HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:08:17 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      reaction to 1st debate

My quick reaction to the debates (I've got a mid-term tomm.):

  It doesn't look like things will change that much.  Clinton
seems to
have maintained an upper hand, and Bush seemed rather flustered and almost
inarticulate at many points in the debate.  Perot may, I think, get a small
boost from this, despite his frequent use of Cliches etc.
  Esp. during the beggining of the debate, Clinton and Perot seemed to "gang
up" on Bush.  Later on, they each seemed to differ a bit more -- although
Perot seemed more adamently against Clinton than Bush.
  I didn't really catch many gaffes, which was a bit suprising on Perot's
part, who did a better job than I'd been expecting.  My favorite faltering
of phrase was when Bush said "...Dick- Secratary Dick Chaney...", although
Perot's "...I'm all ears" elicited a nice laugh...
   (Errattum:  I said in an earlier line than Perot seemed more adamently
against Clinton than Bush -- I meant ...against Bush than Clinton, and don't
feel like typing this whole thing over again on this primitive text editor...)
  More later perhaps.  One comment on CNN's post-debate analysis, though:
When they measured audience reaction during points in the debate, what were
they doing?

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:30:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject: Re: Aztecs

        I left that part out, Linda, but I had a feeling that you would
mention it (there are others who might, too).

                                        Chris
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: New kid on the block...
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:19:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>Vice versa is dirty petry.   --Ed Meese.

yo chris, what's a petry and why doesn't he just wash it?

(this has got to be some kind of spelling frenzy....watch it boys, we may end
up sacrificing someone if this keeps up)
-linda
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:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:18:29 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Marrou on Larry King
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all, and good morning
Did anyone besides me catch Marrou on Larry King last night?  I didn't
catch all of it, but was pretty impressed with the guy.  He busted CNN and
other pollsters for not including Libertarians in their polls, and the
debate commission for not including him in the debates (a point with which
I heartily agree -- why Perot and not Marrou?  Why Stockdale and not Lord?)
.

Any predictions re: the veep debate tonight?

Kerry
"the *real* question is can Oakland come back in Toronto this afternoon"
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Canadian Experience with Gun Control
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:38:15 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>>I care a great deal about the experience of the civilized world.  I've
>>researched the impact of gun control in the UK, Canada, Australia,
>>Mexico, Jamaica, and US jurisdictions.  It hasn't produced any
>>reduction in crime.  Low crime countries before gun control are low
>>crime countries afterwards.  High crime countries before gun control
>>are high crime countries afterwards.
>
>I'm sorry, when did the UK, Canada and Australia introduce gun control?

All three started in the 1920s.  Feel free to show the benefits
associated with the introduction of your favorite restriction.

Greenwood's "Firearms Controls" is a good place to start.

>It is a fallacy to suggest that at some time in modern history we were
>highly armed societies that were suddenly disarmed.

If you weren't violent societies, then how can you be examples of how
gun control worked?

Make up your mind.  We know both the crime stats and when gun control
was introduced.  Either it disarmed you or it didn't, but either way
it didn't affect the crime rates.  Of course, if it didn't disarm you
either, what did it do?

While you're at it, explain why NYC, or even Detroit criminals will
smuggle guns, but Windsor criminals won't.  Open borders are open
borders.

>There has always been gun control in these 3 countries

Not in this reality.

>to suggest that there is a "before and after effect" of being armed
>and disarmed or of having no restrictions followed by tight restrictions is
>simply misleading if not self-delusional.

Hmm.  I said that there wasn't a "before-after" difference.  The "gun
control works" theory predicts that there would be.  Thanks for
agreeing with me.

However, it isn't necessarily misleading or delusional to think that
there might be such a difference even though there isn't, as the gun
controllers do.  Persisting in such an unfounded belief....

-andy
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: A word about Health Care
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:49:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>In fact, we need not concoct strange analogies with a National Food
>System; the rest of the industrial world *has* National Health Care so
>we may observe the results in the real world.

Sure, let's make those observations.  Let's also not forget that some
countries seem capable of running a welfare state, but the US efforts
along those lines have been failures.  Other countries haven't created
an "on-aid" subpopulation; we have.  Thus, we have to consider things
that they didn't.

One of the big challenges for "national health care in the US will be
cheaper" advocates is the fact that HMOs aren't.  Sure, they're
cheaper than some US health care choices, but they're not close to
being as cheap as the vaunted Canadian system.  (US HMOs serve mainly
the healthy population, so they should be cheaper than systems which
serve the whole population.)  Assuming that US HMOs don't provide MORE
care than the Canadian system, we have to look at the cost end.

HMOs have very little overhead that isn't found in the Canadian
system.  They are single-payer systems and have far more control over
resource allocation.  Yet, they're not as inexpensive as the Canadian
system.  Something drives up their costs.  What is it?*  If we don't
know, and don't do something about it, a national health care system
in the US can't deliver the promised savings.

-andy

* - Malpractice is a small part of the difference.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: New blood, or just blood
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:24:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <POLITICS%92101312375906@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:

>Yeah, right. Just what we need, is one more person who is a fan
>of Rush Limburger, a Christian, and (therefore) "knows" she is
>right.

     Is it my imagination, or am I the only one who didn't miss the
(probably) deliberate play on words in that?  I'm hate Rush Limbaugh,
am agnostic, and therefore know I'm left.

   ---Andrew

[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call
From: ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: prime examples and other factors; or, workin' in a coal mine
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:48:46 GMT
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

okay, the mail system here is going nuts so i'll keep this short.
everybody calm down and wait to hate each other until you get to know each other
   (this works for me, anyway).
i myself have cut tobacco for a living.  not much fun, not much pay.
i have also worked for a moving company.  great, if you like 65 hour weeks and
low pay (comparatively).
i have also worked in a warehouse here in minneapolis.  i still don't want to
talk about that one.  i will elaborate when this thing will let me send a
longer message.
so you, steve, are that guy who stares at me blankly when i try to register?
glad to meetcha.  i'm an anthropologist and a philosopher and i do other stuff,
   too...but i think i grasp the real world.
(although i will fiendishly point out that you may have accidentally hit the
one guy on this list who may have to say "point well taken" when you zeroed in
on tim  ;-)
(that's a joke, mr. johnson.)
finally, i will tell you all that today's mpls. star-tribune refers to perot
as "yoda".  i thought y'all might like that.

anneliese.
From: mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: WWF (AKA the veep debate)
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:22:08 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <POLITICS%92101413252842@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET> writes:
> Whoever handled dan prior to the debate deserves a lot of credit. He
> came across much better than expected and was able to impress easily
> impressed people like Travis with his knowledge. The bush/quayle ticket
> has been running on the big lie all along. I don't know why clinton and
> gore don't push harder on how much government and taxes have grown under
> the present administration. Gore could have hit harder on the job thing
> as well, the number of months of consecutive record first time requests
> for unemployment, the number of people working two jobs to survive, and
> the lack of growth in the economy.
> 
> Mr. Perot's running mate struck a chord with the nation on the quip
> about "This is why we have deadlock in Washington". I would also question
> dan's claim that the district of columbia has more abortions than live
> births.I liked Gore trying to get Quayle to say "I support a woman's
> right to choice" but I was impressed that Dan didn't melt and came
> back with his own attack. I also heard one undecided voter say that
> given Bush's health and age she was hesitant to vote republican
> because she didn't want Dan as president. How much respect has Dan
> earned from world leaders over four years since much of their opinion
> will be shaped by the US press?
> 
> fred

The answer (even if the question was rhetorical) is that Quayle has 
earned nobody's respect over the last four years; in fact, he has lost 
the respect of world leaders during his vice-presidency.  How can he 
earn the respect of world leaders when all they hear (granted, from a 
media which hates him) is that he cannot even spell words from a 
grade-school spelling bee or that he doesn't know that Phoenix is in 
Arizona, not California?  It is so painfully obvious that Bush should 
have dropped him, why didn't he?  If he trusts Quayle as a potential 
president, can we trust Bush?

Darrick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:00:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: ON the "trials" of Gorbachev, #779

        Well, I'll bet there weren't many refuseniks who had their limos
taken away from them, or their office blocks.   [:+)]=

        Seriously, I think that the biggest thing these guys have to get
away from is having a little guy sit in an office somewhere and issue decrees.
How often do the decrees work even when they're paid attention to.  With a
controlled press and radio-tv, how do you know how many people even pay
attention?  True, you can beat people's heads in, lock them up and shoot
them, but you have to have people to do this and it costs a lot in terms
of money and wasted resources.  Even when they don't turn around and beat you
on the head, lock you up, or shoot you instead.

        The most important part of political and economic reform, to me,
has got to be training people to think for themselves and make choices, to
express themselves while accepting that other people are thinking and making
choices, which may be different from theirs.  Democracy is ultimately based
on informed thought, choice, and toleration.  Plus acceptance of the legitimacy
of the system.  Economic democracy is based not only on price mechanisms but
on consumer choice driving the economy.  In this too there has to be a certain
amount of thoughtfulness and consideration (people can't want to drive around
in limos while others are starving); this wasn't in the classical capitalist
philosophy but it's important.  None of these things are present in the Soviet
Union or whatever you want to call it today.  They have to be the goal of any
reform process, because without them you can change the political institutions
and the physical infrastructure any way you want to and it won't work.  If they
are created, they will form the foundation of the structures which are
created.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
I feel sorry for Gorby.  He should have gotten out long ago.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:06:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      We'll start the bidding on the Vice-Presidential cuff links at. .
              . .

        Just had to share this with everyone:

        Last night I spoke with a recently-retired Ashland Oil executive who
sits on the board of a medical center in Lexington, Kentucky.  He told me that
the medical center had a fund-raising auction a few weeks ago and that
Kentucky's Governor, Bererton (sp?) Jones, donated an autographed copy of
Senator Gore's book.  Wanting to give the Republicans equal time, the
organizers of the auction asked Dan Quayle if he would like to donate anything.
His contribution was a set of the official Vice-Presidential cuff links in a
handsome display case.

        Gore's book brought $350 in the bidding.  Quayle's cuff links?  $150.
The auctioneer refused comment and moved on the ceremic dalmations.

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the kErry tickEt
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>I wonder if I could ask the candidates what their views were on the last
>series of the Cosby Show.  I need to know just what sort of taste in tv
>program my virtual vote is going towards.....

sorry, but my tv is usually tuned to the simpsons (known affectionately in our
family as "the symptoms") which is opposite the cosby show.

maybe the phantom missy p2b could help you out?

-linda suE saboE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:04:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: clinton jams; bush rambles; perot advertises

There is no question that the format is superior to the conventional style.
Lance
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:11:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Prisoners Delimma

> This seems to be the same situation that Jamie's hypo gives us.  If firms coul
> easily communicate and observe each others actions, and if they could enforce
> their agreements, they would all be better off if they discriminated in hiring
> However, since each firm has an incentive to undercut the agreement (just as
> each prisoner in the PD has an incentive to rat out his comrade), they will
> not be able to actually achieve this result.

But they do observe each other.  They exist in the same society.  They
draw on the same pool for their workers.  They compete in the same
markets for customers.  Both customers and employees can observe a
firm's hiring practices.

Besides, formal "agreements" are not necessary.  All that is needed is a
climate that encourages discrimination, and businesses will find it in
their interest to discriminate.  The overall atmosphere of the society
will influence all businesses in the same way, without any need for
communication between them.  Business is a social activity.  This is one
of the reasons that non-traditional job opportunities for women started
to dry up after World War II--businessmen KNEW that women could be
excellent industrial workers, because they occupied a lot of positions
vacated by men in the armed forces, and they did very well.  But that
knowledge did not make much difference when it was put up against a
flood of returning male veterans and traditional ideas of a woman's role
in society.  And that situation didn't change for years.

Best,
Peter

> Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:29:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      campaign politics - wheee!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>does bush forget that this nation was turned upside down because of vietnam?
>does he forget that we protested the illegality and immorality of that war?
>is he assigning treasonist (is that a word?) status to a rather large portion
>of voters?  his campaign has alienated hard working families, single parents,
>those of other-than-christian persuasion, and those of us who believe in the
>integrity of our own bodies.
>hell, its his political suicide-the republicans have lost it.

Interestingly, Bush backed off from the patriotism issue today.  Today, in
an interview with Good Morning America (or some equivalent morning show),
he said he wasn't questioning Clinton's patriotism, and even went so far as
to say it was fine and dandy to protest the vietnam war if you were in
America.  Apparantly, he has a problem with Clinton having protested the
war while in a foreign country, and feels it will impact on his role as
commander in cheif somehow.  Don't ask me how, I haven't the foggiest.
Maybe this is another brilliant slam-dunk on James Baker's part.

>by the way, i have seen very few clinton ads lately.

I've been seeing plenty, seeing as Michigan is one of the so-called
'battleground states'.  As for the campaign, I find it too silly to actually
be depressing.  But then, I didn't approach the campaign with any hope for
honesty, or even intelligence, so I have no cause to be disappointed...:)

drinking some more
m00sehead lager,
Gary W. Olson                "My lips may promise but my heart is a whore,"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  - Nine Inch Nails, "Last"
24 days and counting down... (the perfect phrase for the elections...)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:18:59 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: That patriotism thing, again.
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:36:40 EDT K=A*T said:

>As of now, Bush seems to be loosing.  That is, enough people

loosing? his tie? :)

>I think people are willing to switch from Clinton on
>character issues ONLY if that issue has not been raised
>before.  You see, I think it is a psychological thing.
>If a person supports Clinton now, it is despite the possibility
>of an affair that he had with Gennifer Flower.  Now, if Bush
>brings up THAT again, in fact it might even backfire.  Because
>such an attack will be viewed as an attack on those who are
>supporting Clinton despite that character flaw.  Such an attack
>might in fact might strengthen the resolve of those supporters.

I have heard a number of political analysts refer to Clinton
as an "inoculated candidate" as a result of these issues.
My feeling has long been that it was very important to the current
(apparent) Clinton success (or at least lead in the polls) that
the Flowers allegation and "I didn't inhale" come out when they
did -- during the primaries, when those who were going to vote
for Clinton were going to do so regardless of his past and
the remainder of the public would thus become somewhat numbed
over time.

And as you explained, KAT, about those who would or would not
be willing to switch votes, is exactly why I think Perot's
television scheduling is a mistake.  The only persons I can think
of that will sit for the entire half hour are those who will be
voting for him anyways, and those aren't the people he needs to
reach.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: On the death penalty once again ...
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:27:24 GMT
Organization: York University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dear Chris,
  If I take your point correctly, it's not at all surprising that a
theocracy should practice particularly savage customs. Responsibility
does not rest with the people, but with their interpretation of the
divine, thus taking moral, intellectual, and spiritual responsibility
out of their hands. That's why I have always referred to the Bible-thugs
on this list as "amoral": they refuse to take reponsibility for their own
positions and actions, attempting to defer this burden to a book. That's
why theocrats can be vehemently opposed to abortion, but perfectly content
to end the fucked up lives produced by shattered families through the use
of eroticized judicial murder. In a real sense, the theocrat takes no
responsibility for executing children, hiding behind the loathesome
and fraudulent cloak of "God's will".
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:41:51 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Political Bait and Switch

Oh no, we are not questioning the "man's " patriotism;
it is his lying about it that we are concerned about.

And by the way, demonstrating against your own government
(here we drop the word "policy" intentionally, like not
mentioning the annual fee for checking accounts) on foreign
soil is wrong.....just wrong.  And that makes a traitor,
er.... a liar, out of Clinton.

Reminds me of Mr. Subliminal is SNL.

--KAT