HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:11:29 CDT
From:         Craig Rooney U of MO-Columbia <C503108@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      The Cable Bill

  Hello, I'm a Masters student in Counseling Psychology, but politics is a pass
ion on the side. I'm wondering if anyone out there has information concerning t
he cable bill which recently passed.

  I talked with a PR employee of our local cable company (yes, I know this mean
s a special interest biased opinion--hence, this inquiry).  He discussed severa
l reasons which he feels the new law will increase our cable bills.  They are:

  1) The cable industry will have to pay the Networks a re-transmission fee for
 carrying their programming. These fees will amount to somewhere between 1 to 6
 billion dollars.  Like "good" businesspeople, these costs will be passed on to
 us--the consumers. According to the new law, cable companies will have no choi
ce as to whether or not they wish to carry the networks.

  2)  According to this guy, the new law also requires cable companies to provi
de "special programming" services such as Pay-per-View.  This will apparently r
equire new equipment and must be put into all rental propery not currently occu
pied.  This translates into 9 million dollars in the Mid-Missouri region alone.
Once again, affectionately passed on to the consumer.

  3)  In addition, the Networks will have the right to buy cable programming af
ter a fixed amount of time at a cost set by the new law.  According to the PR-g
uy, this takes away the business angle of the cable industry by providing acces
s to cable programming to those who do not purchase cable services.

  4)  Also, under the new law, the cable industry becomes a "regulated utility"
.  Such utlities are guarenteed a profit by the government.  Hence, again takin
g away the motivation for the cable industry to strive for our business.


  Please do not misunderstand me as sympathizing with the President.  I got a g
reat deal of joy seeing him overridden (hopefully providing an image of a man w
ho is losing his power).  I do not know the accuracy of the cable PR-guy's asse
rtions and I am hoping someone out there has more information.  Thanks.  Have a
 nice week.
From: TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET (Travis Kidd)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The VP Debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:40:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:34:00 EDT CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET said:
>                                                             Apocalyptic
> Environmentalism by Robert J. Smith.
>
>                                         Chris Morrison
Cool!  An environmental book by The Cure!!!
-Travis
From: ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: ask the candidates
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:33:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>I wonder if I could ask the candidates what their views were on the last
>series of the Cosby Show.
>james p mc bride

  Well, I have to admit, I never saw any of them.  I don't
have many views on television, as I don't view it often.

                                     -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: SSLIVAN1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:23:00 EDT
From:         Get yo' crack outta the sack! <SSLIVAN1@ITHACA.BITNET>
Subject:      Jews and other things
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

> "....the Jews...they were killed by the millions  50 years ago now...If they
had fought back with GUNS they might have not been slaughtered....."

        Gee, sounds like a little bit of blaming thhe victim to me.  I have
no  idea what the gun laws, if any, were like in Europe when the Nazis were
busy exterminating.  But even if EVERY person the Nazis were after had a gun,
it wouldn't have made a difference.  The Nazis were simply too many, and much
too effiecient to allow for that kind of risk.   Shooting someone who is
attempting to rob, rape, maim, etc. you is one thing, shooting a  bunch of
soldiers who are rounding up your entire neighborhood in the middle of the night
is something else.

        On another subject, but not neccessarily an entirely different one, I
thing that a hate crimes bill is a good thing, whether or not it is federal
or state.  However, state mandated Anti-hate crimes bills (like Oregon measure
9) are extremely scary.  It has been argued that these hate crime bills may
marginalize minorites even ffurther, but they at least offer protection,
whereas measure 9 prohibits protection.  Granted, it only pertains to one
minority.  But if it's gay people in Oregon today, it could be Black people in
Georgia tomorrow, and Lithuanians in Rhode Island the next day.  Pretty scary
stuff.

        Yours with and increasingly dim view of humanity,
                        Amy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:25:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Aztecs- Playing Games

        I thought it was quite clever, Carl!  Linda was probably in a bad mood
when she wrote that -- it happens to all of us.

                                                Chris Morrison
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:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:14:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is snoring!

The latest post debate polls read that Bush and Clinton both lost a couple of
points while Perot climbed from 6% to 15%--definitely an improvement. I do not
know the accuracy of such polls, but they do display Perot regaining some
strength.
My analysis on the debate:
CLINTON--Well, the man knew his facts and material. He was composed, kept calm,
spoke in full-senetences, and as Gary stated, "spoke in mini-commercials."
He mixed in a lot of pathos by sighting his brother and drugs, his grandfather,
and I believe his wife daughter in respect to family values. Clinton didn't
seem to be hostile. The Clinton image has deifinetly changed massivley from thos
primary days when he would call Jesse Jackson a backstabber with vehement hand
motions. Clinton fleshed out the points as he gave his policies on all subjects.
He definitely carried the best performance in this conventional debate style.
BUSH
Well, he never really spoke in complete sentences--while I know that this has
no real standing in the election, it can be annoying when trying to assess a
debate. Bush didn't seem quite as composed as Clinton and didn't seem as strong
as he ahs been in his other appearances
PEROT
It seems as if the latest question the media has been asking in the post-debate
reports was "Where was Ross?" It is true that he did get to the point and his
approach was a common sensual one. Ross certainly cracked a few nice one liners
when talking about the deficit. Luckily Ross Perot was there to charm up, liven
the debate up. Perot certainly lost a lot of support and respect when he bailed
out during the summer. Wel,, now we await to see what Perot will do after this.
SUMMARY
If you notice, I haven't really addresses the issues discussed in the debate.
Well, that is because, nothing new was actually discussed. We are currently
discussing the issues in other discussions. Rather, from these debates we may

see more of the canidates by analyzing their composure and the method in which
they answer questions.
Later
Lance
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:01:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Federally mandated leave constitutional?

On Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:14:40 GMT "(Jonathan Swarts)" <jswarts@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-ST
ATE.EDU> said:
>
> Travis,
>
> It seems to me that, under your overly narrow and restrictive view of the
> constitution (apparently the so-called original intent view), the federal
> government would be completely hamstrung in its efforts to effect policy
Well, the tenth amendment makes the Constitution restrictive.
I would like for anyone who has read the Federalist Papers
(because I haven't) to list the things that the Papers said the
Federal Government wouldn't do that it is now doing.

> (especially in the 1960s in the face of unconstitutional discriminatory
> practices) aimed at expanding, not constricting, the rights of Americans. When
> there is an obvious need for a positive public policy, e.g. family leave, I
> think it legitimate to use such provisions as the ICC in order to legitimize
> a federally-mandated policy. After all, in the past 30 years or so, the federa
l
> government has been the primary protector of civil rights, citizen equality,
> and progressive social policy.
Free speech is a civil right.  Freedom of religion is a civil right.
Family leave is not a civil right.  The only power the Federal govern-
ment has over the states is to make sure they don't discriminate
unreasonably.  Federal law does not apply to private businesses
except in dealings that cross state lines, or, as I like to think of
it, in situations where two or more states might be in a position to
quarrel.  For example, broadcasting.  Say SC has banned obscene
broadcasting.  NC has not.  Now, many people in SC will simply tune
in to the NC channels.  The state of SC would not like that, and
would probably get into a quarrel with NC.  This is the type of thing
that I would gladly say can be implied by the commerce clause as being
under the federal government's domain.  Cable is a bit sticky, since
most cable lines do not cross state lines, but I will give the federal
government the benefit of the doubt on this one.
There are some powers that currently belong to the states that I think should
belong to the federal government, most notably transportation.  Since
many roads cross state lines, I think that the federal government
should be in charge of the roads.  I would love to see a U.S. Highway
Patrol!  Another thing is credit card rates.  If the credit is being
offered across state lines, then I think it is ridiculous to have
to list all the different APR's and such for different states.
I think that most Americans have a belief today that the federal
government has full control over those of the states and that states
have their power only at the permission of the federal government.
Let's not forget--the states formed this country.  I guess it's hard
for those who live in the 47 new states to realize this.


> Jon
-Travis
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: education spending sound bite
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:06:31 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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
I just got back from a discussion of Reich's book, _The Work of Nations_,
and one of the faculty handed out a bit of info that might be of interest.
He looked through the Statistical Abstracts for the U.S., and found some
numbers on spending for college educations.  The numbers represent per-
student spending only on teaching (not on research and other services).
Check this out:
                Arkansas      $9879
            West Virginia      2918    (sob)
           national average    4234

Does this mean Clinton really *does* believe in investing in education, or
are there funnies in the numbers that I'm not seeing?

Thanks!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:32:24 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is snorin

  Well, I was waiting to see who would clock in first
with their reactions.  Good to see that it was my running
mate.

>Clinton seemed to
>be making every answer into a mini-commercial, Bush was slightly looser, and
>Perot, surprisingly, came closest to actually answering the question asked.

  Good assessment, IMHO, of the candidates.  Although I felt that in
a couple of cases, Perot got too folksy for me.  And Clinton's
advertisement of his wedding anniversary had me (and those watching
with me) gagging.  Bleah.

  Personally, I think that Mr. Clinton lived up to "Slick Willy."
He seemed to me to be the ideal of the politician without a conscience,
puffed up and blow-dried for TV.  Yick.  Made my skin crawl.

  Bush and Perot suffered from the credibility gap.  I thought
that Bush's answers were good.  It is almost a shame that his
record doesn't support him.  Same is true of Perot.  How can
he expect the voters to continue to believe in him as the "can-do,
will-do" candidate when he dropped out of the race (either in a
fit of pique, or in a shrewd move designed to save him from media
scrutiny)?

                   -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:24:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject: RE: Drats! Foiled Again

        Maybe someone else can get them and send them to you as email.  I can't
unless I print them and type them over.  I have a very primitive system.

        Not the system is primitive (386SX 20 MHz 85 MB HD).  The software
is primitive.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:16:10 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bloody Nose

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:13:00 EDT Carl A. Lahetta said:
>   I cannot believe that nobody is bashing Columbus today.  I thought there
>would be a few "angry" people that would have felt the need to "fight back."
>
>Carl------------+

Why bash someone who's been dead for several hundred years when there are
live people to bash? :)

Evelyn
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (Rick George)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The New Format
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:27:45 GMT
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

>Yesterday's Trib said she was the first minority female news anchor in
>Chicago and this was probably why she was given the job...
>
>MacPhil

Oh sure, she's a member of a minority group and she got the job...therefore
she got the job because she's a member of a minority group.  Wonderful
logic.

...Rick
From: MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Aztecs
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:33:58 GMT
Organization: York University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

No; I think Herbert Hoover wanted to stop the Aztecs from getting
depressed..
(what the hell's going on with this thread, folks)
Cheers,
Michael
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:09:57 EDT
From: ^[corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Canadian Experience with Gun Control

In article <9210091958.AA24216@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy
Freeman) says:
>
>Mauser's paper showing that Canada's gun control laws actually didn't
>have any effect on Canadian crime is somewhat hard to get.  (Mauser
>showed that other factors explain Canadian crime trends.)
>Centerwall's paper, in the Dec 91 issue of the American Journal of
>Epidemiology, doesn't directly address that issue, but is very easy to
>get.
>
>Centerwall showed that there are factors other than guns that explain
>the difference between American and Canadian crime/murder rates.
>He also showed that the differences are rather localized, that
>Americans who don't make certain choices aren't at more risk
>from crime than Canadians.
Check out the difference in crime rates between Detroit and Windsor.
While it may be true that there are mitigating factors which influence
our lower crime rates (health care, better social welfare system, lower
population concentration, better housing for the poor)
to say it has nothing to do with gun control is to ignore reality
in favour of a self-serving rationalisation. Toronto with a population
of 3 million people has a crime rate a tenth that of similar cities
in the States. Windsor, with a depressed economy has nothing crime-wise
compared to Detroit across the river.  We have criminals and drug dealers in
Toronto just like you but we don't have the shoot-outs or drive by killings
largely because firearms are more difficult to get. Criminals are criminals
whether in Canada or the U.S. In both cases they've fallen through the
cracks of the system, but Canadian criminals are less prone to use firearms.
Is this because our criminals are morally superior to yours or because they
cant get the firearms they need in the volume they need?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:21:22 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

"P.S. I'd much rather have you critique my grammar than part with $1.29
to purchase a reference library capable of sustaining this argument."
Ah! Ars longa, vita brevis, wot? Alas, you prove again how imprudent
the ownership of guns, even semantic guns, can be. You've shot your-
self in the (cloven?) hoof once again. Most of the students of freshman
composition who show up for class catch on to the little problem you've
so egregiously bungled. In the words of Strunk & White, "the pronoun *this*,
referring to the complete sense of a preceding pronoun or clause, can't
always carry the load and so may produce an imprecise statement." WHICH
argument would require a reference library to sustain it? Yours, in this
posting? Mine, in my previous posting? The entire issue of the joy of
butchery? Let's, for old times sake, bracket the exuberantly dubious
coherence of the notion that a "reference library" (at any price) can
"sustain" an argument (doesn't it at least require officious servitors
to staff it?), and, ditto, pass on the botched joke of a "$1.29 refer-
ence library" (who or what is the target of this barb? libraries? refer-
ences? guns instead of butter?), and focus, as per your unusually civil
request, on the grammar issue (sorry; you're a Bushman, make that the
grammar "thing"). Simply said, if you need a place to hang your hat, don't
grease the peg, or the damn thing will slide off. I'm sure that even those
of us who don't favour the right to air cover in daily life would be
better off if we at least knew which sin we were being accused of THIS time..
  On a more somber (albeit no less preposterous) note, you gleefully cite
the death of an innocent child (I hope that vengeful God of yours overheard
you doing THAT) as some sort of unexplained "refutation". How, pray tell?
Those of us who are sickened by the slaughter which is everyday America
would ESPECIALLY like to see guns out of the hands of criminals. In fact,
you might even approve of the solution which I would suggest: possession
of any unlicensed firearm, 5 years; use of any firearm in the commission
of a crime, 10 years; use of deadly force in the violation of the consti-
tution, death (whoops, we just hanged Ollie North and his boss; sorry).
Couldn't all you mayhem-boppers find a symbolic outlet for your rage?
Perhaps illiterate postings to an e-mail list? Or professional wrestling?
Cordially,
&c.
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: New blood, or just blood
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:03:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        Of course she knew she was right.  Jesus told her she was right.

                                        Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:02:10 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Debate Format
              14 Oct 1992 07:45:56 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Oh, I forgot.

Quayle, first, Gore, second, Stockdale, disqualified.

That is the initial reaction.  I think over time Quayle is
going to lose because: 1) he made a few factual mistakes
and 2) the low expectation factor will wear out and people
would give the debate to Gore.

The effect on who would win: not much.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:53:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: michelle e. olson

        I have a bunch of them too.  One of them said if I gave them $5,000
I could have lunch with the President every so often.

        If you want to have any private meetings of the committee, let
me know.
                                        The Dirty Old Man,
                                        Chris Morrison
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Debate Format
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:57:24 GMT
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

Hi, y'all:
In response to Val, Peter said:
>But I did feel that the extra time given to each topic was useful.
>There were fewer off-topic statements than in previous debates (as I
>recall, 1988 was full of them--"Before I address the issue of nuclear
>proliferation, I would like to say one more thing about my opponent's
>nose hair . . .").

I, too, liked the rebuttal periods -- although these can be worked into a
panel format.  And although I can't articulate this very well, I know I
learned something (it's hard to say exactly what) from watching the
interaction between Quayle and Gore during the "unstructured" response
periods.  Somehow I find that setting far more realistic than the carefully
prescribed structure we saw in the Pres. debates.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:38:39 CDT
From:         Craig Rooney U of MO-Columbia <C503108@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      post-debate reaction

Jason, what are you talking about?  Bush and the Republican Party propagandized
this entire Clinton-trip-to-Moscow-"thing".  Clinton was responding to the Pres
ident's ridiculous assertions which were made safely outside of Clinton's prese
nce.  Bush has resorted to yet one more divisive tactic to win votes through fe
ar.  Sad.  Pathetic. You and the GOP--Shame!  Shame!
From: YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Drats! Foiled Again
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:14:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

To read a file you don't need to be able to receive it. I've had similar problem
with disk quotas. All you do is while you are in the receive mode, just type
"type <filename>" Then the file will be displayed on your screen--it automatical
ly scrolls so you'll have a hard time reading it if it goes quickly--therefore
if you've got a "Capturing Incoming Data" option, just use that.
Then do what you wish with the file.
Lance
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 11:12:15 -0400
From:         I am Looking For Signs Of Intelligent Life! Know Any?
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Aztecs

the aztecs fell to the evolution of man... it was merely their
destiny to fall. They did not have the technology and other resources
to match the spaniards... therefore they fell!!! It is survival of the fittest!




     John Stith