HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:07:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More on rights
              12 Aug 1992 11:12:00 -0400 from
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE>

Julie:

Homosexual behaviors are, definitionally, sexual activity between
two (or more) people of the same gender.

--Missy P 2 B
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "Smarmy" George
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:08:48 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Gary W. Olsen writes:
> You are correct that "swarmy" doesn't appear in the dictionary.  Not mine,
> at any rate.  Flip over the "w" and you'll find it.

Unfortunately for me I don't have your dictionary to flip through--mine does
not have the word, "smarmy," either.  But at least in the future I will know
how to spell this non-existant adjective that so perfectly describes our
non-existent President.  Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been brought to you by the letter "M."       |      Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:54:14 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      help for the differently sarcastically abled

yes, kerry, _manhattan_ is the one with woody and mariel hemingway.
yes, tim, i think the republicans are in trouble because i thought bennett's
   was the best speech of the evening.

quick on the uptake, that's what i love about this list.

                              * * *mlle. elitist
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:18:00 -0400
From:         "Men-- can't live with 'em,
              can't shoot 'em" <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

It's public knowledge that Welk died from AIDS-related complications,
or at least I thought it was.    _I_ remember it in the papers.  Doesn't
anyone else?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:40:42 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: question to Missy J

Missy J:
Thanks for your response.  It made a lot of sense, and seems consistent
with what I've heard various delegates say on the floor.

>I urge you all again, watch CSPAN and ignore the spin doctors on the
>Big 3 networks.  The party is not what it is being painted as.

Actually, I've kind of enjoyed watching the "spin doctors" -- if that's
what they are :)  My favorite stations to watch so far have been CNN and
the dual coverage by PBS/NBC.  I've learned some new things from watching
the discussions between anchor-types and various Republicans.  Last night,
I was particularly impressed by both Vin Weber and what's-his-name Chaffee.
I thought Weber made sense in arguing for a step-by-step approach to
reforming health care, and that Chaffee had a good point when he suggested
that the least the current Congress could do was address the points that
all the current health-care proposals (Republican and Democrat) seem to
have in common.

On the other hand, I was disappointed with the Newt when he was on
Crossfire.  Kinsley clarified the source of the notion that Hillary Clinton
equates the family with slavery, but both Newt and Sununu continued to
cling to Buchanan's (quite exaggerated) interpretation.

I was disappointed with Barbara Bush when she was interviewed by Judy
what's-her-name.  I didn't have a problem with her chastizing the media for
"not asking hard questions" of the Democrats during their convention.  I
did have a problem with her promoting the "the Clintons will be co-
Presidents" line.  Oh, well.

I understand that tonight will be "family values" night, so I probably will
watch almost none of the coverage.  Sorry, but I get really offended by
that whole scene -- no matter who's spouting off about it.  Y'all can let
me know what happens :)

Later,
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 10:33:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the gipper saves the night from being sank by the loose
              buchanan

Gary:

You say "the Democrats were paragons of smoothness compared to this."
Yes, and isn't that the point?  The Democrats ran a highly *undemocratic*
convention.  The full platform committee at the DNC only voted up/down
on the whole thing.  At *this* convention, each subcommittee met, argued
over every word of their plank, submitted it to the committee, and *then*
the platform committee voted on *every* *single* *word* of the final
product.

For those expecting that the Republicans are losing delegates with the
prolife plank, you should pay closer attention.  When the summary of that
plank was made yesterday, when the chairlady of the committee said, "and
we believe in the sanctity of human life, including the life of the unborn,"
she got the longest sustained applause of the morning (longer than mention
of George Bush, school choice, or free trade got, longer than Rich Bond,
Sally Atwater, or Trent Lott got.)

It really amuses me that all the commentators want to talk about is the
abortion plank, when it is decided.  If you watch CSPAN (the platform
debates, the committee meetings, and the convention itself), you see the
event itself--if you watch the big three opinionated commentating networks
(and even CNN gets into it)--you see what *they* want you to think happened.
There is a *huge* difference.

Pay attention to the temporary chair from Texas:  the "block-everything,
do-nothing Congress" line will be repeated.  So will the "King Congress"
line.  And it will play *beautifully* in Peoria.  And BTW, Bush has *twice*
submitted a 3-year balanced budget proposal, which the Democrats will not
pass.  It doesn't take an economist to know that you can't submit a
1-year balanced budget.

If you can defend the check-bouncing, high-living, undemocratic Democrat
Congress, go right ahead and try.  The fact is that the *Congress* has
the responsibility to pass legislation, and they haven't done it.  Took
'em less than 24 hours to raise their own pay, though.  Now that's
efficiency.

BTW, as I write, Nancy Johnson of Connecticut is making a pro-choice
speech.  Bob Casey, come home.  Republicans are the party of civilized
debate on *every* issue.  The Democrat party is the party of political
correctness, Broadway productions, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Don't inhale.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:50:52 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ghwb=missy justice (ms justice

Excuse me, fred:

But there is no such thing as a "born" Christian.  All Christians
are converts.

And the Kerry ticket is senstive to the needs of *all* the people.
We agree, in a civilized manner, to disagree when necessary.

Which reminds me.  A note to my esteemed running mate:  please
note the correction.  It is not "faculty elite."  It is "cultural
elite in the faculty lounges."

The Kerry ticket is not afraid to address the diversity of viewpoints
in this great nation, nor ashamed to admit to and correct error.  --MP2B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:00:44 GMT

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>Do we have to go through this again?  Bush articulated the compassionate
>prolife position eloquently.  The question "who else's would it be?"
>is NOT an admission of prochoice sentiment; it is an acknowledgment of the
>FACT of the physical situation.  Short of tying his granddaughter to a post
>and watching her 24 hours a day, he can no more stop her from having an
>abortion physically than he can stop her, when she is not physically in
>his presence, from committing suicide, running over small children, or
>burning down the White House.  That would not make any of those things
>right.

Surely if someone states that they fully intended to kill someone, then 
it would be perfectly right to restrain that person? 

Or is it just that even rabid prolifers can see that abortion /= murder?

>No human being has the ABILITY to stop another from performing an act without
>both physical proximity and physical coercion.  Surely he made this clear
>by referencing other heinous acts she might decide to commit.  Prolife
>people do not live in a fantasy world.  They recognize that there is a
>certain point at which nothing more can be done.  Once an evil act has
>been committed, they recognize, as well, the duty to extend forgiveness
>and love to those who have committed the act.

Yes, but what if it _hasn't_ been committed yet? Surely then it is the 
prolifer's duty to prevent the crime happening?

Is is this yet another example of the mindnumbing hypocrisy of 
some "prolifers"?

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:28:40 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is (Barbara) Bush pro-choice? (answer: yup)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:23:00 EDT more noise please said:
>as they head into their convention next week.  Others, like Phylis Schafely,

Which reminds me:  I think tomorrow is Phyllis Schlafly's birthday.
[P. Schafely & P. Schlafly aren't related by chance, are they? :)   ]

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: logic czar
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:13:05 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <POLITICS%92082018013682@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
> Jumbo,
>
> I don't have time today to respond to your last post with any amount of
> due justice.
>
> I'm afraid these few sentences will have to suffice.
>
> You appear to be a pompous, self-inflated, hateful and ignorant bigot.

That's only one sentence, unless you include
>
> Have a good day.

and I don't think that's what you meant. Or was it?

And at least Jimbo has a sense of humor.
>
> ---Robert
>
--John
Vote Adult Republican Children in Denial (None of it's my fault! None of it's
my fault! It was that bad Satanic Congress! GammmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEE!)
in 1994, the Year of the Quayle.


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:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:57:10 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Gosh, gasp

Oh, my God! ! !

I could die! ! !

Baker is committing treason! ! !

He is leaving a position in which he is doing
very well in order to bail out a sinking ship
which will sink regardless.

It is still a crying shame and a downright
crime if not mortal sin.

vox populi, vox dei-
j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:53:42 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more on Baker

>Anyway, it all sounds like we're in for some interesting times!  What do
>y'all think?
>Kerry

  I think it is incredible that someone is trying to talk
politics on this list.  Don't you have any malls in your
neighborhood?

               -Tim
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Somewhat Unusual "Family Values"
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:16:53 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92082013413978@UCF1VM.BITNET>, IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (m
acphil) writes:
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:09:23 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>
>>working, but whose low skills level confines them to low-paying jobs.
>
>And I'm sure now they wish they had worked harder while in school instead
>of doodling little hearts in their notebooks and figuring ways to copy
>someone's homework.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill
>
>MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
>
Really! I suppose that all low income or disadvantaged people doodled while at
school. Open your eyes! It's a real world out there, the one you evidently
have no concept of.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:55:23 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

I think my honorable running mate was speculating, not accusing. "Might
as wells" are a dime a dozen, she used three examples, you used three
examples. No retractions are necessary. V.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:21:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      How come?

Hey:

How come, during the Democrat convention, there was a poll taken
every 30 seconds or so telling how another 5 billion people had
just jumped into the Clinton camp, and now the pollsters are
practically silent?

And how come during the Democrat convention the media said nice
things about Clinton and nasty things about Bush, but now that
the Republicans are burning down the barn in Houston, the media
is saying.......um, nice things about Clinton and nasty things
about Bush.

Did Ross really come back?  (Maybe he really *is* the antichrist--fatal
head wound and all.  Nah.  Just a major dweeb with an attention span
disorder.)

And BTW, wouldn't it kinda be cool if the electoral college voting
deal was as much of a party as the conventions?  (Can anybody really
hear "Guam, where America's day begins," *too* many times?)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:02:25 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: About Buchanan
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:17:42 -0500 GAYLA BASSHAM said:

>What "grotesque taxing plans"?  Clinton's plan calls for higher taxes on the
>upper class, not the middle class.  Bush raised taxes on everyone--after he
>promised not to.
>-----Gayla

But as has been asked time and time again, just how large a tax base do
the rich pose for someone like Clinton?  I cannot show specific numbers
but I really believe there is a *very* large difference in terms of
taxing the rich for the purpose of paying their fair share and taxing
the rich in order to raise revenue.  Clinton's cry is "make them
pay their fair share" which I cannot disagree with once he defines
'rich' (anyone over minimum wage?) but once he finds out how little
is returned after that action he'll have to turn to everyone else...

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:05:43 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Economizing

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

  Rufus, are you smart enough to have checked the numbers?  If so,
you would have noticed that the economy fared better under the
Southern outsider than it did under Bush.

  But then, if you had, you probably wouldn't have made that post.

  Why don't *you* check out the economy and tell me if we can afford
to keep George around for four more years.

                                        -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:49:29 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Layoffs at Rutgers

>Subj:  RE: Rutgers Cuts 128 Administrators
>
>From: linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
>
>glad you still have your job carl.
>villanova sorta did the same thing this past year. of course, being so much
>smaller the numbers weren't so bad. (40 + job titles eliminated) they
>re-assigned people to different places, so i think the total lay offs were
>much less (abt. 10 or so).
>they laid off the big salaries for the most part.
>
>also, they're into this TQM thing here, and they didn't call it layoffs, it was
>a total effort to "right size".

It seems that only a few months ago layoffs became "downsizing".  Then in the
past few months it has become "rightsizing".  The obvious next step for these
organizations is "capsizing"!!

                                                      ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:27:00 EST
From:         Gary Parsons <PARSONS@FAUVAX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bush Interviewed On Atheism

    Lets get a life here folks.  This "wall of separation" idiocy  is
    based on a quote from a very minor speech by Jefferson and has
    nothing to do with American cultural or legal traditions. It
    is one of those"rights" created out of thin air by an ideological
    and wrong-thinking court.
    And atheism, you nuckleheads, is just plain wrong.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:26:27 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      the vanilla coalition

Will Durst referred to the republican convention as "the vanilla
convention", lots of 50's style values and finger pointing with a lack
of visible positions for minorities, including women. I think that congress
(congress, not the democratic representatives) share responsibility for
our current economic and social problems but leadership is supposed to
begin at the white house. Throwing a tantrum and saying "It's my ball
and you have to let me pitch or I'll cry and go home" is not leadership.

If we are making progress on the environment, will someone point out how
the white house has contributed to this progress? What about the back to
back drops in housing starts? If george has a plan for starting the economy
I haven't seen any specifics. Would someone with access to this information
please post it? What plans to address the huge number of unemployed middle
level managers and white collar workers have come out of the white house?
Why doesn't george present his plan to the american people and ask them
to put pressure on their congresscritters to approve it? Simple answer:
He doesn't have a plan.

If we are going to address corruption in government as demos writing bum
checks, shouldn't we also discuss lying to congress, the HUD scandal, and
misuse of perks such as jet escort to stamp trading conventions and golf
outings?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:40:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Cross-posted from FIREFLY-L

> During the war scene, Groucho says "We're defending this lady's
> (Margaret Dumont) honor, which is more than she ever did."  She never
> did understand what he meant by that.

She never really understood Groucho at all.  She refused to call him
Groucho, btw.  Another great one she is supposed to have missed is
in Night at the Opera, when they're boarding the ship and she says
"Are you sure you've got everything?" and he answers "Well, I haven't
had any complaints yet!"

Best,
Peter

> Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:40:47 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on Abortion

>Much as I love my son - if he murdered someone - deliberated, decided
>to do it, and carried it out - I can unequivocally say that our
>relationship would undoubtedly change.  My *horror* at what he had
>done, at what he was *capable* of doing, would stay with me for a
>long time.

So?  Under the standard being proposed for Bush, you'd still be
pro-murder if you "supported" him.

>It seems that they feel that *their* family members could decide this
>tragic question appropriately - If only every other woman in the
>country had the decency and intelligence to approach the decision with
>enough thought.

We're still waiting for ANY evidence supporting that feeling.

Carter didn't disown Amy; does that mean that he "feels" that various
illegal drugs are appropriate for the "right" people?  Does that mean
he's secretly pro-drug?  No?  Then why is Bush/Quale any different for
saying that they'd do the exact same thing wrt a LEGAL act?

-andy is still pro-abortion, but won't misrepresent bush to advance that
      cause, and suspects that lots of americans have figured out what
      bush said; do you really want to bet that they'll reward people
      who misconstrue him for political gain?
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU