HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:23:35 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 1996

If course you realise that Clinton's election makes it highly unlikely that
Cuomo or Kennedy will ever be President (unless one of them challenges Clinton
in '96)

Predictions for the '96 ticket. Democrats, Clinton/Gore

How about the Republicans. I've heard a lot about Kemp who, as a result of his
emergence after the Riots is seen as a strong,reasonable leader. But will he
wait til 2000 when he doesn't have to run against an incumbent.

Pat Robertson: The Republican's Jesse Jackson. Ran a good race in '88 and set up
a strong grass-roots network this year. Will he run or defer to

Pat Buchanan: Ran a devestating guerilla campaign this year that was perhaps
too successful. Will Buchanan end up getting the blame for Bush's loss by
starting the defection of Bush voters.

Bob Dole: Almost destroyed Bush in '88 by winning in Iowa, will he give it
another shot or is he too old.

J. Danforth Quayle: aides complained that Bush was a drag on a ticket. Came
off as goofy for "potatoe" and Murphy Brown but also consolidated his support
among conservatives. Did not embarrass in last 2 months (a record?), proved to
be good stump campaigner. Three years in exile may help ease memories in '96.
Quayle - Clinton contest would likely be replay of Mondale - Reagan.

David Duke: Hey, the Republicans are moving to the Right. Duke looks good and
is after all the true embodiment of Republican values. At least he's the
logical extension.  (sorry, couldn't resist:)

Rush Limbaugh: He would be interesting.  Crushing loss would shut him up for
once

Pete Williams: Hey, he's got military experience. Besides, he'd be a great
running mate for one of the Pats.

Baker: bruised in 92, may be in the mood by 96

Nixon: tanned, fit, ready. Never did finish that second term.

Dick Cheney: Nice guy, moderate conservative. Heart trouble may disqualify
him.

Shannon Doherty: 90210 should be at the end of it's run by then, she'll be
looking for a new job. Besides, actors have worked out in the past.

Lt. Worf: Will revitalise arms industry and Star Wars in massive drive to have
us bridge missile gap with Romulans. Klingon policy of encouraging old to kill
selves once they outlive their usefulness will cost him votes in Florida, win
him votes in California though.

Homer Simpson: mmmm, White House. May be a bit too bright to be a Republican
candidate.

Gennifer Flowers: Imagine the TV debates!



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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:05:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Linda: Yeah, I kinda liked Costner too.  Unfortuantely, I think the same
goes for Mel Gibson as well.  I know Bruce Willis is right wing, and so
is Kurt Russell.  I'm trying to figure out about Merryl Streep and Golddie
Hawn-- I know Hawn is a born again Christian, but that doesn't mean that
she's lost it altogether.

--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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:27:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The cost of excluding lesbians and gay men from the military
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

"T":

Where do you get teh idea that the lesgay population is under 10%?

Kinsey's research indicates that it is aproximately 10% , and
that the more than 30% of the population is either gay or bi.
The military policy excludes both.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:47:29 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      RE: This "12 years" thing

I can't help being reminded of another revolution that only lasted 12
years.. and that one was supposed to last a thousand. And, like this one,
it was built on the shameful, sordid principle that only the strong deserve
a chance, that those who do not practice hatred of their sisters and brothers
are fools, and deserve destruction. That revolution, too, was built around
lies, cynicism, corruption, a two-tiered system of injustice
(concentration camps for the masses, walking papers for the well-heeled),
and a total disregard for civic responsibility and the rule of law.
  Will Clinton/Gore be able to clean out the Augean stables of 12 years of
"fiscal responsibility" which more than tripled the national debt, made
millionaires of thieves, and destroyed the economic infrastructure? Will
they be able to rebuild the moral character of a nation whose only law
for more than a decade has been "Fuck you, hooray for me?"
Will they be able to encourage the all-important love of learning and
truth in a land that has seen psychopathic frauds such as Falwell,
Robertson, and North in positions of high responsibility instead of strait-
jackets? It won't be easy..
MWM
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 12:39:50 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

You see James, that is just what I and millions of other Americans fear...
Bill Clinton implementing his "revival" policies. The only thing I see him
reviving is high interest rates and infation. Accept his election? Yes.
Stop criticizing his policies and worrying about my future and the future
of this country? A resounding NO!
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:49:15 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Minority President?

>I believe the point Brent was trying to make when he said that if Bush got all
>of Perot's votes he would have won, is that 53% of those who voted did not
>vote for Clinton for one reason or another.  That means that if there were a
>better candidate than Bush, Perot, and Clinton, he or she would gotten more
> votes than Clinton.  If Perot were not in the race, most of the Perot
> supporters
>would have voted for President Bush.

It is my understanding that people, for some time now, more often vote
*against* some candidate, rather than *for* the candidate whose lever was
pressed.  So again, the above is not news.

If the media gave a fair shake to third party candidates, other than Perot
who was able to buy their attention, you would have even more misleading
numbers to work with.  Perhaps Clinton would have won with say 33% of the
vote.

I have to disagree with your assessment of where Perot's votes would have
gone if he had not run.  IMHO, they would have gone out the window.  That
is, some would have gone to other third party candidates, some would have
gone to the incumbent, some would have gone to Clinton, and some would not
have gone at all.  Many of Perot's supporters would not have voted for
either candidate - in my opinion, much of Perot's support was derived from
who he was not, rather than who he was.  People were voting against the
status quo, and against business as usual politics.  This portion of
Perot's supporter were likely to have stayed home on election day.

It is my understanding that the voter turnout this election was higher than
it had been since 1959 (anyone know exactly?) - if that is true, it means
that people pulled themselves out of their easy chairs, in greater numbers
than they had for thirty years, to vote the incumbent out of office.  Not
to vote Clinton in, IMHO, but to vote the incumbent out.

If this is true, no amount of scratching your head over the percentages
is indicative of anything.

>--Rich

Steve R.

You know, Marrou got only a single mention, in all of the election season,
in the Baltimore Sun.  It was a little piece on third party candidates in
general and the extract in the center of the article in large letters said:
"Marrou, a real estate developer from Las Vegas, wants to legalize drugs,
prostitution, and gambling."  The article contained no additional detail.
Without explaining the libertarian position, even just a little bit, they're
mention caused Marrou to look like an idiot.  Sheesh.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:33:25 CST
From:         Kip Shaw <KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      The National Review

I used to enjoy reading The National Review for a while.
However, when they caricatured the now President-elect's teen on
the cover page of a recent past issue, the stock of the right took
a dive in the opinion of many who sit on the center fence.
The facts presented in the NR are still enjoyable but the magazine is now
for all practical purposes far to the right, too far right to be comfortable.
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:20:40 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Well, Jason, your argument about "floating interest-free loans" holds no water,
>either; all the Members of the Bank, when signing on, agreed to such a service
 -
>and the money came from THEIR ACCOUNTS.  No taxpayer money went to "float"
>these loans.  It was something they all shared in, and NEVER had a problem
>with.
>-T.

	And who is it that pays the salaries of House members?

	Oops.

	So, in effect, taxpayers gave House members interest free loans.  No
*additional* money went to the House members, but when the local paper showed
what ordinary folks like you and I would have had to pay in overdraft fines and
bad check fees, it came to almost $52,000 for the worst offenders.

	And *that's* what pissed people off.

Brett'
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:42:58 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      family values -- debunking
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Neat article in the 4 November _Chronicle of Higher Ed_ on new scholarship
on families.  One of the new "family scholars", Sephanie Coontz, claims
that "Family is a huge receptacle right now for combining race and class
stereotypes with the comfortint idea that theyire *not* race and class
stereotypes" and "There is no one family form that has ever protected
people from poverty or social disruption, and no traditional arrangement
that provides a workable model for how we might organize family
relations in the modern world."

Some of the "myths" Coontz and others have addressed (bibliography to
follow :)) include the myth of traditional family self-sufficiency (Coontz
says that the suburban family of the '50's was deeply dependent on such
government "handouts" as artifically low interest rates for home mortgages,
tax breaks, and highways to the suburbs -- subsidies that the working-class
and inner-city poor contributed to but didn't benefit from); the myth of
abstinence and deferral of sexual gratification (teen pregnancy rates were
higher in the 50's than before or since -- it's just that teenaged women
could afford to get married and stay home with the kids); the myth that
child abuse, child neglect, incest, and family violence stem from a recent
breakdown in family structure (studies from 1880 to 1960 indicate these
aren't new problems).

Sounds pretty interesting.  If anyone's read more on this, I'd like to hear
what y'all think.  Some books mentioned in the article are:
   Coontz.  1988.  _The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of
American Families, 1600-1900_  Verso.
   ______.  1992.  _The Way We Never Were:  American Families and the
Nostalgia Trap_.  BasicBooks.
   May, 1988.  _Homeward Bound: American Famlies in the Cold War Period._
BasicBooks.
     Gordon, 1988.  _Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of
Family Violence._  Viking.

Later :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:48:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Steve and "studies"

Steve:

        When you are going to mention som
                                         ething about "studies prove this"
you MUST reference the specific study.  It does no good to simply say "The
findings prove it.  Trust me."  We must at least hear the name of the research-
er, if not more details about the "study".  It does your argument a disservice,
and it just sounds reckless.

        BTW, that study you mentioned - the one about children raised by homo-
sexual parents - which one was that, exactly?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Test - am I coming through to the list?
Thanks.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:12:39 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I'm not a poor loser.  I can't wait for Clinton to screw up and those who voted
 for him to start to cry.  I'll say, "Told you so."  Don't come crying to me
'cause I didn't vote for him.
Rich
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 13:14:49 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill

>Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and that's
not something I take lightly.

Well Julie that not something I take lightly either. If it was a crime, why
didn't she take it through the judicial system?  That is were we deal with
serious crime. But then again purgury is a serious crime also maybe that's
the reason. I think that this is something that should be investigated more
to find out which is lying. I think that maybe you won't like the outcome.

--mike.....
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 22:19:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RE:Catholic Tradition
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul:

I've said multiple times that I don't have any interest in changing
the Catholic Church's internal functions.  My interest is in assuring
that they do not impose _their_ morality on _me_.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:54:37 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      BCEPC and Use/Mention

From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>


>it must be a pleasure to live in a country where people can tell
>the difference between symbols and the things they represent.
>i wonder how people get the two so mixed up?

It's very common in logic, actually. I'll keep an eye out for
examples.

Speaking of logic:
Richard Fyfe is, unsurprisingly, the leading contender
for this week's Homo Logicus award. There's still time, though.

=========
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

>I erred, please forgive me.

>When I claimed the B.C. was one of the more extreme examples of
>political correctness, I meant C.E. (Common Era).  I mis-typed.

Ah.
Let's see. Larry someone complained, in one of the least
coherent posts to the list to date, about all kinds of
PC people who were forcing him to use certain words.

Duncan Constable (forgive me, dear boy, I suspect I've mispelled
your name AGAIN) complained that the word "chair" used to designate
a person was a PC instigation.
He was completely wrong.

Now Paul tells us that "C.E." is also a PC replacement.

Wrong again.

As Jonathan has explained, "B.C.E." is a Jewish usage. No doubt
some people can't understand why Jews prefer not to think of the
birth of Jesus as the beginning of time, but it has nothing
much to do with the make-believe of P.C. oppression.

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 11:38:34 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes

>I was just wondering if somebody might have some stats on how much the
>government subsidizes farmers and to whom the money goes; in particular
>I am wondering if Bush's activism on this issue has more to do with
>Archer Daniels Midland than your average small farmer.

The government subsidizes agriculture so that small farmers make *just* enough
money to survive.  They still can't prosper, but the subsidies keep them from
getting out of farming all together.

Of course, the real beneficiaries of these subsidies (particuraly price
supports) are the owners of larger operations who would have made a pretty good
living anyway, such as ADM.  What a great system.

>-other Andy

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:27:43 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 <01GQV8G6P5IO002FR0@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
 > 
 >         I do not know whether or not you are Catholic, but this is not
 > an internal issue.  The Church is not debating ths issue, people
 > outside the church are bringing up the issue, and I know you may
 > believe this to be healthy.  However, the Catholic Church has
 > traditions that go back to 300 A.D. and does not have to change for
 > political reasons.  If one disapproves of a church then leave the
 > church, don't try to reform it.  Martin Luther left.

This kind of statement can be a little misleading for it implies that
[all] church policies date back to 300 C.E. which is simply not true.  Most
Catholic church policies are reletivly (politically that is) recent.  For
example the present church stand against pre-natal (as opposed to post-
natal) abortion dates back only to 1861.

Secondly, the Catholic church has had many reformers who remained part of
the church and sucessfully changed it of whom it is quite proud.  Or are you
suggesting otherwise?

						Andrew MacRae
						
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:30:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      The legality of the income tax (was RE: Churches and Tax Exempt
              Status)

        Julie poses an interesting question:

>Another thing-- I actually may look this up today when I get to
>campus if I have a chance between schoolwork-- but I am curious
>about something:  Is federal income tax legal?  I was listening
>to a talk show a few months ago which talked about the taxax code
>and questioned the Federal Government's right to levy taxes on
>personal income-- the idea was that PROFITS are taxable, but not
>income. . . .

        The text of Amendment XVI (1913), US Constitution:

        "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
        incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment
        among the several States, and without regard to any census or
        enumeration."

        Hope that helps.

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:55:34 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

In article <01GQYIMF9F489OF8I9@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>,
8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE) says:
>
>>Why is it the right that often seems more prone to undermine democracy to
>get their way?
>
>Is this just in America that we are taking or is it a more world wide view?
>If it is world wide. I'm sure we could pick out one or two cases were the lefta
>   re equally if not more guilty. The soviet union maybe and it was the       n
>America
>right that brought democracy there.
>--mike..

While you were "bringing democracy" to the USSR (don't tell Gorby that, he'll
be quite hurt) you were taking it away from Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador,
not to mention the alleged interference with an Australian election in the
early 70s, Italian elections from the 40s to the 70s, French elections in
the 40s and 50s etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:24:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Churches and Tax Exempt Status
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

Kat-- you are missing my point.  In order for an organization to attain
tax exempt status it must NOT be a political organizations or take
political positions.  It can take _moral_ positions, but not political.
So it's okay for the Catholic Church to feel that homosexuality is
a mortal sin, but not okay for the Church to make a policy statement
about legislation which involves gay rights (or anything else for
that matter!).

That is why the Red Cross and the Salvation Army can be tax-exempt
but ACt-Up can not, in theory, since we attempt to influence the
political scheme of things, whereas the Red Cross and the Salvation
Army, in theory, do not attempt to influence legislation.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:16:00 EDT
From:         JONES@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: over population

Something tells me that some of the discussion on the list has begun
to violate one of the main guidelines about keeping issues relating
to religion off a POLITICAL Discussion List.

I personally have nothing against the discussion, but I do remembering
reading the rules when I first subscribed to the list.

Others might take note that there are probably readers from several
different faiths on the list.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU