HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:03:29 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: On "libertarianism" ...

>I agree that government should stay out of all the things you mentioned
>except abortion.  However, the penalties for crimes committed under the
>influence of drugs, etc.  must be treated with double penalties to
>ensure that people treat these freedoms with the required personal
>responsibility.

Hmm.  Suppose that there are three bad drivers on the road.  One is
temporarily incapacitated by "drugs" (probably alcohol, but ...),
another is temporarily incapacitated by lack of sleep, while the third
is always a bad driver.

How should the cause be reflected in society's response and why?

Note that "well, bad drivers are more likely to be drunk than sleepy"
is handled by the sampling - drunk drivers will be hosed more often
because they'll be caught more often.  The same thing happens with
"bad drivers are more likely to have serious accidents than drunks".

-andy thinks that the sleep-deprived should be treated just like
      people who get their incapacity through chemicals

--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:58:15 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: left-right

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>My look at these matters has always been:
>
>---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>      Leftism                    |          Rightism
>---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
> anti-individualistic            |     pro-individualistic
>                                 |
> "All individual resources       |    "the state wealthy by the the
> should be allocated to the      |     wealth of its citizens"
> prosperity of the state"        |
>                                 |
> "welfare" state                 |    "no free lunch"
>                                 |
>---------------------------------+------------------------------------------

Well, then, we have a choice. Either we can all keep Caius's
chart in mind, as a kind of iconic definition of his idiolectic
meaning of "Leftism" and "Rightism," or he can try using more
standard words. I prefer the latter, but am willing to try the
former. (Hey, Jimbo, doesn't this paragraph remind you of Zeleny?)

>Thats why I put all flavours of socialism (Marxism, Nazism, Soviet Communism)
>on the left.

Well, that appears to be an error, even according to your own chart.
Many socialists are individualists. (I would even count MARX as an
individualist, actually!) Many socialists are against the welfare state.
Many socialists are opposed to state control of resources (e.g., Noam
Chomsky).

Terminologically yours,
Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:09:56 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
              31 Dec 1992 11:33:23 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

> But is it? This finding happened _after_ the illegal activity.  Does that
> make it legal?  Shouldn't that be something that the special prosecutor
> looks into?

Was it really AFTER?  Sources, please?

> Jonathan

--KAT

p.s. On a related note: Bush is (or was) saying that he would release
his notes if Walsh would release Bush's deposition taken by Walsh.  My
question is why couldn't BUSH release his own deposition?  Is it against
the law?  If he does not have a copy, can't he summarize the jest of it?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      kids
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:14:54 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9212211422.AA12819@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,         
Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
> Anyone who bothers to think knows that:
> 
> BIsexuals can have, HOMOsexuals cannot. Right? I'm not an expert.
> 
> Caius

It is obvious to all here that you are not an expert.

Homosexuality and Bisexuality are not simply about sexual activity, but
emotional attachment.  A Gay man who engages in heterosexual intercourse does
not then become Bisexual, but still remains Homosexual.  He forms mate-bonds 
with men (or a man), he is interested in forming said bond with a man (or men). 
On another track, Lesbians can use artifical insemination to get pregnant.  Of
course, there is also adoption.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:52:21 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS@NEWS.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      just a test
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

<<<<
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:51:29 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

other Ellen:
>Correct me if I'm wrong (you seem to have more
>information on this group than some others) but
>isn't NAMBLA's philosophy that they are for
>*consensual* sex with young males of *any* age
>but are against "child rape" because rape lacks
>consent?

Please don't suggest that I have something to do with that group.
I know about it only though american newspapers and magazines that
I can get here in Germany. I came out a bit too forcefully in
defense of NAMBLA's right to free speech for the sake of argument.
I am glad that it triggered a lively discussion.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:00:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> From ???? ( sorry, I deleted the file ) ...
> And the same old cliche again, "if homosexuals, why not murderers,
> adulterers, etc."  It is amazing (also comforting) that anti-homosexual
> people can never come up with better analogies.  They always have to
> put homosexuality (which is an act between CONSENTING adults and has no
> tangible victims) with other acts which are known to hurt third parties
> and often lack consent.

> From Me...
> The cliche happens to fit.  The activities you cite have a common thread,
> immorality.  Maybe you'll be more comfortable with a comparison to
> consenting adults making a crack cocaine transaction.  There have been
> numerous discussions on this list proclaiming laws against drugs as
> misguided.  Some have even claimed drugs to be victimless.  I do not agree
> with either of those conclusions.  From your position on homosexuality, I
> take it that you agree with both.

The point is that Christianity to some is as "immoral" as
homosexuality to you.  However, it is against the law to
discriminate against people just because they are christians.

My point is that homosexuality is more like Christianity
than being a murderer.  Murder hurts other innocent third
parties, homosexuality does not.  Granted that to you murder
and homosexuality are both immoral, so given that are you
saying that homosexuality should become illegal just as
murder is?  And if not, then why not?  Is it because morality
alkone should not be basis for our laws?

I think you cheapen the religion, any religion, when you try
to impose it by the force of law.  You already believe that
the only way to HIM is through his son, etc.  Isn't that enough
incentive for people to join?  Must you also make it against the law
not to be Christian so people would be forced to be (Christian)
moral.

> BTW, Who cares what Aspen decided?  The vote was a *state* decision.
> Are you opposed to democracy all the time, or just when the results
> are not to your liking?

Don't squeeze in that "BTW" in there.  You deleted my quote.  The
POINT was that you said the only "POSSIBLE" was reached by the
state of Colorado.  What I wanted to know is whether the decisions
reached by the people of Aspen, Boulder, and Denver were IMPOSSIBLE
decisions?

> ---Robert

--KAT

BTW: the only "character" missing from your posts is....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:20:27 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Granted, we have had limited numbers of democratic executive office
> holders in the past quarter century but can anyone list examples of
> pardons handed out by democratic presidents?
Well, Carter pardoned all people who escaped the draft by fleeing the
country.  I heard an expert on pardon's on NPR talk about pardons and
he said that _ALL_ presidents pardon and most have controversial pardons!
> I can't think of any off
> hand. As far as the Iran-Contra investigation taking a long time, that
> is what tends to happen when the administration is using all avialable
> resources to deny access to materials connected with the case on the
> never fails grounds of national security.
Absolutely!  Another reason for the length of time of the investigation,
is that these are complicated issues.  Many different countries over a
period of time are involved.
> Now that Bill Clinton is the
> commander-in-chief (don't you love the sound of that Brett and Robert?),
> he need never disclose who/what he has slept with in the past on the
> grounds that it would violate national security concerns. I personally
> have a problem with the character issue; Bush ran his whole campaign
> on "Who do you trust to tell you the truth?" and now it is obvious
> that he has been less than candid with the american people as to his
> knowledge of Iran-Contra. I would also like to see a special prosecuter
> investigate the savings and loan fiasco and tell us how much money we
> could have saved by addressing the issue prior to the 1988 election.
There's a good question!  And speaking of S&L's, anyone remember the
dark diar predictions of the bank failures and how we would have a
December Surprise because some report was due out mid-December and would
tell us how many banks are going to fail?
>
> Has anyone heard anything about Ross Perot lately? I haven't seen the
> news much lately but he seems to have had his fifteen minutes of fame
> and is now back in oblivion.
>From what I have heard, he (Perot) has decided that "United We Stand, America"
is not going to be a third party.  Just a voice of conscience.  He is going
to start charging people $15/year dues to be a part of this thing that
he's creating and now appears to be bored with.
> I wonder, are the democrats better crooks
> than the republicans and manage not to get caught while in office,
> thus the infamous pardon gap?
>
> fred
>
I don't think that there is a "pardon gap". But I still hate what Bush
has done.

Jonathan
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:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:15:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: virtual white house holiday menu
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

linda:
>the official xmas holiday menu is as follows:

[truly sumptuous food items deleted]

Ok, that's the food.  Now let's see the wine list! :)

>here's hoping everyone's holiday is happy, prosperous, and above all,
>*filling*.

Same from me, y'all.  Have a happy.

>-linda

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:46:18 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

>I think that the answer is to assume that the Senate did its job when it
>confirmed the Justice Dept. officials, and thus we have Justice people who
>would do their job.

After I read that, I asked myself "While the Senate does confirm folk,
what does it have to do to remove them?"  I then picked up a copy of the
Constitution and found:
   "Article II, Section 4 has "The President, Vice President and all
    civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
    Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
    Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Is that enough, or should Congress be able to remove people from
office for other reasons?  Should impeachment be easier to pull off?
(The House indicts and the Senate runs the trial.)

Given the above, I think that the Congress should run its own
investigations, that the special prosecutor is a big mistake and that
we should use the impeachment procedure instead of the criminal
justice system for crimes committed by high-level govt officials.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:17:10 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: kids

>From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
>
>Just to quibble...a lesbian woman can have a child if she's raped.
>
>Hmm.
>
>Ellen

Just to quibble, she can have a child even if she isn't raped.

As Kerry points out, she can be artificially inseminated.

And a gay man can deposit sperm in a sperm bank, and thus become
a biological father. (Well, not quite "thus," but you get the idea.)

Glad I could clear all of this up.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:01:58 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      [AD52IVS <AD52IVS%MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU@VM.TCS.Tulane.EDU>: you
              are the worst kind of fool]
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Hey everyone, I thought you'd all enjoy this response I got from some
"brilliant gentleman".  Amazingly, this man has apparently got a
reasonable job, despite his obvious intolerance and idiocy.  It is
truly one of the funniest pieces of "hate mail" I have received yet
from this list...  Enjoy it.  He is truly among the ranks of the
stupid, unwilling to debate, but quick to use labels, the perfect
"politically correct" citizen...

Dr. Pizz
                ---------------

Return-Path: <@VM.TCS.Tulane.EDU:AD52IVS@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
Received: from VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU by cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB/jba)
        id AA27651; Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:08:25 EST
Received: from TCSVM.BITNET by VM.TCS.Tulane.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
   with BSMTP id 8620; Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:16:35 CST
Received: from MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU by TCSVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP
 id 3264; Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:16:34 CST
Message-Id:  <23DEC92.11071384.0068.MUSIC@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
Date:        Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:15:04 CST
From: AD52IVS <AD52IVS%MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU@VM.TCS.Tulane.EDU>
To: <jdt10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: you are the worst kind of fool

dr? pizz

i just read one of your early posts on the moral accomplishments (!)
of the republican regime.  i see that there are many posts to
follow on the same topic but i don't think i'll bother.  i know
that we cannot argue with a person who is disposed to believing
the kind of nonsense you believe and to thinking the way you think.
you are not unusual, you are part of a powerful, although waning,
historical and ideological force in this country.

i just wanted to add my name to the list of thinking people who
by now will have called you a closed-minded, ignorant klansman.
100 percent of blacks (niggers to you) and an
increasing number of whites are
opening their eyes and seeing what people like you have done to
the world.  i know what you think of my ideology and i know that
yours is founded in ignorance that you hold very dear and defend
viciously, so let me
just say that you are worse than a fool, you are dangerous, and
that i fight you every day by not teaching your hateful dogma to
my kids.

you suck in the worst way.

eric seeger
budget coordinator, tulane university, new orleans
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:11:00 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Just a quick question for the New Year!
>
>         If President Bush is investigated and convicted on the Iran-
> Contra affair before Inauguration Day, can he pardon himself?
>
>                                 just wondering...
>
>                                         Bill
>
You bet.  That's why nothing will happen until he leaves office!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:33:37 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me! version 1

>From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>It was my impression that the law specifically states that when a "senior"
>member of the White House Staff is involved, a special prosecutor HAS to
>be named.  IMO, Barr had no choice.  And I'll bet that he tried to find
>every loophole possible!

I think that is what the law says.
But the law was about to expire! All Barr had to do was drag his
feet for two days, and the special prosecutor law would have no
longer been an issue.

>hmm. Interesting.  However, I believe that it is the Attorney General
>who decides to appoint (or more accurately since the law is now history,
>decided to appoint), and therefore unless Barr and Grey are good buddies,
>(not impossible to imagine), Barr decided to do this on his own and
>(referencing my above paragraph) followed the law.

They ARE buddies. Better than that. Grey "took Barr under his wing,"
when Barr was brought in as Atty General. According to Safire.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:22:51 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"

>>O'Andy thinks that workers should be paid more than supply/demand
>>suggests and wants "someone else" to pay for it.  I don't think that
>>we should interfere with the supply/demand decision, but if we do,
>>yes, it should come from everyone, but only because I can't figure out
>>how to make sure that people, like O'Andy, who favor such lunacy pay
>>the entire bill.
>
>andy f. refuses to consider that at the higher levels of management
>the rules of supply and demand do not apply the same way that they
>do at the lower levels.

Andy is perfectly willing to consider that, given relevant evidence.
Andy assumes that O'Andy is giving the best arguments he can, and
"some people make a lot more than others" simply doesn't show that
supply-demand doesn't work.

>>Being allowed to participate in a market?  That's rich.  "Society"
>>doesn't own the market; the actual participants do.
>
>OK, well then I sure hope I never hear you complain about government
>regulation of trade/commmerce/markets; I'll just remember that
>the market is "owned" by business.

O'Andy is babbling.  Of course I'm going to complain when third
parties get involved.  I do appreciate the way he "interprets"
participants as "business", but it's his strawman, so he gets the
credit.

-andy
--
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:         Sat, 26 Dec 1992 11:16:08 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      merry xmas
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Happy holidays, y'all:
I'm off to California this afternoon, and will "see" everyone when I get
back.  Have fun!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:48:41 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Kerry,

Fine, I agree, everyone should be polite.  However, if they aaare not,
that shouldn't be punished by thee legal system.  There is the freedom
to be rude and obnoxious in this country, and let the rude, crude, and
obnoxious die by the same sword they live by.

Pizz
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: aa478@Freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Shuttle)
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:47:14 GMT


From a Canadian point of view, this discussion is very
interesting.  First, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
makes unconstitutional any _government_ action that offends
persons' rights to equality.  Thus, the Ferrari dealer is not
bound by this constitutional restrictions, since s/he is
in the private sphere.

However, we also have a _Canadian Human Rights Act_, which
prohibits discrimination even in the private sphere. Thus,
in commercial matters, or "offerings to the public", the
Ferrari dealer cannot discriminate.  Recently, the courts
have read sexual orientation into the enumerated grounds of
this Act, and the government has officially proposed legislation
that would incorporate this change.  So in Canada, it is
_illegal_ for a Ferrari dealer to refuse
to sell to a person for reasons of sexual orientation.
This may not be relevant to the apparent topic of your
discussion, which is whether such refusal would be _immoral_.
-- 
III       PAUL SHUTTLE                 aa478@Freenet.carleton.ca
III       Ottawa, Canada
III
From: caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL (Grzegorz Albinowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: plato's state
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:05:53 GMT
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]
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Stephan Melin :

>work of Plato(n) (sp?) which was called (I think) "The State", where he
>described an idealistic society, which won't work without a huge number
>of slaves BTW.

Yes, Plato's "State" looks like a "do it yourself kit" for a starting
totalitarian regime.

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