HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:35:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Elections

Evelyn:

Democrat:  Bob Casey

Republican:  Jack Kemp (of course)

--Missy P 2 B (assuming, for the hypothetical, that I would vote)
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:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:09:23 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Somewhat Unusual "Family Values"

rufus, responding to Julie, wrote:

>  half right. many women *do*, in fact, want to be homemakers. what
>  they are disillusioned by is the fact that many women see being a
>  homemaker as a subhuman existence and/or slavery. equal rights,
>  after all, should include the right to marry, stay home, and raise
>  children . . .  shouldn't it?

Maybe half right -- maybe a bit less.  We might also want to include women
who want to be homemakers but whose families can't make it on single
incomes and those who want to be homemakers but are single parents.  On the
"other" side are women (several of whom were my neighbors) who enjoy
working, but whose low skills level confines them to low-paying jobs.
Several of these have explained to me how their salaries simply don't cover
commuting and daycare expenses.  Go figure.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:52:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on Abortion <yawn>

>When I resposted the "thesis" statement of my original post, -andy
>found it "not relevant".    <sigh>

What Andy actually did was point out that the evidence offered wasn't
relevant to that point.

>What began this now tiresome discussion was my speculation that Bush
>and Quayle could accept a choice position if they didn't apparently
>believe that most women who seek abortions are lacking in
>upbringing/morals.

Speculation for which no support was offered.

I "speculate" that the Clinton denials of an affair with Genifer
Flowers were technically true; the affair was really between Ms.
Rodman and Flowers (Clinton watched but didn't participate) and that
they ended when Rodman took Clinton's name (years after the wedding).
Sure, there's no evidence for that speculation either, but ....

>Their statements about "support" indicated to
>me that while they may be dismayed if their offspring had an
>abortion, they would not be *horrified*.

How do those statements indicate that?  Bush can be unreasonably
loyal; he'd support his offspring no matter how much said offspring
horrified them.  (In that, he's how most parents want to be
themselves.)  That's what he's said.

>I then pointed out that one *could* conclude from their statements
>that they do not equate abortion with murder.

Since we can be fairly sure that they'd support horrifying offspring,
that's a leap of faith.

We can ask the parents on POLITICS-L if they'd "support" their
offspring if said offspring did horrifying things to see if they're
different from other parents I've asked the same question.  Almost all
of the parents I've asked have been Bush-like on this question.  (Some
of the parents-in-10 years folks said that they hoped they wouldn't.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:37:43 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Slips of the tongue

Jason:

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the "geography thing."
I thought it was pretty funny.  But then, I thought it was Bush's way
of making it clear that he considers Clinton to be such a miniscule
threat that he need not even bother to know where the little gnat
comes from, and that anywhere Clinton might be from isn't even
worth knowing about.

--Missy P 2 B
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:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:00:47 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      goin' fishin' see ya after bush is destroyed by the christian
              coalition

Well folks, it's Friday and I'm going to vacate for about 2
weeks, so I'll see y'all soon.

On my way out the door though, I thought that I'd post this remark
made today on WAMU (NPR station in DC) by the Chair of the DC Republican
Committee and delegate to the Rep. Convention, Julie Finley(sp):

"The Christian Coalition (remnants of the pat Robertson campaign
organization) has moved in and controlled the platform committee."

IMHO unless somebody from the Bushman's camp can do something about
the platform document, Bush is going to be running on a platform
that neither he, nor the majority of americans can support.

My sleeves are so full of laughter that there is barely room for my
arms.

-other Andy
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Jim Baker
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:39:18 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Political analysts are supposing that this is an indication that Baker really
could and will run the country, now that Baker has been called in to run the
campaign and save the sinking ship. Reportedly, White House staffers are glad
he's coming back, because the affairs of the WH have been poorly managed and
many feel Baker is a good manager.
Is this an indication that the president that is standing on his laurels as the
leader of the Free world would, with much fore thought, jepordize world affairs
(from the US's stand)_ by relieving the secretary of state at a time of critical
(tounge in cheek) negotiations in the middle east and the gulf? I guess this is
politics as usual. This does distinguish Bush as a fighting texan, not a nobel
peace prize candidate (as he dearly wants). Maybe Time's description of the two
sides of Bush as being dead accurate (Time's article, Man of the year one two
or three years back).
Politicaly, in the short run this will be seen as a shrewd move, an effort to
save the Bush administration from unemployment. In the long run, this may be
noted as a poorly orchestrated stadegy. If a candidate is seen as having a
strong suit in foreign affairs, and then reals in his top player and staff to
tackle a flagging campaign, he may lose his only trump card and lose the
election.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 09:19:00 EST
From:         SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET
Subject:      NOT AGAIN?!?!

no mail again.
no vax yesterday at all.
in the dark again.
steve? can you forward again? send a test whatever?
thanks.
-linda  (if it doesn't stop raining soon, the sun will become a myth)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:18:03 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Is (Barbara) Bush Pro-choice?

Barbara Bush says that abortion is "a personal choice" and
that Republicans should drop the anti-abortion plank from
the current party platform.

*Now*, can we say for sure that Barbara Bush is pro-choice?

About four years ago Barbara Bush said a similar thing that
created some noise.  At that time she said should would no
longer express her opinions and "would stand by her man" (is
that what Hillary Clinton was referring to? :-).

So what has changed?  How come she is expressing her opinion
now.  I mean first it was Dan Quayle, then George Bush, and
now Barbara Bush.  Could all these be calculated and somewhat
orchestrated?  Is it possible that a pro-choice first lady is
an  asset  now  that  Roe v Wade seems to be on shaky grounds?
Maybe some women think that with a pro-choice first lady, their
right to abortion will somehow be preserved from further
erosion.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:53:40 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      In your heart, you know he's right. (NOT!)

**********
To steal another old campaign slogan:
In your guts, you know he's nuts. (Bush)
That is a little more accurate.
Scott Adams
**********

   scott, are you old enough to remember the last democratic president
we had? southern governor, running as an outsider, against an unpopular
republican president, with a democratic congress to boot? why don't you
check out the economy after he got done with it, and then tell me why
you think clinton can do any better.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 08:40:34 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: suicide
              7 Aug 1992 11:37:36 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

On Fri, 7 Aug 1992 11:37:36 -0700 Andy Freeman said:
>>But surely there is a great distance between *physical* illnesses which
>>are terminal and *psychological* problems like depression.
>
>Really?  What is that distance?  Are we seeing an assumption that ALL

The distance is 8 kilometers.  The difference is that the *terminal*
illness has given you a high probability of dying in X number of months,
the psychological problems although troubling are not terminal.  The
folks Dr. Kavorkian has assisted with suicide all had terminal illnesses.

>psychological problems are curable, or at least will go away?  Are we

Most psychological problems are probably curable, especially if non-
standard, non-western medicine approaches are employed, like chinese
herbal medicines, acupuncture, hypnosis, etc.  Many don't realize they
have psychological problems, don't recognize them as such, don't trust
the therapists, can't afford treatment.

>seeing an assumption that they will end soon enough to make suicide
>a "worse" option than a stay in mental hell?
>
Only from you, Andy.

>Methinks you folks are trying to use distinctions that don't have much
>of a basis.  (You're also assuming that psychologists approach the
>usefulness of physical illness MDs.)
>
And you're assuming they don't.  I for one got great help for my post-
alcoholic depression from a caring, qualified psychologist.  He helped
me find my self-esteem, sense of direction, value of life, etc.;  a
bunch of stuff that no bucket'o'drugs from an MD would have yielded.
   todddddddd
>-andy
>--

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "You don't drink, you got no
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   TV...must get pretty boring
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    'round here." - STNG
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:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:23:33 -0500
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Clinton and Jim Baker

Bill Clinton's comment yesterday that he feared that U.S. foreign policy
would be disrupted with Jim Baker leaving the State Department is odd:  Does
he think that a new administration would be less disruptive?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:10:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Missing the Mark ------->

Politicos,
   Ughhhh.  I hate it when I want the listserv and ou tof habit send it
to the List.

Humbly,

Carl-------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:19:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: praise bob!

sister liese,

oh, uh, okay ....thanks.

linda  (walking away, muttering confusedly about why in hell she ever bothers to
ask anybody anything you'd think she'd've learned her lesson by now for gods sak
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:49:32 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ACLJ Activities - Addendum

>not permitted by their public office.  Despite the fight over abortion rights
>what is even more important is the loss of rights that have always been
>clearly defined and legally exercised since the birth of this nation, namely
>religious liberties.
>
This is indeed sad.  My Rastafarian friends get arrested when they smoke
marijuana as part of their religious doctrine that brings them closer to
their god.  And Native-Americans have been forbidden to use Peyote in
their tribal religious ceremonies that have been practiced for generations.

The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution, and yet
my Druid friends are beginning to feel persecuted as the nature they
worship is gradually devoured by civilization in the name of progress.
    toddddddddddddd
>CARL-------+

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Jesus died for somebody's
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   sins... but not mine."
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    -PATTY SMITH
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, 13 Aug 1992 10:29:14 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      we're just getting started, you faint-hearted folk

well, i've been off-line for a while, gimme a break.  i need to catch up
to kat in terms of number of postings per day.

um, talkin' about voting, here.  in kentucky, voting booths are used.
as jamie mentioned, they look much like a shower stall and many people do,
in fact, call out "hey! where's the conditioner?" just to tick off the
little old ladies from the american legion auxiliary who always seem to
be staffing the polling centers.  but on to the point.

third-party or write-in votes are strongly discouraged by this system.
in fact, if you want to write in someone, you have to tell them before you
get in the booth.  the best way to approach this is to say to adelaide or
myrna or whomever "i think i'd like a write-in ballot, just in case." before
you go in.  then, you have to write in your candidate *as well as* the
names of the delegates who intend to vote for him/her.  if it's a
presidential election, you need to write in the names of the folks in the
college of obscure constitutional electoral knowledge.

i always enjoyed going in to vote, 'cause there are a variety of bottlenecks
in the kentucky system.  first of all, you announce to the world your
name and your party affiliation at the door so that mrs. vfw can look up
your name in the big computer-printout that tells her if you are registered.
you have this repeated by libby or midge or whomever it is who greets you
at the door.
midge:  "state your name and your party affiliation."
me, knowing i am in a democratic stronghold: "laura anneliese lorson.
        libertarian."
midge, in a voice to wake the dead: "LAURA ANN-AWHATTHEHELLDIDYOUSAY?"
me:  "laura anneliese lorson.  libertarian."
midge: "well, i never heard of *that* party."

really, voting is great.  you get a cookie afterwards and a little sticker
that tells everyone you did your civic duty.  it's a lot like giving blood.
of course, in kentucky, if you don't pull the lever for the whole democratic
slate, you end up giving blood, too.  really, it's fun.  i mean this.

                                   * * *anneliese "l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 09:53:04 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      View of GOP convention from across the pond.
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Two points:

1) On a radio sound bite this morning, I heard Bush saying about
"family values" (God I hate these cliches) "We want American families
to be more like the Waltons, and less like the Simpsons". I mean, is
this really the level at which you guys conduct political debate ?

2) The BBC's most experienced North America correspondent, Charles
Wheeler (who reported the Watts riots for the BBC) in reply to a
question about Bush being out of touch with the people replied:

" Bush hasn't had to be exposed to real people for 25 years". Is this
true ? He then went on to tell how he was talking to voters in New
Hampshire, right at the start of the campaign, and they told him they
were worried about not having any health cover. He suggested to them
that they would be OK under our National Health Service, but that the
response of Americans to such a suggestion is always 'We don't want
socialised medicine'. The people to whom he was talking replied that
such a response came from the politicians, but that non politicians
would welcome 'socialised medicine'. Wheeler used this as an example
of how politicians in general, and Bush in particular, have lost touch
with the American people.

What all do you think ?

BTW, Bush seems to already be borrowing lines from Major's campaign
earlier this year. Do you think we can expect to see Bush out on the
streets of the towns and cities making speeches on the street armed
only with a soapbox (on which to stand) and a megaphone ? I wonder how
he would cope with the hecklers ...

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:07:54 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jim Baker
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:54:08 -0500 GAYLA BASSHAM said:
>Has everyone heard about Jim Baker leaving the State Department?  He's taking
>Skinner's place as Chief of Staff, I think.  How do you think this will change
>the campaign?  I don't really think that Baker will be able to work the magic
>that he worked in 1988; Clinton's farther ahead and is a stronger candidate
>than Dukakis.


And I thought Indianapolis was behind when it came to receiving news.
Actually, Baker has been speculated to make the move for some time and
most of what I've read has stated he is doing so reluctantly (can you
say "job security" ?).  Sunday's Chicago Tribune had a rather large
article stating he did not relish getting back into the election fray
and would much rather tie up the loose ends on the international front.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:40:08 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Economics in Election Years
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

From today's NYTimes:

                 1972     1976     1980     1984     1988     1992
              +----------------------------------------------------
         GNP  | +5.0%    +4.9%    -0.5%    +6.2%    +3.9%    +1.4%
Unemployment  |  5.6%     7.7%     7.7%     7.5%     5.5%     7.7%
   Inflation  |  3.2%     5.8%     5.8%     4.3%     4.1%     3.4%
  Prime Rate  |  5.25%    6.84%    6.84%   12.04%    9.32%    6.50%

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:14:11 EST
From:         Jim Ennis <JIM@UCF1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      UCF1VM Listserv Support
Comments: To: Harold Pritchett <HAROLD@UGA.BITNET>,
              "Miguel A. Campos" <EARNMAIN@EB0UB011.BITNET>,
              MABOGEN@DEARN.BITNET, EL406006@BROWNVM.BITNET,
              ATROPOS@NETLAB.CIS.BROWN.EDU, ATROPOS@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU,
              Karl-John Soderholm <SODERHOL@UFFSC.BITNET>,
              VANB@EOLA.CS.UCF.EDU,
              Thomas Habernoll <HABERNOL@DB0TUI11.BITNET>,
              CHOFACK%AVM.CC.FSU.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET,
              AEM@MIAVAX.IR.MIAMI.EDU, AEM@UMIAMI.BITNET,
              POPOVICH@EOLA.CS.UCF.EDU,
              Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET>,
              "Valentine M. Smith" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>,
              SY06@UNTVM1.BITNET, SY06@VM.ACS.UNT.EDU
Comments: cc: Eric Anderson <anderson@ucf1vm.BITNET>

Hi,

  I will be at SHARE next week (from 8/15 to 8/21).  While I will be able
to check email while there, I am leaving Eric Anderson (anderson@ucf1vm)
in charge of LISTSERV.  Please send mail to Eric (or call (407) 823-5474)
if you need help in resolving a problem or loop.

Thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Ennis - Senior Systems Programmer  |    UCF Postmaster
University of Central Florida          |    JIM@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU
PO BOX 25000                           |    (407) 823-2713
Orlando, FL 32816                      |    "Servo/Crow in 92"
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (j.b. cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:21:18 GMT
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

Isn't it amazing the way sometimes people say things
that they don't/can't really possibly mean?

 "My speech is nothing," she said.  "I'm just going to remind
      people of what things George Bush has accomplished.  It's not
      worth staying up for."-- Barbara Bush

Wow!!!

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:06:39 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RNC-second night...

>Anyway, I saw part of the second night and the only speaker that
>impressed me was the Gov. of Massachusetts (was his name Wend? I
>don't remember).  He said he believes in awoman's right to choose
>very forcefully and didn't seem scared to say it.  This shows that
>the republican party is the true party of diversity.
>They don't silence opposing views the way the Dems did to Gov. Casey.

  I'm not so sure William Weld's speech was that electrifying,
but, his record in Massachussets certainly is.

  Just for the record, William Weld was not going to be allowed
to speak - because of his pro-choice stance.  That's why, when
they finally relented, they gave him the topic of "crime."  They
explicitly forbade him from mentioning his views on pro-choice.
Frankly, they should have had him in there talking about managing
budgets and bloated governments.  I don't know where this "crime"
thing came from.

  William Weld in '96.  You heard it here first.

                                    -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU