HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:27:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

This gets complicated because basically the terms "left" and "right"
have become more used as buzzwords than as terms with an actual meaning.
By "traditional" terms, "left" wing is leaning more towards socialism
and "right" wing is leaning more towards capitalism.  Either in extreme
could lead to Cummunism or Facism.  In modern times, countries that we
refer to as "Communist" have no direct relation to "traditional" Com-
munist ideals.

So when we talk about "right-wing" nations and "left-wing" nations
from a United States perspective, we really have no basis for comparison,
since what _we_ call "left wing" does not necessarily relate to what is
called "left wing" in the Soviet Union.

A good example: In America, a lot of "left-wing" folks think of the
Catholic Church as an agent of the right wing, because of its stances
on morlaity, abortion, sexuality and women's issues.  In Central America,
however, the Catholic Church performs a very left-wing function through
such things as liberation theology and opposition to the United States
supported "right wing" death squads of the Salvadoran gov't.

I guess another buzz word is "democracy."  The U.S. keeps talking
about "restoring Democracy" in other nations.  We have rarely done
this.  Kuwait is a MONARCHY, not a Democracy.  Nicaragua was a
democracy _despite_ U.S. involvement, not because of it.  Noriega
was definitely a dictator, but we supported him for years before
we decided that we should kick him out of Panama.  A lot of foreign
policy decisions are made without regard for such things as "democracy"
but instead for what suits who is in charge the best.

--Julie
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:16:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        Go easy, the Bush supporters don't have much to say right now, so I
guess Chelsea jokes are all they can come up with.

                                                Chris Morrison
From: UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET (Peter J. Schledorn)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: na na na na na na na na hey hey hey good-bye...
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:24:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> 	Us too!  (Ohio.)  Although Cokie had the gall to say "it's probably
> unconstitutional".  Hmmmm, I seem to remember the phrase "those powers not
> granted to the federal government are given to the states, and to the people".
> Or something like that :)

Yes, but don't forget that the qualifications are defined earlier in
the same document.  It took an amendment to set term limits for the
President, and I expect it will take the same for Congress.  After
all, you wouldn't expect the states to have the power to change the
number of Senators they're given, would you?

Best,
Peter

> Brett
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:26:15 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

Jayce:

I am sorry, but I don't know of any veterans who are living today, who served
with men or women who died to preserve democrasy in our country.  Most of the
wars in which the US has been involved really weren't threats to out country
or its governmental system.  I do not count WWII even though the Japanese
did bomb Pearl Harbor, because they weren't planning an invasion of the
mainland.  It was a strategic attack aimed at preventing us from interfering
in their conquest of the Pacific.

Flag-burning, is a political statement and one that should be protected.

It may not be a popular statement and it may even be a really ugly statement,
but it is one that I believe that people should be entitled to make without
fear of governmental retribution.

That is one of the strengths of our country.  We can make political statements
about the political scene and even the very system under which we live, without
going to jail.  It is something we should all cherish, because it is something
that relatively few people in the world have.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:42:46 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This "12 years" thing
              4 Nov 1992 15:41:11 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Thanks for the files.  I've downloaded them and will go over them when
I'm finished with tests, homework, etc.  They look worth getting into.
>
>Brett
>(I noticed there is another Brett on this list, should I differentiate?)

Definitely; unless both of you are two parts of one person, then you should
integrate. :)

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:21:12 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: re: T's libelous rantings

From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> List members,  I am going to respond to this post and one other from KAT and
> then let this puppy die. I have been misrepresented and attacked and have yet
> to see an apology.

It seems that Robert is demanding an apology.

Well, I for one will never withhold an apology from someone who
has a gun and knows how to use it.

So, Robert, I apologize that I assumed implied threat when you
used a gun to put "holes" in someone else's arguments.

> ---Robert

--KAT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:41:49 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: President Bush

In article <1992Nov6.042458.91389@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>
>Please allow me to thank you Mr. President as you have served your country
>with honor and dignity.  I sincerely appreciate all that you have done for
>your beloved nation, even if it turns its back on you these days.  I know that
>you've done all that you can to help this country by adhereing to your beliefs
>and not selling out just to win a few votes.  I have one more favor to ask of
>you, sir, would you please reassure the rest of the world that the United
>States will remain mostly intact.  I know that it may be a difficult thing to
>say, you may not even be able to say it, but our country will continue to be
>the greatest this world has ever seen.  I do not know the extreme pressure you
>have been under the last year or so, if I were you I may even welcome this
>rest.  However, I know that you have too big of a heart and want to help our
>country to the end.  I will miss you, I had faith in you, and I hope you won't
>disappear from the public view.
>                                    Thank You,
>                                        Jason S. Euculano
>P.S.  Is James Baker going to run in 1996?  I hope so.

Thus ends the historic document which led to the founding of "Bushianity"

If our voter turnout (usually between 75 and 80% of eligible voters) is any
indication, we Canadians take our politics pretty seriously, but I must admit,
we don't go to the extent of cult-like worship. Jason, Bush may be a nice man
but he wasn't a great President, in fact he was a bit of a goof who took a bit
too much Halcion while in the Oval Office (a sleeping pill banned in the rest
of the world because it is known to induce psychosis). Sorry to break it to you
but history will probably rate him somewhere between Ford and Carter.
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:28:22 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

No, you are not being unreasonable. Sorry about calling people names.
Perhaps I get a little hot under the collar sometimes. Perhaps folks'
irrationality just drives me insane. Who knows?! However, I CANNOT and
WILL NOT stop deploring the future ills of the Clinton administration.
The writing is on the wall and for those of us educated enough to see it,
we are scared to death. I can easily get along with anyone here. But that is
not my goal. An old adage states that wise men will hear and will increase
in learing and respect for their foes but fools take no wisdom to heart and
deplore their enemies. Many wil deplore me because they do not agree w/ what
I say. I could care less. I'm not here to please them but to show the truth
about what is going on. I will try to be more personable, but I will not
put a damper on my zealousness to show others the future downfall of our
country under the guise of change in the administration of Bill Clinton.
--Steve
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: new tariffs
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:12:47 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>One professor at Rhodes, claims that this trade-war mentality will
>send the US into a full-scale Depression.  Are there any economists
>out there who might have any ideas?

	It was a global trade war that sent us from a bad recession into a
depression in the early 30s.  (Smoot-Hawley)

>I personally think that trade wars are stupid and that consuers
>would do best in the long run if there were no barriers to trade.

	Yup.

>I do realize the political impracticality of this, but it is a nice
>thought.

	Actually the ultimate goal of NAFTA is almost-free trade.  There are
currently exceptions, and it will be phased in over 15 years, but it's better
than the tariff jungle we have now.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:48:15 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
              6 Nov 1992 19:46:13 GMT from <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:46:13 GMT andy said:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.165318.20364@news.media.mit.edu>,
>elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) says:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov5.143502.5432@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
>>  I personally don't think Reagan would secretly turn his back on the
>>republican party in the privacy of the voting booth. That's not his style.
>
>More likely he couldn't remember who Bush is:) Quayle sounded like a man
>approaching average intelligence when he conceded. Is it possible that
>his brain only goes into abeyance when he's an elected politician?:)

WOOAAHHHH!!!  Having just spent the last couple of days trying to get the
conservatives to lay off Clinton, I'm not going to let this pass either.  I
saw Quayle's concession speech, and thought it graceful, and courteous.
Listen, they've gone, they've lost (for now).  Lay off the guy and give him
a decent farewell, please?


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:53:28 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Mastergate

Does anyone know if the script to Mastergate has been published?  I saw
Mastergate on Showtime's free preview Saturday, and, IMHO, Mastergate is
hilarious!

Evelyn Duncan
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:53:08 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer

In article <POLITICS%92110414191503@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET (Carl A. Lahetta) says:
>
>   Slick Willie has won, what a blow to the Republicans!  Of course to many
>it was no surprise, but to actually witness the event unfold on television
>was astonishing.  In the electoral college it was a landslide, in the popular
>vote it was damn close.  Most of all I think that the majority of people were
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Often is, Bush only won by 6% in '88, Reagan's 1980 'landslide' was a
percentile lead of only 9%

>glad that Perot kept the race focused on issues, especially the deficit.  He

not to mention his daughter's wedding. Both Clinton and Tsongas ran on highly
comprehensive programmes in the primaries, it was Bush who relied on smears

>was able to capture an astonishing percentage of the popular vote, a result
>of people's dissatisfaction with both the Republicans and the Democrats.
>   The issue of trust, character, and forthrightness did not seem to matter to
>most voters.  As one tv commentor said "Clinton is the first draft dodger
>elected to the high office."  A person can, and often does, have indiscretions

Actually, the first draft-dodger elected to high office is J. Danforth Quayle,
Ronald Reagan, despite being of age did not join the forces in WW2 but whether
this is a 'dodge' can be debated

>when they are young that should not have much weight in his, or her, life as
>an
>adult.  Yet, will Bill concede that he made a few youthful errors?  At this
>point in time it is probably unimportant.

Unimportant youthful indiscretions, but the central plank in Bush's campaign

>   President Bush has called for his party to put aside partisan politics and
>to support President-Elect Bill Clinton, as every American should do for their
>President.  Hopefully, the conservatives will be able to fulfill this request
>better than the liberals have tried to do the last four years.  America should
>come first, not the party.  Today is the day to think about tomorrow.  Today

It can be argued that by opposing destructive policies, the Democrats were
putting America first:)

>is the day to deal with faded dreams and hopes.  Today is the day to give
>Clinton the benefit of the doubt until he proves himself.  Will he remain
>true as a moderate Democrat, or as Ed Koch says will he give in to the parties
>"radicals?"
>   Only time will tell and with time we will know if Clinton is, or is not, a
>fake, fraud, and a phony.  Hopefully he is not, because we would have to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean whether he will enact policies you disagree withe?:)

>endure
>him for four years.  Wishing him good luck.
         ^^^^^^^^^^
Probably 8 years, you have to be fairly incompotent as a President to lose
after you've served a full 4 year term
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:46:49 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: A Moronic Joke!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

The joke is that you believe your IQ is higher than others because you disagree
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:53:45 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

In article <01GQYIMF9F489OF8I9@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>,
8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE) says:
>
>>Why is it the right that often seems more prone to undermine democracy to
>get their way?
>
>Is this just in America that we are taking or is it a more world wide view?
>If it is world wide. I'm sure we could pick out one or two cases were the lefta
>   re equally if not more guilty. The soviet union maybe and it was the       n
>America
>right that brought democracy there.
>--mike..

Why does the US always have to go around taking credit for everything?

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Poor losers!
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GQZTKOD4PS000YNM@stetson.bitnet>,         ASTMOLLI@STETSON.BITNET writes:
 > I agree that Clinton will run the country, but we are whining because we
 > know that he will run it into the ground.

And from where did you aquire this omnipotent knowledge?  What else do
you *know* about the future?  How does one come to be so powerfull?  You
must make a killing on the stock market and at the horse races.

Or did you mean that you *think* Clinton will run the country into the
ground.  If it is this case, then I would suggest that your 'knowledge'
is just sour grapes taking control of whatever reasoning facilities you
may possess.

						Andrew MacRae
						
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen)
Subject: Re: Reagan and Facts
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:04:44 GMT

Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> writes:

>>
>>Isn't Reagan the one who said "facts are stupid things"?:)--andy

>I have no idea.  However, I do know that Larry Speakes said that if
>you repeat fiction long enough it becomes fact.  (And yes I _do_ have
>a source for that and if anyone desires I will post the exact quote
>and reference tomorrow from home, where I have the book located).

>--Julie

Similar to the musical idea that if you repeat the same mistake often
enough, it becomes an arangement.

Exactly what the Bush campaign attempted to do to President-Elect Clinton's
character.  By repeating the charges that Clinton is a philandering, waffling,
draft-dodging, tax-and-spend liberal liar, they had hoped to MAKE IT SO in 
the minds of the American voters.  No go.  My faith in the intelligence of
the average American is (partially) restored.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Rosen           |  My opinions are my own.
crosen@world.std.com |  Irepresent only myself.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:07:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      "Bob Roberts"
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Have any of you seen the movie "Bob Roberts?"  It's a very powerful film
beneath all its humor and satire.  What I am curious about is (a) whether
people thought it was a "realistic" movie and (b) if so, what do you think
it implies in terms of modern politics?

I do highly reccomend this movie because I can guarantee it will make you
think even if you don't like all the things it suggests.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:04:10 EST
From:         robert v head jr <rhead@S850.MWC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ==> YES!!!!!
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

> >|   CONGRATULATIONS! TO PRESIDENT-ELECT CLINTON
> >|     and
> >|   VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT GORE
> >|     and
> >|   CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE
> >|   TIRELESS CLINTON/GORE E-MAIL CAMPAIGNERS!
> >
> >|   May we now help "Put People First For A Change!"
>
> To which people are you referring?
>
> I somehow doubt it is any of those too young to vote.
>
	Or anyone who isn't a member of one of the speical interest
groups who are considered likely Democratic voters...
					       Robert Head
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:26:55 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject: re: Robert's religious fervor

Dear Rational Robert,
  There's an old bit of shopping-mall wisdom that asks that we change
what we can, accept what we cannot, and know the difference. I think
precisely what makes the religious right loony is their completely
irrational approach to this problem. When it comes to assigning responsibility,
they always go with gut feeling. Rape (especially by black people) is an
entirely human matter, to be ounished by judicial murder; the consequences
of it, however, are God's domain, and we may not interefere. Poverty and
wealth are God's doing, too; or, more precisely, wealth is God's work, even
if we poor benighted liberals see it as the result of social tinkering,
if not in many cases outright crime (witness most of the new millionaires
in the Reagan era). Poverty, on the other hand, is always the fault of the
poor, a just punishment for their failure to work their way out of their
dilemma; after all, if one in six hundred thousand can do it, then it is
obvious that the other five-hundred ninety-nine thousand are directly to
blame for their situation. The environment, too, is God's domain, especially
in protection of large corporate interests; why God wants the ghoulish
buddies of James Watt to get filthy rich by destroying the planet is some-
thing which calls for great interpretive skill in order to understand..
you'd think sometimes that Pat Robertson's God is not only a white male,
natch, but the CEO of some weirdly interlocking group of companies..
  It is this crazy-quilt of logical spheres which makes conversation with
the right so frustrating, not to say impossible; every time one starts to
get close to getting them to see reason, they retreat--sometimes almost
unwillingly, it seems--to the realm where thought and action are out of
our hands.. again, it's never out of *all* human hands, since Helms' and
Millken's and North's are just fine, thank ye, but it's out of our hands
and, especially, Mr./Ms. non-believer, YOUR hands..
  In this sense, I respectfully disgree with Chris Morrison. Though there
are some evident differences in the extremity of vulgarity between Jayce
and Robert, I don't think it is possible to draw a comparison in rationality
among those who throw out the human capacity to think and act every time
some prejudice gets challenged..
Cheers,
MWM
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, 8 Nov 1992 22:10:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Julie:

 The Reverend Jesse Jackson uses churchs.  Bill Clinton campaigned in
churches.  Should Jackson not run because he is a reverend, or what
about Al Sharpton?  Should everyone who registered to vote through
Jackson and his church have their registration revoked?
 Detailing PAC's, maybe your idea of a PAC and mine are different, but
if the Church does not directly fund, as you admit, then how is the
Catholic Church a PAC.  Isn't the sole purpose of a political action
commitee to fund candidates that share similar views.
 Unfortunately, I do not know the sitution in Rhode Island.  However,
no matter what an archbishop does, wouldn't he be working through the
church or that people would have the preception of him working through
the church?

-Paul

P.S. This has been one of the most interesting conversations on the
Catholic Church that I ever engaed in.  Usually, people will use slurs
against the Catholic Church when opposing the Church's policies, but
you have not, which has made this discussion more comfortable for me.