HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:47:41 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re:Monday musings
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> What are the voting options of the US in the UN?

> I know she can vote yes, she can veto, and I know she can
> abstain.  But could she simply vote no without using her
> veto power?

I believe so. Considering the chunk of money the UN gets
from the US, I don't think much happens that the US votes
"no" but still lets happen.

> --KAT

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Encoding: 11 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:55:00 EST
From:         AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV
Subject:      That heady feeling (Clinton's inaugural)
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Brett,

That "heady feeling" that you described having back when Reagan took office
in 1981 is precisely what I have felt watching Clinton take the reins.  It's
an intense feeling of hopefulness and inclusion in the process of government.
It was great to have my candidate win in my 3rd stab at voting for President.
I suppose that this exhilaration won't last long, and I'll join you and
everyone else in just hoping that (at worst) Clinton doesn't screw up.

--Anjani
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:dunstan@gec-epl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:18:10 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      CGT (was Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:16:17 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>>        ........................  Every cut in the capital gains tax rate has
>>caused an increase in the revenues.
>>
>>Brett'
>
>So would every INCREASE in the capital gains tax rate.
>
>--KAT

Bzzt. Both wrong. If CGT was 100% then nobody would ever realise their
capital gains. If CGT was 0% there would be no revenue. Hence Laffer
curves. If tax rates are unduly high, reducing them will probably
increase the revenue, if they are unduly low, increasing them will
probably increase the revenue. But how do you know which way to move
them ......

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
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, 27 Jan 1993 08:35:34 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 7-11,Commandments
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt461695@drew.edu>, TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET writes:
> Joe,
>
> Don't see the comparison ... unless you mean to say, Bibles are pur-
> chased with private donations and set in the library and no one says
> a word about them being there ... in which case I say "sure" they
> should be allowed.

It doesn't matter that the Ten Commandments was bought with private
money and that the school officials didn't seem to care about it.  The
teacher in the classroom still did --- there's your state authority.
The Ten Commandments by itself appears to have a nonsecular purpose
and entanglement with religion.  It also has an effect to support
religion.  A few of the justices got annoyed that the court didn't
hear oral argument to show this wasn't the case, with some cause, but
this wasn't a common practice by them in this area. Overall, gov't
entanglement with religion in school need not be (1) known
or objected by the school authorities or (2) paid for by public money.
A teacher putting up her own or letting a student put up his/her own
religious materials still tangles with religion under Lemon.
   A Bible in the library is one book, surely one of secular
importance, among many.  The Ten Commandments alone is much more
suspicious than among other legal symbols such as the woman with the
scales.

> Where materials come from does, or CAN make a tremendous difference!
> There are bound to be tax payers who want no part of buying 'reli-
> goius materials for their public school students !

sure it does as a matter of degree, but even private funds can be used
to support religious materials for public school students and be just
as offensive.  Perhaps you'd allow a privately paid religious display
in the classroom or privately paid minister to come in to say grace,
but it still breaks Lemon and the 1st amendment.

>
> Maybe I don't understand your comment.
>
> Sorry if I didn't.
>                           P.S.Ruckman,Jr.

just don't do it again.

  -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:32:48 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I find the ruckus over Hillary's appointment to the head of the Health
> Reform task force to be very humorous.

Hmm.  Some find it humorous.  Others find it curious.  One or two
might be somewhat concerned.


> Any task force, and Clinton's cabinet, must contain alot of FOBs.
> (Why would he use EOBs?)  These must be people Billy knows, or at least

How do you define "FOBs" and "EOBs" ?


> knows of, but more importantly, they must be people that he trusts.
> That this circle of people contains a number of minorities does not
> speak poorly of the man.

However, that this circle contains the Secretary of Defense does
speak poorly of his judgement as to the allocation of his resources.

>
> The "AK was 48th in education" is a useless statistic, so sticking
> that on Hillary's AK education reform is not germane to the discussion
> of health care reform or the task force.

Why not?  It seems to me that whenever anyone questions Hillary, it
immediately becomes an attack against her "because she is a woman"...
Honestly, I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against a woman holding *any*
position in this country.  Especially Hillary!  As an aspiring
attorney, I really respect the accomplishments of Hillary in that
capacity.  However, when a person is appointed to any federal
position of importance (and I do believe the HCTF would fall under
that category), it is relevant to evaluate that person's performance
in previous endeavors.  The AK education reform program, the last
Hillary project, should at least be noted -- without being completely
overlooked because "that was education, this is health care."  I'm
talking about RESULTS here.  That's what this country needs.  ANY
President can create a Task Force.  Many First Ladies could have
headed it.  In the end, if we get a GOOD HC Plan out of this, I'll be
the first to congratulate Hillary for a job well done.


>
> Is it possible that all the fuss over Hillary's appointment is because
> she is <gasp> a woman?

Inconsistent with the logical analysis provided about.  Such an
assertion is merely a shield used by many in the "year of the
woman"...  I believe in fair equality for all regardless of gender.
However, equality entails evaluating a woman just as critically as
evaluating a man in the same capacity (especially when Hillary is
probably *more* qualified than most men in the Clinton
Administration).  This argument has consistently been used as a
shield to justify the actions of any woman in public office, because
any criticism against her can be branded as chauvinist, and
therefore, un-PC.  Quite frankly, if my logic here is un-PC, I don't
quite give a damn.  (PC is potentially the worst malady in this
country.)


--Stan Jacobs
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Uncl: Business Optimism
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:54 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <19930125.131757.sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>,    
     Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes...
>Sears has become the first major employer to openly display its
>optimistic view of what the future holds for business, during the
>[Clinton] administration.  Announced today, the end
>of the Sears catalog, the closing of approximately 113 stores and
>the unemployment of 50,000 workers.  The lucky ones, still employed,
>will be facing drastic pay cuts. . . .

Sorry.  This one was entirely Sears, Roebuck, & Co.'s fault.  The catalog
business has been one of the major expansion markets of the past decade. 
Unfortunately, Sears stuck to the Big Book approach when everybody else,
including their traditional competitors, specialized.  Sears also waited until
two years ago to install their 800 number for phone orders, when J.C. Penney,
e.g., was employing 4500 phone operators.  As a result, while Sears expected to
continue to get the old raft of mail orders, their rural customers were going
to Wal-Mart and ordering from Land's End, et al. 

All material for this explanation based on this morning's _Morning Edition_ on
NPR.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:23:24 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:16:17 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>>        ........................  Every cut in the capital gains tax rate has
>>caused an increase in the revenues.
>>
>>Brett'
>
>So would every INCREASE in the capital gains tax rate.
>
>--KAT

        Fortunately, that's not true.  As the rate increases people stop
selling securities, and move income into tax-free investments.  The rate
increase in the early 70s caused a drop in revenues, then a leveling off.  It
rebounded with the rate cut in 1978 and every year thereafter until the rate
increase in 1986.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:21:13 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I hate to agree with brett`, but what they did was an agressive
>
>Dave
>t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu

        Just don't make a habit of it, or I'll think I'm doing something wrong.
:)

Brett'
(Like failing to establish correct channeling for Jay)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:07:53 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe

Steve, Kerry; it isn't a child care issue.
It is an immigration law issue.

Part of the job of attorney general is to
oversee the INS.

Maybe it does have some relevance to the
position to which she was nominated.  And
maybe the continued questioning was supposed
to get her to withdraw her nomination, since
she demonstrated a premeditated disregard for
the laws the position would require her to
uphold.

               -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:00:40 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: the right
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU" at Jan 23, 93 3:14 pm

MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU pisze:
>>
>> <Caius>
>> >The essence of the Right is to support free-market and property rights for
>> >everybody not for a group...
>>         Uh, excuse me?  From this argument, it would seem that there exists
 out
>> in the world a distinct political entity known as the "Right"  WRONG!

We are talkin about the political movement, which may have have not strict
definition but have some characteristics. We are trying to discover what it is?

>> Being on the Right or the Left is defined by the situation, and the
>> parties in question

Yes, you can sometimes refer to the factions in a party by the terms right-wing
and left-wing. If you observe those factions in various parties you will notice
that ALL the left-wingers share some common characteristics, and similarly
ALL the right-wingers have some common points.

\Example:
 A socialist party is certainly a leftist one. Left-wingers in THAT
party are those who argue that all leftists policies should be implemented,
"the rightists" should be opposed at every point, and no compromise is allowed.

The right-wing say "sure those conservatives are our enemies, but maybe they
have some good ideas about our foreign policy", maybe some compromise is
necessary. Let's implement those most important elements of our programm,
othets must wait"
\End of Example

Conclusion:
There are some fundamental, unchanged elements of all rightists doctrines.
We use words 'the Right', rightism, rightist to mean that.
There are also some universal elements of the leftists doctrines.

If you feel you have something to add, to explain please do it. If you want to
discuss left- and right-wingers of the socialist party you are free to start
a separate thread, but don't expect me to respond.


>>-i.e. in the failed coup in the SU a while back, Gorbachev
>> was distinctly to the left of the coup plotters, while in his dealings with
>> Yeltsin, he was to the right of his former deputy...

Interesting. I'd never suspect. Could you explain your judgement?

>>                                                         Travlr

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:09:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 22:38:28 CST from <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

Dave:

"Friends of Carlotta?"

I am *very* impressed.  Of course, it dates us both.  :-)

And, how clever of you to post it to the "List."  Heh heh.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:34:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: DC

>>Of course, it is a city of well over 500,000 people and I believe tha t there
>>are more people in DC than there are in Montana.  And right now, they
>>don't have any voice in congress.
>>Jonathan

Hmmmm...I seem to forget the name of our country--specifically the
word that begins with "S."  Can anybody help me?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:55:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

>Just to prove how open-minded and un-chauvinistic I really am, I
>nominate Kerry for President.  That way, we'll have a female

that already happened. she was nominated, she campaigned, she pulled a
ross perot, and lost the election.

anyway, we don't do this again for 4 years, or until ramon overthrows the
gov't. (and he can't do that til i get a new cookbook).

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:32:15 EST
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field -
              "=================================================================
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field - "=======". Rest of header
              flushed.". Rest of header flushed.
From:         Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET>

>Because their numbers are limited, medallions are very valuable.

But why  are their  numbers limited?   Is it  to protect  the economic
status of a  class of people (owners of medallions),   or limiting the
number of medallions  is *one* way of controlling traffic  in the more
congested part of the city (burroughs?)?

>...Rick

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:48:07 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

>From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>

>The War Powers Act requires the President to officially notify
>Congress within 48 hours of military action, and grants Congress a
>time period in which they can choose to withdraw the troops.  If
>Congress can withdraw the troops, they are crossing the line.

Right. No dispute on the content of the Act.

>You say that the President doesn't have the right to decide against
>whom to wage war.  Wrong.  Congress has the POLITICAL right to
>Declare War.  The President has the MILITARY right to fight whoever
>he well pleases.  (If the people think he is acting incorrectly, the
>alternative is called Impeachment, not WPA.)

I don't have the faintest clue what you mean by distinguishing
a political right from a military right. I don't know what a
military right is.

What do you think the power to declare war IS? I think it is
exactly what Congress is exercising under the War Powers Act.
I think it is the power to choose who will be the country's
military enemies.

How could the people impeach a President for the lawful
carrying out of his constitutionally assigned powers?? That
is a very strange idea. Impeachment (which isn't exactly
in the hands of The People anyway!) is for breach of
constitutional duty, and esp. for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I admit that I haven't done much research on what the framers
meant by "declare war." I just assumed it meant "decide against
whom the country's military forces will be directed."

Shall we check?

Jamie
From: $GET@PCCJES2.BITNET (David Clem)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: broader question
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:15:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>

Chris says:

>I'm not sure of a complete set of standards, but at the top of the list must
>be no flagrant vioation of the laws of the country.  Yes, some laws may be
>silly to some, but they are still the laws, and as long as they are people
>should be held to them.

Generally, yes.  We citizens are not sheep (inflatable or otherwise), however
(well, there are exceptions :-) ).  "Silly" or "bad" laws may be violated
with no moral sanction from most people and widespread violation is a good
indicator to politicians that the law(s) should be changed.

T. says:

> If you feel that she should be fined, sentenced, etc - we are in
> agreement; whatever the law allows for a guilty plea or verdict.
> However, you cannot say that _after_ a penalty has been suffered, we
> should _continue_ to exact other forms of payment (such as appointee
> disqualification).

I think most of the problem stemmed from the timing of the payment of penalty
and the nomination, leading one to believe that, had she not been nominated,
she never would have paid up. If she had paid the penalty even a few months
ago, before the election, I think there would not have been such an outcry.

> I have always disagreed with the penalty that takes away voting rights
> from convicted felons, in case you're wondering.  If the "system" is
> to work, then we must proceed on the presumption of rehabilitation/
> second chances.  If you don't accept that, then each crimes' penalty
> must be life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

I agree with you, T., but not with the last line (sorry :-) ).  If the
penalty is paid/served, then most all rights of a citizen should be
reinstated.  The one exception I can think of would be gun ownership
for those convicted of violent crimes.

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:38:47 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Furtherance of a discussion ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

(MUCH DELETED from this most glorious Val vs. Caius argument)

The arrows belong to Caius, in case you care.

> The essence of the Right is to support free-market and property rights for
> everybody not for a group. But if property rights are threatened by the
> radical socialists both big and small business are on the right.

Caius, you are right. The Stalinist regime and the actions of Pol
Pot have analogs in Nazi Germany.

Caius, you are wrong. Classical Liberalism, the precurser to the
modern Left, came up with the concept of Lassaiz Faire capitalism
while Conservatives were defending monarchism, an authoritarian
construct, by definition.

Caius, you are meaningless. Even if the Nazis of our past were
Leftists, the Nazis of our present, who are killing gastarbeiten
in Germany, paki-bashing in England and trying to march through
Jewish communities in America, associate themselves with the
Right, even if that is a violation of their intellectual Roots.
(Which I do not believe)

> Caius

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:15:16 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
              27 Jan 1993 13:50:13 CST from <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:50:13 CST rufus t. firefly said:

>> Well, it seems that the advocates (including me) want
>> no more favor for homosexuals than say for satanists.
>> So, is the military officially approve of satanism?
>> How about KKK, does the military officially approve of
>> them too?
>>
>> --KAT
>
>   as to satanists; they are, as i understand it, tolerated. barely.
>they seem to be on the edge between tolerate and suppress. ditto any
>other non-judeo-xtian religion.
>
Thanks for answering the question regarding KKK.
However, you say satanists are "tolerated."  Also
earlier you said that advocates of homosexuals
regarding the military issue want not only toleration
but approval.  My point is that military personnel are
not asked if they are satanists and when found they
are, they are not expelled.  Let's give homosexuals the
same "toleration" that we give satanists.

>rtf

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU