HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:43:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      Commandments,Ford

Joe,

Didn't mean to be apologetic in terms of not understanding your
post ... had no idea you were just another listee with an attitude
problem ("don't let it happen again").  Well, let me reciprocate :

10 Commandments :

     on 1/25, I wrote that the posting of the 10 commandments was
              not allowed despite the fact that they were bought with
              private funds.
     on 1/26, you wrote that the source of the funding didn't matter
     on 1/26, I pointed out the obvious - tax payers may not want
              their money funding such decoration
     on 1/27, you write: "sure it does as a matter of degree"

So, YES, it DOES matter.  Don't quibble just for the hell of it !

You also seem to misundertsand the case.  Teachers did not put up the
ten commandments (as your post seems to imply over and over ... "the
teacher in the classroom still did ... a teacher putting up her own .
.. etc.)  Which case are you on big guy ?

As for your analysis of the case, no thanks, already read it, know
why the court did not allow it.

Ford Case:

you write "deleted is a disagreement that insane people can't be put
           to death"
box of candy to anyone who can find that in my post (honestly).  In
fact, the central point is that there is NO disagreement about execu-
ting insane people.  The ship went right by you !

         "he admits the guy was in some way mentally unstable/insane"
A dash usually doesn't mean a lot, but if you mean to imply that be-
ing unstable is the same as being insane, I certainly disagree. There
are a lot of unstable people who know the difference between right
and wrong and who, in my opinion, upon murdering large numbers of
people are worthy of death.  See Penry v. Lynaugh (1989).

Thanks for reminding us death requires a high degree of review ...
now come to the real world and make an intellegent statement that
relates to a judge trying to be reasonable in our justice system.
When you say high, do you mean limitless ?  at any point in time
(like when walking to the chair) ?  and based on ANY grounds (like
hearsay from non-impartial witnesses blaming someone who is dead) ?
Get serious, answer those questions.

Finally, you write :
       "when people die we learn more about them"

Dude, are those rejected George Hariison lyrics ???

... too bad this list brings out the smart ass in all of us, eh ?

P.S.Ruckman,Jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:SWEDE@DRYCAS>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:20:00 EST
From:         bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Promises, promises
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Brett' scores:
>10. Civil Rights and Diversity
>[B]     A. End the ban on gays and lesbians in the military

Perhaps you mark with too much haste.  This morning on NPR, there was word
that an intermediate step towards this goal might be taken, by executive
order, as early as the end of next week.  The order would put a stop to
the questioning of those entering the armed forces as to whether they are
homosexual or bisexual.  There were also a couple other things involved,
but this was before I was sufficiently awake.

While Clinton has backpedaled a bit on this question, I believe the chances
are high that he will follow through.  He hasn't abandoned the promise
despite rigorous opposition, but he does see a necessity to address the
(largely spurious) concerns of the military establishment.  I mentioned
a few months ago that a Uniform Code of Sexual Conduct was being talked
about as something to be included in the eventual executive order.

So when will we see it?  Sooner, I think, rather than later.  Given the short
attention span of the general public, the bolder, more controversial moves
are best made long before election day.  (By fall of this year, I expect).

Don't despair.  Politicians make so many promises, it's statistically
impossible for them not to keep *some* of them...:)

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bray v. Alexandria [abortion case]
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:53:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

>> [Jose Prose deleted]
>
>Sometimes I think I rise to the heights of Jose Poetry :-)

Surely "Jose Prosity" would be more poetic!

>I do, it was in response to a New Republic piece on the peyote
>decision and the changes that might come with the upcoming decision on
>Santeria practices in Florida.  Justice Scalia noted in the peyote
>decision that if a law with a secular purpose has an incidental effect
>on religion, it should be upheld -- intent therefore was at issue in
>the case.  O'Connor noted that it was naive to think that the states
>would actually make it known that their intent was to infringe
>religious liberty, so argued that the question should be intent and
>effect (she thought the gov't interest for the law was important
>enough to uphold the ban on peyote use by those whose religion uses it
>as sacrament).  Intent is therefore at issue in the peyote case and in
>Bray, but for different reasons -- the principle is therefore not
>really the same for both cases.

Huh.
A more relevant objection than O'Connor's, I think, is that
it is very unclear why the intent of a law should be at all relevant
in determining whether it violates the first amendment protection
of religious practices (and barring of Establishment).

Surely if the state really did unintentionally establish a state
religion, that would be unconstitutional!!!

>> In Schempp and Murray the Court used the standard of "purpose
>> and primary effect." NEITHER of those may be to further a
>> religious purpose if a law is to pass this test.
>
>Lemon v. Kurtman supplies the current test, though I think it tends to
>complicate matters

Ah, so it does!
The test seems to be, a law must not:
1) have a religious PURPOSE, OR
2) have a principle or primary religious EFFECT, OR
3) foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

>I believe Stone v. Graham which via per curiam disallowed the hanging
>of the Ten Commandments in a classroom by itself based its decision
>solely on purpose.

Don't know it.
I assume, since Joe didn't say otherwise, that the Court did not
say there that effect is irrelevant, but rather that only purpose
was necessary to examine in the particular case.

>> Again, keep in mind that the Bray case was not a constitutional
>> case at all (well, it did perhaps involve some constitutional
>> questions tangentially). It was a case about an old federal statute.

>one updated by the Congress using "class" as the factor of review when
>by now "class" means under the 14th amendment much more than "blacks".
>The 1985 update helps to show that women and abortion can very well be
>at issue here.

Quite true.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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, 27 Jan 1993 10:28:07 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re:Re:Reunion on the mall
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>>         It's a true statement.  Perhaps you're not accounting for inflation.
>> I'll retrieve the numbers and post them.
>I think that we have done this all ad nauseum (sorry Dan!).  But since
>I didn't see the numbers from Brett' and I did from CNN, here they are

        (After reading a few numbers from others, I refrained from reposting
them :)

>Carter '76 $4 Million
>Reagan '81 $15 Million
>Reagan '85 $20 Million
>Bush '89   $30 Million
>Clinton '93 $25 Million
>Clinton '97 $25 Million :-)

        I distinctly remember the talk about Mondale's 1984 inauguration back
in early '77 :).

>Also, this from CNN.  Clinton's inauguration team estimates $32 Million
>in income from contributions, fees, memorbilia sales, etc.  So all loans
>(interest-free BTW (that's some sort of tradition)) are going to be
>paid back and the inauguration team said something about a celebration
>with the profit!  (or a contribution to some charity, I forgot which)

        If I was cynical, I would point out that Clinton is now beholden to
many large corporate conerns, just like past presidents :).

>> >The public isn't paying for Clinton's either but we have been invited.
>>
>>         Of course, you can only watch if you have pay cable :).
>83% of America has it.  I went down to Mother-in-law's house and watched
>CNN, CSPAN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS (She gets 2 different PBS channels and 2
>different CSPAN channels).  That was a fun day! And I taped 3 tapes worth!

        I was thankful (for once) that I've abstained from cable for the past
11 months :).

...
>>         Same stuff, different party.
>A lot of that is true.  The big-wig's contributed and schmoozed.  However,
>people with no money (relatively speaking) partied harder at the Clinton
>inaugural than at any of the previous 4 inaugurals.  The Mall was open and
>filled with booths, there were "free" parties, etc.
>Jonathan

        I certainly hope that their hope is not an unrequited one.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:43:34 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Hi, all. Sorry I couldn't resist this one, but...

>
> >More money isn't necessarily a good thing.
>
> But it's not necessarily a bad thing, either.  I'm sure that, in some

Overheard at the White House Economics lesson for Dan Quayle:

You see, "more money" can be good.. can be baaaad.  You see.
    "I have more money."  That's good... very good...
    "I spend more money than I make."   BAAAAD.  Very Baaad.


> Kerry
> "college has learned me alot"

I said a while back that college didn't really teach me anything
useful.  My bad.  I am now proficient enough at impersonating voices
to convince my own father that I was Ross Perot on the telephone...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:24:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
              23 Jan 1993 19:57:36 -0600 from <pcs$1703@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU>

Rush Limbaugh:  the hardest working man in show business, and President
  of the Shadow Government of the United States of America.

Rush Kemp in '96

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:24:10 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bush league
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> In article <9301152233.AA06122@wizard.netx.com> you write:
> >> >Are we going to return to Iraq every time Saddam steps into Kuiwait?
> >>
> >> Did Saddam step into Kuwait?
> >yes.
>
> Not clear.  He stepped into spoils.  (That's different than stepping
> into disputed lands.)  I realize that we stole it fair and square and
> redrew the lines through "due process", but ....
but what??  Iraq lost a war.  Boundaries are drawn by the victors. The
victors say categorically that Saddam went into Kuwait.  It is not "not clear"
at all.
>
> >It may not be obvious to you and Saddam certainly says that it wasn't
> >obvious to him, but it was obvious to the UN.  The UN said categorically
> >that the Iraquis went into Kuwait and took stuff that they had no right to.
>
> Interesting rule of "law" that we're using now.
No.  A cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam stipulates that what Saddam
did was illegal.  It is not interesting at all and I am unsure why you
are arguing this.
>
> >The UN has stated that the Iraqis had no permission to take the stuff and
> >that they (the Iraqis violated the cease-fire agreement by doing so.
>
> Permission to take their own stuff....
Not according to the cease-fire agreement.
>
> -andy
> --
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:00:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott

On Sat, 16 Jan 1993 15:46:45 +0100 BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG said:
> -Travis says:
> >Actually, I believe the state has a compelling interest in stopping
> >the breakdown of the family, and with this sexual promiscuity and
>
> Would legalizing gay marriages contribute to this?
I think so, because it contributes to sexual deviance and liberation.

>
> Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:11:02 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

On Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:39:43 EST Kerry Stephenson said:
>
>Best Seller List, Baby.  NYT.  17 weeks and counting.  3 hours a day,
>10 million-plus listeners.
>
>--NINAR Kerry

Exactly what do you think being on the New York's best selling
list and having 10+ million listeners mean.  If you want to say
that he is popular, I don't think you will get much argument from
this crowd.  If you are implying that he is "right" then you need
better arguments to convince this crowd.

So what's your point?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:23:21 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>         Come on Stan, isn't this net a hoot and a half?  And, doesn't Mr.
> Limbaugh castigate others based on a personal bias against their
> viewpoints?  Come on, you can admit it, that's precisely why "Ditto
> Heads" listen...  It's FUNNY to hear someone attack and make fun
> of those you dislike...

I will admit that Rush is somewhat egotistical and abrasive in his
delivery style-- that, I believe, is to attract attention and get
more listeners/viewers/readers.  In that respect, he may have an
entertainment-style that is added.  HOWEVER, you cannot simply reduce
his entire logic to entertainment because he attacks people.  Rush
Limbaugh makes fun of the things which he perceives to be
inconsistent.  For example, he will "extend someone's analysis" to
illogical conclusions-- using very logical steps in their own
reasoning.   Yes, this can be annoying as hell.  But, the style of
his delivery does not invalidate his entire content.


>         BTW, if the conservative movement (as spearheaded by Rush's
> popular support)  is so very wide-spread, why isn't he in charge of
> White House Communications under the Buchanan Administration?
> What's that?  Ol' Pat got slaughtered by Poppy Bush in the Primaries?
> Wow, with the conservative upswell and everything???
>
My point is not that the conservative movement is so widespread that
Rush Limbaugh is justified.   It's just that if he were using the
IDENTICAL logic and delivery to further a more left-wing "popular"
belief, he would not be so criticized.

--Stan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:15:32 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Economic Rights and the Court

>>Because their numbers are limited, medallions are very valuable.
>
>But why  are their  numbers limited?   Is it  to protect  the economic
>status of a  class of people (owners of medallions),   or limiting the
>number of medallions  is *one* way of controlling traffic  in the more
>congested part of the city (burroughs?)?
>
>>...Rick
>
>--KAT


All of the above, I think.  It allows that city to regulate the cabs (the
fare structure is set by the TLC, the TLC requires certain English
proficiency and knowledge of New York City roads--not successfully in my
experience, and so on), cab drivers and owners are assured of business
since the supply of cabs is controlled, and Manhattan doesn't sink or
have total gridlock because everyone with a Chevy is out there being a
taxi driver.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:45:31 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: abortion ruling

Hi, y'all:
Boy, I just love it when the links go down :)  As seems to be normal, I
missed about 3 days of posts, then got a bunch of replies followed by the
original messages.  And, of course, I erased some stuff I wanted to respond
to, myself :(

Anyway, here's one quickie:
I think maybe Sam said:
>The whole point of my argument was that an embryo's central nervous
>system is not developed enough to feel pain.

Bzzt.  Judging from things like startle responses and the like, embryos
seem quite capable of experiencing pain.  Of course, "pain" is awfully hard
to define and quantify.

I'm with 'liese et al. on Caius' proposed solution to the sexual violence
thing.   Escort, indeed!

O'Andy:  no, no -- I want *linda* to make the felafels.  I'll help sell,
though, and even wash dishes (for free beer and food).

'Liese:  I watched Clinton's address to the MLK crowd at Howard.  I don't
mind saying that I actually cried when everyone was singing "We Shall
Overcome."  And not from disgust :)

One thing I've been meaning to ask y'all -- has anyone got a good
explanation for why the confirmation hearings are going so smoothly?  I
remember Dole being very adamant about his role as "chaperone" during the
hearings, and it sounded to me like he was going to lead some tough,
challenging questioning.  But now he's all smiles and sunshine -- Zoe Baird
is A-OK with him, etc.  Why the turnaround?  Any ideas?

Thanks!  Later, everyone
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:26:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      and another thing

May be I missed something, but...

Somebody noted that there are protected classes, which that person
listed as race, gender, and religion.

Where did that come from?

As I understand it, laws are (generally) held to a "reasonable
basis" test, unless the classification in question is "suspect,"
in which case the state must provide "compelling state interest"
under "strict scrutiny."  These "suspect classifications" have
been limited to race and national origin.  Gender is not among
them, nor is religion.

So what's up?
               --NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:dunstan@gec-epl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:13:01 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>Sears has become the first major employer to openly display its
>optimistic view of what the future holds for business, during the
>Cliha haa haa in ha haton administration.  Announced today, the end
>of the Sears catalog, the closing of approximately 113 stores and
>the unemployment of 50,000 workers.  The lucky ones, still employed,
>will be facing drastic pay cuts.
>
>I feel all better about Billy now :/
>
>---Robert


What a facile point. Everybody knows that unemployment continues to
rise for at least a year after recovery begins.

Do you think that the Federal Government should step in and run the
113 stores themselves ? Or that an injunction should be placed on
Sears forbidding them from colsing the stores ? Only wanton
intervention would prevent this, and I'm sure you wouldn't approve of
that.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU:R3EJD@AKRONVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:02:09 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing House
              28 Jan 1993 13:56:57 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:56:57 EST K=A*T said:
>
>They picked Kennebunkport.  Surprise, surprise.

I'm not surprised; I can't imagine that Millie would stand to be cooped
up in a hotel suite in Texas. :)

>
>--KAT

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:47:24 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 13:17:15 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>>The "AK was 48th in education" is a useless statistic, so sticking
>
>        How so?
>
48th?  How is that measured?  What other scales are their to rank
states?  How does Arkansas fair there?  What kind of ranges are we
looking at?  (i.e. if the difference between 50th and 40th is a small
percentage then the states are roughly equal and the rankings less
meaningful.)  What was AR (hi NINAR :) ranked when Hillary copped the
post?  How have states of similar rank changed rank in the same period?

Bushy muddied the waters by tossing about several figures like this
during the campaign.  Billy responded by further muddying the waters
with equally useless numbers.  Those fooled by such "statistics" are
often amused by cheap, parlor magicians.  No accounting for smarts.

>>...
>>Is it possible that all the fuss over Hillary's appointment is because
>>she is <gasp> a woman?
>>    toddddddddddd
>
>        Is it possible that you're only saying that because (gasp) we're men?
>:)
I had a vaguely witty retort, and then I realized, I'm not sure I
know who you are referring to with the "we".  We the list members, we
the American people, we the politically aware?  These groups are not
exclusively male.  We as in todd and Brett'?  Then no.  It's just
that I make a point of not overlooking the obvious, and in this case
it seemed like the obvious was at or near the heart of the problem.
    todddddddddddd
>
>Brett'

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "What good is all the vio-
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   lence unless it is tempered
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    with limitless sex?" - GWAR