HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:47:08 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>        ..............  Women who abort are considered to be
>        *victims* and are offered love, healing, and understanding.

And I guess the aggressors are the husbands, the boy friends,
the doctors, and the social workers, right?  Now, if you meant
to say that, in a sense, we are all victims of the devil's
doings then I guess it would've been OK with me (though not for
this forum :-)  However, calling women victims and other invloved
people aggressors is kind of patronizing to women.

And when we accused you guys that the real purpose behind 24 hour
waiting was that you did not trust the woman's decision,
you would say "Oh, no we want her to give informed consent."
If you are really serious about the informed consent and the
24 hour waiting pperiods, and if you believe that women are
capable of making responsible decisions, then you must also
call them murderers and aggressors once they decide to have the
abortion even after the informed consent and 24 hours waiting,
and not call them victims.

>                        -MJ

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:15:21 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Baker running Bush campaign

There are rumors that Bush is asking Baker to take a "leave of absence"
as secretary of state in order to run the Bush/Quayle campaign.  At
first I thought this was a fairly cheesy tactic as part of Bush's
"whatever it takes to get re-elected".  Baker is one of Bush's better
appointees and to have him abandon a crucial post to head a potentially
troubled campaign seemed frivolous.  But if Bush doesn't get re-elected
then Baker leaves the post anyway, so why not have him take an active
role in the "job security".
  Thoughts?
     toddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I'm in a nuclear submarine
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   under the polar ice cap and
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    I need a Kleenex." - ZIPPY
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:27:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pro-Choice and the GOP Convention

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:28:36 EST Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> said:
> Travis:
>
> I don't mean to be picky, but if the guy who ran the anti-abortion ads
> you were talking about is Michael Bailey, he is from Indiana, not
> Georgia.  And he won the primary.  He's up against Lee Hamilton,
> so it should be an interesting campaign.
>
>                                         --Missy Justice

There is a guy--last name Becker--in Georgia who did the same thing.
And he won also.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:57:05 EDT
From:         MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't...
              23 Jul 1992 17:47:53 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> I might have mislead you.  I have the *opinion* that a fair tax is
>> a progressive one.

> I note that a tax can be progressive on average yet flat marginally.

I don't see the relationship between your comment and mine.
Though I don't exactly know what a "flat marginally" tax is,
even if you are right, I still say "a fair tax is a progressive
one," and you didn't dispute THAT.

> One disadvantage of progressive (or regressive) marginal rates is that
> they make certain things impossible, things that we'd like in a tax
> system.

> For example, it can be hard to stop married people (or others who can
> easily share expenses) from arranging their income split so as to
> minimize their tax burden.  Therefore, "fairness" argues for taxing
> such people on their total income; why should one's membership, or
> lack thereof, in such an arrangement affect one's tax burden?

I agree with the facts that you are proposing but not the conclusion.
For it is very easy to stop married people from splitting their income.
All you have to do is to make the married tax rate smaller than
single tax rate such that splitting would no longer be advantageous.
I admit, though,  that doing that would amount to treating married people
similar to singles and I don't have any problem with that.  I don't
think the problem you cited is per se a weakness of a progressive tax
formula.

> However, if we have progressive (or even regressive) marginal rates,
> we can't do that.  (This is an arithmetic result, not one that depends
> on how one sets up the progressive marginal rate system.)

If I understood you correctly, then I have to disagree with you.
Maybe the problem is treating married people differently not
establishing a progressive tax formula.

> -andy

--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:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:03:14 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: p.s.: linda, this one's for us :)

MacPhil:
>>Well, because either Danny boy didn't know the correct feminine form of the
>>word, or he was actually attempting gender-neutrality.  That is, he either
>>goofed, or did something unexpectedly PC -- and I wanted to be sure
>>everyone knew I wasn't putting the word in his mouth, so to speak.
>
>Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....so this is a PC lesson.  Ok. I gotcha now.
>
>I thought that's what it was, but I wanted you to confirm it.
>
>Should we also be careful about noun (and I suppose adjective) usage
>and the gender when we derived the word from Latin?

Um, maybe I wasn't clear.  I understand from my buddies in the appropriate
disciplines that terms like "hero", "actor", "aviator" etc. are best made
gender-neutral (which is great by me) by leaving them in the masculine form
and doing away with "heroine", "actress", "aviatrix", etc.  I haven't made
up my mind on this one yet, but that's what they say, anyway.

The original "sic" and subsequent explanations were supposed to make clear
that *I* wasn't being PC, Dan was.  Or, alternatively, I wasn't making a
mistake, he was.  In either case, it was his choice of wording, not mine.
If that's a PC lesson, then, well, OK.  You learn something new every day,
right? :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:00:33 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: The Irish issue ...
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

Val:
>Ireland's beer, bairns and bonnie lasses are welcome here any time, even
>their skirling pipes, but you'll na be imposin' Irish law on us now, we
>won't be a standin' for it! VMS

You get all or nothing. The orange men, the para-militaries, the
sectarian schools, gunned down judges and policemen, etc.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:00:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: this just in!

>What's wrong with Nuts and tuNa?

wE are not against nuts per sey...we are for the individual rights of all nuts
we enjoy pEcans, pEanuts, pistachios (but only the natural grEEn ones) and
various nEurotics. we are against the N in nuts only.

tuNa on the other hand has very few redeeming qualities when it is canned. we
are for frEsh tuna, preferably still swimming in the sea.


>                             Besides, we have lasagNe, baNaNa splits,
>aNtipasto, suNdaes, pumpkiNs, SuNdays, suN, mooN, SaturN, lightNiNg,
>kitteNs, CaliforNia, aNd VirgiNia!

if you look closely, lasagnE ends in E. and since i am 3/4 italian, you must
realize lasagne is and always will be an integral part of our plate.

antipasto is fine by us, since the letter i in italian is pronounced as
e, we have no problem w/antipasto.

pumpkins being orangE are fine, esp. since they are the symbol of
HallowEEn, being the most important holiday of the year.

*we will, by the way, be promoting the adoption of HallowEEn as a national
holiday.*

all planEts and satElitEs are okey dokey.

all baby animals are cool no matter what the spelling.

california & virginia being statEs and therefore important to our campaign.

sundays being a day of rEst will be extending to include thursday, friday,
saturday and monday, therefore allowing for a shorter work week and also
ensuring that people put forth their best effort on E days.

it has been my pleasure to clear up any misunderstanding that my naughty
opponent tried to cloud with her narrow view of the issues.

now, EvEryonE, back to your bEEr.

>EvelyN DuNcaN

-linda suE saboE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:45:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS
              21 Jul 1992 16:39:05 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

In theory, I agree with much of what you say about women's control of
contraception.  However, I note that a rather large segment of the
feminist population already feels that it is massively unfair that
nearly all current forms of birth control *are* the responsibility
of the woman.  (Who takes the pills?  In whom are IUDs inserted?
Who has to keep closest track of her bodily rhythms for Natural
Family Planning?  Except for condoms--which women can still, if
they choose to--have a measure of control over, *all* forms
of contraception are exclusively left to the control of women.)
(Sorry guys.)
                                         --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:05:42 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: dumping Dan: myth or reality?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              22 Jul 1992 15:13:53 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:13:53 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:

>This makes sense, as have the other responses.  But it kinda misses the
>question my partner was asking:  even if Bush dumped Quayle, and this were
>perceived as betrayal, what do you think the hard-core conservatives would
>do?  They'd be mad, but would that prevent them from voting the Republican
>ticket?  If they *didn't* vote for Bush, would they simply not vote?  (I
>can't imagine they'd switch parties :))  And would any such loss of votes
>be compensated for by an increase in votes from more moderate conservatives

The hardcore conservatives may well let Bush rot this year.  The economy
sucks and financial conditions are not likely to improve on the whole
for some time, meaning quick fixes by a Clinton/Gorf (sic) administration
are not likely to work.  In four years, an economy anything like this
one would quickly doom even moderate Democrats like Clinton/Gorf
and any attempt to use Carter's "...I inherited a bad economy..." are
not likely to work.

This would mean not having to sacrifice principle to support a moderate
conservative such as Bush and no sabotage would be necessary to gain
massive support in '96.

>Just out of curiosity, what do you like about Quayle?  Private e-mail is
>fine on that one :)

Wait till Brett (aka The Speedway Bomber) gets out of solitary
confinement...maybe we'll see some sparks fly then.

P.S.

Jay Leno brought up the issue of E. Dole again last night when talking
to Irving R. Levine -- he thought it would quickly undermine Clinton
and make big use of the "Year of the Woman" in elections.  IRL said
that it backfired when Ferraro was nominated as women demonstrated
they wouldn't vote for a ticket just because it had a female VP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:46:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: p.s.: linda, this one's for us :)

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

i wish i had seen this broadcast, i don't subscribe to cable due to lack of
funds. the only time i get to see it is if i go over to my boyfriend's house
on the wkends....and he has this thing going with the remote  :{

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.

-linda  (if we get the medal, maybe i could hock it to pay for cable?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:35:35 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ?: Financing the gov't via taxation

John W.,
I'm working on finding an ftp site with the Clinton plan. I actually
have what I THINK is a copy, but it's kind of messy and I'm not quite
sure that what I have is the actual item. I won't post what I have,
because it is over 800 lines, but I can send a copy to anyone who asks.
Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:14:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Quayle ...

Richard Vigurie, the conservative fund-raiser asserts as I did earlier,
that conservatives will not vote if Quayle is removed from the ticket. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:25:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: libertarians

On Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:06:00 EST the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said
:
> mj:
>
> one thing that concerned me was that you basically said that the
> government should turn social concerns over to the individuals and
> the states, and not involve itself.  i am concerned that the states
> often will become overly intrusive in social concerns, which, imho,
> is generally something that the states should remain as neutral
> as possible on as well, leaving open the widest possible range of
> personal freedoms.  this means that the fed. govt. needs to keep
> the state govts. from becoming intrusive, a position that travis is
> bound to scream bloody murder about, but then, i'm not a state's rights
> person, and he is.  so its not completely clearcut.
>
> brni

And I suppose you think it is the Federal government's duty to make
sure that Ireland doesn't become intrusive too??
Our constitution grants liberty, not Libertarianism.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:00:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: The Romantic Tragedy of the Electorate

-travis
>Believe me--if Perot doesn't want Bush re-elected, all he needs to do
>is say the words and Bush will be outta the White House.

wow, travis, didn't know george was so obedient.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10:48:38 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      ?: Financing the gov't via taxation
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Candidate Clinton has repeatedly answered the question regarding the
increase in taxation /c a rather nondescript:  "make sure the wealthy
can pay their fair share."

Unfortunately, that doesn't 1) define "wealthy"; and 2) doesn't say how
the remainder of his programs will be financed.  If the wealthy were
defined as making > $100'000 per annum and were taxed at 100% + the
current taxation on everyone else, just how much smaller would the
deficit really be?

When will he begin answering the entire question?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:56:10 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Obfuscation Elimination

>From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>

Jason, your remarks on the death penalty were a breath of
fresh air.

However (donning imperious crown),

>I would like to warn you, that when C.S. Lewis attempted
>to prove the non-existence of God, he actually proved his
>existence (-actually the existence of the Christian God
>and his son, Jesus Christ-).  At that point, Lewis
>converted and became a prolific Christian writer.

Yes, I know about C.S. Fortunately, there have been
advances in logic since his day.

Julie, I welcome the competition. But don't you think you'd
have to be a czarina? In any case, you might be absorbed by
the J-ticket. I mean, in case there is one.

Chalk up another one for the Czar-to-be....

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:28:33 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

Then she asked,

And if premeditation is determined in the death of the mother and child,
what is the difference between the assailant acting in his own free will
to plan this murder and then commit it, and a woman acting in her own free
will to plan the abortion of her child, and then commit it given the general
consensus that the child is a human being and a person.

Where is the difference here?  How would the court indicate the difference?

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:23:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: congressional criminals

>PSS - Although I am in favor of american beer I would not want to deny
>anyone their ethnic heritage so we must support all beers.

frEd,

would you consider being our Minister of Beverage?

-linda suE saboE  - VotE E in NovEmbEr.
                    your brEw is safE with us.
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:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:26:49 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

Hi, y'all:

First, to Sean:  part of the inspection program (according to CNN) will be
an attempt to determine whether or not documents etc. have been removed/
destroyed.  The consensus seems to be that there's a darn good possibility
that such has occurred, given the 3-week delay in the inspection.

Gary writes:

>It sounds as though Bush is determined to have a war to boost his election
>chances, regardless of whether Iraq gives him an opening or not.  As for
>whether this is good for Bush's chances, the common political wisdom would
>seem to hold so, but there are a couple big differences between now and
>a year ago:
(points deleted)

According to the CNN/Times poll I saw this morning, a pretty hefty
majority of voters (like 70%) would favor the use of military force in
getting Iraq to comply with all the cease-fire resolutions.  Another hefty
majority (in the upper 60%, as I recall) favor military attempts to remove
Saddam Hussein from power.  I guess the electorate doesn't much care about
the differences between "then" and "now" -- at least that's my take.

>Another angle that has not been mentioned is how this is being viewed by
>other arab countries.  From a PR standpoint, the big bad allies bearing down
>on defeated Iraq can't be good for the U.S.'s reputation in that region.
>Anyone have more info on this?

I don't have more info, just an opinion :)  Anti-American sentiment seems
to be pretty strong in Iraq right now -- and my gut feeling is that
additional military intervention would probably exacerbate that situation
throughout the region.  Is there any way military intervention can be
"arranged" such that the U.S. is *not* perceived as being the primary
aggressor?  I can't think of one -- can anyone?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:02:32 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ... tough choice

>The contradiction is that either the fetus is a human being who
>does not "belong" to anybody, or if it belongs to either or both
>the father and the mother, then it cannot be a human being and
>abortion cannot be called a murder.

With this, KAT demonstrates that he doesn't understand the argument.

One can be responsible/liable WITHOUT ownership.  One can even be
responsible/liable without significant control.  Note that parents are
usually responsible for the economic consequences of their children's
acts and for their upkeep.  No one implies, as KAT's responsibility
argument implies, that parents "own" children.  We do agree that
killing children is murder, even though others have liability for
them; KAT insists that this state of affairs is a "contradiction".  It
isn't; KAT is confused.

However, the general rule is that it is poor form to require liability
without giving an opportunity to avoid same.  It is also considered
poor form to require liability without allowing some control.

The most significant deviation from these rules is wrt child care and
abortion decisions.

Yes, some/many/most (the distinction doesn't matter for this argument)
men don't satisfy their legal responsibility.  That should have no
relevance in a discussion about men who do.  We generally believe in
"treat as innocent until convicted", but not when it comes to men and
children.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:51:03 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Questions, questions

What about the men who leave as soon as they find out that the woman
is pregnant, the men who demand that the woman get an abortion, or, worst
of all, those men who kill the woman and the unborn child because he sees
them as hinderances.

Evelyn Duncan

        What about them?  They should go to jail.

        -j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU