HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: partisan idiocy
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:07:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I know you're breathless, Tim - anyone would be who could write as many words
as you did and still not say much!

Let me say yet again that the people who are *leading* the fight against gun
control are the ones with a profit in mind; they are the ones who I said
were babbling about individual rights - while hiding their true motives. I never
 said that *anyone* who uses that argument therefore babbles!  It *is*
babbling, is it not, for a cigarette manufacturer to fight anti-smoking laws
by laying out a big *individual rights* campaign! Why not simple say "I want
to make money - don't change the law!"  Instead we have these national groups
throwing the American public a lot of crap about how concerned they are with
individual freedoms - when they're just looking to protect their $$$.

BTW Please read carefully - if you are going to spend so much time on response -
you mat as well get it right.  I asked if you could come up with a self-serving
reason why the gun-control *advocates* were fighting, not the gun-control
*opponents*!  If you take such a large stand, please make sure you know what it
is you're railing against.

No, I never defended the gun-control stance in any of my posts on this thread.
You accused me of doing so, without proof - and yet you also accuse me of doing
much the same thing!  Where did I ever defend them?

You may offer as many *experts* as you wish - again, if all it took were the
posting of *someone else's* work to prove an argument, that would be fine.  I
can't believe that you would think that just because you posted that piece, I
should (1) lay down and admit defeat on the 2nd Amendment and (2) admit that
conservatives *never* rationalize(or at least haven't cornered the market).
That's ridiculous.

I offered the gun-control issue as an example of my opinion about conservatives.
I will post more in the next day or so.  Until then, do me the favor of respondi
ng to the points at hand and leave out value judgements.  They seem to do me
no good, and have a way of revealing character flaws in the judge, as well.

I stand behind my claim:  While many groups engage in rhetoric to further their
cause, IMO conservatives seem to rationalize (say their reasons for a stance are
X when they are really Y) to a much greater degree than any current group of
which I am aware.  Further examples T/F.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:23:53 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      liberal media
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I find it interesting that not even one person has replied to my message of
 Friday the 20th about the violence in schools.  What's wrong?

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:10:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Religion and Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Kip Shaw asks what religions offer a way out of the planet exploding in
ten billion years.

He then proceeds to say he's leaving the list.

So please, if you have a response for him, send it to him in PRIVATE
mail!

This isn't an issue which applies to this list and I'd rather not
have us arguing about something which belongs on BELIEF-L instead!

Thanks,

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:38:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

That Spy Magazine page was a good one - but if memory serves Gary Trudeau beat
them to it with a similar Doonesbury!  It said you couldn't even *recycle* it!


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:30:24 -0500
From:         Every Man <EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Logic/Emotion

         Christopher, gays are currently enlisted in the Armed Services.
         You seem to be saying that a problem exists if a known gay is
         bleeding in battle, but that somehow, if he/she is not openly
         gay, you do not feel vulnerable?  I must be missing something
         ...some critical facet of your 'logic'.  Perhaps, trying to follow
         your perspective, you should assume that everyone is possibly HIV+
         if they are wounded to prevent a possible contact.  Did you
         know that non-gay soldiers might also be HIV+.????
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:25:06 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
>protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
>
>-Rich

I thought that all he had done was act as a steward on a couple of the
marches, not actually lead them. I'd like to know the truth on this
one.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:59:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance

From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

> Second, once you find this reason, explain how those who are willing
> to take the job, knowing nudity is required [say a nudist colony, or
> a Friday the 13th movie], can declare sexual harassment just by others
> seeing them nude.  Can a Playboy model claim the need to expose
> herself is sexual harassment?  Again sexual harassment is not belief,
> but discriminary action.

Joe brought up a very good point (with which I agree).
Though a good point, I would like to point to a small flaw.

What if Acme Enterprises hires you when there is no nudity
involved and then changes the nature of the business and THEN
require nudity from you.  Is that a sexual harassment since
it was not in the original contract/job description?

I *know* my analogy is not perfect, but maybe you would be
kind enough to address my point anyhow.

>   -Joe

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:25:27 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words

>>>His anti-gay bias shows a hint of facism, yes.
>>
>> Hmm.  Is that because bias is fascist or is there something different
>> about anti-gay bias?  (I not that our favorite example of Fascists
>> were both pro and anti-gay.)
>>
>> It is nice to see more and more support for my "fascist" = "something
>> a liberal doesn't like" theory.  I have run into people who use it
>> "correctly" - they rarely use it.
>
>Fascism: "a system of gov't lead by a dictator and emphasizing
>excessive nationalism and racism"  Fascist: a person who believes in
>fascism.  I think homosexuality would be something a fascist would be
>against for homosexuals are a type of people, a kind of racism is to
>be against them.  Of course the fascist is against the race of
>"others" so there can be a homosexual fascist though I doubt there are
>that many.

It's difficult to determine if Joe really wants to use the "anti-gay
is fascist because gays are involved" defn even though he presented
one that was inconsistent with that claim.  Historically, there are
tons of gay fascists.  I don't see why they'd be underrepresented
today either.

>A person who will ban guns can be called a fascist, I guess.

I wouldn't.

>However Fascists are more inclinced to have more conservative agendas.
>They would not like much rights of criminals -- better order.

Doesn't follow from the defn offered.

>They wouldn't like reducing military spending (nationalism) for more
>social concerns.

Doesn't follow.  Social spending can be quite nationalistic.

>Thus, a Fascist is a someone a liberal doesn't like.

Yes, liberals don't like Fascists=Joe's definition, but they also use
the term for people they don't like whether or not said people
actually satisfy Joe's definition.

>Libertarians aren't fascists nor is many
>liberals call fascists, but the error in their ways is understandable.

How is it understandable?  Is it also good, or even acceptable?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:06:22 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      from the home office in anchorage station, kentucky...

top ten things george bush is going to miss about the presidency

10.  extra-big packets of honey-roasted peanuts on air force one
 9.  the angelic little look on danny's little face when he's all
     tucked in
 8.  yearly hassle about acquisition of a christmas tree completely
     circumvented
 7.  runnin' out to the kwikstop on constitution for an icee (tm)
 6.  getting to cut to the front of the line at k-mart
 5.  chasing that vixen barbara around the lincoln bedroom
 4.  the major medical coverage
 3.  late-night, extended, romantic phone calls to mme. mitterand
 2.  standing ovations at the capitols hockey games

and the number one thing george bush is going to miss about the presidency...

 1.  pardoning guys randomly, usually on a dare




(the preceding message was posted for kerry kilburn, who asked that i
send something, even though i am no longer subscribed and have no idea
if you will even get this.)

anneliese lorson.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Survey

Hi folks - the recent short surveys conducted by other members has been
inspirational...if you'd like, please take about five to answer this little
informal survey and mail it back via BITNET to: clark@evmsvms.bitnet.  All
responses welcome - please keep answers *short*!


1.  Where on the political spectrum do you place yourself?

2.  In general, do you consider yourself

        A. Above average intelligence
        B. Average intelligence
        C. Below average intelligence
        D. Other (please note)


3.  In general, most people in this world are of

        A. Above average intelligence
        B. Average intelligence
        C. Below average intelligence
        D. Other (please note)

4.  On the average, whites and non-whites score equally on IQ tests

        A. True
        B. False

5.  People with strong religious beliefs are more likely to be moral people
    than people with no religious beliefs whatsoever

        A. True
        B. False

6.  Political ideology distinctions cut across all socio-economic and
    intellectual divisions

        A. True
        B. False - (Intelligence & Class correlate with political ideology)

7.  Do you consider yourself a religious person?

        A. Yes
        B. No
        C. Other (please note)

8.  Non-whites tend to be more passionate than whites

        A. True
        B. False

9.  People of Germanic descent are more stoic and rigid than people of Spanish
    descent

        A. True
        B. False

10. My educational level is:

        A. Did not complete high school
        B. Completed high school but no college
        C. Some college, no degree
        D. Bachelor's degree
        E. Some graduate study, no advanced degree
        F. Graduate degree
        G. Post-graduate degree
        H. Other (please note)


Thanks, folks!  That's it...please remember to e-mail it back to me and not
to the list.  Thanks again for your time - the results will be posted soon.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:18:32 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapons designed for human destruction?

>When I was thinking of weapons designed for human destruction, I was
>thinking of things like machine guns and the like.  Unless I am totally
>mistaken, these guns can't be used to hunt.

What's "the like"?  Does it include guns that look like machine guns?
Why doesn't it include shotguns?  (In terms of "number of good-sized
pieces of lead downrange in 10 seconds, it's hard to beat a shotgun.)
Since shotguns are used for hunting, something in this argument isn't
going to fly.

"Can't be used to hunt" is a silly criteria.  Besides, why is hunting
utility the only acceptable criteria?  What about self-defense?  (BTW
- if DEA agents think that submachine guns are necessary for
self-defense, and that's their only legal use for guns, then how come
neighbors of said dangerous drug-dealer don't have the same need?)
What about "I want it"?  How about MY shooting sport?

BTW - we've strictly regulated machine guns since 1934.  The legally
owned ones aren't used in crime (so there's no possible value in
further restrictions, which doesn't stop gun controllers from asking,
which demonstrates to the rest of us that gun controllers aren't
interested in rational policy, but I digress) but there's been no
effect on their criminal use.  (Surprise - illegally acquired guns,
buth smuggled and manufactured, are just as useful.)  Given that
experience, maybe this approach doesn't work?  Then again, maybe it
does, and I just don't understand what the real purpose is?  (Clark
would mention "ulterior motives".)

>After more consideration, I think that a limit on the number of guns
>per capita or per square kilometer could be an acceptable means of
>regulating guns in an area.

Why?  What is the goal and why is this a plausible means to accomplish
it?  (Quibble: Suppose I live in the same area as Donald Trump and he
decides to buy up the area's quota.  Is that really a rational basis
for turning me down?)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:01:36 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      for James Sheldon, who must've missed it
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

James Sheldon wrote that he was concerned about AIDS in the military, and
said something about homosexual males being the big risk factor.  So I
thought I'd repost this little bit from T's earlier posting.

>(Virginia) U.S. Military _HIV_ Cases reported:    270
>Cases reported from homosexual/bi contact:          3.7%
>Case reported from single hetero contact:           1.1%
>Cases reported from multiple hetero contact:       67.4%
>
>(City of Norfolk, Virginia) HIV Cases
>Cases reported from U.S. Military:                 45.6%
>Case reported from Public Health Facilities:       17.4%
>Cases reported from Private Health Facilities:     10.7%

While we're on the subject :)  I have a vague recollection that drug abuse
is a problem in the military.  Does anyone know whether the use of IV drugs
is higher among military folks than the general population?  I'm obviously
wondering about the extent to which HIV in military settings might be
linked to drug use vs. linked to sexual practices.

Looking forward to those v-beers!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:22:27 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: don't forget to wash behind your ears...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Nov 18, 92 7:58 pm

While under delusions of grandeur, Song Weaver spewed:

| --Julie "What's a dweeb?" W.

        Are you a Tom Chapin fan? Or do you like putting questions in
the middle of you name?

[For those not in the no, Tom Chapin is a Children's artist. One of
the choruses in one of his songs is "A Dweeb, what's a dweeb? You
Know...Like Bruno. Now you know.]

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
                       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:18:35 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <9211180925.AA12285@cuthbert.bashstreet>, Dunstan_Vavasour
<dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK> says:
>
>>I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
>>protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
>>
>>-Rich
>
>I thought that all he had done was act as a steward on a couple of the
>marches, not actually lead them. I'd like to know the truth on this
>one.
>
>Dunstan

Yes, all he did was act as a Marshal or steward (ie someone who stands on
the side of the road and makes sure people turn right, not left at intersection
X) hardly a leadership role.Kinda like blaming the LA riots on some cop who
was directing traffic at the time.
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, 19 Nov 1992 13:40:14 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      just curious
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Just out of curiosity, I would like to run a brief survey of list
readership on the question "do you really care what Reagan, Quayle, and
Clinton did vis-a-vis armed conflict?"  I'm not trying to quell discussion
or anything -- honest!  I'm just wondering . . .

You may mail me private if you wish.  I'll post results if I get any :)

Kerry
doing that aunt-thing again :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:33:50 -0500
From:         Jeff Green <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: CENSORED: MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW APPROVED
>
>Last year's controversial Intelligence reauthorization bill, spawned
>
>THE CANNED HUNT
>
>Hunters say the thrill of hunting comes from the chase not from the
>kill.  The booming canned hunt business tells a different story.

Rich,

Do you mind if we reprint in ModemNews Magazine some of what you have
posted in the two mentioned above (and perhaps some in the future as
well?).

ModemNews Magazine is an electronic publication that is distributed via
public BBS's free of charge. We are the "Alternative Press" for BBS
users and callers, and just about the only bastion of free speech you
will find in that community that reaches the audience the size we do.

We'll give you as much info about ModemNews as you would like. Just
ask...

Copies can be obtained by downloading from our BBS at 203.359.2299.
Look for MNEWS43.ZIP for the DOS ANSI edition, MNEWS43.CPT for the
Macintosh edition, MNTBK43.ZIP for the Toolbook edition, and last but
not least MNTEXT43.ZIP for a text dump.

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor                  "The Alternative Press for BBS Users"
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                     Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:19:29 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Quayle's debate
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Kerry:
     To what do you refer when you say the "truth squad?"  Quayle's "lies
and misrepresentations" were taken from statistics, as were Gore's lies and
misrepresentations.  You can find a statistic to support whatever you believe.
Quayle proved to be able to think on his feet and didn't look like one of
Jung's humanoids.
-Rich
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:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:12:03 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      miscellany
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, again :)
Linda, I think you'd make a great list matriarch.  And as long as you cook,
I'll do the dishes (but I don't do walls and windows).  I love vegetarian
food, but will still request prime rib for my birthday dinner :)

Peter, thanks for the comments on "citizen legislators."  We have those
here, too.  Higher ed. folk *can't* serve -- there's some sort of
constitutional ban on it (apparently this was done specifically to prevent
one unliked individual from serving!).  K-12 teachers can, but I don't
know whether they get time off or quit for a few years (and substitute or
something).  Near as I can tell, our state legislature consists of folks
who are self-employed (lawyers, business-types, real estate agents/brokers,
homemakers, etc.).  Of course, we always hear about the ones who are "in
the pockets" of the coal, timber, and chemical industries.

I didn't realize I was becoming a "famous West Virginian"!

Cheers,
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:08:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I'll probably hate myself for saying this tomorrow, but...

Honestly I don't see Clinton's avoidance of the draft as being anything
other than avoidance of the draft and looking out for his own hide.  I
see nothing _wrong_ with that, but if he were really trying to _oppose_
the draft he should have done so openly and honestly.

So while he is no more of a "draft dodger" than Quayle, I don't think
he was much less of one either.  The fact that Clinton opposed the war
makes his not wanting to be drafted more palatable than Quayle's, but
doesn't reall make it anything _noble_.

I don't hold it against him, but I don't find it a thrilling thing
either...

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