HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:23:29 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      New twist to "May I see your license?"

Starting January 1, 1993 if you are stopped for suspicion of drunk
driving your license can be pulled on the spot by the arresting officer.
I don't have any experience with this particular crime but I once
received a ticket for failure to yeild right of way from an officer who
failed to pursue the fact that the woman who hit me had no driver's
license or insurance for her vehicle. I live in a border city and the
state across the river doesn't require insurance and the woman had her
car licensed there although she gave a Nebraska address. Are police
officers properly trained to make this kind of a judgement call? Is this
outside of their scope of responsibility? Makes me feel like guilty until
proven innocent. There seems to be a lot of that going on these days.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:03:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >You'd better throw that analogy away before it explodes on you.  If the
> >local Ferrari dealership refuses to sell you one because you're a _____
> >(fill in the blank), even though you have the money in your pocket, they
> >_are_ restricting your ability to own one.
>
> No, they aren't.  They're merely refusing to sell one to me.

Hmm.  They're not letting you buy one, but they aren't restricting your
ability to own one.  How do you own one without buying it?  What if all
of the Ferrari dealerships do the same thing?  Is it a restriction then?

> A friend of mine wants to have sex, but Madonna hasn't answered his
> letters.  Is she restricting his ability to have sex?  Another person
> I know can't get anyone s\he knows to sleep with him/her.  Who is
> restricting her\his "right to have sex with a consenting adult"?

Welcome to another episode of Andy's Asinine Examples.  Will someone
please explain to Andy that the inability to find a consenting adult
does not restrict one's right to have sex with a consenting adult?

(Hmm.  Andy seems to have trouble recognizing a difference between
transactions that involve having sex and those that involve buying a
car.  Remind me never to buy a car from Andy.)

> >If the local circus refuses to give you a job as a juggler because you
> >can't juggle, you've got no complaint.
>
> The Ferrari dealer thinks that its biz depends on controlling the
> "quality" of Ferrari drivers.  The circus thinks that its biz depends
> on controlling the quality of its jugglers.  What's the huge difference
> here?

The difference is that the circus is in the business of hiring and
presenting competent jugglers.  The dealership is in the business of
selling cars to the public.  If the dealer wants to sell cars one at
a time from his living room, he is free to restrict his clientele as
he wishes.  When he makes a public offer he should be prepared to
serve the public.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
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:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:16:57 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: caius angry? caius afraid?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Albinowski" at Dec 21, 92 2:53 pm

While dreaming of sugarplums, Grzegorz Albinowski sleepily stated:
|<rtf>
| >> as far as i can tell, you are either very afraid
| >> or very angry. why?
|
| The Nazis has killed 6,000,000 of Polish citizens during WW2 (actually
| half of them were Polish Jews). Every family has lost someone.

        Ok, thats fine.

| The Commies has killed ?,???,??? of Polish citizens during and after WW2.
| Every family has lost someone.

        OK, thats fine again.

| For 50 years we managed to survive in the middle of the biggest experiment
| on the globe ever (called socialism).

        Debatable, but... I won't quibble.

| And now some of people in the society I always believed to be normal put
| an equal sign between me and the nazis (this was not directly expressed
| but I have been put into the same category)

        No, this is where I must disagree. The only person who has
done this is yourself. We have said that The Nazis were a Rightist
regime. At least in this country, the question of what type of regime
The Nazis were is not in debate. You stated you are a Rightist. That's
fine. You made the artificial equal sign that all rightists are Nazis.
This is simply false. it isn't a symetric situation. Are all Nazis
Rightists? Yes. Are all Rightists Nazis? Obviously Not. No one on this
list has accused you of being a Nazi, and i doubt anyone will. This is
a rational list filled with rational people. Unless you demonstrated
traits to indicate you were a Nazi (which, I repeat, you have Not), no
one will accuse you of being a Nazi. OK?

--
   Cousin It                                 cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
        "Time has changed the seasons, and I go on with
           no reason, I feel my life slipping away"
                     Riot "Bloodstreets"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:27:04 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
              30 Dec 1992 08:42:40 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>> One additional point: over the weekend Weinberger said that when he said
>> that the deal was illegal, he didn't know that the President had
>> secretly issued a "Finding" basically allowing such a transaction.

>> --KAT

> OK.  But my point was not that Weinberger said what was being done was
> illegal.  My point is that that President Reagan said specifically that
> given a choice between doing something illegal and not doing anything
> about the hostages, he would choose the illegality.  Further, according
> to Weinberger's note, at that particular meeting, Reagan agreed that
> what he was doing was illegal.

> Jonathan

Well, I don't want to defend Reagan, necessarily, but: 1) I think
what you say Reagan said probabely is a paraphrase rather than a
direct quote.  2) Reagan might have said that to Weinberger not
because he really believed what he did was illegal rather that he
had to say that to keep the "Finding" secret from Weinberger.  Over
the weekend Weinberger said that Reagan kept him in the dark on a
lot of issues related to that particular deal.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:00:47 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>Brett', let me ask you this.  Let's assume that Clinton wins re-election and
>then Gore wins election.  Towards the end of Clinton's second term, it
>gradually becomes clear that Clinton had pursued illegal activities.  I am
>sure that if I wanted to sit down and think about a scenario that you wouldn't
>like, I could. But I don't, so you are going to have to imagine this!  Not only
>does Clinton actively pursue some illegal activity but it's stupid as well.
>It gradually comes out that his people lied extensively to congress and that
>his policy actually hurt the US.  Would you still be defending the upper
>people in his administration the way you are defending the Reagan/Bush people?
>Jonathan

        My beef is with Walsh's methods and not the targets.  The guilty should
be held accountable, but the powers of the prosecution should not be unlimited.
Are we to have witch hunts or investigations?
        The way in which Walsh has paraded anyone and everyone (and why didn't
he *start* with Weinberger if he is such a key player?) in a series of "make
something stick" show trials horrifies me.  It would even if the target was
Clinton.  We've regressed to "guilty until proven innocent".

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:14:22 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
Subject:      what makes a good parent?

Actually, this posting is an example of the kind of "apples and oranges" logic
which shows up in these discussions.  The fact that heterosexual couples do, in
 general, make better parents for children, doesn't mean that ALL heterosexual
couples make better parents.  (Incidentally, the Chicago incident is more appro
priately defined as child neglect, versus child abuse.)  Uncle Ernie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:25:33 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: abortion

>A doctor who performs abortions for white women but not
>for black women is restricting their right to get an abortion.  A lung
>specialist who performs no abortions at all is not.

And, what about the abortionist who won't serve people who can't
pay?

>The offence here is the denial of the opportunity to participate fully
>in the life of our economy and society to certain arbitrarily chosen
>members of that society.

Nope, that's not the offense.  Peter doesn't object to certain
criteria at all - we're merely quibbling over acceptable criteria.
Peter thinks that some criteria is unacceptable.  Oh, he'll let people
use them "in private", but he defines "private" so as to exclude their
use.

>There is no right to act like a bigot in public.

Ah, but there is.  Many private acts are done publically.  Consider
Peter's consenting targets of affection.  He insists that he's well
within his rights to discriminate on any basis he sees fit, yet many
of the resulting acts may well be done in public without a squawk from
him.

>Maybe someday Andy will learn that a campaign for the right to act like
>a bigot makes a pretty sorry campaign.

Someday Peter may learn that he doesn't have any more rights than a
bigot, that the precedents cut both ways.

I'll bet there's even a bad poem about that.  "They came for the scum,
and I helped..."

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:32:08 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Has anyone heard any news about the Cincinnati (or is it there?  It's
>someplace in Ohio that starts with a C.  Columbus?) KKK cross-raising
>controversy?  The last I heard, the cross somehow got damaged by a
>crowd and was removed because it was a "health hazard" due to the
>exposed wood and nails.  Did I hear this report correctly?

        The Klan was supposed to put up the cross yesterday, but didn't show.
Instead they let the counter-demonstration occur, then put up the cross this
morning.
        They have a permit from the city of Cin., like the Jewish group got to
put up a Menorah.
        Apparently some people tried to tear down the cross this morning and
were arrested.  That's all I've heard as of 10AM, so there could be more.

>I get very nervous when I see groups of outraged people marching and
>demanding that the KKK has no constitutional right to free speech.
>I hate the KKK and everything it stands for, but this kind of
>blatant call for curtailing of free-speech rights just because one
>group of people thinks it's dangerous really disturbs me.  It bothers
>me that mobs of people are marching in the streets demanding that
>a group of people have their free-speech rights taken away.

        It was pretty chilling to see hundreded of people marching with banners
that said "no free speech for facists" and "smash facism with militant action".
I guess they couldn't see that the cure was as bad as the disease....

>I think hate speech like the KKK's is dangerous, but I'm sorry, I
>think demands to take away their right to free speech is even more
>dangerous than hate speech.
>
>Any thoughts on this controversy?
>Ellen

        I'm with the ACLU on this one.  Free speech for everyone, no matter how
stupid they are :).

        We could take away "facists/ism" above and insert "homesexuals/ality"
and the crowds would look very different, eh?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:19:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

Ramon, that's what I said to Brett.  Democracy includes all dem tings.

:)


Ellen
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 15:41:55 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet follies
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Ellen,

WHAT difference does it make what the people in the cabinet look like,
as long as they are competent and can work with Billary?  Let him
choose people based on their ability to implement his policies, and not
what they look like, or who they have sex with.  Give him a break...
(Imagine that, me standing up for Clinton.  What is the world coming
to?)

Dr. Pizz
From: BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 1993
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:18:00 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Ellen:
>6. We'll have a president who can go over to Germany and
>talk the skinheads to death in their native tongue.

Are you implying that Clinton speaks German?
Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:06:58 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
              30 Dec 1992 12:24:54 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

> what you say about #2 is correct.  Although, let's not forget that Weinberger
> was the defense secretary.  This is one of the top 4 cabinet positions.
> Maybe Reagan kept him in the dark, but if you aren't talking to your
> defense secretary about arms shipments....

No, Jonathan.  He did tell him re the arms shipment, he didn't
tell him about the secret Finding (should "finding" by a president
be capitalized?).

> Jonathan

Otherwise I agree with what you said.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:28:58 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      reply to ramon

Ramon says (more or less) "same old tired wish, why do we need a welfare
program in a wealthy country? Try reading some history".

Ramon, try taking some reading comprehension courses. Nowhere in my
post did I state a need for welfare programs, I said that they should
be dismantled. Would you care to cite some relevant items  from history
that address the issue at hand? My proposal was to leave it up to the
individual, many people are happy to help others. Do you see this as
foolish or just what is your complaint?What should we learn from history
in regard to helping the less fortunate?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:55:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject: Pardon me. No, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Bush could always resign and let President Quayle :D pardon him.  Boy
would that mess up the people who have already engraved 42nd President on the
Clinton collector's plates.
:)

        Then Quayle could resign and let President Baker pardon him and....

        The Republicans could then claim a string of N+1 presidents in a row
:D.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:00:03 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A taxonomy of Originalisms

>Here is my report on some recent research on Original Intent.
>I can give some references, too, if anyone's interested.

That's all well and good, but it assumes a meaning of intent that
isn't necessarily relevant.  (There's a reason why Jamie uses "intent"
while I use "meaning", often with "word" prepended.)

Consider the phrase "freedom of the press" from the 1st amendment.

Suppose someone argued "the FFs thought that women were inferior and
freedom of the press is intended to keep them in their place because
the FFs were sure that open discussion would make women's inferiority
evident".  Given the appropriate historical evidence, Jamie thinks
that Originalists should then line up behind "the freedom of the press
of the press clause means that we should oppress women".

That's silly.  That's confusing justifications, which weren't passed,
with what was passed.

An originalist criticism of the intent school is that their rejection
of "bad" justification (real and imagined) combines with their
confusion of justifications with meaning to cut the Constitution's
meaning free from any mooring.

That's why I ask what changes when our conception of the word "press"
changes.  If the constitutional protections afforded by the phrase
"freedom of the press" change, then the constitution's protections are
subject to whim.  If the constitutional protections don't change, they
aren't.  Note that we can change the constitution, so adherence to
original meaning doesn't imply stasis.

Note that the consequences of those protections (which we use to
justify them) can change significantly without affecting an
originalist position.  Maybe we find that freedom of the press
demonstrates that women aren't inferior.  An originalist's reply to an
intentionalist's "but the FF's intended freedom of the press to
oppress women" would be "so - they should have passed that if that's
what they wanted.  They passed freedom of the press instead."  That's
similar to an originalist's reply to the intentionalist's "but
<selected phrase>'s original meaning allows <bad thing>"; the
originalist would say "so change the constitution".

Jamie's taxonomy tends to try to apply Originalist arguments when they
aren't even applicable, to situations that they're not even concerned
with.

-andy didn't read Ely for his analysis of Originalism, but for Ely's
      discussion of his philosophy.  The bit about bad law was a
      small piece in a text that andy didn't bother to acquire.  Ely
      thought that the supremes should act as a check to "but the
      legislators wouldn't so something that silly" even though the
      constitution doesn't forbid all sillyness by legislators.
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:12:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      1993 (gulp)

this has nothing to do with anything.....
but, it's almost 1993 and this is my last day at work until after the new year.

so.....


**HAPPY HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF YOURS**

i hope everyone is blessed w/health and prosperity in the coming year, and
that no one has to listen to yukky music, that every book you read is
inspiring (or at least funny), that every work of art you lay your eyes on makes
you gasp, that every meal you eat is a taste sensation, and that (this is the
important one, guys) every friday is filled with beer and cheer.


so, without further ado ....

the virtual new year's champagne countdown will commence.

(hey, get that cold duck outta here, we're talking mums, baby!)

love to all,

linda
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 13:52:19 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Also, Ollie North admitted to crimes he was convicted of later, the courts
> overturned this - but it does not diminish his public admissions of specific
> crimes. VMS
>

To be clear, the reason that his felony convictions were overturned was
because he admitted to this in his testimony before congress.  Since he
was granted immunity to testify, his admitting to the felonies was
inadmissable and therefore his convictions were overturned.

Jonathan
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:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:26:18 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

NAMBLA is not an equivalent of "Let's Meet and Talk About Wanting to
Rape Women", it is an equivalent of "Let's Meet and Talk About How to
Deal With Wanting to Rape Women". Would you still feel queasy about such
a group, Ellen?

Sam.
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:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:39:47 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Milosevic wins
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Gary:
>From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 198O ed.
>fascism (n) - a philosophy or system of government that advocates or
>exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the
>merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of
>belligerant nationalism.

"Fascism is a dictatorship of the extreme right"? This definition can not
be applied to modern Russia. In Russia HARD-LINE COMMUNISTS are
considered to be "the right".

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