HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:17:03 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>>> FACT: He did not say he would support her, rather, he would
>>>       support her decision.

>>> False.  He said "I would support my *daughter*."

>> False.  He said "I would ... support whatever decision she made."
>> Mine is a DIRECT QUOTE typed word by word out of our local news-
>> paper.  Is yours direct?  Where did you get yours?

> I heard a playback of the Dan Quayle interview.  The emphasis on
> "daughter" is his, not mine.

I don't follow you.  Never mind about the emphasis -- did he say "support
my daughter" or "support her decision?"

>>> I don't know.  "Implied consent" to let a baby use your body is not the
>>> same as implied consent to let the baby's use of your body destroy your
>>> health.

>> Let me get this straight.  You are saying a woman who is engaging
>> in sex in order to get pregnant and have a baby has only consented
>> that the baby uses her body but only if it does not affects her health.

> Well, I mean, yeah.  I think pregnancy is a recognizable risk when
> having sex.  I don't hold to the notion that you can get pregnant by
> *accident*--even blondes know better (I think :)).  However, a preg-
> nancy posing a severe threat to the mother's health is not a recogniz-
> able risk.  When that happens, it is *truly* an accident.
> (Headliner: Justice Kidd, Supreme Court adopt RECOGNIZABLE RISK
> standard :))

Come on! You cannot be serious!  What do mean by recognizable?
We know condoms are 90 odds % effective.  That 10% defines a
recognizable risk.  We also know that x% of pregnancies result
in considerable health risk to the health of the mother -- that
is a recognizable risk too.

Let me push you to this logical corner a bit more.  :-)  Suppose our
doctor tells us that a woman in my wife's condition would have
a 50% chance of serious health consequences if she gets pregnant.
The Christian person that she is, with all the "family value coupons
which we received from a Republican Party TV-Offer, we decide to try for it
anyway.  (You will agree that this is a recognizable risk, right?
I mean we have consented not only for the fetus to use her body
for nine month, we also have consented that there is 50% chance that
my wife's health would be in grave danger.)  Our bad lock makes the
pregnancy dangerous to my wife.  Either she dies or the fetus is
aborted.  What does you moral code say about this situation?

>> to know how you arrived at that conclusion.  And what if the second
>> woman's pregnancy is affecting the woman's mental health?  What
>> about the risk of normal delivery on one's physical health.

> Well, that is for doctors to determine.  But how many pregnancies cause
> women to go insane??  Not many, IMHO.

Does what you said mean that if a professional attest that the woman's
mental health is in danger, that it would be OK to go ahead with the
abortion?  Did you say THAT????

>> --KAT
> -Travis

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:42:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A few thoughts ...

i wish people would give up on the
social contract thing.

i mean, its old, and its french, fercrisake.
like spoiled mayonnaise.

brni
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Jails and GE
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:24:17 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92072809101917@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET> writes:
> Hello all,
> 
> The question  was asked, 'Why aren't people going to jail?'  The police
> are so busy with anti-sodomy laws that genuine criminals are not going
> to jail.
> 
> Entrapment?  What is the difference between using police male/female to
> bring prostitutes to jail as well as gay men?  If the law applies to one
> should it not apply to the other?  If a community has an anti-sodomy or
> an anti-prostitute law, it has to be enforced, and most local business
> people would certainly agree with the enforcement of the law.  When a
> community decides to overturn such a law, then they will, but in the mean
> time if it is in the books such a law has to be carried out.

Of course, what Sue is missing here is that if an officier tried arresting a
prostitute in the manner that this case was handled, the prostitute would walk
free in a matter of minutes.  In order for it not to be entrapment, the
prostitute must name both the act and the price.
-- 
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       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:36:25 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: ... tough choice
              25 Jul 1992 20:22:06 GMT from <HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

PLH:

How many is "quite a few?"  I would seriously doubt that the real
number approached the 1.5 million that we are seeing yearly in the
years since Roe.
                --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:50:39 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Sex and marriage, sex and marriage, go to . . .

>> jail per offense?  People demanding trials.  Just plain impractical -
>> not to mention what would constitute a reliable witness.
>Guy's car at girl's house at night with lights off=prima facie evidence.
>(And vice versa.)

Evidence of what?  It looks like evidence of sleeping, not sex.

While lots of people sleep with the lights off, quite a few have sex
with the lights ON.  There doesn't seem to be an obvious connection
between sleep and sex, other than many people use beds for both.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:13:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Our beloved government and its duties Abroad

On Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:10:52 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET> sa
id:
> Here is a new question:  What type of foreign policy
> should our government pursue?
>
> There are calls for what amounts to isolationism and
> some others call for what could end up being more
> "manifest destiny"/imperialism.
>
> I believe it is Brzenzki who supports a "selective global
> commitment".  This may not be his exact wording, but the
> concept is basically as follows.
>
> The US should narrowly define its national interests and
> defend these and these alone.  These interests could be
> defined in many different terms including economic, but
> the key is that this doesn't include the entire globe.
>
> We should not consider ourselves the guardians of Democrasy
> and therefore should not pursue a foreign policy which takes
> us to war in order to it.
>
> I believe that this is the stance that I support.  Are
> there any who think that there is something better?
I totally agree with you and furthermore, I don't think we should be
slapping sanctions on countries we think aren't living up to our high
moral standard.  In the case of Iraq, I believe it was definitely in
the U.S. interest to safeguard the sanctity of the Kuwaiti border,
so that the principle of border-crossing would not be disintegrated,
thus putting our own border at risk (illegal aliens notwithstanding).
And of course, we don't want nukes in the hands of the likes of Saddam.

>
> -j.b.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL, @VAL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:30:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Response to Questions Asked by Thomas Kirkpatrick
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.BITNET, jwales@iubvm.BITNET, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
              shlyakhter@huhepl.harvard.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 08:39:32 EDT
From: Thomas Kirkpatrick <STANDARD@UGA.BITNET>
Subject: RE: "On Perot, Some Afterthoughts"

>Thank you for your excellect synopsis of the Perot "noncampaign."  As
>someone who, among other things, must design a strategic
>planning/environmental scanning model for our clients, I found your
>prognostications intriguing.  One thing that puzzles me (only on one
>level, its all too plain on others) is that while there are (and have
>been for some time) other choices, we've never taken a serious look
>at them.  What do you think accounts for this -- the people being
>frightened by a real alternative, or institutionalized power (media,
>etc.) keeping these choices from the light of day?

I enclosed Thomas' entire paragraph with his permission, because I
thought the context might have been marred had I removed the first
sentence, which I almost did anyway.

I think, to answer Thomas' question, that a little of both situations
are occurring. This is a VERY conservative nation. Change is VERY
scary. Much of our populace cannot imagine bucking "the way things
are," or are afraid to "rock the boat." But, it is so that the PACS,
the media, the entrenched parties are "institutionalized power" at
its most naked, and whether it be Perot, or the Greens, or some
centrist populist not yet on the horizon, these kinds of "loose
cannons" represent a potential loss of their "power." So, as the KGB
and CPSU are doing in Russia, so do the holders of traditional power
do in the US. New faces, new ways, are really threatening. But, one
suggests that if change is NOT instituted, and we the electorate see
only "business as usual," something or someone WILL come along and
rock the boat. It is not right that a Marrou or a Fulani, as fringe
as they be, should be shut out because the "cultural and media elite"
deem them beneath notice. This breeds tyranny, and there is too much
of THAT running amok in this country anyway. I hope this answers your
question, Thomas, it's one curmudgeon's point of view. VMS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalo.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: more fun with carl
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:53:16 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92071616502188@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
"Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes:
>   KAT,
>     Instead of getting neutered did you get a lobotomy?  

Carl, grow up.  We realize that you cannot back up your arguments with anything 
of merit, but these insults you insist on resorting to are pathetic.

>     The producer's
>     unmarketable produce is "unmarketable" because the produce is not
>     the "perfect" size.  It is either too large or too small, it is not
>     rotten or anything of that sort.                     

The point is that the producer is only giving the stuff away because they can't
sell it.
-- 
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       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:51:44 EDT
From:         "Susan J. Luckel" <BI705001@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS

>what would be nice would be research into a protective device that women could
>use to protect themselves. i know something of this sort was reported in the
>media some time ago (this past year maybe-don't remember-sorry). didn't appear
>to go over in a big way.  oh well.
>-linda
Sure. The Female Condom. Sort of like a plastic baggie with two rings. Real
romantic.
If the guy/couple won't/can't use a male condom, they are extremely unlikely
to use this monstrousity.
Let's get real. Until birth control devices are foolproof *and* convenient,
they will not be used.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:57:24 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: My position on shoes ....

I definitely agree with my running mate that everyone who wants shoes
should have them, but if the people who cannot afford to buy their own
shoes want expensive ones, they either save up the money to buy them or
settle for less expensive ones.  No one should have to steal a pair of
shoes.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:20:41 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re:_this just in!

I seem a little lost, but can someone tell me when the election(s)
are going to take place?

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:48:37 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What's the probability that I can get odds correct.
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:07:00 EDT push the button, frank! said:
>Ok.  Here, now, is the final edition of my tenative predictions on who will win
>the Presidential election in November.  Now that we've finally established
>how odds work, I feel fully confident in offering the following:
>
>    Clinton/Gore                    -2.5                  Bush/Quayle


Now you look like you're calling pointspread, not odds at the track.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:38:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      what does this mean?

everytime i have posted something today, i get a message back saying that the
list is held and my post delayed.
what does that mean?
has anything gotten through?
please respond personally-i don't want to take up too much space w/this.

-linda
(didja get the martyr routine? don't wanna take up too much space....
think if i try this with my kids they'll let me have the big bedroom??)
:)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:23:42 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

> Fetuses may not be entitled to all rights, but why is it that if
> someone causes a woman to abort her child by knocking her down
> a flight of stairs s/he can be charged with manslaughter?

This is one good question that I have not been able
to answer for myself very satisfactorily.  However, I
would like to point out that if one takes the position
(as Richard does, and as I sort of do) that "a fetus is
a human being and a person, however no one has the right
to the use of another person's body", then one could
argue that kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is
attempted murder, but abortion is NOT murder.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:11:48 EDT
From:         BAFEI@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      clipping 23 July

From:
>
>              * * *  C h i n a   N e w s   D i g e s t  * * *
>
>                              (News Global)
>
>                          Thursday, July 23, 1992
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. U.S. Criticizes Beijing Government for Convicting Reformer...........21
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:    Jian Liu
> Source:  AP-DJ, 7/21/92
>
> WASHINGTON -- The State Department denounced China on Tuesday for  sending
> a  senior official to prison for having reformist views following the 1989
> crackdown on pro-democracy students.
>
> "We regret that the Chinese government persists  in  considering  peaceful
> expression  of  political  views  to be `counter-revolutionary incitement'
> deserving of imprisonment," the department said of the one-day trial Tues-
> day of political reformer Bao Tong.
>
> A Beijing court sentenced Bao, 59, a senior adviser  to  ousted  Communist
> Party  chief  Zhao  Ziyang,  to  seven  years  in prison for leaking state
> secrets and "counter-revolutionary incitement," a codeword for efforts  to
> undermine China's hard-line government.
>
> Bao, a former member of the Communist Party's Central  Committee  and  the
> highest-level  official  prosecuted in connection with the democracy move-
> ment, was accused of telling student protest leaders about plans to impose
> martial law and other internal discussions on how to handle the movement.
>
> The State Department also criticized the Beijing  government  for  holding
> the  trial  behind closed doors after rejecting requests that Bao's family
> and outside observers be allowed to attend.

Regards,

Brett

--
   _________________________________________________________________________
   | Brett A. Feinstein                       |   Convention Coordinator   |
   | BITNET: bafei@conncoll.BITNET            |    MUNSTER FOR CONGRESS    |
   | internet: bafei@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu     | Second Congressional Dist. |
   | Voice phone: 203-439-4021                |                            |
   | snail mail: Box 3337 Connecticut College |       Please insert        |
   |             270 Mohegan Avenue           |        slogan here         |
   |             New London, CT, USA 06320    |                            |
   | Listowner: GOP-L, ELECT-L                |  Vote REPUBLICAN in Nov.   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:08:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: N-tickets
              24 Jul 1992 09:16:23 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

For the record:

I agree with everything my running-mate said about this cat controversy.

                                      --MJ, on the road to the White House
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:48:01 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Obfuscation Elimination

>>When I am Logic Czar, I will produce a sound proof of the non-existence
>>of god...
>
>...when C.S. Lewis attempted
>to prove the non-existence of God, he actually proved his
>existence...
>-j.b.


When?  How?  Where?

In what manner was the existence of God proven?  To whom?  Using what
reasoning?  With what criteria of proof and validation was this proof
performed?

--Julie "Bet I become logic Czar before Jamie" W.

        I will try to find the book in which it was done and
        give you the title, etc.

        I will only reiterate that Lewis was a die-hard atheist
        prior to his attempt to disprove God.  As to the manner
        in which he did it, I'm not sure.  I never read the book
        myself, since I have never needed God's existence proven
        to me.

        -j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:38:46 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't...

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> KAT:

> What would you consider "fair" if everyone were to pay the same *amount*
> of tax?  On my lousy grad fellowship, I could hardly afford to pay
> much, and if I am the standard, then the amount paid by the super-
> rich would be less than an hour's worth of their time.  ..........

I might have mislead you.  I have the *opinion* that a fair tax is
a progressive one.  At the same time I was arguing that without
going into the detailed effects of taxes on the poor and the rich,
the issue of fairness is simply an opinion.  Jason was arguing that
a uniform % is the "fair" way to go.  To argue against his assertion,
I played the devil's advocate and said that on the surface a head
tax seems even "fairer" since everyone is paying the same amount.
You know, like when we get on the bus, we all pay the same fare, so
why not all pay the same head tax?

>                                               ---Missy Justice

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:54:53 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: p.s.: linda, this one's for us :)

Hi.
>.....do we at least get a medal or something?

Nah, I don't even think we count as "points of light."

>hey...does anyone have a better term for boyfriend? ya know, something a little
>more grown up (i am over 40 -gulp).
>
>definition: intimate male friend; separate residence; monogomous relationship
>            with long-term possibilities.

Um, how about: companion, friend, special friend, lover, significant other,
man (as in stand by your. . .). . .  I guess the terms I use (domestic
partner and spousal equivalent) wouldn't apply if residences are separate.

Good luck!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU