HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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, 28 Jan 1993 15:24:02 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Fear and loathing of the USSR
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         The story was that the evil Pentagon created aids to kill Africans.
>
>I admitted that this is straight from the realm of conspiracy
>theory, right?

        Yup:)

>However, given the "official story" on how AIDS came about, the
>conspiracy theory seems plausible.

        Most consipiracy theories that I've heard start out by rejecting the
notion of HIV being a mutated SIV.  (S=simian)  However, two german clinic
workers were infected with SIV last year while working with monkeys.
        I addition, what was formerly called "feline leukemia" has now been
reclassified as "feline AIDS".

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:43:37 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      getting the most for your money....

>I have to agree with you that undergrad school is a horrendous waste of
>time and money.

  Well, I just want to say, I'm blushing...if you two aren't
embarrassed to admit you learned nothing in school, I'm going
to be embarrassed for you.

                         -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:27:29 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      i just don't get it

Can someone explain how Ed Meese was able to be confirmed as Attorney
General with his background while Clinton's first choice never got
past first base? It must be because the press is so pro-republican
don't you think, rtf and brett'?:)

I think Harry Truman was the shortest president. He was about 5 foot
nothing, give or take a couple inches. Anybody seen any new Ross Perot
infomercials?

Randall Terry was in town last week. He told the woman pastor of a
local church that she is a jezabel and stood outside the church
admonishing those about to enter service that they would go to hell
if they took communion from this woman.Any of the lawyer types on
the list know if this could be interpreted as slander?

Are the pro-gulf war people happy that Clinton has not halted our
military venture in this region?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:08:53 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Arkansas, not in education...)   The L.A. Times also had another
> >article this morning about Hillary's mother--  somebody Rodham--
> >being disappointed that Sandra Day O'Connor beat Hillary to the
> >Court.  Interesting... to say the least.
> >
> >--Stan
>
>         I think the best postion would have been prez.  As far as SC justice
> goes, I'd like to see her (or anyone for that matter) do a little time as Fed
> judge first.
>
> Brett'

Unfortunately, she won't be appointed federal judge in the next four
years.  Her husband's career definitely limited hers, I think,
considering that under any other Democrat administration, Hillary
Clinton *should* have been one of the best choices for a federal
judgeship.  (She who was hailed as one of the nation's best attorneys
long before anyone outside Arkansas knew who Bill was.)

Ironically, on the last note, I have a picture from a friend of mine
from a few years ago.  As her last participation in the Girl Scouts,
she went on a trip to... yup, Arkansas.  She sent me back a single
photo from her trip, with her letter, which read, "This was the most
boring trip I've ever been on.  The only 'highlight' was that we got
to meet the ever-so-popular governor.  Big deal.  We got a picture
taken with him, but since I don't give a damn, I thought you
should have it.  You might know who this joker actually is..."

    I *didn't know* "this joker".. or that he would be our 42nd
President. (I've since sent her back her photo so she could proudly
show others that she's met the President...<smile>...)

    Irony of the day.  (Just to lighten up discussion this board.
Also, I figure with over a hundred messages a day on this forum, if
you don't like this one, it'll be really easy to lose in the
multitudes...<smile>...)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:38:40 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Monday musings

Brett' is allegedly interested in examples of US war crimes or failure
to comply with UN resolutions. How about the mining of harbors in
Nicaragua in the seventies? How about when we veto UN resolutions against
Israel because they are our partners? The world court decided that the
USA was guilty of crimes in the Nicaragua incident. We told the world
court that we didn't care what they thought.

For newly returned kerry, welcome back, if popularity=right then the
Beatles are miles above Rush. I would even venture to say that the KKK
and the NRA have a larger following than Rush, although I wouldn't be
surprised to see an overlap in membership between all three groups.

I heard a report this morning on a gunman attacking the CIA visitor
center. I hope it wasn't the guy who was ticked off at the receptionist.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:30:18 -0500
From:         Ude Eko <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Unsub Politics-l Ude Eko
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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, 21 Jan 1993 12:45:11 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Clinton and JFK
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>I read that JFK is Clinton's idol.
>>Does that means that Clinton is waiting to be killed?
>>Or does it mean something
>>different? Could anyone explain me, please?
>
>I think it means that Bill is
>hoping for a piece of Madonna.
>
>                              -Tim

        She only has eyes for Chelsea.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:38:32 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>IMHO, the controversy over Hillary being named as head of the Health
>Care Task Force is raging because she's the First Lady.  A lot of
>people take a dim view of a First Lady who dares to do something other
>than show people around and take care of the family.  How many people
>complained when Bobby Kennedy was named as Attorney General by his
>brother?

>Evelyn Duncan

For the record, I don't mind the fact that HC is on the task force.  I doubt
that she or anyone will be able to significantly "improve" the "system"
without increasing spending on the program.  But that is another story.
However, with regard to the above comment, could it be that the people were
somewhat unhappy about RFK/JFK, so they therefore put the nepotism law in
place?

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:00:31 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

First let me clarify that I'm no big Clinton supporter and didn't vote
for him.  I just don't see the big stink over Hillary in charge, since
she seems about as qualified as anybody.  And of all the responses,
nobody addressed the central thesis, which is that the president must
embrace whatever results the task force produces, so must have paramount
trust in the leader of said force.

>>>>The "AK was 48th in education" is a useless statistic, so sticking
>>>
>>>        How so?
>>>
I gave a bunch of questions, Brett' gave some answers, but missed the
point.  Saying the average height of a man is 5'9" tells me something.
Saying Bill Clinton is slightly taller than the average man (even
without disclosing the previous statistic) tells me *something*.  Saying
Bill Clinton is the 48th tallest man in DC tells me nothing, since I
have no clue about the heights of the 47 taller men.

Similarly, the rank of the state is useless.  Both Kerrys gave useful,
although conflicting, information about Hillary's tenure as Arkansas
leader of education reform.

>>>        Is it possible that you're only saying that because (gasp) we're men?
>>>:)
>        We means the males present, of course :).  I couldn't include the whole
>list for obvious reasons.  The point being, I think most of us are beyond
>things like that.
>
I apologize if I offended anyone.  On this list I'm often confronted
with misconceptions about homosexuality, drug abuse, civil liberties, and
many other things.  I (perhaps errantly) assumed that the abilities of
women were among them.  Or, as my friend and off-beat-but-hillariously-
erudite comedian Brian Waylan said in an unusually misogynistic moment,
"I believe the world would be a better place if it was run by women.
I think women should be in charge of everything.  Of course I don't
think they should be paid as much...."
    todddddddd
>Brett'

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "The truth cannot be told so
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   as to be understood without
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    first being believed."-BLAKE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:47:27 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Re:Re:Reunion on the mall
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Brett' says: "Clinton's inagruation (Sp?) is the most expensive since
> >kennedy's". This is a false statement. Reagan's and Bush's each cost
> >more than Clinton's. If you meant the most expensive democratic inaug
> >since kennedy that isn't much of a statement.
>
>         It's a true statement.  Perhaps you're not accounting for inflation.
> I'll retrieve the numbers and post them.
I think that we have done this all ad nauseum (sorry Dan!).  But since
I didn't see the numbers from Brett' and I did from CNN, here they are
Carter '76 $4 Million
Reagan '81 $15 Million
Reagan '85 $20 Million
Bush '89   $30 Million
Clinton '93 $25 Million
Clinton '97 $25 Million :-)

Also, this from CNN.  Clinton's inauguration team estimates $32 Million
in income from contributions, fees, memorbilia sales, etc.  So all loans
(interest-free BTW (that's some sort of tradition)) are going to be
paid back and the inauguration team said something about a celebration
with the profit!  (or a contribution to some charity, I forgot which)
>
> >The public isn't paying for Clinton's either but we have been invited.
>
>         Of course, you can only watch if you have pay cable :).
83% of America has it.  I went down to Mother-in-law's house and watched
CNN, CSPAN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS (She gets 2 different PBS channels and 2
different CSPAN channels).  That was a fun day! And I taped 3 tapes worth!
>
> >50 people that they met on the bus tour have been invited all expenses
> >paid. In the great american tradition which reaches it's peak in the
> >new year's bowl games and the super bowl, corporate america is proud
> >to be a sponser of the Clinton inagrual.
> >fred
>
>         Same stuff, different party.
A lot of that is true.  The big-wig's contributed and schmoozed.  However,
people with no money (relatively speaking) partied harder at the Clinton
inaugural than at any of the previous 4 inaugurals.  The Mall was open and
filled with booths, there were "free" parties, etc.
>
> Brett'
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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, 28 Jan 1993 13:07:36 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:06:21 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>>>........  Why is capital gains such a scared cow?  Why?
>
>>        Because you've already been taxed for the money once.
>
>I *think* you mean that the money invested has already
>been taxed once.  Correct.  However, the "gain" part of
>it has NOT been taxed before.
>
>So according to you if I buy item A for $10 (a money
>that I have already paid taxes on) and item B for
>another $10 (again, I have already paid taxes on the
>money) and sell it for $25 (say there are no other
>expenses involved), then the extra $5 would be a scared
>cow too?
>--KAT

        For tax purposes, yes.  You should be encourage to put $10 and $10
together and come away with $25.

:)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The longest line
             contained 0 characters
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:47:55 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Wed,
              27 Jan 1993 12:43:28 PDT from Stan Jacobs
              <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Quotable quotes
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/27/93 16:31

>Flame on, Robert!   ...............
>              ...  Thanks, Robert, for posting this.  It just made my
>day...
>-Stan Jacobs

You're quite welcome sir.  I wouldn't call it 'flaming' though, just
shedding a little light on the truth.

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:58:21 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Zoe what's the story?

Hi folks:

Somebody (maybe here, maybe elsewhere, I really can't remember) made
the intriguing argument that if Zoe Baird had been a man, she wouldn't
have been treated the way she was.

Good point.  Of course, if she'd been a man, the Clinton Transition
Team wouldn't have given her a second glance anyway.

Speaking of the CTT, am I the only one who noticed that Curious George
the Greek explained the problem with the whole mess by saying that
"The transition process erred."?

The "process" erred?  The President may want to reconsider his "reward
FOBs with high-profile jobs" policy.  (NOTE:  An "FOB" is a "Friend of
Bill," and I believe is now considered a bona fide cuss word in the
language of conservatism.  As in "Shut up, you stupid FOB--It's the
economy.")  I've been watching Little George for a good many years
now, and he is a first-class behind-the-scenes power player.  He's
a deal-maker, and a wily negotiator in the halls of Congress.  But
First Press Dude is not a great job for him.  He doesn't off-the-cuff
very well, and he has a certain little-boy-who's-done-something-
wrong look to him.  Bill should have made him a concealed member
of the Kitchen Cabinet.  He was great when all he had to do was
make an already favored candidate look good to the press.  But
the Man is President now, and the Press Corps is bored with the
circus already.  Now that George has to do more than talk happy,
and now that he actually *has* to explain things that go wrong,
he's out of his element.  The new glasses are cute, but they make
him look like he's testifying before a House Investigative Committee
on Accounting Discrepancies.  He needs to learn to take control of the
room, because right now the Press Corps is dominating the event.

And if he doesn't learn fast, they'll eat him for breakfast.

Do you hear that sound?  It's Former Presidential Spokesfish Marlin
giggling hysterically on his way to a power lunch with Simon &
Schuster.  (Late Night Fans:  You suppose he'll get to meet Meg?)

Later still,

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:56:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      why ask why ?

A Democratic President attends a denominational church, weeps during
the sermon, enjoys a choir singing about a specific religious fig-
ure and specific religious doctrines, uses references from the ser-
mon in his inagural speech, quotes scripture, and employs a wealth
of pseudo-biblical symbolism and ... no one says a word !

If a Republican President had done the same things, the press would
immediately be warning us of a religious nut takeover and review the
many dangers of the failure to separate church and state !

Why is we can look at a Democratic Presidential ball for hours and
not have the obvious things pointed out to us (like they are in any
display of Republican celebration).

Not one single network mentioned the fact that the vast majority of
those present at the balls were white.  Despite the overwhelming
support of blacks, the Democrats could only put them on the stage to
entertain !  And lets face it, the press has always considered it the
responsibility of republicans to get minorities in celebrations -
if the party that has ousted minorities from society has an obliga-
tion to include them in their celebrations, the party that depends
on them to win must surely also.

Where we all of the interviews with the homeless and the people who
were not so happy because all of the celebrating won't get them their
jobs back ?

I guess all of the disgruntled disappear - or lose air time - under a
Democratic regime.



amazed by the crudeness of it all,

                                    P.S.Ruckman, Jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:57:05 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military

>        The moral, then, is that military strength is important, but that
>military strength MUST be relevent to the threats that a nation might face.
>What exactly that means in our modern post-Cold War context, I'm not sure.

I totally agree.  I might be wrong, but don't many scholars think that
what we should expect in our current place are situations similar to
what we've been doing in Iraq? what we see in the former Yugoslavia?

Without a major "enemy", I can't justify a large military base.  I am not
advocating a weak US with no military.  I don't even think that just a
"police force"-military is sufficient, but I don't think that the type
military we have now is one that we need.

jbc
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:10:33 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: A bit more on Zoe Baird
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>employment of immigrants make this a major mitigating factor.  I would
>also like the all the citizens who wrote letters of protest to start
>having so much concern on more insidious things than having affairs,
>smoking pot or resisting the draft when we are college students, or
>hiring illegal babysitters following questionable but still gray area
>procedures.  This is what I'm most annoyed about, and this farce has
>got to stop.

>      -Joe

So if a private citizen wants to displace an American worker by hiring an
alien, that's is no big deal, right.  OK.  NOw would you have the same
opinion when companies decide that they should move operations to foreign
countries.  After all the result is the same.

Chris

p.s. After all, smoking pot, resisting the draft, and hiring illegal
babysitters are all against the law; moving my company to Europe is not.
Hmm, maybe it's even MORE acceptable.  I'm sure that you'll line up with me
to object to any protectionist sweet nothings that someone might call for
against my products.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:36:55 -0700
From:         Dom Maddalone <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> All these numbers are neat, but:
>
> Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
> in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
> And climbing.

    Pre-natal?  Pre-BIRTH human beings?  Please give me your definition of
a human being.

    Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU