming?

>This notion was proven true when the British "Women's Movement" was found to be
>led by Soviet spies.

So naturally *all* of these movements are run by the commies, right?


> Yet there are still those unwilling to give credit
>where credit is due.  Unwilling to grant the US (and Gorbachev's XSSR) the
>respect they deserve for retiring the nuclear war clock.

They've retired the nuclear war clock? News to me, I thought that they
turned back the hands a minute or so, but retired? Hmmmmm.

>        You have to look beyond stated objectives.  People aren't always what
>they seem.  Let's all give thanks that Reagan and Bush and Gorby and Yelstin
>have had the courage to say no to irresponsible ideas.

While I take issue with the methods that Reagan and Bush employed, I am, of
course pleased that there are now at least some paper agreements between
two owners of large stockpiles of nuclear weaponry. I certainly credit the
4 people you mention with having the good sense to begin to come to terms
with the problem.

On the other hand, I find your rhetoric which implies that to find fault
with the methods employed or ends acheived by Reagan and Bush is somehow
unpatriotic/part of a communist plot to be simply drivel. When you imply
that Reagan and Bush have brought to an end significant threat of nuclear
conflict, I think that you are simply being foolish.

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:43:08 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pardon me. No, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >
> >In article <POLITICS%92123117422940@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
> > K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes...
> >>From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be"
> ><dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
> >>
> >>. . . .
> >>> Flaw in your logic:  Foley is next in line, not Baker.
> >>. . .
> >>No! President Quayle's vp would be next in line.
> >
> >But -- Quayle can't appoint a VP because Congress isn't in session to
 confirm.
> >
> >                                                        Dan, ad nauseum
>
>         Yeah, but I'm sure President Quayle could call them back. :D
>
> Brett'
> (Doesn't the sound of that give you the creeps? :)
>
Not only is Congress now in session, but Quayle had to announce today that
he lost the election! :-)  He was reading the electoral votes.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Encoding: 18 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:10:00 EST
From:         AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV
Subject:      Homosexuality and nature/nurture
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Someone recently asked if it would undermine the sinfulness argument against
homosexuality if we were to "discover" that it was a genetic trait, and I
just wanted to comment that the whole nature/nurture debate seems to me to be
a lose/lose situation.  People who fear and/or hate homosexuality would be
well-served whichever "wins" in this (IMO not very helpful) dichotomy of
causation.  If it's genetic, well heck, they have the perfect basis for
eradication (just a little friendly eugenics), and if it's learned/acquired,
they just have to figure out a way to un-learn the behaviors (social learning
theory and other psychological approaches are ready and willing to help).

If you can't tell, I get really frustrated by this formulation of the debate
because, like so many things, it proves that any piece of information can be
molded to fit just about any argument, as hateful as the argument may be.

--Anjani (1st time poster, so if this is not an appropriate posting for this
list, let me know; I've enjoyed reading the discussions in the week I've been
on so far)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:00:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: can oil do that?

linda:

I heard a similar account: that since the oil was Light Crude, it would
evaporate more quickly; I don't know if that was in reference to the tons
of chemical dispersal now being dumped on the slick (and further ruining
the fragile Shetlands) or simply by nature of the product.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:59:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      Bible's answer to Dan's Stepbrother !

The Bible does it well too :

  "Answer not a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his
   own conceit."

P.S.Ruckman,Jr.