HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:45:06 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: CENSORED: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

>Of course, nor should we export our polution to less developed
>countries ...

Not even if they prefer the exported pollution and dumping fees to
nothing?

-andy doesn't accept the "white man's burden"
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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 09:48:58 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: I'm going to regret this, I just know it
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Kerry:
Your message that the flag symbolizes freedom of expression is in fact an
argument against flag burning.  It would be like a minister burning the Bible.
Brave men lost their lives protecting our many freedoms in America.  To me,
burning the flag is like renouncing your citizenship, and thus renouncing those
freedoms.  What is the point of burning the flag.  If someone doesn't like the
country, they are free to leave
-Rich
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:24:51 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <9211052027.AA01493@wizard.netx.com>, jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan
 Fisher)) writes:
>> 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 fo
r
>> 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 consciou
s
>> 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
>
This is exactly what I've been talking about.  Since Jonathan has NEVER
utilized a wrong word or spelled something incorrectly, I can accept his
criticism.  It must be difficult to be as perfect as he is and I feel badly
that he must put up with us imbiciles.
                                            Jayce

                                            
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 15:18:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I'll add one other point:

Hill did not run to the police or any other body of justice regarding
Clarence Thomas.  She may have not wanted to press charges for personal
safety and because of fear of job loss.  (an aside: a boss I had last
year sexually harassed me but since it was a temp job I didn't see that
I had much choice about it-- I was careful and laid down boundaries,
but didn't dare press charges for fear of losing my job and possibly
becoming homeless as a result!).  What I heard was that the FBI came
to HER and she told them the truth and was then ASKED to testify.  She
did not request to be in the position in which she ended up and I
doubt she really wanted to be in it, though I think she felt that she
had to tell the truth.  If she wanted to really damage Thomas I think
she would have gone to the tabloids before she went to the FBI or
the Senate.  (By "went" to the FBI, I mean that she told them about
the incidents).

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:05:20 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any

>The flag is a symbol of a country, respected and honoured
>and loved by millions
>   How would you feel if one of the symbols that you respect were burned.
>----mike.....

  Hmmm.  Good question, -----mike.

  But I guess I'd rather see the symbol burned than the ideals trampled.

                           -Mr. President
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:35:00 EDT
From:         SWIFT@HARTFORD.BITNET
Subject: Kill Bush? *Gasp!* Confessions of an anarchist...

From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>       Around 1989 or so, someone on Usenet posted a message with the title "I
>WILL KILL PRESIDENT BUSH".  He lost his account, got grilled by the SS and
>probably will be monitored until the day he dies (or Bush does).
>       Yes, he said he was joking, even though the article was
>quite...inflamitory.
>       You'd be a lot safer joking about bombs in airports.

>Brett'


About 3 or 4 years ago, on this very list, I too submitted a post entitiled
something like "I will Kill President Bush."  Nothing ever happened.  I did not
lose my account, and as far as I know, am not being monitored.  I do not have
to go to jail when political figures come to town, either.  The post was
severely threatening, yet tounge-in-cheek.

BY the by, *this* is not my account, rather its my girlfriend's.  I have
switched schools and am in between mainframe accounts.  Through her, I have
some list access.  Anyways, hello to all who may remember me.

--STeve McDonald
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:07:08 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: 1996
              7 Nov 1992 02:23:35 EDT from <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>

On Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:23:35 EDT andy said:
>
>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)
>

I would have thought Kennedy would have written off all hopes of getting to the
White House in 1980, when he blew his best chance.  I don't remember the
details (I was only 11 at the time), but I have vague memories of Ted making
a splash at thge convention.  Was there a bust-up over Super Delegates or
something?  I can't remember.

At this point anyway, I think Cuomo, Nunn, et al have blown it until at least
2000.  You have to be really incompetent not to retain the party nomination
for a second term, so at this point, I think Clinton/Gore should be a shoo-in
for 1996.

Similarly, right now, I reckon Kemp must be favourite for the Republican
nomination, he appears the most credible challenger.  From this side of things,
he appeared to come out of the LA riots with his credibility more intact than
any other Republican.
As for Buchanan, I think he tapped a seam of discontent which won't be there
in '96.  There will be no vulnerable Republican to take pot-shots at, and
unless he wins the backing of the Robertson organization, I don't see him
having the funds for a second run.
It's much the same for David Duke.  Without a national voice to keep in the
headlines, he may fade into the background, and be little more than a minor
irritant next time around.
Baker (does his first name qualify as being a liberal dum-ass one? B-)), I
think will carry the can for the Bush defeat, and will be a non-starter in
late 1995.

So, in my view, it'll be Clinton v Kemp (v Perot ?) in four years time, by
which time we'll know how well the Preesiden-Elect will have performed.
Bets, anyone?


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:40:07 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: What a flat tax isn't

>What exactly does Paul think the words "flat tax" mean?
>
>It is logically impossible to have a flat tax with 6 brackets.

There are at least two rates that can be "flat", that is, constant.
They are the marginal rate and the average rate.  They can be
different, as can be the derivatives.

For example, a tax system can have a progressive average rate (with an
infinite number of brackets) and a flat marginal rate.  I don't know
how close Paul's system comes to that, but one such system would tax
15% of all income over $30k.  Under that system, the average tax rate
for someone earning <$30k is 0%, while the average rate on $45k is 5%,
and Madonna would pay close to 15%.  In that system, the average rate
is increases with income, even though the marginal rate, for incomes
over >$30k, is constant.

Paul's later messages suggest that he is opposed to tax preferences,
which distinguish income on the basis of source/destination; they are
an entirely different bucket of ducks.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:42:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

        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.
>
        Were you in front of Buchanan's headquarters for his entire
stay at New Hampshire?  Just because they were not violent when you
were there doesn't mean they never were?

        Obviously your opinion about Buchanan and my opinion about the
man are different, there is no sense going back and forth on the topic
since no one's mind will really be change.  He may be a homophobe, but
he does not promote violence.  But Buchanan is not actively anti-gay,
in other words he does bring up the topic all the time.  Buchanan is a
Catholic that believes homosexulity is morally wrong, and he is
entitled to his opinion and to say his opinion (which I am not
accusing you of preventing).  Many Americans still feel uncomfortable
about homosexuality, is it a life choice, or genetic?  No one knows
for sure of yet.

        The 50% population figure came from a poll taken by some
organization, I believe Gallop.  The relevance is that organizations
such as Act Up are bringing down the Homosexual Rights movement.  Many
people in the heartland of America do not approve of their radical
actions.  Just as I believe that Malcolm X and the Black Panthers set
back the civili rights movement, Act up may do the same for
homosexuals.  Maybe, you should read about John Schafley, Phylis
Schafley's son, who is homosexual and believes that ACT-up is horrible
for this country.  There is a segment of the homosexual community that
disapproves of ACT-up.  Furthermore, if Buchanan had support because he was
a homophobe, then why isn't he president.  I agree that there is a
strong homophobe sentiment out there, and the actions of ACT-up do not
help.

-Paul
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:19:43 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      question for the history Czar
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

. . . or any one on his staff :)

Which of the two major parties was originally associated most closely with
a protective tariff?  I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the post
1865 era, it was mostly Republicans.  My poor fuzzy memory tells me that
there's something about whether you're a manufacturer or farmer that
determines whether you like tariffs or not, but I'm way out of my league.

Help!
Kerry
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, 4 Nov 1992 11:43:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Camille Paglia
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Kate:

No problem.  I wasn't intending to Chastize, but merely to remind.

:-)

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:28:41 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court Justice

>From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

>Cuomo's qualifications are about the same as Earl Warren's were.

Huh?
Warren had some very unusual legal experience. Obviously you know
that, though perhaps some list members don't. Cuomo has what
experience? Seriously.

>Some presidential ambitions (Warren ran in the Republican primaries
>in 1952.  He was the leading contender against Eisenhower).  Governor
>of the second most populated state (Warren was Gov. of California in
>the early fifties).  One time lawyer before entering politics.

And, the Warren Commission. You hadn't forgotten that, had you?

>Tell me Jamie, do you feel that Earl Warren, the leader of the court
>that introduced so many of the legalisms that the conservatives hate
>today was qualified to be Chief Justice?

I think Warren was one of the best Justices ever. I think he
turned out much better than his qualifications might have
suggested. But I also think he was better qualified than Cuomo is.

>If you look back at the history of the court, you will find example
>after example of men (not being sexist here, just acurate) who probably
>were not 'qualified' yet went on to become quite respected.

That's fine. Nevertheless, Clinton should pick someone who IS qualified.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:13:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Sorry, Mike, but I am a lot more concerned with the violence our nation
inflicts against others (not to mention so many of our own) than the
possible hurt feelings that an occasional burnt flag will cause some
individuals who value their "country" more than the people who comprise
it.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:10:52 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996

From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

TRUTH BE TOLD, Rush Limbaugh is a small, petty, ignorant little man, out to get
as much money as he can before America regains its pride and personal value
systems.  Sorry for this stoop, folks, but people who watch and listen to that
sneering, hateful little man should be ashamed of themselves - and they will be,
 if they ever wake up and smell the coffee.  He deals in hate, mocking, half-
truths, deceit and outright lies - and the worst is that he's not doing it for
"truth" - he's doing it for the money.

Isn't it ironic that the same people who listen and watch day in and day out
pick themselves out of bed on Sunday and roll into Church, praying to an
"all-loving" and "ever-forgiving" God?  No one sees the hypocrisy and contra-
diction of loving Rush AND loving Jesus?  I'm sure He sees it (and I don't mean
Rush)!

-T.

*****************

Well, I listen to Rush Limbaugh and I am not ashamed of myself.
In fact I am in agreement with most of what you said.  I listen
to Rush Limbaugh for two reasons: 1) He is entertaining and 2)
it makes me feel good to see how pathetic his arguments/positions
are and to know that the right worships him.

--KAT
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, 5 Nov 1992 11:56:00 EST
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)

At least we don't have to worry about Oregon's Ballot measure #9 anymore.
And for those who are disheartened about the Colorado initiative being
passed, don't worry. The Federal Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Bill will
take care of that as soon as it's passed sometime in the next four years
(as will ending the ban on gays and lesbians in the military). Clinton has
promised to endorse both of these. (I love having a Democrat in the White
House!) =)

Derrick Field
dfield@ithaca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:34:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"

My humble advice, Jayce, would be to love your child.

"Everything is as good and bad as one's opinion makes it"
                                -Anthony DeMello, _Taking Flight_


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:43:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Banking, Schmanking, Wanking

>Vote Y's Guys  December 1992
>1-800-4NO-GOVT

um, steve darling?
the virtual election is over. the tall guys won (sob).

-linda (just thought i'd mention it) :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:49:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Stalinist Purge of the Bad Apple: the solution revealed

>That was fun.
>But your Logic Czar has no delusions of genius, have no fears.

sheesh - i'd rather just make applesauce :)

-linda

>Jamie
From: CARROLL@SCC.BITNET ((Roger))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Play Misty for Me
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:39:24 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Clint Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, California in the 80s.  He served
out his term and did not run for re-election.
                                                   ---roger

It is my understanding that -linda is official timekeeper of the virtual
beer countdown.
From: mit2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Poor losers!
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:33:07 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

This is to all you Republican's who are crying about the ass wipping that
George Bush took on Nov. 3, from "Slick Willie."  I'm sick to death of your
whining and complaining.  Why don't you just let Clinton take office and do
his job.  Give him a chance!  If you don't, America will be in bad shape.  We
need unity now, and the only way to get it, is to support Clinton.  Why can't
you just give it up.  Clinton will run the country the best way that he knows
how.  We might as well help him with it.  Whether that means that you will
have to swallow your pride or not.  Maybe you should follow your fearless
leader George Bush's example and accept defeat with dignity.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:37:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Andrew:

        Are you comparing Abe Lincoln with Bill Clinton.  The reason
Lincoln received only 39.8% of the vote in 1860 is for various
reasons.

        The slave issue divided the nation, and Lincoln's name did not
appear on the ballot in many southern states (TX, LA, AR, MS, AL, GA,
FL, NC, SC, TN).
        Lincoln won by a majority in the states where his name did
appear.  So you attempt a better example than Lincoln in 1860 when
searching for another minority president.

-Paul
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:14:25 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Days of the Week

Julie:
>Sunday: Named for the Sun
>Monday: Named for the Moon
>Tuesday: I forget this one

I broke down and looked it up.  Middle English.  Tiu's day.  Tiu was
apparently a figure from German mythology -- a god of war and the sky,
identified with the Norse god Tyr.

>Wednesday: Named for Odin, King of the Norse Gods, who was also
>           known as "Wodin."
>Thursday:  Named for Thor, the Norse God of Thunder
>Friday:    I _think_ this is Wodin's wife's day, but I forget her full name.

Now I remember!  Freya!  Boy, the things we forget :)

>Saturday:  Named for Saturn (?)

And could I ever use a good saturnalia about now :)

Nice stuff on PC, btw.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:37:41 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      presidential reminder

just wanted to let all the village idiots
know that there is a list called free talk
which encourages moronic chatter.  maybe
you folks could check it out.

               -Tim"dubious honor indeed"J
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:45:15 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>> At any rate, the fact that the overdrafts (no checks in question
>> were ever bounced) were interest free did not cost the tax-payers
>> (that is you) a penny.

> True, as far as I can tell.  I will point out though, that whether you call
> them checks or overdrafts is really immaterial to my complaints.  I never
> accused Congressmen of breaking the law, which would be the case with bounced
> checks as opposed to mere "overdrafts."

You seem to be missing the point.  My quarell was not with the word
"check," infact I refereed to them as checks.  My problem was with
the word "bounced," I think the propoer terminology is "overdraft."

>> Will you define a "bounced" check and then we'll talk.

> I think you see the def under which I'm operating.  If you want to stick to
> your terminology of overdrafts, fine.  I don't see how that would affect my
> point.

Yes I do see your definition and it is entirely wrong.  A bounced
check is a check which is RETURNED due to insufficient funds.
(No checks in questions were ever returned for insufficient funds.)
I usually give a bit of leeway when it comes to definitions, but
not this much.  The thing is that claiming someone used the overdraft
134 times does not have the sensationalism of 134 bounced checks.
THAT unwarranted sensationalism affect your point.

If my bank offered me overdraft protection and I used it
134 times -- even if it WAS designed for emergencies -- and if
you called me a "boob" or a "scoundrel" that would be uncalled for.

>> --KAT
> Jason

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