HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 16 Nov 1992 17:08:07 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Cormier" at Nov 16, 92 11:32 am

While under delusions of grandeur, Jason Briggs Cormier spewed:

| Brandon:
|
| I totally agree with everything you said, but you did miss my point about
| Pearl Harbor.

[Points deleted about Pearl Harbor. Good points, mind you. I'm
practicing conservation tho]

	Quite correct. I think my point was more on the level of IF
the soldiers thought about why they were fighting, the answers would
be more of the order of "For Freedom" or "To get rid of Facism", or
possibly "To save our country", not "Because of the Flag." However, I
think most soldiers, after getting into the military, did not think
about why they were there. Carl correctly points out that most of them
were fighting to save thier own (or thier friends) lives. Certainly
not for the flag.

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
		       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:42:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

Kevin McDade tells us that Bush only used the term "bozo" to refer to Clinton
because he was nervous.  Hmm, interesting theory; my guy screws up, blame it
on nervousness.

Would that mean the Gerald Ford said "there is no Soviet domination of
Eastern Europe" during a tv debate with Carter in 1976 because of extreme
anxiety?

When Reagan introduced Liberian President Samuel K. Doe as "Ladies & Gentlemen,
uhh....ummm...Chairman Moe....Liberia....", was that an example of a severe
central nervous system disorder?

And I suppose that Bush's day that will live in infamy - *September* 7, 1941 -
that's a full-blown gran mal seizure?


Hmm. Pretty good.  Too bad I won't have to use it for a few years.  Gaffes seem
to be yet another area where conservatives have cornered the market.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:58:20 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>

> Clinton was ten points ahead of Bush before Perot's reentering the race
> because many voters were undecided.
> These voters turned to Perot when he decided to run.

How do you know that?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:04:04 CST
From:         Sue Clark <LIBRARY@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Another Victim

How do again,

(My regular file is locked up so I stole the library's file.)

I hear Jack Kovorkian has struck again.  He was present in Michigan when
another patient(?) used a device that put out carbon monoxide, that Jack
set up, and another life was snuffed out.

You may share the view that these people were suffering and were ready to
die, but how much more are we going to cheapen life and become so insenitive
to easy death?  My mother has cancer, but she would like to use one of his
machines on him.  She is has a tendency to have a hard time breathing some-
times, and she is in pain constantly, but she is not ready to cash it in!!
She says that she is not so sick or weak that she wouldn't want to punch
his lights out!

That's mom.

I'm sure that there will be opposing views, but IMHO he is aiding in the
desensitization of people's attitude to death in the country.  That to
me is a danger signal.

Working to put in conservative Republicans in '94 and '96,

Sue Clark

Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know what is 'tort law.'  Some postings
are referring to it on the BUSH-L and I would like to know some about it.
Thank you.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:19:38 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: don't forget to wash behind your ears...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Tom Chapin is also the brother of the late Harry Chapin, one of the
> true musical geniuses of the modern era, IMHO.
>
> Evelyn Duncan
>
I agree.

Jonathan
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:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:05:37 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      must be a slow night :)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Good evening:
So far, I've received 9 responses to my little poll, and all 9 indicate
that their authors really see the whole "who dodged the draft" as a non-
issue.  Of course, that's an early poll, and may not be an accurate
indicator of the final results :)

Keep on sending 'em
Kerry
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:39:41 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Military Expertise

In article <1992Nov13.190656.37457@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>
>Fred, you asked what my military expertise is, well I happen to only be 18 so
>my expertise is understandable.  I would serve in the military if a draft
>would ever be placed back into effect, something I have over our "beloved"
>President-elect.  Would you?
>                                        Jayce

There was a draft in effect during WW2 but Ronnie Reagan dodged it because his
acting in war movies was considered enough to exempt him from actual duty
(something about vital, wartime industry) Reagan had no military expertise
and did not serve the nation in it's darkest hour yet I suspect you probably
did not object to his being Commander-in-Chief.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:54:14 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: guns and linquistics

>I have one question for those that say original intent should matter *most*:
>Does the line "...all men are created equal." have any other meaning than
>[White Land Owning Males]?

In that document, it doesn't.  Since the declaration of independence
hasn't had any legal weight since the adoption of the articles of
confederation (which are also legally void now), it isn't clear why
that's interesting though.

Note that the Constitution was formally amended to include women and
blacks in both "people" and "men".  Why is the amendment process an
unreasonable obligation for people who disagree with the original
intent of the 2nd amendment?  Why should the "growth" of the living
constitution be subject to the whims of language change?  Why is the
formal amendment process unacceptable?

I don't have nearly as many objections to "interpretation" that
increases the scope of rights, such as one that parallels the way that
the meaning of "people" has been formally amended.  Going the other
way should only happen by means of the formal process.  Then again, I
don't even have to concede "informal expansion is okay" because the
9th and 10th make that irrelevant in most cases.

-andy
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, 16 Nov 1992 11:32:03 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

Brandon:

I totally agree with everything you said, but you did miss my point about
Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese attacked the base, not because they wanted to invade the US,
but because they wanted to remove the US strategic force in the Pacific
so that they could do as they wanted in the region.

There was never any intent to take over the US.  The result is that US soldiers
fighting in WW II were not fighting in defense of our soil, but for political
reasons.

The soldiers may have thought that they were fighting for their country's
defense, but they weren't.  It is not their fault, but by this time in history,
everyone should realize that the US entered the war for political reasons
dealing with Europe, not Japan.

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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:32:49 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

The job you talk about is to go to war.  Those who followed Hitlers orders
to gas the Jews and others were acting on there on.  I mean come on.  Are you
saying that every soldier is going to slaughter thousands of innocent people.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:52:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: skin in america

fred:

        I'll try to get the data; I do know that even after the Meese Commission
, no study has ever been able to link violence against women and pornography.
None.  I think Nixon ordered a similar study and that one couldn't make the
link either.

        Be back to y'all about the numbers.


-T.
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: amazing!
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:38:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>political :)) -- but I just turned down an honest-to-goodness chance to
>"debate" evolution with Duane Gish!  Apparently a local church is trying to

why did you turn him down?

>Wonder if I can use this to cadge drinks at meetings?

of course.

-linda list mother to be

>Kerry
>!!!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:56:05 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: don't forget to wash behind your ears...
              19 Nov 1992 04:22:27 EST from <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>

Tom Chapin is also the brother of the late Harry Chapin, one of the
true musical geniuses of the modern era, IMHO.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:09:57 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gays, alcoholism, activist letters
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> There is another reason, Martha.
>
> John V
>

Thanks Sue Ann!  I and others have already posted a few letters in response
to this idiot and now you bring the letter to this list where, I'm sure,
that virtually nobody has seen my and other responses.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:45:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      guns and linquistics

i sent my son the linguistics post that tim submitted. i thought the post was
interesting and wanted my child's opinion. he is a very opinionated child,
doesn't pick up after himself, but he's cute so i let him live.

-list mother maybe

the kid said:

Subj:   about the guns

the question is not one of english usage or one of original intent...
 1) the founding fathers were not english professors and standardized use of
the english language as in the "how to write" texts which this "expert" makes
was not used by the people who wrote the constitution...   further, we are
talking about LAW, not a graded paper....  the proper person to talk to about
this issue, an issue of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, is not an linguist, but rather,
those judges and justices who deal with constitutional law and civil liberties
on a regular basis.
 2)  the constitution is a LIVING document, made to be changed as times
change... by relying solely on original intent (and, tangentially, very rarely
the actual intent that the founding fathers meant, via their rightings in other
places such as the federalist papers, etc.) one defeats the entire purpose of a
living document and buries the American constitution with other dead documents
like the soviet constitution.

Now.... as to experts in constitutional law.... how about those judges and
justices of the American supreme courts....

I do not have the sources handy, but I can get them.... to the best of my
knowledge, THREE separate cases of second ammendment rights have gone before
this country's supreme courts, two at the federal level, and one at the state
level, Texas to be exact...
and in all cases the verdict was that the second ammendment does not give
citizens a private right to bear arms, and that the right to bear arms is
confered only in order to maintain state and federal militias... NOTE: it also
does not bar the citizen the right to bear arms... that is a decision for
individual state and federal government to decide...
michael
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:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:56:30 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: questions for Brett' et al.:
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...Quality issues
>The main principle of such concepts is that there has to be universal
>feedback between customers and suppliers.  What happens so often is
>that suppliers simply think they -know- what their customers want
>without really checking, which is how the American car industry has
>been pounded so often.  won't spend my time doing a lecture on
>business in America.  I simply wanted to address the issue of Quality
>and self-improvement and note that we're not a country into fixing
>or replacing things as much as one to defend old processes with
>which we are a lot more comfortable instead.  I'd be glad to discuss
>this further, but I'm not sure this is the place for it.  What do
>you all think?
>
>--Julie

        I think that (for the worse) politics has become intertwined with
economics.  Go for it.
        (BTW-I agree with your assesment of US business.  My hope is that there
will be those few brave companies out there to say "we'll try it".)

Brett'
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:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:32:43 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

Yesterday, Kevin McDade [Sign your posts, Kevin...] said:
 In 1998, the Republican candidate
will have the same advantage Clinton enjoyed as a result of Perot's
running for presidency.

  Hmmm....  What's wrong with this post? 1998?! You're starting to sound like
Quayle: "We'll see about 1994."  If you Republicans don't even know what
year the next election is on, how can you expect to run the country?  And, no,
we're not going to give you a margin of error of 2 years. :)

-Martin, who almost always signs his posts, not that it gets him anywhere.
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: back on line!
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:57:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Kerry:
        In your post about the NPR story, you wrote that 1500 gays were
discharged in th 1980s.  Surely that was a type - right?

        Clinton said the other day that the military spent $500 million
in the past ten years getting rid of 17,000 gays.  I'm not suggesting you
are in error over Clinton :) - it's just that 1500 sounds too low.

Great post!

-T.
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, 18 Nov 1992 21:00:17 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

>Honestly I don't see Clinton's avoidance of the draft as being anything
>other than avoidance of the draft and looking out for his own hide.  I
>see nothing _wrong_ with that, but if he were really trying to _oppose_
>the draft he should have done so openly and honestly.

The draft issue with Clinton really bothered me.  Not that he didn't serve
during Vietnam--even my grandfather, a World War II POW, didn't think that
mattered--but that his story about Vietnam kept changing.  I know it's been
twenty-three years, but you'd think there'd be some consistency!

But I can't say that Quayle's insistence in 1988 that his stint in the National
Guard WAS military service was any better.  It may have been service of a sort,
but certainly not anything like actually being in Vietnam.

>--Julie

-----Gayla

P.S. I voted for Clinton anyway.
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, 18 Nov 1992 12:06:32 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages of sin

>Brett' asks why should we pay someone $17 / hour when someone else
>will do the work for $7 / hour.

>O'andy smirks:  Ethics?  B)

>New reason:  Because it is a SIN.

>Baltimore _Sun_ reports this morning that "low wages" are the
>equivalent of stealing in the eyes of the Catholic Church, who
>have produced a revised catechism (first revision in 400 years).

Good god, what will those Catholics think of next? Do you suppose
they might make usury a sin again? B)

>Steve "recovering Catholic" R.

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:59:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: term limits
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> About citizen politicians and such -- will the kinds of people running for
> elected office really become more diverse if term limits are adopted?  That
> is, even with term limits in place to reduce the incumbent advantage, will
> you really get people from many different backgrounds, professions, etc.
> running for office?  Seems to me that (1) without campaign finance reform,
> you're still going to need to be fairly wealthy to run (or to have enough
> experience in *local* politics to amass lots of contributions -- but isn't
> that sort of like being a "professional politician"?); and (2) you need to
> be in a profession that "allows" you to take a break to serve, then return
> to your former job.  What do y'all think:  if you wanted to serve, could
> you take the requisite break from your job (or student-hood, or whatever)
> and return to it?

I think you've made a very important point here.  North Carolina
politics has a bit of a fetish with the "citizen legislature" idea.  We
don't have term limits for legislators, but for legislatures (the number
of days the General Assembly can be in session).  The reason: so
legislators can get back to their "regular" jobs.  The concept is also
used to justify low legislative salaries (it's not how they earn their
living).  BUT, the factors you brought up are important.  Most of our
legislators are lawyers or corporate officers (retired people are also
fairly common).  Most people who work in average jobs are effectively
disqualified because they can't get the release time (how many of us
could get six months off every other year, with two months off in the
alternate year).  Some groups of people, such as faculty at the UNC
system colleges, have been put on notice that they may not be allowed
the release time to serve (we have one or two in the legislature now).
Yet, when committee work is taken into consideration, the job is pretty
close to full time.  And lots of observers have noticed that the content
of the bills favored by the General Assembly is closely related to the
composition of the body.

Best,
Peter(trying to inject a little more signal into all the noise)

> Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:35:00 EST
From:         Happy Holidays from the Military-Industrial Complex
              <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: two quick points
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Linda:

No one's ever thought of me as legitimate before, so...

--Julie

P.S. I can still cook.  Just don't be surprised if the occasional
     gasket or carbeuretor accidentally slips into the falafel.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:36:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Christopher K. Gilbert says he doesn't "think Slick Willie realizes that
a gay can't kill the enemy by hitting them with his purse..."

I guess I really can't come up with a good response for that but I
think it speaks for itself.  I do find it amazing however, that Mr.
Gilbert feels so _threatened_ by "queers."  Apparently there is something
which scares him about us...

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:24:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

t:

Gee... I never would have guessed.

I swear.  You people have no sense of humor.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:54:07 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      card party

Someone asked for an example of a Quayle goof other than the famous
potato incident. Has everyone forgotten the Christmas card that the
Quayle's sent to various world leaders lauding America as "The shining
beakon of the world"? I'm sure someone will say that the VP can't be
bothered with petty details like proofing his own christmas cards.
Well, if that is the case, I would vote for someone who either has
the time or will appoint someone to handle the job whose language skills
are not in doubt.

fred