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 07:20:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder. ..
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Mike refers to not thinking we should "take flag burning lightly."

I _could_ make a joke here, such as "I said a _bud_ light," but instead
I will say that if I ever _do_ burn a flag, it will not be something I
take lightly.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:42:20 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

As a Bush supporter I have something to say...BNill Clinton will ultimately
ruin our country's economy. Thru his economic "plan" the poor will become
poorer and the middle calss (that's you and me folks) will become more and
more overtaxed. Our national debt will increase two-fold and when any situation
arises in the area of foriegn policy, our "leader" will fall all over himself
wondering what to do. In addition, Americans will be waitin on tremendously
long waiting list for simple medical procedures should his socialistic health
care "plan" be put into effect. So, in conclusion, as a former Bush supporter,
I say 1. Have the courage to admit your mistake in 4 your years 2. Have the
guts to wade thru 4 years of taxing and spending and 3. Kemp '96!!!

--Steve
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:12:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Minority President?
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brent: But Bush _didn't_ get all of Perot's votes.  Has it occurred to
you that if Clinton got all of Bush's votes, he would have won bigger
or that if Bush got all of Clinton's votes, _he_ would have won?

Basically I am saying that you pointed out something exceedingly
obvious and I am trying to figure out what the relevance of it is.

--Julie
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:16:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Robert responds to someone (I'm not sure who):
>>Please give us some statistics concerning the mortality rates of women
>>undergoing legal and illegal abortions. I am unaware of one woman ever dying
>>at a legal abortion clinic in Canada while it is quite common for women to
>>die of botched illegal abortions whether self-induced or performed by a back
>>street operator.
>
>Quite common?  Just how common is that?  How can you demand that Steve
>provide statistics for his arguments and at the same provide none of your
>own?  This is a tactic of the left that I find most annoying.
>
>---Robert

Ooh... nice dodge-- when reality gets in your way, divert attention
from your fallacies!

Now-- _I_ asked for information without presenting any.  Simply
because seomeone _else_ made a conjecture without a study to back it
up doesn't give Steve an excuse for not doing so.  Now _you_, Robert,
can give some examples of what you are accusing "the left" of doing,
since you choose to breach the subject by making an accusation.  I
will grant that in the post to which you are responding there may have
been an example of what you sugesst, but that is just one example.
Care to provide us with more?

--Julie
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Electoral College
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:52:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet


   Somewhere someone said that our territories have one electoral vote
all together.  They don't.  I passed on a story in Times or
something about a major storm in Guam pushing the election to
Saturday; it said as a territory, Guam can't vote for president, but
it does have to follow the Constitution as an abortion case showed.
There are 538 electoral votes -- 535 + 3 for D.C, so the territories
don't get a chance to elect presidents -- a bit unfair, but then D.C.
couldn't vote to the 1960s...

        -Joe

P.S. We had a note by some intelligent sounding pol sci type who took
one look at a days posts' and went off in disgust.  This is not a good
sign.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:36:21 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: 1996
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Why are most conservatives not for B/Q '96. Let me explain. When given a
choice between B/Q and C/G, B/Q is obviously the best answer. But, others
in the Republican party would fare even better...folks such as Jack Kamp
in the Republican party would fare even better...folks such as Jack Kemp
for instance...Also when you take into account B/Q's negative ratings with the
people, it just makes more sense for the Republican party to go w/ someone
different.
--Steve
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 12:17:31 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Gosh, but it's cold!

Sorry for cluttering your mail box with mail that is a little trite, but
I just want to say how glad I am  1) to have been correct in assessing
the election results and 2) to see a Democrat in the White House.

My life will be much less stressful from now on as I have less worries.

I will post a quote later(-when I find it-) that sums up my feelings
fairly well at the time.

About the subject header:  It is freezing in Memphis, Tenn. right now and
being the good ole' Cajun boy that I am, used to the warmth of the bayou,
ain't handling it well.

I am eagerly awaiting Clinton's first days in office.  I don't think that
change will be overnight, but it is coming.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:02:07 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan

>From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>Got a dictionary up where you are?  Ready?  Now, look under "S", for this
>word...it may be tough, it's got THREE (3) syllables: SARCASM.

>When you finish reading the definition (or finish having it read to you), go
>back and read my post to Steve about homophobia.

You mean you were being sarcastic?!  Well, bucko, on this list everyone else
always says what they mean and mean what they say.

(please note the sarcasm in the above statement).

I knew while reading your post that you were being sarcastic.  In all
seriousness, though, its a good idea to note when you're being serious and when
you're joking around.  Sarcasm is perfectly evident in spoken conversation, but
its hard to pick up in print.

>-T.

Jason
From: PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Oliver North for Senate
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:44:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Andrew:

        The question of Bush's purgury does not deal with whether or
not he knew money was being funnelled to the Contras.  The question is
when Bush knew.  Did Bush know about the arms for hostages in January
1986, or later than that when Bush claims.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:08:10 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Now here is one of the smartest replies I've seen in some time! Way to
go Brett!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:20:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Proposed policies from the new History Czar

        Since the newly elected virtual administration of Johnson/Olson has
been so gracious to appoint me history czar, I thought I would offer a few
policies:

        First, I will need some staff.  I would like to appoint Tony Clark (aka
T.) as Associate Czar in charge of 20th Century American History, -JOE (sorry,
don't remember your last name) as Associate in charge of Legal and Judicial
History, Brett Kottmann (Brett') as Associate in charge of Military History
(although we have gone 'round and 'round on the list HISTORY concerning whether
FDR had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor) and VMS as Associate in
charge of Russian/Soviet/CIS History (although doubtless he will be tapped for
a higher cabinet position).  If there are any others out there whom I have
omitted, please speak up.

        Second, some particular policies.  For 'Liese's benefit, all list
members ought to be restricted to a limit of one historical reference to the
Civil War (War Between the States, War for Southern Independence, War of
Northern Aggression, etc.) per year.  In addition, anyone who attempts to argue
that the "facts of history" PROVE his or her argument should be assigned a
stack of philosophy of history reading (such as R.G. Collingwood) commensurate
with the offense.  Similarly, anyone drawing a reckless historical analogy will
be assigned a book report on _The Uses and Abuses of History_ (oops, author
escapes me for the moment).  Persistant violators of these proposed policies
should be required to thoroughly document any future historical references and
should be required to submit "concise but thorough" (can you tell I give essay
exams?) historiographical essays with each historical allusion.

        I offer these policy proposals to our new virtual administration and
will accept any further suggestions.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:46:18 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)

Peter
The Oregon proposal although anti-homosexual is not set to promote hatred agains
   t the gay community but instead to prevent the endorsement of a homosexual
lifestyle within the school system. If the lords prayer isn't allowed why should
    this. Teach children the fundementals of individual rights and democracy but

don't teach alternate lifestyles in the public school system especially if it
against the wishes of the parents.
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:45:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Catholic Church & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Ugh.  Steve, try to keep up, okay.  I never said there was something wrong
with the Catholic Church being involved with politics.  I said that tehre
was something wrong with the Catholic Church being involve in Politics
_and_ maintaining tax exempt status.

Now your turn to tell me how Planned Parenthood has been involved in Politics
except through being the target for anti-abortionists wrath.

--Julie
From: ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: flowers and hills and strawberry fields
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:26:30 GMT
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

who was it who sent that post about how he really resented it that he could
no longer tell ribald jokes in the office?
that is nuts.  get a running start and leap into the latter half of the
twentieth century, pal.  if you offend me, i am at least *as* within my
rights to do something about it as you are to make the comment.

gennifer flowers is, according to my friend jim, in penthouse this month.
just thought i'd add that bit of trivia to this discussion (and give jamie
a jumping-off point to reintroduce andrea dworkin to this issue).

it's friday, it's late, and i'm tired.  graduate school is *way* overrated.

anneliese.
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 10:06:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Term Limits
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I have never quite understood the point behind term limits.  It's like
we don't trust ourselves to make good decisions so we limit our decisions
intentionally.  I'd rather see the massive power base which incumbents
establish limited and reduced through more strict rules on lobbying,
PAC donations and use of public office for campaigning purposes.

--Julie
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 08:48:50 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.....
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

Does anyone find it ironic that:

      - The recent proposal for tarriffs on certain EC goods entering the US
comes from the administration of the same president who claims to support
free trade (including NAFTA, Japan trade agreements).

      - The stated reason for the aforementioned tarriffs is the
agricultural subsidies of European (primarily French in this case) farmers
by the government, while the US continues to subsidize the sh*t out of its
own farmers, thus hurting the poor little consumer.


Just some thoughts,

Chris Sloffer

From: SLOFFER CHRIS A               (ENGVAX::GA82428)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet")
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:45:40 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Modest Request

I've been skimming recently, and it's become obvious to me that
I have not been able to sort out the new cast of characters. I think I
know who Paul is now. I don't know who Brett' is. It's not Brett
Feinstein, is it?

Here's my problem.
I don't want to embarass myself. It is perfectly clear that some
new morons have signed on, but also that not all the newcomers
are morons.

My request is this:

If you have signed on recently, please send something in the next couple
of days that clearly indicates your intelligence. If you are one of the
morons, send something moronic. If you are not a moron, send something
intelligent.

I really appreciate this.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:18:24 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: right v left

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

No, actually that's the prevailing classification, as I understand it.  I'd
still like for you to explain why the hard-liners in the USSR do not correspond
to the deep "left" as we in the West use the term.  That was my original claim,
but you seem to be trying to change the subject.

>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.

Which is why I (and virtually everyone else who studies the subject -- all that
I know of at least) place the Reps to the right of Dems but to the left of
Libs.  If the GOP was completely consistent in its limited government ideology,
they would be much further right than they are now.  I never once claimed that
Republicans were perfect libertarians.  You're attacking a position I do not
hold, which seems to be a common MO on this list recently.

Anyway, I stand by my original statement that Reps lie to the right of Dems on
the limited-government spectrum.  If you'd like to attack this, feel free.  You
won't be able to win by distorting arguments, though.

>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.

You don't think that under the Republican vision of the world we'd have a
smaller government that we would under a Democratic vision?  Why?  On net,
don't the Democrats advocate bigger government than the GOP?  I didn't think
you were arguing otherwise, but maybe I just misunderstood your point.  Please
clarify.

>--Julie

Jason
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:24:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Boy, it might be worth nipping on over to Virginia to see if I can
>get some work developing campaign ads for North's opponent...
>
>Imagine the fun one could have with all of that footage (public domain
>no less!) of Ollie North admitting to lying repeatedly to Congress!
>
>>-Paul
>
>-other Andy

        And North could run footage of Robb spying on Governor Wilder,
and bugging his phone.  It will be one hell of a Senate race?  Too
bad, New Jersey will be having a Senate race of its own in 1994, so I
cannot become involved in the Virginian race.

-Paul
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Great Depression - a shorter lecture
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:06:32 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


	From _The Seven Fat Years_, Bartley, page 50-1:

	Efficient market research has demonstrated that the price of an
individual share rises before a split rather than after, so the market would
anticipate rather than follow a catastrophic market interference.  In other
words, the stock market crash on October 29, 1929 can after all plausibly be
associated with the Smoot-Hawley tariff that finally passed eight months later.
Wanniski argued that the crash came when a break in the congressional coalition
made it apparent that a new tariff would not be limited to agriculture, and
traces subsequent market movements in light of the tariff debate.  After
dropping from 298 to 230 in the crash and hitting a November low of 198, the
Dow Jones industrial recovered to 294 on talk of a veto and stood at 244 when
Hovver announced he would sign the bill.  With Smoot-Hawley in effect, the
average fell to 41 a few months before th election of FDR.


	For more recent evidence that markets react to government intervention
in the economy, check out the correlation between Mexican stock market declines
and Perot's speeches emphasizing his willingness to stop US business from going
south.

	On the simplest level, businessmen will pull out money from markets
they feel are about to be limited.

Brett'
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:06:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
> 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
>
	Exactly...  Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannan probably swung more
votes for the Libertarian party than did Andre Marrou.  If the
Republicans can't do something to reclaim the party from these moral
crusaders then I think you'll be seeing some new political parties
emerge in the future elections...  Unfortunately, that would mean that
the Democrats would have their way for a few terms...
					Robert Head
					rhead@s850.mwc.edu
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Oliver North for Senate
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:34:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Well, Paul, it's real good that you can prove NJ is a GOP state, and that you
believe the same is true of Virginia, but it's not ENOUGH in an argument.

I clearly outlined specific examples where I disagreed and showed how VA is, in
fact, nowhere near becoming right-wing.  All you said was - NJ this, NJ that -
and the same goes for VA.  Sorry, *no cigar*.

Virginia:       Leading the South out of Reagan Hell

%-)

-T.
From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: --Steve's assertions, put your money..er,
              terminal where your mouth is
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:39:52 GMT
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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Ok, now that we have been analytical about it all dear Andy, do you mind
>droping this subject.

OK, why don't you pick one out... oh I see you have found something of
more import than the appearance of the President-not-quite-yet-elect's
daughter... (that was a cheap shot as opposed to the calm rational
discussion that provoked your response, I just wanted you to see
the difference...ok?)

> Now, we have more
>important things to talk about....like how our country will sffer for the
>next 4 years under the policies of Govenor Clinton. Care to discuss that instea
   d
>of poking more cheap shots at me?

I keep seeing this assertion (that Clinton's policies are going to send us
to hell in a handbasket) but I have yet to see any reasoned analysis of
Clinton's proposed policies.

Can you support your assertion?

>--Steve

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU