HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:07:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Sorry, but I forgot to add something to my last post.
The point I made before about Hillary being at the meeting with the Democratic
leaders is that who is the brains in the Clinton household?  Hillary is a smart
woman and that doesn't scare me.  The fact that her husband and not she is
president I believe is the issue.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 12:29:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Dave Barry List...?
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Several years ago I know there was a list which posted Dave Barry's
columns from week to week... does anyone know if that list still
exists and how I can access it?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:55:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I dunno... I guess I am not qualified to talk about this since I'd
probably only _want_ to shower with a "known homosexual."

(or bisexual...).

I just think it's silly.  A job is a job.  There's not much room for
modesty in a military environment and I would hope that people would
be mature enough to just treat it as a job and not much else.  I don't
think that most of the sexual harrasment and abuse takes place in the
shower and I doubt that open admission of lesgays would change that.

The thing is, this is ALL conjecture (not just my arguments, but every
one's).   I guess I'd have to see a study or something to figure this
out.

--Julie, who admittedly would shower with Robert Redford if asked as well...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:31:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Congress and Civil rights laws

Much has been said in denigrating fashion concerning our elected representatives
and their "immunity" to certain laws.

Some laws, such as traffic laws, could be used to detain a Member of COngress fr
om official duties, such as voting, and so are not applicable to them.

Other laws, such as federal civil rights laws, could be used by the Exec branch
to bring pressure (or worse) on a recalcitrant M O C.

Just a check on the balance of power - one with which you may heartily disagree
- until your M O C gets jailed for speeding and "your side" loses a crucial
veto-override by one vote.  Or until your M O C suddenly changes their mind
about that gin
                (oops) gun bill and votes the "wrong" way...and the Justice
Dept drops those sexual harassment charges the next day.

Think carefully of that for which you wish;
It may be granted unto you.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:19:09 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

>My parents were against the war in Vietnam and did not protest against it.

Is there some "acceptable" way that they expressed their lack of approval;
if so, if everyone voiced their dissent in this manner can you reasonably
extrapolate that it would have caused our elected representatives to
cease and desist their police action-like behaviors?

It is always helpful to remember that if your government mounts some form
of aggreeion against another country, you individually are in some way
technically at war with that country and are in some part responsible for
the actions of your government. (Perhaps one might say in proportion to
your ability to either further or stop those acts of your government)

In other words, when your elected government kills people, the blood is on
your hands as well.

Personally, I feel it would be *irresponsible* to not work to put a stop
to bloodshed carried out on your behalf that you feel is in some way not
right.


>Protesters did absolutely nothing to bring the war to an end, in fact it is teh
>belief of many, including Admiral Stockdale, that protesters prolonged the war
>in Vietnam.

This is an assertion that seems to be made, but never proven. I think that it
is likely unproveable. It seems to me that the conflict could have, at any
point have been stopped.

>Also, my grandfather, who received a purple heart in WWII and knows what war is
> about, talked to a friend of his and got my father into the National Guard
>because he was going to be drafted.  Friends of my father's did not have this
>method of escape and went to Vietnam, some of whom never made it back.  If my
>father had not gotten into the Guard he would have gone to Vietnam without
>looking for another way out.

So he would have killed people despite the fact that he felt that it was
for bad reasons?

>-Rich

-other Andy
From: E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Steve Rafferty)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Wages and productivity
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:33:12 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

j.b. notes that his economics professor has found the missing money:

>Wages have fallen even though productivity has risen.  The surplus
>has gone into benefits which very often the government is requiring
>such as Social Security, retirement plans, medical insurance, etc.

I'll bet this has happened somewhere.  Here in the mecca of public
sector employment in Maryland, it hasn't.

In the last three years, I have had *no* salary increase (not even
cost of living adjustments), my weekly hours have increased
(officially.  state employees used to work a 35.5 hour week, now
a forty hour week is worked - no salary adjustments were made.  this
of course does not count the overtime worked in return for
compensatory time off which is not taken because a hiring freeze
has left us so understaffed that we barely accomplish our function
anyway).  The state has decreased its contribution to my benefits
to the point where I had to select a less comprehensive health
insurance plan - *my* contribution for the plan I had was going
from $81 / pay period (two weeks) to $251 / pay period.

Enough whining from me.  I would "negotiate" with my employer but
my employer *cannot* increase my pay.  My profession is primarily
a public sector job, and the entire east coast is in similar economic
condition.  I have other reasons for not wanting to move, not the
least of which is being tied to a refinanced house.  I would have
to be paid "a lot" more money to make it worthwhile to move.

I think the missing money is in some folk's pockets, personally.

Steve R.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:03:33 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?

In article <POLITICS%92111716280497@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>Dan Quayle along with many other men avoided the Vietnam draft.  Vietnam
>was a horrendously gruesome war.  A war that the U.S. was not going to win.
>Anyone who avoided Vietnam was not scared, but smart.   Clinton's reasons
>for avoiding  the war were the same as everyone else's.  Most people un-
>fortunately did not have a way of avoiding the draft.  Clinton had taken
>a draft physical.  I believe he received a draft notice before he went
>to school in England.  So don't tell me Clinton's avoidance of the draft
>was for a different reason than Quayle's.

You see no difference between avoiding a draft you support and avoiding a
draft you oppose?  How sad. It seems so obvious to anyone with a basic
grasp on logic. Have you received any help for this failure to grasp basic
logic or are you able to somehow manage a useful life regardless?
--andy
>
>-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:49:50 CST
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Movie Review

Hello all,

After going many jousts in the BUSH-L and the GOP-L I thought I would
come and say hello...


'Hello.'

From the National Review, November 30, 1992, page 14.

'Francis Ford Coppola's new film, DRACULA, is being described as a phantas-
magoric spectacle of hordes of vampires having nonstop sex.  Sounds like a
preview of the next four years in Washington.'

Republicans '96,

Sue Clark

Hello, Kerry, all the various Andys, KAT, and to all the other members of
the band.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:25:16 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Influence and the presidency
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

> From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

> I don't suppose anyone would maintain that it is immoral for a president
> to take advice from someone the voters never elected. Nobody elects
> cabinet members. And it can't be that anyone is objecting to unelected
> persons sitting in on cabinet meetings, for exactly the same reason.
>
> What is the objection, exactly?


I am having trouble seeing what the objection is.  Hillary Clinton is
clearly as qualified as any other non-elected advisor to the president
would be.

I think the problem people have with her is that she is also the
president's wife.  Wouldn't want her sitting in on cabinet meetings
AND whispering in Bill's ear at night like an evil incubus now,
would we?

Sorry for that sarcasm, but I think that's the heart of it.  There is
no reason why Hillary Clinton cannot sit in on meetings as an
>unelected< advisor, just like any other >unelected< Cabinet member.
It is quite clear that she will not be making any decisions in an
official capacity, which is what distinguishes her, an unelected advisor,
from an unelected Cabinet member.

If we are to say that nobody should influence the President who is
not either an elected or officially appointed advisor, how dare we
suggest that the American people should go out into the streets to
speak to the President when he comes by to shake hands?  Or that
we have a right to write the President letters?  Or do anything else
to advise and influence the President beyond casting our votes for
him in an election?

I think it's pretty obvious that those who are entrusted with official
office are not exactly above abusing their influence.  When the State
Department rifles through the files of private citizens for political
gain, we hardly talk about it.  (I haven't seen a single post on
this forum about it since I joined.)  But Hillary -- oh, look out!
Lady Macbeth!

Give me a break.  PLEASE.

Official appointments and elections only provide formal order and formal
accountability to the process of leading a nation.  They are not the
whole story.  Our democracy has always been a combination of formal
and informal relationships, of both public and private discourse; and I
believe that among people of responsibility, commitment and good faith,
which is what I believe the Clintons (and their presidential predecessors)
and most Americans are, this is an arrangement that has served us well
for over 200 years.

And it will continue to do so if we do not fear it.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:29:49 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>How did Perot affect the electoral votes in the election?  Did he make any
>difference in any states?  Consider who Perot voters would have voted for
>had he not run, and also whether Electoral votes would have changed.  Any
>thoughts, anyone?
>-Martin

        Based on exit polls, he would not have changed the election.  Bush
would have won Ohio and a small state, but the electoral vote still would have
been about 340-195.
        States like CA would have been won by a wider margin and Texas would
have been closer.

Brett'
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:19:15 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The new vice presidency?

From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>

> At the second press conference on Capitol Hill, Gore made a few
> remarks.  Again, I sense that Clinton and Gore are experimenting.
> This is very interesting.

> I think Gore ought to have his own press conferences once in a while;
> the sooner the better.  This is just an idea.

The problem with Gore's press conference might be that no
reporters may show up, especially if Socks is out there
available for posing.  :-)

Seriously, I think what Gore should do is to wear a stethoscope
while standing behind Clinton.  This would help explaining why
he is there.   :-)

Really seriously, my best advice for Gore is to hold his own hands.
The way he stands with his hands free he looks like a dummy or
someone who is in a taylor's shop for fitting.

> Whatever their other failings, it's fascinating to watch a "useless"
> office being refashioned by Clinton and Gore.  I wonder if they will
> succeed in really defining the role of the vice presidency the way
> they would like?

This might be against the constitution or might be problematic, but
I always thought the position of Secretary of State would be good
for the Vice President.

--KAT

BTW, talking of stethoscopes, why is Kissinger addressed as a "Dr."?
I know he is a "Dr." but is he a medical Doctor?  I distinctly
remember, these two PhDs being referred to as "Drs." in the
first segment of Crossfire.  After a commercial break, Michael
Kinsely announced that he cannot call them "Drs." anymore because
it was against the CNN's policy to call PhDs "Drs."  Never mind
that that infuriated me, but how come Kissinger gets to keep
his title while I don't recall any other PhDs keeping it?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:03:08 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: right v left

>andy from stanford apparently has a different definition of "fact" than I do.
>If I post a *fact* that is incorrect, please point it out and tell me the
>correct one (whatever - number, date, etc.).  If I present an opinion with
>which you disagree, please refute it.  Where I think he's lost is the
>difference between, say, "The Vietnam War was fought in the 1930's" (a clear
>factual mistake) and "The Vietnam War was simply a moneymaker for the defense
>industry (an opinion with which many could disagree and refute).

The distinctions that Clark is trying to make don't seem particularly
interesting.  For example, once one shows that the Vietnam war was
something other than "a moneymaker for the defense industry", it
becomes a lot like "The Vietnam war was fought in the 1930's".  Some
people probably believe both, so they're opinions, but they happen to
be wrong.  They're different kinds of statements so the refutations
take different forms, but once they're refutted ....

>If I say something you don't like, that doesn't automatically make it a
>*factual* error.  Sorry to offend you - just try to learn the difference so
>you don't embarrass yourself.

Hmm.  Why should I be embarrassed by Clark's bogosities?  Pointing
them out is like shooting ducks in a barrel; should I be embarrassed
to comment on them?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:10:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: partisan idiocy

Two things, Tim:

        I don't know where you got this idea, but I never called what conservato
(oops) conservatives do "self-deception" or "self-deluding".  Read more carefull
y.  I know you're more worried about subtle maligning than factual representatio
n.
        Also, where in any of my posts have I made even the *slightest* attempt
to *defend* gun control?  You say that this supposed *defense* is simply ad
hominem aginst the gun forces; not only is the *defense* NOT ad hominem, there
is no *defense*!
        Commenting on what I believe is a shortcoming and failure on the part of
one particular group is nowhere near *defending* the opposing point of view.
But I understand you needed to find *something* whith which to answer me; maybe
you should get off criticizing me for a minute and intelligently respond to my
original point.  (Posting info from an expert doesn't *prove* a case.  If that
were so, we'd have all bowed down to Robert months ago).  Besides, the info
you posted had to do with the 2nd Amendment; my point was about how conservative
s (IMO) have cornered the market on *rationalization* (somehow, you've gotten it
into your head that *rationalization* means *self-deception*.  It doesn't).
I still have yet to hear an answer to the point that pro-gun control people
have no self-serving or subjective motives for their fight beyond the welfare
of the nation.  Come on, Prez, lighten up!  When you got off the track with
that "Oh, you made me agree with Robert - oh no!" nonsense, you took the
responsibility of "taking this too far."  What I asked for is a response to
the point, not an unwelcome unqualified personal judgement.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:30:46 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Military Expertise
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Whether Brett would still serve if he didn't believe in the war or not, the
fact is that he wouldn't have to.

-Rich
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: two quick points
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:46:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Ohmigosh!

Robert got something right... ll sorta.

yes we _are_ trying to remove the shame and stigma from sexual behavior
which is commonly considered "perverted."

--Julie, proud pervert.

P.s. If Kerry gets to be list aunt, can I be the "older unmarried sister
     who drives a diesel truck?"
From: SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET (Sue Ann Clark --UNMCVM(SACLARK))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re; Gays, alcohol, etc..
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:06:54 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2

*** Resending note of 11/18/92 12:27
Received: from MIZZOU1 by unmcvm.unmc.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8246;
 Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:27:16 CST
Received: from MIZZOU1.BITNET by MIZZOU1 (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4956;
 Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:27:37 CST
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:47:08 CST
Reply-To:     "Discussion of campaigning for President by George H. W. Bush"
              <BUSH@MARIST.BITNET>
              <BUSH@MARIST.BITNET>
From:         John Vasse <jvasse@STL-07SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
X-To:         bush%marist.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
To:           Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

Mike,
While medical personnel are especially exposed, the point I wanted
to make, but evidently didn't, is that in most fights, virtually
everyone is exposed to blood and guts. Guys carrying guys back,
loading them (and bodies) onto choppers or trucks -- you get the
picture. Its a general bloody mess for everyone. Also, training
goes on continually. It, too, exposes soldiers to all sorts of
messy injuries--many treated under primitive conditions. I guess
that, in my opinion, one needs to view the military life as a
pretty rough and dirty way to earn a living -- it is simply
fundamentally different than your basic civilian job - I think !
No, I don't believe that the increase in dangers is "marginal".
But even if I did, I would not be the one to say to some young
man, or woman, that I'm sending you out there, but I've only
marginally increased your risks of dying. The point is to do the
terrible job and reduce the risks our soldiers face.
Besides, how many young people would volunteer(no more draft,
remember) to fight in an army that thinks so little of their lives
that they're willing to expose them to additional risks beyond those
presented by the enemy ?? Would you volunteer your life to that
army ???
I repeat--absent the reality of the HIV risk, its one question; one
to which I'm willing to listen to debate.
Given reality, I don't believe that the risks outweigh whatever
social, or other good, might result.
BTW, I said nothing in my post about sexual behavior,
"promiscuous", or otherwise.

John V
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:44:21 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >take it for granted that most male heterosexuals are attracted
> >to the body of most females.  Combine this with days and sometimes
>
> kat,
> are you saying that you are attracted to every female you see? god, that
> must be incredibly distracting.
> i am a heterosexual female, but i am certainly not attracted to every male
> i encounter, and even when faced with years of celibacy (in the past thanks
 for
> small (teehee) favors), i was still attracted only to certain individuals.
> now, unless females are totally different from males this way (which i doubt),
> why would you think homosexuals are attracted to all those of the same sex?
> who...er, i mean, what gives?
> -linda
> tentative list mother
>
That's an interesting argument, but can we look at the "problem" another way?

I mean, OK, so what, there are some gay people in the military now.  They
no doubt LOOK at their fellow man/woman/soldier NOW.  What's the big deal?
Is anything going to change once the rules of the military change to allow
openly gay people in the military, NO.  The issue, KAT, is CONDUCT.  Do
these gay people do anything obscene?
Look, here's the way that I look at, I am very heterosexual.  I look at women
all the time.  If I was on a long cruise and showered with women, I would like
it.  So what?  I wouldn't touch any of them.  Especially if, to draw the
parallel closer, they looked at me with disgust.  I certainly wouldn't do
anything obscene.

So what are you worried about?
OK, how about this argument.  We have 14 NATO allies.  Of those 14, 12 allow
openly gay people in the military.  Their morale isn't breaking down.  In
fact you never hear anything about it, because IT'S NO BIG DEAL.

Get over it.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:56:51 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Survey

On Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:14:54 -0500 LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afra
>T:
>
>How can people in general be anything other than "average" intelligence?
>
>--a confused Julie

Shhh! Don't tell that to Mensa!

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU