HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:50:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Jim Baker

>   well, first off, his "leaving" might be in name only. the mideast


rufus,

i heard on the news that baker was close to tears when he resigned his post to
take over the campaign. doesn't sound like a reaction to have if your leaving
"in name only".

i think he was forced to go over his objections. maybe he's one of the few with
priorities?? or maybe not.

-linda

ps. hey...do you think i should change my routine? should i have wine tonight or
go w/the usual? which is better for you breath?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:33:35 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Low education = low skill level?
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

I wasn't trying to pigeonhole anyone by saying those persons necessarily
goofed off and now are paying the price (along with society, unable to
tap their potential).

So how does society get kids to work in school?  Is it really like
many of the commercials encouraging parents to take a stronger role?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:52:15 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More on rights

> Homosexual behaviors are, definitionally, sexual activity between
> two (or more) people of the same gender.

And all these times I have been hugging my close male
friends in public.

--KAT :-)
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Fiscal efficiency & responsibility
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:52:46 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

My mother (a moderate) commented to me on her economic concerns, making a
comparison of the country to her workplace.  It seems that her department has
to pay another department some exorbitant fee (like $1.00 per page or
something) for incoming faxes, so her department is going to have to get their
own machine.  This cost does not reflect the cost of the fax (all you need is
the board, and it's free but for the paper & maintenance)--rather it reflects
the cost of managing who has to pay what for how much to whom.  Her department
(she directs a college computer center) also makes large use of laser printers. 
Some other computer centers are still using dot-matrix printers and charging
for laser printouts.  But my mother realizes that if you compare the paper,
ink, and maintenance costs of many dot-matrix printers to that of a few laser
printers (which you need fewer of because they are much faster), the costs come
out to about the same.  What then can justify charging high fees for laser
printouts when you don't charge for dot-matrix printouts?  That, she discovered
is the cost of managing the system of charging money for the printouts.
(No flames with varying exact price quotes are desired, the costs are
_comparable_).

Then she commented on how this relates to the general political-economic arena
(and surprised me a little since I know how economically conservative she is;
she has voted Republican in the past).  She said, and I will paraphrase and
extend:  if sending someone to prison is far more expensive than sending them
to college, if we having more college educated people in our country would
advance our technology and improve our economy?--I threw in there, if the
administrative costs of welfare are the biggest cost of welfare?--then
shouldn't a study be done, and if it turns out to be cheaper in the long run to
just give these things away (in whole or part) rather than blowing megabucks
just on building beauracracies, shouldn't we do that?  I pointed out that there
were too many conservatives too hung up on fighting socialism (oh, horrors! 
"slavery!") and being overly concerned with not supporting a single slacker, to
ever allow such reforms, even if they were in their own best interests.  (After
all, that is why welfare is set up so that if people are partially employed,
their income is flatly deducted from their welfare money instead of deducted
only halfway, which would encourage welfarites to become at least partially 
employed, and save us some money--"but then they'd be living high off the 
system"--yeah, right, real high.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-legalize marijuana, and take a BITE out of crime!!     |    Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:52:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

>order to get more cookies (I know people who would kill for more
>Thin Mints).

>Evelyn

yes, most everyone would kill for more thin mints. this is something that the
E-tickEt has analyzed in dEtail.

as co-prEz, i vow to feret out the authentic recipe for thin mints and make it
available to the amErican pEoplE. i feel it is un-amErican for the girl scouts
of amErica to keep the pEoplE of this great nation hostage.

-linda suE saboE   E is for cookEEEEEs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:08:54 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tax cuts?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              17 Aug 1992 15:57:43 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:57:43 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>Howdy.
>I'm sure y'all have heard the speculation that Bush might propose tax cuts
>during his acceptance speech.  I'm curious about how this might play out
>given the 1990 budget agreement -- would he have to propose spending cuts
>to balance the tax cuts?  Anyone know how this works?
>

According to today's Chicago Tribune, there is a front-page story
saying the Conservative Republicans are pushing this as part of
not forgiving Bush for a tax increase.  It goes on to say many of
these persons were on the platform committee.  Dole has been quoted
as saying it would make economic sense as long as spending would be
reduced or frozen.

The most likely areas of tax cuts would be capital gains (down to 15%)
and firsttime homeowners.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Bush on mothers who abort
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:11:38 GMT

Four years ago, when asked what penalties mothers who have abortions
should suffer if/when abortion is illegal, Bush said, "I haven't thought
that through."  It's been four years; he's done everything he could do
make abortion illegal.  Has he said anything at all about what mothers who
abort should suffer when abortions are against the law?
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:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:55:00 EDT
From:         more noise please <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      you will pass to texas...you WILL pass to texas...pass to
              texas...

Here I thought I'd actually be enraged by the Republicans smug, smarmy 'we-
believe-in-the-family-that-is-if-its-got-a-mommy-and-a-daddy-and-they-ain't-
promiscuous-or-nothin' family values speeches, but instead I was merely
bored.

Pat Robertson and Bill Bennett made vague gestures in the direction of far
right views on the 'evils' of promiscuity and non-heterosexuality, but
generally stuck with the platitudes that filled the speechs of Lynn Martin
Marilyn Quayle, and Pete Wilson.  I know these are conventions, and neither the
Republican convention nor the Democratic convention are great hunting grounds
for substance, but this has got to be setting some records for hot air
leakage.  The speeches do not even examine seperate facets of what 'family
values' might be - they all seemed composed from the same outline.

There were two exceptions to this.  One was Barbara Bush's speech, even
more relentlessly bland than the above described fare.  The other was the
speech by the President of the Family Council on AIDS (I know that name is
wrong, sorry, but I forgot to write it down), which seemed out of place, given
it's frankness, intelligence, and true inclusiveness.  This speech also got
the biggest round of applause of the night (a standing ovation, even!), which
leads me to think that there are fewer ultraconservatives at the convention
than some would like us to think.  We'll have to see.

I have heard an unconfirmed rumor that since Buchanan's speech on Monday, there
has been a dramatic increase in the number of people switching from being
registered to vote as Republican to being registered to vote as Democrat.  Does
anyone have information to confirm or deny this?

With that, I'll pass to the state of Texas.  Yee-froppin-ha.

Gary W. Olson                 "I am the governor Pete Wilson, you know,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   the baddest governor to ever drop a mike and
76 days and counting down...   go BOOM!" - Disposable Heroes of Hiphopcrisy,
                           updating the Dead Kennedys' "California Uber Alles"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:09:43 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

  julie, are you saying that lawrence welk died from aids? not
real bloody likely . . .

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:48:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Siege Mentality

  I think it was Gloria Steinhem (sp?) and someone else that wants the
state to have control over the children in the US.  Numerous liberal
educators advocate more emphasis on gov't control of children.  As a matter
of fact one educator at a high state level is actually quoted as saying that
the children belong to them not their parents.  And in case you didn't notice
the Democrats endorse the NEA.  The Democracts take parental authority out of
the abortion debate, but if the abortionists botches up guess who pays the
bill, not the state.  The Democracts engineered the welfare system that
awards single parents and does nothing to encourage poor families to stay
together.  Thank God they are realizing this and making a change in the
welfare system.  The Democracts and like minded liberals want the gov't to
pay for artists who produce pornographic crap that is bent on tearing down
society's norms, mainly those that seek to preserve a sense of order and
morality.  And there is more.  In schools it is alright to celebrate Halloween,
the most holy day for Satanists, students cannot pray but they can do yoga and
TM and practice with the Ouija Board.  How's that for a seige mentality?

Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:30:26 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bush-orama, Bush-omatic, Bush-ilizer
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1992 08:01:01 MST Roger said:
>Hey, you on the East Coast!  What's the real scoop??  Saw this morning that
>the NEW YORK POST is claiming Bush had an affair in 1984 with aid Jennifer
>Fitzgerald.  Bush says it's "a lie".

Roger...hello.....ROGER....WAKE UP!

This was in the news weeks 'n weeks 'n weeks ago.

Why do you think there were discussions here about Jennifer & Gennifer?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:39:10 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      a boy and his dog could go walkin'

Anybody in netland familiar with the don johnson sci-fi movie called
"A boy and his dog"? The republicans remind me of the committee in New
Topeka; do as we say or you will be sent to the farm which is code for
the death penalty. People who refuse to follow committee mandates are
given lectures on the need to conform.

I think the republicans are doing a great job of pinning the blame for
everything on the democrats. Since most americans believe everything they
hear on TV, a lot of people are swallowing the line that the demo congress
is the real villian. Did congress fire the union workers for going on
strike?

Holding up the founder of Merry Maids as a shining example of how anyone
can succeed in america was a poor example. What level of subsistence does
such jobs provide for the workers? It's a great deal if you are the owner,
hey maybe that should be the republican motto. I'm still waiting for sue or
mp2b to tell us how many republicans voted themselves a pay raise. I'm also
amazed how you can wrap yourself in the constitution while supporting lying
to congress about arms deals and fight the war on drugs except against the
good drug dealers who are financing our allies in central america. Maybe
the republicans could open franchises called Hip-o-crites R US.

fred
who thinks the missing 18 minutes in the watergate tapes is an erased
recording of alice's restaurant.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:30:58 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on Abortion <yawn>

>>So?  I didn't propose that we could determine whether Bush was
>>pro anything.

>Not so fast.  We're discussing whether or George's statements "mean"
>that he's pro-choice wrt his family.

Not me:  I was discussing:

!What bothers me about Bush's and Quayle's responses to the abortion
!question is what those responses mean about their motivations to be
!pro-life.

>>I was musing about how what Bush *didn't say*
>>reflected upon his motivation to be pro-life.

>What a deal.  How about I muse on what Clinton hasn't said and discuss
>how that reflects on his motivation to be ignorant and/or lying on
>some issue I pick?  Then we go and attribute that to him.  Deal?

No thanks.  I will bow to your superior expertise at discussing what
was not said.  ;-)

Perhaps my articulation was inept, but what B's and Q's comments in
response to the "what would you do" question  lacked was any indication
that they would be horrified if one of their offspring "committed" abortion.
"Back in the game", indeed.

The only thing I think that can be safely concluded from Pres. Snick and
Vice President Snee's comments is that:

         *They do not equate abortion with murder*

Perhaps they have never said that they do <shrug>.

A bunch of stuff followed about Amy Carter, drugs, and other things that
are only pertinent if I was arguing that Bush was pro-choice.  Which
I was not.  I said:

!IMNSHO, (happy Missy?  ;-)  ) I think that what B's and Q's statements
!indicate is a general confusion about the issue.  It seems that they

The text deleted here was my speculation that Bush and Quayle could
accept choice on the matter of abortion for their offspring and by
extension for women who had the right values.  The evidence that
-andy keeps begging for is in what each said in reponse to the
question.  Since what they said is in dispute it would serve little
purpose to pursue it.  Suffice it to say that if we cannot agree on
what was said, we will not agree on what it meant.

>Why is it so difficult for Clinton supporters to make an honest
>argument?  Why are they so intent on behaving like their portrayal of
>Bush supporters?

Perhaps you could find one and ask him/her.


>-andy

Steve                    "[Bill Clinton] looks like a pile of rocks."

                               Peter Smith   (age five)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:04:45 -0500
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Senator D'Amato

>Rick,
>    It is Abrams. Robert Abrams. The attorney general is Robert
>Abrams.
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Indeed, Robert, you are correct.  Sometimes in the early morning the
fingers and brain don't match up.  As I re-read the message, I noticed
that I had given Mr. Abrams an 'h' that he didn't need.  I assumed
that people would realize that I meant our attorney general, but I
guess it never hurts point out typos for the sake of unmistakeable
perspicuousness.  Thanks for clearing that up.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:24:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Party Position Papers

Roger says "I took a look and the Republican file was empty."

Does this really surprise anybody?

Anyway, regarding Sununu-- As I recall, he was one of the only good
speakers at their last convention.

In the meantime, do we know that there will BE an acceptance speech for
Dan Quayle?

(or Bush, for that matter?)

--Julie
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:         Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:38:02 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      waffles 'r' us

Hi, y'all:
In spite of repeated statements by various folks -- TV pundits and
listmembers included -- that the Republicans are trying to "have it both
ways" on abortion, I had pretty much stayed neutral.  As long as the
argument was being made on the basis of answers to hypothetical questions,
I really didn't think it held water.  But I've changed my mind.

Yesterday and today, I watched Frank Cesno (on CNN) interview Rich Bond,
Lynn Martin, and Phil Graham.  Each was asked, point-blank, "What is the
Republican position on abortion."  *Not one* of them -- not even Graham --
said that the Republican position is the one stated in the platform.  *Not
one* of them even answered the question directly.  Bond, after being asked
two or three times, answered to the effect that, if the Democratic platform
is to one side of the center and the Republican platform is to the other,
then "we'll wind up in the middle where most Americans are".  Martin and
Graham simply took the opportunity to attack the Democrats for applying an
abortion "litmus test."  All three emphasized that "the Republican party
has room for differing opinions."  If that isn't trying to have it both
ways, it's at least declining to publically support the platform.

I wonder how the pro-life activists felt (or would've felt) watching these
three squirm around the issue.

On a related note:  we all know that Lynn Martin will be giving the
nominating address for Bush -- thus, the Republicans can say they're giving
platform time to a pro-choice individual.  At the same time, I've heard a
couple folks mention that "dissenting placards" will *not* be allowed on
the convention floor (so we shouldn't see either Pat Buchanan posters or
pro-choice placards).  And it'll be interesting to see whether Martin
actually mentions abortion in her address -- I rather doubt it, myself.

If all this pans out, it'll look to me, at least, as though the Republicans
lost their chance to out-democrat the Democrats.

What do y'all think?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:38:06 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Somewhat Unusual "Family Values"

Explain this to me:

We have a night in which Pat Robertson preaches homophobic swill...

  jesus told him to, after all. "jesus is my postmaster general, and
  my speechwriter . . ."

In which Maralyn Quayle suggests that many women _want_ to be
homemakers and are disillusiond by having equal rights...

  half right. many women *do*, in fact, want to be homemakers. what
  they are disillusioned by is the fact that many women see being a
  homemaker as a subhuman existence and/or slavery. equal rights,
  after all, should include the right to marry, stay home, and raise
  children . . .  shouldn't it?

And in which a really large portion of the first and second families
gather on the stage to show how traditional and family-like they
are...

   well, yes. "traditional?" pretty much so, if a close relative is
  the leader of a major nation. "family-like"? they *are* a family,
  even if one of your kids trashes the genetic pool by marrying
  outside the country-club set . . . :)

And the music that is played in the background during this "family"
hoopla is a theme from "La Cage Aux Folles," one of the most
wonderufully campy gay films in existence...

Well...?

Well...?

--A very perplexed Julie

   julie - it was, of course, democratic sabotage. the tape was
  supposed to contain hank jr.'s "friends in low places", to have
  a little self-deprecating humor and all that. instead, somebody
  decided to play something else. and besides, how many delegates
  have even seen the show?

  rtf
  "well, i ain't big on social graces,
   think i'll slip on down to the oasis . . ."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:35:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Ignore this post. You'll be glad you did.

>(for you overly earnest folks out there who weren't around
> at the end of june, don't respond!  it's a trap!)


i will do as you say, since i fell into that trap the last time and had to
chew my foot off.

HEYHEYHEY GUYS!!

i've got my ability to reply back. i haven't been sick, on vacation or ignoring
you. i've been land-locked due to vaxes beyond my control.

its been lonely as hell.

i have much to say, but i'm so overcome by emotion i'll just wait til the eyes
stop misting.

later

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU