HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:59:44 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: new topic: unrest in germany
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

KAT:
>Ok, here is another one.  President Rafsanjani of Iran proposes
>to do away with the veto power of the permanent members of the
>UN Security Council.
>
>Is that a good idea?
>
>--KAT

Erm, does anyone now how often the veto has been used since the end of
the Cold War ?

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:45:38 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Teenage rave.
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Now look, I need some advice from the list.

In my other life (away from this office and my terminal), I'm a
district councillor in Rugby (population ~80,000). On Monday a
committee on which I sit will consider an application for an
all night entertainment license (music) for a party in a huge sports
hall in a village outside the town.

The local villagers are, of course, all dead against it. They have had
a reassuring letter from the organisers stating that "No alcohol will
be available". Yeah, I mean you and I know what that means don't we ?
I wonder how many crates of mineral water they will need.

The thing is, should I go along with this as being a bit of harmless
fun for the youngsters (does that include me --- I'm only 29), or
should I go for turning it down coz the thought of hundreds of
teenagers pumped up with E is pretty grim ?

Dunstan

BTW, I *hate* rave music
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:15:08 EDT
From:         The proud keeper of Robert's Rules <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Rule No. 8

Courtesy of Jamie, here is Robert's Rule #8.

I refuse to give any justification for my positions, because then
I would be "boxed in."

Or even a better version.

If I  told anyone what the justification is, they might find something
wrong with it!

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:05:53 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: is Clinton being anxious? and is NBC being less than
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:24:45 -0500 GAYLA BASSHAM said:

>Bush didn't appear on NBC, but he did campaign during the Democratic
>convention.
>Clinton didn't campaign; he just did an interview.
>-----Gayla


At this time of year, "interview" = "campaign"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: Woody dumps daughter fer Fergy. Film at 11
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:04:29 GMT

In <BtKnLn.22L@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

>In article <POLITICS%92082423485120@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes...

>[...]

>>(Sorry, but I'm getting rather sick of having my file space taken
>>up with puff pieces from the Clinton campaign.  Another good
>>reason to vote for Bush--he'll leave us alone to debate each other
>>in peace.)

>	Repent Missy! Repent!
>	You show scorn at someone dumping 1700 lines of meaningless 
>drivel onto your disk? You express displeasure from receiving 300 
>lines of addresses that you will never use onto your space?
>	Infidel! You dare castigate the minions of the Correct 
>Candidate(tm)? You have been warned!

>	Insert Ernie laugh here : kheee kheee kheee

>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
At least Clinton (and earlier Brown and Perot) knows what the net is and
seeks to communicate with/through it.  One wonders what century Bush
lives in.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Original_cc:  HOUSSAH5
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:46:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      RE:Re: cutting one's nose....

Ok, so how can you explain the US involvement in South Irak now?

-Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:33:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      War between the Jasons

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>>Yeah, now I'm pretty sure that you're attacking a position which no one holds
>>(other that, possibly, David Duke).  I'd like for you to produce some quotes
>>from "many" conservatives which claim that homosexuals should be stripped of
>>their constitutional rights such as free speech, freedom of assembly, the
>>right to bear arms, the right to a trial by jury, or anything else.  My
>>guess is that you won't be able to do so.

>What, you didn't hear Pat Buchanan's keynote address in Houston?

I don't recall Pat advocating stripping gays of any of the above mentioned
rights.  Yes, he opposed gay marrigages, but I conceded that in the original
post.  I notice that you couldn't provide a direct quote of him saying any more
than that, but I'll check the text anyway.

NOTE:  Like Bill Buckley, I'm pretty sure that Pat advocated some form of ID
for gays in the earlier days of AIDS before we knew that its not as contagious
as we thought.  While this may indeed violate some "right" (assembly?), I would
argue that its no different than quarantine for other diseases.  Regardless,
both men backed off that stance when we learned that AIDS isn't really that
contagious (compared to TB, et.al.).

>The Constitution grants to all citizens the right of equal protection
>of the law. If marriage laws discriminate against people of certain
>sexual orientation, then those people are being denied their
>constitutional rights.
>It is precisely such a denial that you are explicitly favoring.

Equal protection of the law means (meant?) that a state cannot pass a
law guaranteeing everyone health care and then not enforce that law for a
particular group.  The laws can still exclude whoever they want (so long as it
doesn't violate the constitution), its just that exclusions cannot be enforced
without being made explicit in the original law.

For example, the tax code (as KAT pointed out) gives married couples a lower
tax rate than singles.  This discriminates against bachelors and therefore
violates the equal protection clause as you mis-defined it.  Really, these tax
code distinctions are fine.  The only qualification is that the gov't cannot
say "everyone will get taxed at a 30% rate" and then ignore that and tax gays
at a 50% rate.  That would indeed violate the equal protection clause.

>Jamie

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:05:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:43:55 EDT Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >Do pro-choice people
> >not see a double standard here???
> >-Travis
>
>   I can't speak for the pro-choice people, but
> I see a lack of standards here.  How else to
> account for your posts?
>
>             -Tim

Duh, I don't know, Tim, perhaps your divine insight has me beat.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:56:44 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Rights, and other comments ...

I'm struck by the "war between the Jasons" "debate" on gay rights to say
what I believe both the virtual election ticket of DuncaN/ValentiN and
myself personally hold - NOBODY should be discriminated against for whatever
reason, regardless of "sex, ethnic group, religion, political persuasion, or
sexual preference" (my emphasis). We are all humans, what we do in our
personal lives should have zitch to do with getting health care, being
"married," living or working wherever, or adoption (to pick back up on
Robert's post on this a few days ago). Disenfranchisement of any form has
no business operating in this incredibly pluralistic society we live in.
The old "rules" about what is "acceptable" or not have been constantly
changing in this country for ALL of its history, especially since World War
II, and all the would-be "restrictors" of "liberties," I believe, are living
in a world of archiacism if they think to impose the morality of our parent's
time on today. I'm sure that our more conservative members would see my
attitude as "permissive," accepting "perversion" as OK, and all that tripe
that I've heard much of in recent months. I agree that we over-regulate (ie
the recent arguments about speed and drug laws), and that some (such as
Brother Travis, for example) would have us create a climate where at any
given moment 20% of our entire population is in jail for "offenses" against
some mythical code about sex, and divorce. I believe we as a society have
to get going past the old ways of thinking. As someone I've read along the
way once said, "we are at a cusp" of a new way of life, and attempting by
force or law to impose the moralities of a single belief system (such as
Judeo-Christian, or Islam, or whatever) is a ludicrous and losing proposition.
I have great respect for ALL belief systems, but we have to live in a diverse
society where all these behaviors ARE occurring - you can't wish them away
because you personally disapprove of them. I don't approve of them all
either, but I accept that all people have a right to choose how they live
WITHOUT the interference or regulation of the state. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:17:33 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 12:00


 >> I ask this for the nth time.  What use other than birth control
 >> does abortion have????  What does it mean to say "The use of abortion
 >> as a from of birth control must be stopped"??? As opposed to what
 >> other use of abortion that seems to be OK to you?

 > Abortion is NOT ( N O T ) OK!  I said, I am willing to agree to abortion
 > in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.  I also said that I could
 > not justify (morally) my willingness to do so.  Abortion is MURDER in ALL
 > cases.

 >>I understood that part.  Now tell me why would you allow "MURDER"
 >>in cases of rape, incest, and life of the woman?

 I think you *know* why.  If I/anybody came into this discussion demanding
 a total ban on abortion, the reception would be even more hateful than the
 one I am now getting.  I am not naive enough to hope for a ban on abortion.
 However, I do believe it can be substantially limited by allowing only the
 exceptions I mentioned.  You (and others) can twist my comments and their
 intent until we're blue but it won't help you to justify the current ongoing
 wholesale slaughter/murder of our children.

 I wonder KAT, if you knew that *some* murders were going to occur and all
 you could do was limit the number would you do nothing?  Would you decide
 that since all murder is wrong and you couldn't stop them all that you
 would instead ignore the crime?

 Put your mind to work on something constructive instead of spending all
 your efforts trying to misrepresent the intent of those striving to
 save lives.

 ---Robert
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, 26 Aug 1992 08:56:24 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      circumlocution

jamie:
try looking at it this way:  robert, carl, et al. are practitioners of socratic
   irony.  in the kierkegaardian sense.  you'll feel better if you do.

                              * * anneliese "biting my tongue in half" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:24:59 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jamie's Response to my Deadly Force post

>From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
>
>Jamie,
>   Your response to my post was assinine.  I will repond to your dribble
>in the very near future.
>
>Carl-------+

Good job, Carl. You are continuing in Jay's finest tradition.

Name-calling instead of argument, well done. And to top it off,
you have misspelled "asinine."

Now, your next move in the Sultan tradition is to hope folks will
forget that you are supposed to "repond" [sic] to my "dribble" [sic]
"in the very near future." You could say that it was so long that the
listserv couldn't handle it, for instance.

I'm looking forward to further displays.

Jamie

(Even so, Robert and Carl combined are a poor substitute for the
Real Thing.)
(Hey, I've seen Dave's dictionary. It really is huge. I wonder
if Carl has one, too? If so, does it include the words "asinine"
and "dribble"?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:29:07 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      meaningless phrases

 "Let's try education"
 "Don't you think education will solve ..."
 "We can overcome this through education"

 "It tastes like chicken".


 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:11:38 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>Me:
>>>I merely
>>>wanted to show that what one believes should not be a basis for law.
>Jamie:
>> So, for example, the fact that you believe that abortion is murder
>> is no basis for laws restricting abortion. I get it.
>Right.  That's why I oppose a constitutional amendment outlawing
>abortion.  It should be up to the states.

Uh, right. Because after all, states don't make laws.

>1) Do you think that prohibition of abortion is an interference in
>   a woman's day-to-day life?  I don't think *any* women are that
>   promiscuous...

Do you think ANY women are pregnant?
Yes, I do think that prohibition of abortion is an interference
in a woman's day-to-day life. In fact, I think it OBVIOUSLY is.

(Wait, hold on. Did Travis mean, he doesn't think ANY women have
sex every day? Hm. Very interesting.)

>Me:
>>>If you believe that abortion is not murder, and that you should be
>>>allowed to choose to abort, then if I believe that rape is not a vio-
>>>lation of one's body, then I should be allowed to choose to rape.
>Jamie:
>> Er, that doesn't exactly follow. Could you explain the reasoning
>> more explicitly?
>Well, exchange "you", "abortion", and "murder" in the first part with
>"I", "rape", and "violation" in the second part.  Pretty clear to me.

That is a pretty ridiculous inference rule.

But in any case, the consequent is not derived from the antecedent
by the substitution you suggest.

Consider the following, which is more closely analogous to what
you wrote:

If you believe that eating pickles is not murder, and that you
should be allowed to eat pickles, then if I believe that matricide
is not violation, then I should be allowed to choose matricide.

There is no moderately sensible inference contained in that
conditional, but it is schematically the same as the one you used.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:38:47 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      speed, police, crime, hell

>Subj:  speed, police, crime, hell
>
>From: Piero Scaruffi <scaruffi@FLASH.ATC.OLIVETTI.COM>

Right on, Piero!!

As a side note....has anyone ever seen a "sobriety checkpoint" outside
a Chamber of Commerce banquet, near a country club, or on the roads
leading to a major resort or hotel?
                                                      ---roger
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:41:46 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: This week's Chronicle . . .

Hail, o czar :)

>It's more general.
>I think universities should be thought of as laboratories, the private
>ones at least. Aside from some lax standards for accreditation, they
>should be left to make whatever preposterous rules they want, to
>offer whatever silly courses they want, to pursue whatever educational
>(or social) goals they judge worthy. Membership in a university is
>voluntary. We don't object to codes of silence in monasteries, because
>we figure they are associations of people who choose to forgo certain
>liberties (like speaking) for the sake of the communal goals adopted
>by the association.

If the Supreme Court had not made its recent ruling, would you also favor
allowing public colleges to make/enforce speech codes?  Just curious (and
interested in the whole issue).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:30:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Jamie and Travis

Jamie writes:
>> Consider the following, which is more closely analogous to what
>> you wrote:
>>
>> If you believe that eating pickles is not murder, and that you
>> should be allowed to eat pickles, then if I believe that matricide
>> is not violation, then I should be allowed to choose matricide.

Travis responds:
>Exactly.  I don't refute this at all.  My being allowed to eat pickles
>is not based on whether *I* feel that eating pickles is murder, but
>rather on whether *society* feels that eating pickles is murder.
>Society in Louisaiana believes that abortion is murder, however they
>are not being allowed to put their beliefs into practice because of
>FIVE people (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Blackmun, and Stevens).

I answer:
        It is true as a descriptive fact that what a society prohibits
people from doing that people in that society are prohibited from doing
those things.  It does not follow that the activity is wrong--or, in
other words, that it ought to be prohibited.  Genocide, for example,
is wrong even where it has the support of the vast majority of people
in a society--as is slavery, rape, and other acts of violence against
other people.  I have argued, outlawing pregnancy violates a right that
women (actually, all people) have against others using their body against
their will.  The fact that a society believes that an act resulting in
the death of another who would use her body against her will is 'murder'
does not make it right that society should punish women for protecting
her body from such use by others.

        Second, there is a problem common to social-subjectivist accounts
of ethics in how to define a society.  The people of the state of Louis-
iana belong to a society in which they may be prohibited from doing what
they want when it is deemed improper, in this case, by the aforementioned
five people.  And, so, I see no grounds (within a social-subjectivist
account of value) for declaring that anything improper was done in
imposing this limitation on the will of the society of Louisaiana.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:20:10 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: An easy answer to a little question

I never intended to draw the type of comparison that
was drawn.  I meant to point out that the Nazis were
intolerant of many things, including homosexuality
and (maybe I shouldn't use the word "many") some
in the conservative Right are equally as intolerant.
Maybe the people in America don't want to gas the
gays, but the attitude towards them is often the same.
This attitude is in the mind and in the "heart" (or wherever
you want to put the seat of human emotion).

j.b.(going back to the original signature for convenience'
sake)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:51:26 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Drugs

>Date: 31 Aug 1992 10:13:43 -0500 (CDT)
>From: fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
>
>Rick asks: "what would be a proactive approach to the drug problem.."?
>
>Can you say: EDUCATION ? There, I knew you could.
>

Oh, of course!  Education!  We could give some classes in schools to teach
kids that illegal drugs are bad.  And we could create some catchy and hip
slogans to reenforce that it is cool to stay away from drugs.

It's good to see a problem settled so decisively every now and then.


...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:31:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:20:00 EST linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said:
> i do not hold the same beliefs as you do robert. i do not believe that abortio
n
> is murder. i do not believe that human life begins at conception. the evidence
I do not hold the same beliefs you do, linda.  I do not believe that
raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.  The evidence is not
there.

> here's the reality check. i have 2 kids. i am divorced and receive no alimony
or
Divorces should be illegal except in extreme circumstances.
> child support. i must work 2 jobs to feed and shelter my family. (yes, we are
a

> family with values and everything). if i had to lose even a few weeks of incom
e
> to have a baby, and place it for adoption (and considering the medication i'm
on
> no one would adopt that baby if it lived), it could spell financial ruin for u
s.
I know this may be a little absurd, but I was brainstorming and the idea
suddenly popped into my head that maybe a great way to solve all these
problems is for a woman not to get pregnant.  Kinda supid, huh--just a
thought.

> i will not post on the abortion again.
Whatever you say, linda.

> and no, robert, i do not think you are a bully. i think you are wrong.
Fair enough.

> -linda
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU