HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BLIPS15@BROWNVM.BITNET (Howard Pasternack)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flowers and Hill
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:45:51 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Posted on 5 Nov 1992 at 12:26:49 by Song Weaver
>
>Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and
>that's not something I take lightly.
>
 Sorry, but Anita Hill did not accuse Thomas of a serious crime. At the
 time the alleged events took place, she had no grounds for filing
 criminal charges, serious or otherwise.
 All she could have done was file charges with the
 office within her agency responsible for handling such things.
 If her charges were accepted as true, Thomas would have been reprimanded.
 At the worst, he might have been fired.  But he could not have been
 prosecuted.
 She also could have filed a personal lawsuit against Thomas.

 At the time Hill made the charges public, the gist of her complaint was
 the same as Flowers -- that Thomas was unsuited to serve because of
 his character.  With Flowers it was adultery; with Hill it was sexual
 harassment.
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan Fisher))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:27:03 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Change will be the key word of this administration:  It will be all that is
> left in your pocket when Clinton\Gore are through.  Remember who you voted for
> this election, if you can honestly say that Clinton has made your life better
> in 4 years and our country is in a much better position, then you voted
> wisely.  If you see in 4 years that you voted stupidly and made a mistake,
> then you deserve it.  My candidate didn't win, but I can say that my conscious
> won't bother me when Clinton screws us all, and that includes the rest of the
> world too.
>                                             JAYCE
>
> "CLINTON MAY HAVE WON, BUT AMERICA LOST"
>

That's the spirit.  Trying to bring people together huh Jayce?  Just like
Bush!  And the word is conscience, something you obviously don't have.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:06:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Dear Brett':

        No, there would NOT have been "bounced check fees", since NO CHECKS
WERE BOUNCED!!!

        Geesh, this is getting sickening!  Enough with this!  I'm here to
learn and debate, not TUTOR!


%-}  Somewhat weary -

-T.
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: 1996
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:48:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <9211101911.AA16761@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>,         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
 > CA Gov. Pete Wilson (there's a SF-area TV "newscaster" with the same
 > name) can't even rely on a majority of Repubs.  The only thing that
 > can change that is a "greater evil".  He'll lose in 94 if the Demos
 > nominate someone that the Repubs don't vehemently hate.  I expect
 > Feinstein to take him on again, as her senate term will be up then and
 > the Demos may be silly enough to think that taking him out will help
 > in 96.  Feinstein may be disliked enough to "save" Wilson (she was in
 > 90), but is making a serious move to change that.

There is almost zero chance of Feinstein quitting the Senate to run
against Wilson for governor again.  She has already begun her re-election
campaign - that began on November 4th.  She is being sworn in this week
(as opposed to January as are the other newly elected members) since she
is filling a vacated seat.  This will make her senior to the others, including
Boxer.

In the last couple of days I have heard two names floated as possible
Democratic challengers to Wilson (in addition to the perenial candidate
Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy).  They are current state treasurer Kathleen Brown
Daughter of Pat and sister of Jerry, and Delaine Eastin, the state assembly
member who managed to come out of the budget fiasco with some credibility.

The big question in my mind is who will be running for senate against
Feinstein?  Campbell sounds tired of politics, Hershonson (sp?) came close
against Boxer but wouldn't have a chance against Feinstein.  Perhaps
Peter Uberoth?

I foresee the California governorship race and Feinstein's senate race
in '94 as a major focus for both parties.  Can you imagine the hoots and
hollers if the Governor and both senators from California were women?

						Andrew MacRae
						
parties.
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Acceptable Behavior
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:29:29 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>

>
> Roger,
>   I, too, am outraged over someone talking about killing Clinton and Gore.
> Like it or not, they were elected President and Vice President.  We have
> to work with them to make this country better.  If they don't meet our
> expectations, we have the chance to vote them out in 1996.
>   I always feel a little sad this time of year because I remember a
> young, vibrant President who was murdered at the peak of his life.  I
> hope this doesn't happen again.  It would be a tragedy.
>
> Evelyn Duncan
>
	As much as I would like to see Clinton and Gore fail miserably,
I realize (as apparently some Bush supporters do not) that the important
thing is the future of the United States.  Although I feel that
Clinton's economic policies will not work, I sincerely wish them well
and find it disgusting that anyone would want the country to go downhill
or even JOKE about killing the President.

						Robert Head
						rhead@s850.mwc.edu
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 15:41:11 -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

>        Fair enough - and apologies for the inadvertent stereotype!
>
	As a supply-sider, I'm often confused with conservative Republicans :).

	I hope someone will tap me with the reality hammer if start to do the
same thing.

Brett
(I noticed there is another Brett on this list, should I differentiate?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:29:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Politics and Celebrities

Ron Silver, the actor, founded a group called the Creative Coalition to bring
more artists and celebs into the active political process. It leans heavily to
the left, although they were VERY supportive of Clinton this time around.

Bruce Willis was on the stump with Bush this year.  Maybe it was just me, but it
seemed like there were less celebs all over the place in the campaign than in
previous years.

I remember Sinatra recording JFK's theme song in 1960 -

"K-E-double N-E-D-Y, Jack's the nation's fav-o-rite guy
Anyone knows that Jack..." etc to the tune of "High Hopes".

Sorry for the transgression.  Can't think of any more this year.  It's late.
Hope I was helpful.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:08:47 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A Moronic Joke!
              11 Nov 1992 12:11:32 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

> Say, we exiled our recent list morons, or as our list president
> would say, village idiots, to a more appropriate list.  Say, we
> exile them to USAloveitorleaveit-L, what would happen to the
> average IQ of POLITICS and that list?

> --KAT (yet another interesting average problem)

The IQ of both lists will be drastically increased.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:11:17 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pats & Libertarians

>	At the risk of opening up an argument which is already going on
>in Libernet, let me say that I do not believe that it would be against
>the Libertarian beliefs to accept the federal matching funds.  The
>argument made by Libertarians who are more concerned with ideological
>purity than with achieving results is that no one should be coerced into
>having his or her money spent in a way which they do not approve of.
>But when we pay taxes to support the Federal Election Commission (or
>whoever it is that gives out the money), our money is going to be used
>for political campaigns anyway, so the money would only be "stolen" if
>it were given to a candidate that we do not approve of.  So why not let
>the Libertarians "liberate" our tax dollars by spending them in a way
>that us Libertarians would like to have them spent, i.e. getting
>Libertarian candidates elected.  I believe that accepting federal
>matching funds is not only consistant with the Libertarian philosophy,

  It's been a while since I read the LP platform, but the purpose of
government is to protect us and our rights.  Government shouldn't be
in the business of financing campaigns, so matching funds is not
consistent with libertarian philosophy.  One of the things I respect
about the LP is that their actions match their rhetoric.  Bush spouted
alot of rhetoric that mirrors LP stances, but there is a chasm between
his talk and his actions, so I couldn't vote for him.  If the LP
abandons it's principals, even temporarily, then they become no better
than the Demopublicratcan parties.  By not accepting FMF the LP causes
less drain on the funds, avoids "stealing" from the taxpayers, and
adheres to it's principals, which speaks volumes about their character.
    toddddddddddd
>						Robert Head
>						rhead@s850.mwc.edu

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I don't like to rely on
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   lawyers.  All they do is
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    take my money." - D. TRUMP
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:01:48 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
              5 Nov 1992 03:06:15 GMT from <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

From:         "(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)" <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

> 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.

Personally I am not too concerned about those people who say,
"Just because she's a woman she is qualified to be a judge."
However, I am terribly worried about those people who do not
SAY "She is not qualified to be a judge JUST because she is
woman" but still believe in/act upon it.

At any rate, two minor points:  Anita Hill is a lawyer -- that
should count for SOMETHING -- and if I am not wrong, Chief Justice
Renqiust (sp?) was not a judge either.

> Jayce

--KAT
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 10:03:12 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I've know that Costner, Schwarzenegger and Selleck are long time right-
>wingers and that Redford, Sarandon and Goldberg are quite left-leaning and
>all have been politically active from time to time.  I'm wondering if any
>of you know of any others who are out there.  I know BB King played at
>--Julie

	Clint Eastwood: libertarian (small l because I don't think he is a
registered member of the party).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:39:54 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Statistical Hash

>Product.  A dropping in GNP leads to several factors, lower

It's really amazing what affects GNP/GDP.  For example, marrying one's
housekeeper reduces it.  It goes up when a company spins off a
division even if there's no other change in the economic performance
of the aggregate.  (The increase is determined by the "internal"
consumption of that division's output.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Pat Buchannan
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:38:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I actually met up with some Buchannan supporters when I was in Manchester
with ACT-UP/RI (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, Rhode Island Chapter)
for a rally.  I had my "Silence=Death" T-Shirt, which is basically a
black shirt with a pink triangle on it, for those of you who haven't
seen the logo.  There was a group of them outside our bus when we pulled
up and I had to run back to the bus to drop something off and one of
them spotted my t-shirt.  He referred to me as an "AIDS Candidate" and
compared me to Jeffrey Dahmer.  I guess that some ACt-Up members from
other states actually were outside the Buchannan Headquarters and things
got really ugly-- no violence (I dunno what would have happened wihtout
the police being there though) but some very confrontational happenings.

I found the homophobic attitudes of Buchannan's people enlightening
however.  He seems to rely on hate as a primary motivational force and
not much else.  I'm saddened to see people with attitudes like his
because it's so shallow and foolish and does us all more harm than
good.  I wish people would just grow up and stop looking for scapegoats.

--Julie
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:47:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: What a flat tax isn't
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Ok, now that we've got the terminology clear:
>
>I like the basic idea of drastically simplifying income tax. The
>president and/or Congress pretend to do it every once in a while (most
>recent example was Reagan), but it never gets simpler.
>
>Perhaps Paul will approve of my idea (or really Andy Freeman's) of
>eliminating income tax altogether. Instead, the fed just prints more
>money. Get rid of the IRS. Save billions on collection expenses. Save
>huge headaches and harassment for taxpayers (former taxpayers).
>I don't know how to make it progressive. I have a couple of ideas.
>
>Jamie

 Nothing would give me more pleasure than having the income tax
eliminated, and exterminate the IRS.  The Federal Gov't (or states for
that matter) have the right to punish hard work by taking away some of
our income.
 However, about the Fed printing more money, I am somewhat
apprhensive, this could lead to horrible inflation.  Albeit, programs
should be cut drastically to make up for this tax revenue loss, or the
gov't. can impose a consumption tax (I have heard some economists
talking of only consumption taxes).
 Maybe one day we will live in a society free of income tax.  I hope.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:57:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 1996

>Well, there goes the east coast if he bursts; after all he is just
>about the most pustulent senator in Washington (aside from Orrin Hatch).

>B)

>>--Julie

>-other Andy

eeewwww. god, guys, i'm getting a bit queasy. could we refrain from pustulating
on such deeply ingrown subjects lest we find ourselves trapped in swollen
circumcisions and need to incise the festering boil of our constipated lives or
suffer the consequences of incontinence.
                ***************

veterens day (formerly armistice day)/remembrance day beer countdown starts
promptly at noon.
hey man, if the banks can close, we can drink beer on a wednesday (did anyone
ever find out if wednesday is politically correct or just the name of a day?
                ****************

what is the meaning of wednesday.....jess asked me that last night....i said,
i dunno, maybe people used to get married only on wed-nesday's? he didn't think
this was a likely definition.

-linda (just thinking outloud - er - typing outloud?)
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Gayfolk in the Military & Executive Orders
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:37:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

The order prohibiting non-heterosexuals from serving in the military
is an executive order to begin with, so all Clinton has to do ito
revoke it.

Executive orders are confusing.  I'm not sure how they work either, and I
doubt that either Congress or the President have a full grasp.

--Julie
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 12:47:25 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

The Oregon law does NOT represent the correct attitudes of those who
oppose homosexuality. It merely represents a small, radical wing of the
group. What strikes me as funny is why Oregon of all places would
consider that law. Oregon, for the most part, has generally been liberal over
the last decade or so. It seems such a law would have first begun in a
place such as Utah or in the New England states rather than in Oregon.
However, the point is that we who oppose homosexuality have no "fear"
or "hatred" of homosexuals. To the contrary, we very well respect them as
people and honor them as human beings. What we hate is the choices they
make. Hate the choice, NOT the chooser.
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 13:21:14 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)

(I love having a Democrat in the whitehouse)

Almost as much as I like having my pocket picked.

--mike....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan Fisher))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:30:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> In article <01GQQUCWK24G00034O@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,
> JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
> .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.
> >
> >--Julie
> >
> 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.
>                                     Jayce
>

Again, Jayce opens mouth inserts foot.  How about there have a been a good
number of excellent Supreme Court Justices that were not judges.

Try to get your facts straight.  And not let your obvious bias intrude.
Fat chance!

Jonathan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:12:57 GMT

ASTMOLLI@STETSON.BITNET writes:
>LET JAYCE SPEAK.  FINALLY THERE IS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING
>ABOUT.  LET'S HOPE WE CAN MAKE IT THROUGH THESE FOUR MISARABLE YEARS.
>MARSHALL

Oh, by all means, let's let Jayce speak.  (I didn't realize that
anyone was stopping him, but hey...)  Jayce: please speak!  Your
audience awaits.

*eyes rolled*

--Jimbo