HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 19:08:06 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      On socialism of Hitler
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Some of you believe Nazi Germany was based on capitalist economy, so let's
have a closer look:



dr Albert Speer, Minister of Economy of the Reich
April 28, 1942

"An armament factory from Oldenburd on 11th Ferbruary 1942 has ordered ONE
KILOGRAM of spirit (alcohol) from a cooperating factory in Leipzig. The Leipzig
company requested a permission of the Monopoly Office of the Reich. The
Oldenburg factory asked the Office to issue a permission, but was advised to
ask the competent Economic Group to grant a urgent need certificate. The
Economic Group had passed the inquiry to the Local Economic Group in Hanover,
which reqested (and received) an official declaration that the alkohol would be
used in the technological process. After 5 weeks, on 19th April, Hanover office
informed that it had passed the case back to the Central Office in Berlin.

On 26th March the Oldenburg factory received an information (in response to its
inquiry) that the request had been grant positive opinion and passed to the
Monopoly Ofice of the Reich. At the same time the Economic Group announced that
it is not responsible for distribution of alcohol, and therefore it will not
grant any permissions. It can be granted by the Monopoly Office of The Reich
(that is the original office asked for permission).

In response to new petition of 30th March, for permission, the Monopoly Office
informed, after 12 days, that the monthly usage statistics is required, but as
an exception the factory will receive ONE KILOGRAM reqested.

Happy management of the Oldenburg factory sent a man to the selling point, but
received nothing because the selling point requested a certificate issued by
the ReichsOffice of Feeding. Local bureau of the office rejected to issue
a permission because it was responsible only for consumption of alkohol, not
for the usage in production.

It was 18th April and ONE KILOGRAM of alkohol reqested on 11th February was
still not supplied, although it was necessary for a very special purpose."



Source: Najwyzszy Czas (a political weekly) #4/1993; translation to English
mine;

Do you still sustain that the National-Socialism in Germany was NOT
implementing socialism in the economy? Was it based on PRIVATE factories?


Caius.
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 14:26:57 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Whether or not you think gays should serve in the military, I think
that right now, the objection is far too strong.  Given a few more
years and the general left-ward progression of things, I'm sure that
such a move would be less opposed.

For the current time, however, what if the military brass backs down
from Bill and allows gays in?  Then what?   Is the military brass
also required to protect them from the hostility of others in the
military?

If the problem is general de-moralization with the admittance of gays
into the armed forces, it would seem highly probable that there would
be demonstrated violence against said acceptees once they passed the
legal battles in the courts.  Once re-admitted, they may wish they
never were...


--STAN JACOBS
    With a little Theoretical Pragmatism
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:20:39 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
              28 Jan 1993 10:04:07 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:04:07 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>     There wasn't any reason to be embarrased.  Nor did the military have to
>provide the anti-war crowd with a number to misrepresent, either.  People die
>in war (surprise) and whether it's one or a million,it's a tragic consequence.
>Why place and importance on the actual number?

Firefighter:  "Sorry we couldn't save all you children."
The father:   "How many died?"
Brett':       "Death is a tragic consequence of fire.  Wether one
              was killed or all five, what's the difference?"

General:      "Mr. President, we can shorten the war and save hundreds
              of thousands of lives, if we drop a couple of A-bombs
              on Japan."

President:    "But how many are going to die as a result of the
              A-bombs?"

Brett':       "Death is a tragic consequence of war.  Whether one
              would be killed or hundreds of thousands, what's the
              difference?"
*********************

The President waged war against the nation of Iraq on behalf
of this country.  We have every right to know whether he made
good decisions or not.  As soon as releasing that number would not
jeopardize military planning and the security of American soldiers,
the public has a right to know that number.  And I would say it
is about time.

>Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:52:01 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The good old days

Rufus, channeling both Brett' and the legendary Jay Steven Sultan says:
"In a few months we will find that Bill isn't up to the job and long
for a return to the good old days". (Sorry, quote isn't exact but close
enough)

It's a good thing we allow ad honim attacks on presidents but not on
list members. The only things I have seen presented as evidence that
bill isn't up to the job are that he can't solve all of our problems,
deficit, middle east, jobs, etc. TOMORROW!! Where was all the whining
when Bush didn't balance the budget in his first four years as promised?

I'm sorry but half a day in office is too soon to start bitchin' about
what hasn't been accomplished. Also, as stated in the inaugrual address,
a great deal of what is accomplished will depend on the willingness of
joe/jane average american to become involved and make a difference. If
you want change work for it, don't wimper about it.

fred
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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:26:02 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:54:08 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>>> But Clinton did not *admit* anything either (except the Mario
>>> reference and that it was basically him on the tape).  And many
>>> tape-analysts said that the tape had been "doctored"
>>
>>        Except that show where Hillary said she had forgiven him....
>>
>>Brett'
>
>I saw the show.  Bill admitted to no specific sin and
>Hillary did forgive him but for an unspecified
>behavior.
>
>Let's offer some substantive facts or drop this.
>
>--KAT

        Look this is all standard political nonsense:

        When caught, "apologize" but don't mention the crime.  Get support from
those supposedly affected, again not mentioning the crime.

        Thus the opposition can not point to an admission of guilt, and you get
credit for "apologizing".

        So let's drop the "he didn't do it because he never admitted it", ok?

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:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:32:43 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Doesn't the meaning of "48th of 50" kind of depend on the mean and the
>variance?  I *think* toddd was trying to say that, until we know the
>magnitude of the difference between 50th, 49th, 48th, etc., the ranking
>really doesn't necessarily tell us much.  It's possible, I would think,
>that moving from 50th to 48th involved a greater improvement than moving
>from, say, 2nd to 1st.
>
>Or am I completely out to lunch ? :)
>Kerry

        True, true.

Brett'
(Heh, the mean and variance part, of course.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:05:38 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Zoe Baird

Joe:

I agree that many people do what Baird did, but they also don't get
to be A.G.

Ron Brown is certainly more of a sleazy character than Baird, but the
answer isn't accept them both; it's *reject* them both.

Baird didn't go through and Brown did, not because she was shafted,
but because *he's* got clout with the creatures overseeing the
process and she doesn't.  (BTW, "creatures" is CongressCreatures, a
term advocated by Mike Royko to satisfy the politically correct--a
related concept to the more appropriate original phrase he coined,
"AlderCreature.")

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:FCTY7310@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:34:38 EST
From:         "Woodill, Gary" <FCTY7310@RYEVM.RYERSON.CA>
Subject:      CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

I am developing a literature review on Citizen/Public Participation in
the development of social policy. I would like to hear from anyone working
in this area to exchange findings. I am especially interested in "fugitive"
literature that you may possess or know about, such as speeches, reports,
and conference papers. Thanks.

         Gary Woodill, Ed.D.
         Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
         Toronto, Canada

         Bitnet: FCTY7310@RYERSON
         Internet: FCTY7310@Ryevm.ryerson.ca

(Please reply directly to me as I am not a member of this list)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:37:58 EST
From:         MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
              21 Jan 1993 10:20:03 -0500 from
              <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:20:03 -0500 Ude Eko said:

>On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:02:49 EST, K=A*T said:
>
>>       ...."the supporters of Dan Quayle did not realize he was not up to
>>the presidency job even after 8 years".
>
>Dan Quayle, in 1985 was then an unknown junior senator from Indiana.
>
Oops!  I should have said four (4) years.

--KAT
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 02:58:55 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ronald Reagan lives on
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Next they'll tell us that the President shouldn't use his power
>to help bring religious fringe groups to prominence...or that the White
>House shouldn't be a training ground for amoral lobbyists...or that
>even members of the Executive Branch, while they may have thought their
>deeds right and patriotic, should answer for crimes such as treason,
>perjury, etc...
>
>Get ready for the:
>
>We'reConservativeAndNowThatWe'reOutOfPowerWe'veSuddenlyFoundMorality Movement!
>-T.

        Well, I certainly understand the concern that Clinton might have to be
kept honest :), but 1) I'm not a conservative and 2) Two wrongs don't make a
right (they don't even make you even).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:39:34 EST
From:         Christian Gillstrap <cgillstr@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

What let me get this straight the Secretary of Defense is on a task force for
 health care reform, I'm sorry but, I"m not up to date on the new cabinent
 appt's (I have a very bad memory) Isn't Lee Aspen Defense Secretary, I know
 Lloyd Bentsen, is Treasur Secretary, I can understand that, but a defense
 secretary, well if that's the case why doesn't Warren Christopher join them,
 (Sec of State for people like me) What's the logic if you don't mind explaining
 to me, furthermore, as chair of the task force, Mrs.. Clinton is held directly
 responsible, with the exception of bad faith and mockery, what's the official
 liability if she doesn't produce?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:43:27 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Homosexuals in the Military

>From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
>
>*** Resending note of 01/27/93 11:35
>
>
>This is *exactly* right!  It's not toleration, they already have that,
>it's official government recognition/sanction they're after.  We all
>know there are gays in the military, always have been and always will
>be.  By and large, toleration has been the name of the game.  As long
>as the issue was kept quiet, the system simply looked the other way.

       No, the system has been to dishonorably discharge anyone who was
       thought to be gay.  That has been the system.



>With the blessing of government, homosexuals will have finally succeeded
>in achieving *minority* status.  This is a crying shame.  We will feel
>the repercussions of this recognition in all areas of society.  If the
>government recognizes homosexuals as a minority group for military
>service, then how can all government services not be held to the same
>standards?  If we lose the military to reprobate minds, I predict the
>next battleground will be public education and the outcome will be
>the same.

                Why you all think that the military is going
      to turn into a mardi gras is beyond me.  Do you really think that
      by allowing gays to be gay in the military, without fear of being
      dishonorably discharged (something which i'm sure you all know
      really sucks on your resume, no pun intended) that the military is
      going to turn into drag-queen fashion shows?  I suppose the
      white trash members of this discussion group would think
      that way...                                  ~~~~~

      And out of curiousity, what are the other minority groups
      you feel shouldn't have minority status, and why?
>
>Now is the time to buy stock in "Soap-on-a-Rope".  After this, a dropped
>bar of soap is history.

      I think your bar of soap is safe, buddy, don't think any nice
       gay boys would be lookin' yer way anyway...then again, i did
      just see "deliverance" on tv the other night....hmmmmm

                                 jenna
>
>---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:56:27 EST
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Renewal

It's easy to get caught up in a passionate speech, but we must not stop
thinking about the past, as well as tomorrow. With each new administration
we typically set ourselves up for a big letdown. Already there are signs:

* The Zoe Baird nomination, of which enough has already been said.

* The Ron Brown nomination. In addition to a professional politician getting
  a plum appointment, Brown's nomination is a problem in another way. Ten
  years ago, Brown was hired as a lobbyist for Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier,
  the Haitian Hitler, at the rate of $12,500 a month. Is this the best
  Clinton can do? What's next? Kurt Waldheim for UN ambassador?  And, this
  nomination occurred on the heels of his Haitian refugee reversal.

* During the inauguration, the Network talking heads gushed over all of the
  delicious "symbolism" of the rising young generation taking control. One
  symbol they failed to note was that the DC police had to clear the homeless
  out of Lafayette Park so that the reviewing stand could be errected.
  All through the campaign, Clinton promised reform and relief for the
  beleaguered middle class. Apparently he meant that with all the implied
  exclusions.

* Last summer, from the steps of the NY Stock Exchange, Clinton promised
  "Wall street will no longer run this country." The next day, Shearson
  Lehman brothers handed him a $25,000 campaign contribution. Last week,
  Merrill Lynch invested a quarter of a million in the inauguration
  festivities.

Am I cynical, or are there few signs of the renewal that Clinton promised.
Indeed, don't stop thinking about tomorrow. And as you do so, just keep in
mind that tomorrow never comes.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:32:47 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe

>did something illegal (she said it wasn't a crime -- I don't know the
>correct terminology).  What do y'all think?

That's what I like about lawyers.  What she did is worth a trip to the
big house.  One would think that eventuality is a sufficient argument
for the "Is it a crime?" question.  On the other hand, is it a crime
if you're not convicted?  How about if you're not caught?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:44:12 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >> >A question for the 90's:
> >> >
> >> >What if they gave a war and nobody would televise it?
> >> >-other Andy
> >>
> >>         I imagine the generals would love it.
> >>
> >I know that this subject has gotten further down the road, but I'm
> >trying to catch up on my mail, so hang in there!
> >This is what happened in the Persian Gulf war.  Nobody got to televise
> >anything.  You bet the general's loved it.  But the people of this country
> >got no info.  Even at this date, we have really no idea how many Iraquis
> >died at the hands of _our_ military.  I wouldn't mind knowing about many
> >Kuwaitis died from Iraqi's military.  Why is this info withheld?
> >> Brett'
> >>
> >Jonathan
>
>         It's not being "withheld".  The military made no attempt to deterimine
> enemy losses in that manner.  There would be no "body counts" this time.
bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  The fact is that the military did indeed make an
estimate of the dead.  It was highly classified.  And deliberatively
withheld from the public.
>         Ironically, there are those criticzing the military for this, just as
> there would be if they had done a "body count".  Damned if they do and damned
> if they don't.
>         And in my view, yet another thing that the public does not have a
> "right" to know.  Paraphrasing someone else: if you want answers to those
> questions, do the research.  The army isn't there to do it for you.
>         Our casualties, yes.  Theirs, no.
Why not??  It was our military.  I paid for it.  Why can't I find out the
damage that it did.  Especially since there is no reason for it to be
classified.  That's one of things that I really dislike about our military.
Their need to classify everything regardless of the cause.  I worked for
defense contractors even before USSR collapsed and you can not believe
some of the things that are classified.  Brett' the _only_ reason that
the numbers are classified is because Bush didn't want to be embarrased
about the amount of Iraqi dead.
>
>         Now, the military does to loss projections (witness the map with the
> various Iraqi units displayed as "half effective", etc.), however, I think
 they
> learned their lesson in Vietnam about turning war into a game of numbers.
>         The emphasis returned to defeating the enemy, and not counting their
> dead.
Since you are wrong here Brett', I wonder if you could tell me how
you came up with this statement that the military didn't know how many
Iraqis were killed.
>
> Brett'
>
Jonathan