HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:48:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: right v left
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

JasonZ has decided to classify "left"and right in terms of government
intrusion and size of goverment.  That really doesn't work too well.
Actually, it seems like a way of molding things so that they fit his
view of reality.

He also states that "republicans" are in favor of smaller government.
This is a bone of contention with me.  Most "republicans" I know of
will _say_ that they want smaller government, but also advocate some
positions which contradict this.   For example, they will advocate
active exlcusion of Lesbians and Gay Men from the armed services,
something which COSTS us tax $$ and forces us to waste government energy
doing so.  They will also advocate anti-sodomy laws and other laws
which itrude upon personal liberties, thereby INCREASING the level of
government spending.

They will oppose the National Endowment for the Arts, because they
say that government should have no place supporting art, but they
will often not oppose use of government funds to support, for example,
the Army's Marching Band.  I'm curious to see how the funding compares,
because my GUESS (and this is just a guess, so don't jump all over
me -- I want to find the actual figures) is that the amount of money
we fund into musical activities of the United Sates military is much
greater than the amount of money we put into the NEA.  If anyone has
info on this I woul love to hear it.

Now I am not bringing this up to slam the Republican Party as much
as to clarify just where they stand.

Personally, I agree with the person who spoke earlier: If an articulate
Libertarian were allowed to debate with the other Candidates then it
would be the death of the Republican party.  It would also give the
Democrats a good run for their money.

My own view is that Libertarianism is a great theory but I've yet to
see how it could work in practice on a large scale without sacrificng
individual liberties.  (I'm sure I'll get lots of responses to that
comment ;-)).

But I guess my concern is that the notion that the Republican
Party represents small government seems patently false to me with
all the personal intrusion advocated by Republicans.

More on this later.

--Julie
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, 4 Nov 1992 13:27:16 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: This "12 years" thing
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

> Actually, Brett, I meant 12 years of hopelessness - and, by gosh! That
>
>_does_ coincide with the Reagan/Bush years, doesn't it?
>
>What will all you conservative naysayers have to say when Clinton/Gore clean
>up this mess and restore America?
>

	(Libertarian, hate to burst your stereotype :)

	If Clinton does make the economy better, I won't deny that it's
happening because of my political orientation.

Brett
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:46:13 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
 <1992Nov6.165318.20364@news.media.mit.edu>

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
>(Stupendous Man) writes:
>|>      Rumor has it that Mr. & Mrs. Reagan voted for Ross Perot.
>|>
>|>      Given the way President Bush trashed Reagan's economic expansion, I
>|> wouldn't blame them :).
>|>
>|> Brett
>
>  Interesting Rumor. However, according to the 11/5 New York Times Election
>Special, Reagan was upset and angry that Bush didn't use Reagan as a
>campaigner until late october. Reagan was also upset that Buchanan's speech
>went overtime and pushed Reagan's more moderate speech out of the prime
>time.
>  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?:)
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:40:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQSGSC77OS0009RD@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>Oh yeah, Pat Buchannan did wonders for George Bush.  First he wounded him
>immensely in the primaries by opposing him and then hurt him even more by
>supporting him during the convention.
>
>"Pat Buchannan-- He'll do for America what he did for George Bush."
>
>Sleep tight, folks.
>
>--Julie
>
HOW CAN WE SLEEP AT ALL, KNOWING THAT SLICK WILLIE AND MR. TREEHUGGER ARE SOON
TO RESIDE IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:16:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

No one, not even the people who supported him, should stand behind
Clinton blindly.  I have no prolem with the fact that there are
Conservatives who dislike what is going on.  I think any government
needs dessent to keep it in line.  However, what we need is balance
between divisiveness and silent complicity.  I voted for Clinton and
I am glad I did and expect to remain so.  However, I also feel an
obligation to challenge him, to write him and say "I voted for you, but
I have a problem with how you handeled X" and to make myself known to
my duly elected president.  I _do_ feel good that I finally was on a
winning side in a presidential race for the first time in my life, but
that's irrelevant now.

I guess what I would like is rather than hearing cheap shots at Clinton
that people say WHAT concerns them about him.  Not just "he'll raise
taxes."  WHY do you say he will raise taxes, and what do you think is
the big problem with him doing so.  Qualify your statements rather than
engaging in cheap shots and sleaze politics.

See the difference?  I think Clinton's alleged affair with Flowers is
irrelevant but obviously some here do not.  Don't call Clinton an
"adulterer."  Tell us WHY you think it is relevant.  Tell us what
you think is the issue, don't rant and rave at us.  I think we'd
get a lot further that way.

See?  Everyone still gets to speak their mind but there will be a lot
more communication at the same time.

--Julie
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:59:59 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>>"T" -- What I know about Hill is from seeing her speak.  She is articulate,
>>intelligent, sensible and she seens extremely competent.  I have not read
>>anything she has written, but I really respect what she has gone through
>>and how she has handled herself with complete dignity through it all.
>>
>>That's it.  I just have a great deal of respect for her _as a person_
>>regardless of how she would vote on specific issues and I think she is
>>worth serious consideration.
>
>I REALLY can't belive what I'm hearing.  How can you say Anita Hill deserves
>consideration as a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE when she isn't even A JUDGE!!!  How
>stupid of a choice would that be?  Just because she's a woman doesn't mean
>that she is qualified to be a judge.  Period.

	Correcting a society that awards people because they are male does not
consist of awarding things to people because they are female.

	Unless you want the same mess that has arisen out of affirmative
actions.

Brett'
(The Other Brett)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:25:46 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

From: SLOFFER CHRIS A               (ENGVAX::GA82428)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet")
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Potatoe
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:30:54 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <92311.0200002893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (and
y) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.005520.44095@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
>(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>>
>>I must say this:  To anyone out there who has said that we should refrain from
>>personal attacks, have you ever poked fun st Vice President Quayle for that
>>"potatoe" incident?  Talk about insecure.  This campaign all we heard is how
>>"negative" President Bush's commercials were, how about the press that Dan
>
>Despite the obvious temptation, I am unaware of one Clinton commercial which
>mocked or attacked Quayle.
>
>>Quayle received over the past couple of years?  He is a good, honorable man
>>that I respect for not turning his back on the American he was serving.  I
>>hope that I have as much understanding if I'm ever faced with such a
>>situation.
>
>Quayle has said some incredibly inane things over the years, from claiming
>they speak Latin in Latin America to claiming that the "purpose of the middle
>east is to prevent the near east from encroaching upon the far east"
>
>Would it have been responsible for the media to ignore the fact that
>the vice-president is a moron and prone to making incredibly stupid
>statements?
>
>>                                            Jayce
>>                    KEMP/BAKER '96!!!!!!
>
>In any case, you evidently don't think highly enough of Quayle to place him on
>your ticket:)
>>
>>
>
I do think highly of Dan Quayle, but I don't think that the spoon-fed
American public would give him a better rating than he has now if he
personally found the cure for cancer, AIDS, and senility.  I wouldn't mind him
being on the ticket but I also think highly of the other two.
                                            Jayce

                                            
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:44:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?

--KAT:

        Looks like your question about if homosexuality is enough to dis-
qualify you from the draft will be moot!  (I know you were asking about
previous drafts - I just want to take every opportunity to point out that the
new President will finally bring national policy into the 20th Century!).

THE BAN WILL BE LIFTED!


-T.
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 07:08:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

We should remember that Jim Baker also helped Bush lose to Reagan in
the primaries in 1980 -- in 1988, it was basically the Willie Horton
attack ads which won Bush the election- Bush ran on the "I'm not
Dukakais" platform and it worked, and then, for awhile, Clinton was
running on the "I'm not Bush" platform, but eventually he developed
his own voice.  I think a lot more people voted _for_ Clinton than
against Bush, because of Perot's involvement in the race.  A lot of
the anti-Bush vote didn't go to Clinton-- Clinton's support was
a combination of dissatisfaction with Bush and genuine support for
the man.  In '88 it was clearly an "anti-" campaign in that very few
people, myself included, voted for anyone.  This one, I feel, was
considerably different.  I'm waiting for the "week in review" in
tomorrow's paper which should have lots of nifty polling data to
give me some more insight.

--Julie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,bit.listserv.activ-l,alt.activism
From: mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark Pietrasanta)
Subject: Re: ==> President-Elect Clinton Statement
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:18:39 GMT

|> 
|>                   Statement of President-Elect Bill Clinton
|>                                November 4, 1992

[lots of political niceness deleted]

|> 
|>                    Thank you, and God bless America.


Did he really say that last line?  Is this a transcript of a speach?


Mark Pietrasanta
----------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

"And I believe in Ray Charles." - Anonymous

----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These responses are my own and in no way reflect the
views of my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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, 4 Nov 1992 19:16:53 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: question from my 9-yr-old

I am not sure, but I think that the presiding officer of the Senate,
the current Vice President, presides over the Electoral College and announces
the winner after the counting is over.

Isn't that nifty for Danny Boy?

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (VALENTINE M. SMITH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Reaonable vs. inflammatory ...
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:37:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Date: 05 Nov 1992 12:39:50 -0600 (CST)
From: erteltsa%ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
Subject: RE: "President Clinton"

>You see James, that is just what I and millions of other Americans
>fear... Bill Clinton implementing his "revival" policies. The only
>thing I see him reviving is high interest rates and infation. Accept
>his election? Yes. Stop criticizing his policies and worrying about
>my future and the future of this country? A resounding NO! --Steve

I can "fear" the coming of Clinton in a reasonable, non-attacking
way, which is all that some of the list members of some duration are
asking from the newcomers like Steve, and Mike from from Canada, for
example. WE ALL have strong feelings on this list, and most of try
damned hard to be polite in our expression of them. Telling folks to
"shut up," or being stridntly anti-Clinton will NOT win you adherents
to your point of view, especially on this list! Many of us have 3 and
4 year years in this arena, and we give even those we disagree with
(for the most part, there ARE exceptions, alas!) relatively polite
responses. Negative juvenality, attempting to shove your views down
our throats, and belittling those who DARE to disagree with you is
unnecessary, petty, and pretty bloody silly to boot. Let's see if we
can reach a littler higher plane, shall we? VMS
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, 8 Nov 1992 12:03:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Joe:  Post all you want.  I'd love too see it since my ^*%&%* of a paper
had virtually NONE.

--Julie

P.S. This post is about polling data
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, 5 Nov 1992 10:52:24 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This "12 years" thing

>boyoboy...are all sick little perverted men so uptight? :) it was just a
>suggestion .... sheesh.

Steve used to be uptight until he got uptight about being uptight,
so he went out and got tight and he's been fine ever since... B)

>didn't know -other andy was in charge of others. sorry for stepping on
>others toes.

other Andy knows otherness when he sees it; and Brett here has not
really exhibited otherness. Aside from the fact that Brett F. has
periodic extended absences (which are unexcused absences, Brett
get a note from mom) there is as yet little that differentiates
the two Bretts.

Due to that (assuming that Brett being conservative finds jimbo's
suggestion undignified) I would suggest that Brett adopt either
a symbol (like prime'), number (2 would be good) or a nickname
("Brett the Bruiser" or some such). B)

(Brett, note that the latter *was* a joke)

>>  In case the list denizens don't know, they're duties are to provide
>>beer and lodging to any list member who arrives in their state - for the
>>asking.  Really, check the bylaws.

>this is cool. let me check my calendar to see when i can take a little
>drive.

linda, have your secretary call our secretary, maybe we can carpool!

>-linda
>>Steve

-other Andy
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 17:08:22 EST
From:         robert v head jr <rhead@S850.MWC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: question from my 9-yr-old
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
> Her first question was "what does the electoral college do when it's not an
> election?"  But we rephrased it to "what do electors actually do once the
> elections have been held?"
>
> Honest -- I have no idea what these folks do.  Do they fly, on taxpayers
> money, to a ritzy hotel somewhere in the middle of the country, there to
> eat, drink, and cast their votes?  Do they mail ballots in?  Do they really
> do *anything*?
>
> Genuinely curious about this anachronistic event,
> Kerry
>
	I'm not sure, but I think I remember hearing that the electors
actually do meet in person to vote for the President.  I think the
Speaker of the House presides over the vote, but again I'm not sure.
						Robert Head
						rhead@s850.mwc.edu
From: CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET (todd pukanecz)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Where Bush went wrong
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:34:19 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


  I'd like to use some "90/90 hindsight" to point out two areas that I
believe caused Bush to loose the campaign.  This is intended as a rational
critique not a bashing criticism.  If you see it differently, I apologize
in advance.
  The campaign was fought largely on the domestic front in general and
the economy in particular.  Right after the gulf war Bush had the highest
approval ratings of any president.  This was a golden opportunity for
him to successfully push through congress any agenda the administration
wanted, presumably using the Reagan model -- going on TV to explain the
proposal and asking citizens to petition their congressmen to support it,
going to the hill to drum up support, lobbying hostile congressmen, etc.
Instead, Bush waited months until the state of the union address to
enumerate his proposals, did little to ensure their passage in the form
he wanted, and by then the Democrats had started hacking away at his
phenomenal approval rating.
  The second thing is that the Bush administration did have its share
of success on domestic proposals.  I didn't realize this until our
university hosted a "debate" between Sununu and Tsongas.  Sununu talked
for nearly 5 minutes and enumerated over a dozen specific proposals the
Bush administration got passed by congress; many of them things I think
are useful or important.  I was impressed and found myself reconsidering
my opinion of Bush.  But, this was the only time in the campaign I heard
these domestic successes enumerated.  Bush failed to list his domestic
successes during any of the debates or any of the interviews I saw or
read transcripts of.  This allowed for the continued perception of Bush
as a foreign policy wiz but domestic policy failure.
  The administration should have been successful at passing domestic
policy initiatives if it had acted while the president was still "hot".
And the campaign should have been more successful if Bush had spent more
time being specific about his domestic policy triumphs and proposals.
      toddddddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "It is not enough to be
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   Hungarian.  One must also
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    have talent." - UNKNOWN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:22:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Inside Info

>If anyone thinks they might be interested in knowing more, I'll
>be happy to provide more info.

please let me know how it goes. sounds very interesting.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:17:47 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Days of the Week

>The English days of the week are, I believe, derived from what we commonly
>refer to nowadays as "Mythology."  From what I _recall_, the names are
>derived as follows:

>Sunday: Named for the Sun
>Monday: Named for the Moon
>Tuesday: I forget this one
>Wednesday: Named for Odin, King of the Norse Gods, who was also
>           known as "Wodin."
>Thursday:  Named for Thor, the Norse God of Thunder
>Friday:    I _think_ this is Wodin's wife's day, but I forget her full name.
>Saturday:  Named for Saturn (?)

If one goes to one of the "romance" languages I believe that the basis for
the days of the week are similar, with a couple of exceptions: Sunday, Monday,
and Saturday as listed, Tuesday = Mars, Wednesday = Mercury, Thursday =
Jupiter, Friday = Venus.

>This is from memory of stuff I heard in fifth grade.  If anyone has more
>up to date information, I will take that over my own :-).

Same here. B)

>-Julie

-other Andy