HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:57:57 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 23, 93 8:47 pm

>
> Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU> wrirtes:
> > >    pcs$1703@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU from Southeastern Louisiana University writes:


> > >
> > > > For a informative view on politics listen to Rush Limbaugh on the
> > > > AM dial.
> > >
> > >     Golly, what an informative opinion from an anonymous-chicken-shit-brai

n-
> > >
>  dead-non-thinking-zombie-like-drooling-over-another-radio-broadcasting-drooli

n
> > g-
> > > slob.   Pretty typical of the audience, I believe.
> > >     Anything else you like to inform us of, oh, holy of holies, oh master
> > > of anonymousness?
> >
> > Little harsh now, don't ya think? Maybe Rush and his audience are slightly
> > maladjusted/brain dead  but golly Goob, let's not get carried away (you migh

t
> > just be flaming a bit here.....sounds like fighting words.....the 1st won't
> > protect this sort speech.
>
>     Um, sue me, Gomer.
>

I'm not the litigative type. Besides, I don't want to DEFEND Rush, frankly he
makes my skin crawl.

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:14:22 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

>From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

Puny Apparatchik,

You are right that it is unlikely that the House would impeach
a President in the midst of wartime. But they can impeach him
later!

>1) You can ask them to leave. No one has the power to fire a Supreme.

What's the deal here, Dave? Congress has the power to fire a Supreme.
Impeachment again. You don't like impeachment, huh?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:23:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Clinton's balls

BTW what has 48 million legs, 187 million handguns, and no conscience?

I believe they call themselves the Christian New Right.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:31:46 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Al Gore

Hi, y'all:
Dunstan (*not* Duncan :)) wrote:

>After all the talk from GHWB about Al Gore being My Ozone, can we
>expect a more positive approach from the new administration to global
>environmental concerns ?

Looks that way to me.  I wonder if we'll sign on to the Biodiversity
convention now?  I'd like to see that, personally.  At the very least, I'm
really hopeful that we'll see an end to the "jobs vs. environment" talk,
reform of the regulatory process (so that the science/policy that goes into
a piece of legislation is still intact at the end of the process), and
funding and enforcement of "environmental" laws.  When I enter the twilight
zone, I also fantasize about things like replacing the Endangered Species
Act with an Endangered Habitats Act, changes in forest policy, more funding
for basic research, and all that jazz.

Kerry
"just a cockeyed optimist"
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 20:59:10 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe

Steve (I think; I'm losing track of who said what):

I am puzzled by the attempt on this list to demonize Senators for their
questions.  It was said here that they were "fascinated" by the
child care issue, an accusation I do not understand.

I watched what seemed an inordinate amount of this Q & A session, and
what I saw was Carol Moseley Braun asking the same question at least
15 times.  She seemed quite obsessed with the idea that Ms. Baird did
not sit down with her help and discuss what was going on *with the
children*.  Ms. Baird's strange reply (again, given numerous times,
and not getting any better each time) was that she and her husband had
made a concerted effort not to "get lost in the details of all that."
She said she had seen friends of hers become inundated with the
"little things," like "who's got a soccer match today and when does
the laundry have to be done" (I'm not kidding; she actually said this.)
She and her husband had decided that they would discuss "bigger issues"
when dealing with the nanny.  I'm not fond of CMB, but I understand her
puzzlement.  I can't imagine what this woman's idea of child rearing
might be, but it seemed very weird.

At any rate, it didn't seem to me that the questioning was all that
difficult, and Ms. Baird just didn't have the guts to stick it out.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The longest line
             contained 0 characters
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:06:11 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              25 Jan 1993 15:49:13 EDT from Hank Griffeth
              <hgriffe@MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: RE:Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/25/93 14:53

>Robert:

>Did you ever think that Sears is having its problems based on hat happened
>during George (who cares long as I have my money) Bush?  Granted the

No.

>economy's problems weren't based totally on Bush administration fiscal
>policy, but he was president at the time.  Why don't you give Bill a chance
>and not try to determine the outcome of his administration less than three
>weeks into it.
>Hank Griffeth

It seems a tad inconsistent for you to suggest that Billy should not be blamed
for something that happened during his watch.  While some of our fellow listers
are more than ready and eager to suggest that he should get credit for the
rising economy that he inherited from Bush.

The Sears action, at least to me, is a more accurate measure of Billy's
influence on the business environment.  What better way to prepare for an
onslaught of higher taxes and deepening government interference, than to
shed facilities and personnel?

---Robert
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 20:49:20 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Brett!

>         Yes! Let's appoint some qualified people to the Supreme Court.... the
> best 9 jurists in the nation... Like the Governor of New York, for example.
> How can you sack an SC justice?

1) You can ask them to leave. No one has the power to fire a Supreme.

2) You can wait by the back entrance with an Uzi under your coat.
   I'd watch out for the security guards, however.

(For informational purposes only. Do not try this at home.)

> Tpby


From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:07:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      "czar" lose happy pill ?

Jamie,

The logic czar !  You make me blush.

Hate to repeat (this has a lot with why you and I don't communicate
too well), but ...

Continue your readings of condensed Court cases and bend and stretch
the original issue at will.

I am - as WELL advertised - silently, meticulously collecting a nice
little list of cites for you.  They will all be presented at once. I
will walk you through step by step since multiple arguments and issue
s seem to throw you off a bit.  Maybe I will be kind enough to give
you page and line numbers for all of them too.  I'm not sure you will
be able to reference things with you 7-11 guide to the Supreme Court,
but I am sure that you will do the best that you can.

In the meantime, enjoy impressing others with your surface argumenta-
tion.  I am slow, german, like to be thorough.

And, if you like, rest in your odd belief that the time spent in a
well researched answer is evidence in and of itself that you have
shown someone to be completely wrong !  Ha Ha Ha!

                          Ha! Ha! Ha!

                    Ha! Ha! Ha!

            Ha! Ha! Ha!

 The LOGIC czar !!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Ho! Ho! Ho!

                    Hardy Harr Harr !

 with all DUE respect,

P.S.Ruckman, Jr.
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 11:38:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> In Los Angeles, arms were broken, pregnant women were punched,
> and people arrested were strip-searched and molested.
>
> In Buffalo, ministers were beaten up.  One had lit cigarettes ground
> into his skin by counter-protesters.  Also, men and women kneeling
> for prayer were screamed at and beaten.
>
> In Cleveland 2 years ago, two women were run over by a 4-wheel drive.
> Deliberately.
>
> In Wichita, beer bottles were thrown from speeding cars at 12-year old
> kids.
>
> Don't quote news reports at me.  I was there.  This is my research,
> and my field of expertise.  If you want to argue facts, fine.

Fine.  If you say that you personally observed these things happening,
I'll take your word for it.

I also say that anyone who does such things should be locked up like
the common criminals they are.

But are you willing to hold your own side to the same standard?

Best,
Peter

> --NINAR Kerry
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 22:38:28 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      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.

> 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
> 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.

Of course, he uses "Friends of Bill" because "Friends of Clinton"
TLA's into, FOC, already used by the Friends of Carlotta.

B)

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:20:03 -0500
From:         Ude Eko <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

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.

>
>
I support your call for more circumstantial evidence from Rufus Firefly,
concerning the radio program.
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 12:10:44 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I gave a bunch of questions, Brett' gave some answers, but missed the
>point.  Saying the average height of a man is 5'9" tells me something.
>Saying Bill Clinton is slightly taller than the average man (even
>without disclosing the previous statistic) tells me *something*.  Saying
>Bill Clinton is the 48th tallest man in DC tells me nothing, since I
>have no clue about the heights of the 47 taller men.

        But if it's out of 50 people, then you know that Bill is among the
tallest in DC.
        Similarly, we know that Ark. is one of the worst, since it is 47th out
of 50th.  No, we don't know how Ark is doing otherwise, but knowing that it is
one of the worst is sufficient to dispel any "education miracles" hype.

...
>I apologize if I offended anyone.  On this list I'm often confronted
>with misconceptions about homosexuality, drug abuse, civil liberties, and
>many other things.  I (perhaps errantly) assumed that the abilities of
>women were among them.  Or, as my friend and off-beat-but-hillariously-
>erudite comedian Brian Waylan said in an unusually misogynistic moment,
>"I believe the world would be a better place if it was run by women.
>I think women should be in charge of everything.  Of course I don't
>think they should be paid as much...."

        Or almost the same speech in "Key West" (by the newspaper publisher)
followed by "get me some more coffee, will you?" to his female assistant.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:51:00 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe

Hi again :)
Robert Kelly wrote:

> Mrs Baird would
> have been a great Attorney General.  Yet the poltics of our time has scared he
   r
> reputation.  This was positively the Republican reaction to the Tower
> confermation and the peoples lack of knowledge for the law.

From all I've heard, her resignation (or withdrawal, or whatever) was *not*
orchestrated by Republicans (of course, I'm not a big conspiracy theorist).
According to CNN (or was it ABC???), the move away from approval began with
Southern Democrats.  And their move was in response to a pretty substantial
public outcry (NPR reported that Diane Feinstein's office received 1500
phone calls against and 33 for her approval).  Now, I suppose it's possible
that the Republicans orchestrated said public outcry.  I dunno.  I'd sure
like to know exactly why so many folks took this *particular* issue so
seriously.  I mean, I know it's serious, but why didn't we see this kind of
response to (fill in the blank with your favorite scandal or whatever)?

Are the suggestions to date correct?  Is it because she's wealthy, because
she should have hired a full citizen, because she should have been home
baking cookies?  Would so many folks have been so upset had she been male?
Or are people really and truly astonished and dismayed that a potential AG
did something illegal (she said it wasn't a crime -- I don't know the
correct terminology).  What do y'all think?

Kerry
glad the countdown's started
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:45:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: class discussion

>Go ahead, blame Bush if you need to.  It's just like a liberal to blame
>a man that's not in a position to defend himself. :)




FINALLY!  A conservative admits that George Bush's unconscionable
actions as President are indefensible!



-T.
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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:23:24 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Saint Richard
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >      Nixon's crime was not Watergate (Break-in, etc.) but his
attempt to > >cover it up and prevent prosecution(s).

Two points on this issue:
    1. Normally, when a person does something acting upon the advice
of all of his advisors/attorneys, that fact is taken into
consideration.  It was not in Nixon's case.
    2. From the Republican Party's point of view, what else could be
done?  The break-in was NOT authorized by them, but if it ever came
out, the media would definitely attribute it to them-- thus ruining
the President in public opinion.  Frankly, they took the gamble
between definitely ruining the President and probably ruining the
President--- and lost.


>         While I didn't say anything about this (after all, it's no crime to
> bug yourself) it is true FDR and Kennedy did it, though nothing's
> ever come out about Truman, Eisenhower, or Johnson...  Anyway,

Wrong.  LBJ had the most extensive bugging system of any President.
(Talk about paranoid?)  He had bugging systems underneath the beds in
the family living quarters, and could had the waiting room rigged so
he could hear what people were saying just before they came in to see
him.  In fact, when moving out of the White House, much of this
equipment was left there-- to be found by Richard Nixon.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:43:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform

Christian says:                                                                e
r

>  Suspecting that President Clinton relys on the first lady
to
>  produce an implemantable report, how will she be held liable.  What if the
>  report is not up to standards, what will the President's options be.

I'm sure the report will be up to Pres. Clinton's "standards" :-).

I'm concerned about the variety of approaches that will be considered.
Given what I see as the Clintons' "more government is better" mindset,
I doubt that individualized/private market solutions will get much
attention.  IMO, one of the major reasons health care costs so much
is that hardly anyone is spending his/her own money: thus there are
few incentives to economize.

Was any timetable given as to when a report would be issued? I don't
quite understand why another study is needed, it seems dozens have been
done by a variety of groups. Wasn't Clinton going to move in the first
100 days on this issue? Not that I'm unhappy he's slowing down....

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: 7-11,Commandments
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:42 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93012713295588@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,    
     Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes...
>Is it okay to have public school kids do Yoga?  How about magic
>circles?  Is it religious or not religious to include visualization,
>spirit guides, and hypnosis in classroom exercises?

I don't think these meet the usual definition of religion.

>Where do you draw the line between an opinion and a *religious* opinion?
>The SC ruled that "secular humanism" is a religion (and thus,
>protectable under the first amendment).  However, most modern teaching
>strategies operate under the assumptions of that religion.

The allegation that the Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion
is a complete red herring and a misstatement.  I do not know the case in
question, but I am aware that the "ruling" was in a footnote to a rarely cited 
dissent to an otherwise forgotten case.  That does not have the force of law
in any meaning of the word.

And, as most so-called secular humanists point out, they never have claimed or
attempted to claim any definition of secular humanism; all of the putative
assumptions have been linked to the "religion" by their opponents.  

>So now what?

So, it's irrelevant.

							Dan, ad nauseum
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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:18:12 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> Rush is not a "conservative political analyst"; he is an "entertainment
> personality."  If you are to construe (and, I think, wrongly) anything
> about Rush's influence, you must look at _entertainment_, not politics.
> Even the most hardcore Rush fan (if indeed at that level we're still
> dealing with sentient human beings) would have to admit that he neither
> influences policy nor personal ideals.
>
> He makes money by preying on the fears and ignorances of the huddled
> masses.  He doesn't sway people - hit hits on their pre-existing prejudices,
> and makes them feel good about their otherwise socially-impugned values.
>

How does Rush Limbaugh's political discussion fall into the category
of entertainment?  I find it highly hypocritical for one in this
forum to categorize Rush Limbaugh as entertainment unless the speaker
is willing to admit that this entire forum is dedicated to the same
purpose that Limbaugh's television, radio, and literary messages are.
On this forum, speakers simply say whatever they wish, which is then
criticized or supported by other list members.  As far as I know,
Limbaugh advocates the same principles-- that his message is right
(in his opinion, of course) and he is willing to debate others on a
logical and statistical level (with evidence) to prove that his point
is the more logical one.
    It would seem that T. CLARK chooses to castigate Mr. Limbaugh
based on personal biases against his viewpoints.  Such action only
lowers the position of the speaker in this POLITICAL discussion.
Unless of course this IS, indeed, Entertainment...

--STAN JACOBS
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      bang your head
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:42 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GTVSSZEOSG8WW29X@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,     
    bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET> writes...
>I've got
>a busy day of doing whatever it is the virtual vice president does, and need
>my sleep. . . . 

Come on.  We all know the job's not worth a bucket of warm virtual spit.

							Dan, ad nauseum 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU