HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:11:14 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Murphy Brown

>KAT writes:
>>>  1. It is *charged* that Dan Quayle has attacked single-motherhood.

Yes, that has been charged.  It happens to be a false charge, but
the charge has been made.

>>>  2. Dan Quayle says that he was misunderstood.

And, Quayle is right.  The relevant evidence is the speech, not the
charges made by others.

>>>  3. Ok, I am willing to give him and his supporters another chance.

At what?  At proving that people aren't making the charge about
Quayle's speech?  Or, at proving that the charges are false?  ONE of
those is interesting.

>> Quayle's speech has been posted; it shows that KAT's claim is wrong.
>
>Note that none of my claims has anything to do directly with what
>Quayle actually said.

Wowsers!

>He says I am not interested in Quayle's speech.  So now Andy
>claims he can read my mind.  What next?

It wasn't mind-reading, it was merely remembering what KAT has
written.  See above.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:45:20 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              28 Sep 1992 12:51:00 EST from <KSTE%PURCCVM.BITNET
              @OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:51:00 EST Kerry Stephenson said:
>On the other hand,
>
>Since the NSA can listen to any telephone conversation anywhere in the
>country at any time they like, what difference does it make?

I wasn't aware the NSA had jurisdiction for local calls, only calls
which were international in nature? (no, I'm not basing it on Sneakers).

If this is the case, why is the FBI petitioning for the equivalent of
"user exits" to be built into digital switches so that they can tap
into the latest technology?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 30 Sep 1992 09:35:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush

KAT:

Thanks for the message.  And, you know, you could be right.  "The Owners
of the Country" just might fall for that.  They've got this history, you
know.

Later,

--Missy me
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:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:20:33 -0400
From:         "If I Were A President,
              There Would Be 2 States: Sanity and California!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values"

this country has always been a land of greed and public squalor!

                Freud
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:09:34 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

>> Yeah, WHY? Please do tell.

> Good heavens, have you fogotten so soon the previous postings on the debate
> called 'Shall We Dance' where you stated that what I had posted was a 'fair
> question' and replied the combination in the debate of a single and panel
> situation seemed favorable to you?

> I can post it again if you wish to see it again.

Very good answer, but you didn't answer *my* question.  This is
what you sad:

> Anyway, if a panel was good for Bush/Dukakis in 1988, why not 1992?  Why
> would the Debate Commission change to a single moderator format?

So I ask you again: Why would the Debate Commission change to a
single moderator format?  Why?  Really, why?

> Where is the response to the open invitation that was offered since the
> day after the Democratic National Convention to Mr. Clinton to appear on
> the Rush Limbaugh radio show????  Even though Rush is anamatha(?) to you
> his radio show is to conservatives what Larry's is to liberals.

What do you mean?  The answer is in the negotiations that
has been going on since then.

>> Which "deck" was that?

> The one that Clinton jumped on so fast.  Any reasons why?

But you said "stacked deck."  How was it stacked?  Now if you
say the format was not favorable to Bush, I would agree with
that, but to say either the Comission or the format was "stacked"
against Bush, THAT is another matter.

>> The *bipartisan* Debate Commission, however, has the appearance of being
>> impartial and fair.

> Are you sure?  How do you know for certain?

Yes I am sure.  See, I said the "appearance" of impartiality.
First on all, no one, not even Bush people has accused the
Commission of not being impartial.  Second, ex Republican and
Democratic presidents are honorary members, so is ex RNC chairman.

> Sue Clark

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:42:17 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Presidents

What qualities should a president have? That's easy: take everything
Reagan was and did, w0

a GREAT president!
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:06:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bill Clinton at Drew University

>Bingo!  Throw that lady a man from the balcony.

ohboy, a man!! i won a man!!
can i do anything i want with him?

- linda - i survived monday
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re:      Federal gun control
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:26:23 GMT

In <POLITICS%92092915403023@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET writes:

# If in the manufacture, sale, and ownership of a full-auto Uzi,
# the Uzi in question does not cross state (or national) lines,
# does the feral gummint have Constitutional authority to control
# these guns?  (Also assume that it is never shot across state lines.)
# -Travis

	A later amendment (14th)?  applies the first 10 amendments
to the states...



===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
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:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:24:46 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ross Perot, Larry King, and Teddy the Wonder Lizard

>Staged for your viewing pleasure
>It may have looked spontaneous, but CBS veteran Mike Wallace and CNN had
>carefully set up his "surprise" phone-in questions to presidential
>tease Ross Perot Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."  Wallace,
>in the midst of a "60 Minutes" profile of Larry King, wanted to include
>a snippet on why Perot appears so frequently on the weeknight "Larry King
>Live" and not on the Sunday shows focusing on politics.  Camera crews set
>up in the kitchen of Wallace's Manhattan apartment and in the Dallas studio
>where King was talking to Perot.  Wallace called in on an arranged special
>number.  Perot's response?  He shuns the Sunday shows because they lack
>a live call-in feature.


And Tipper was probably really trying to order out for pizza when she
called Larry while Al was on.

...Rick
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, 28 Sep 1992 13:08:59 -0400
From:         "Winnie The Poon Caught Licking a Hunnypot,
              Film at 11" <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Decline of America: Health Care (III)

Socialized Medicine won't work..... To many people have too many things
wrong with them ... or so they say... Americans are to neurotic, they
find a specialist for problems that anywhere else we would be told to tough it
out
We've got specialist to fix everything and... there's doctors who
specialize in everything from a stress headache to a stress fracture. What
ever happened to the grit and toughness of the forefathers. Heck.. Teddy
Roosevelt got shot while giving a speech, and finished the speech.....
today if we get a headache... we can't even fix a bologna sandwich!!!!!
Americans are afraid of pain . This was some major  paraphrasing of
Auberon Waugh, but it is a real issue, Americans are weak because they can't
deal with a little pain... on any level!!! The health care system
would collapse when they tried to allocate services in all the different
areas that really don't need it. America is too big. Period. This
is something that would reflect that, because America has so much
time that we've become hypochondriacs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



              John Stith@ Allocation of Services is a point too

                     Stustith@eku
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:16:25 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual elections

On Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:11:00 EDT <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA> said:
>        Gee, with your statement on rights you might better try for
>Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
>
>                                        Chris.

I second this.  How many vote "Aye"?

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:27:28 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674

Robert,
  This is the same government that passed the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act at the behest of the cellular phone industry, knowing that
there was no way that it could be enforced.
  Did you know that it is illegal to have a scanner in a moving vehicle,
if you don't have an amateur radio license?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:32:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: U.S Military Intervention

Just for those who didn't catch the original post:
Currently I am researching the following resolution:
That U.S Military Intervention in the Internal Affairs of other Countries
is justified.
I would like to know the lists opinion on the matter.
Thanks in Advance
Lance
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: Rush
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 03:05:09 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <POLITICS%92092509534316@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil) writes:

>On Thu, 24 Sep 1992 18:52:30 EST <92price%GW.WMICH.EDU@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.ED
>>Rush Limbaugh is Jabba the Hut!!             |               Kai Alexis Price

>Perhaps so, but if book sales here in Indianapolis are indicative of the
>rest of the country, he's doing very well financially.  His latest book
>is sold out & the waiting list(s) @ each of the book stores I frequent
>are quite long.

Well, tell 'em to come here to nyc and the bookstore I work in can get them
piles and piles of the damn thing. I don't think we've moved 2 copies in a 
month. And we're one of the bigger independents in Manhattan, right smack in
the middle of midtown. (Which brings in some interesting customers. Prof.
Irwin Corey (!!-- I thought he was dead) came in the other day looking 
for a book on fundies.)

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

>MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

__John Mignault
  jbm@panix.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:49:00 EDT
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Bob Roberts

Has anyone seen the new Tim Robbins' movie, "Bob Roberts"? I saw it yesterday
and found its satire to be right on the money. (Although, I understand Rush
didn't like it, so I must be wrong.) I would love to know what others thought
of it, especially our more conservative friends.

Derrick Field
dfield@ithaca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:53:51 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: _Decline_ Series -- response & comments

>   That was lovely rant about how the effects of tax system changes,
>   but it was an irrelevant reply to the point being discussed.
>
>The "point being discussed," having been:
>
>   I thought he knew the difference between the top marginal rate and
>   the rate paid by rich people.  Or, is it that he knows the
>
>I therefore addressed, not the "pre-80 system" which was not mentioned
>in the email I responded to, but is the subject of this more recent
>exercise in clouding the issues.

"not mentioned"?  Guess where the compared-to top marginal rates came
from?  Yes, the pre-80 system.

>Nevertheless, unless Mr Freeman is prepared to argue convincingly
>that the changes have been such that it has now become meaningless to

Barzilai admits that things are much different, but then claims it is
my obligation to show that these matter in a comparison he's making?

>As a matter of fact, the documented evidence already out, and
>plentiful, is that the elites made quite a killing for themselves --
>more mundanely, the "Rich got richer" at the expense of the poor, and
>middle class, getting poorer.

Try again.  What has been documented is that the rich got richer in
both relative and absolute terms, while the poor got poorer in
relative terms.  The poor also got richer in absolute terms.

-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"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:14:14 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Presidents

rtf: >utter crap. if the judicial branch *had* been merged with the
  executive branch, abortion would now be illegal in this country.
  the executive branch has gotten most of what it wanted from the
  court, true, but that is the result of having owned the presidency
  for the last 12 years or so. btw, the senate has had veto power
  over nominees to the court all this time. they have used it.

Oh really?  It seems rather obvious to me that the executive branch is in firm
control of the Supreme Court.  The vote on the Penn. law on Abortion was fixed
by Bush so that it would fall 1 vote short of destroying Roe v. Wade.  This
was done to avoid backlash against Bush, so that he'd have a better chance at
re-election.  What do you think he meant when he said "I'll do anything to
get reelected."?  True, Bush's policies (and Reagan's, whose ideas or lack
of ideas he follows) are disasterous for our country -- but he is a semi-shrewd
politician.  The court has been dominated by the right wing for a long time, and
they are essentially lackies of Bush.  I think that, whoever gets elected,
abortion rights will be taken away by the extremists on the court.  If that
happens, we may see an attempt to impeach some of the S.C.  It would take
an action like that to create a movement strong enought to get rid of them.
Congress, historically, has been wary of impeaching the Court (See F.D.R and
Jackson's presidencies).   However, I think that they may be jolted into action
eventually.
     I believe Clinton understands that the S.C. will do this when (hopefully)
he is elected.  He's said, if I remember correctly, that he would preserve
the right to choose as much as possible despite the Supreme Court.
    One other note, on Clarence Thomas:  Anita Hill came out and made the
issue of his nomination one of sexual harrasment, thus blotting out other
issues, such as the fact that he was not at all qualified for the job.  Thus,
Hill paradoxially helped Thomas get passed by Congress (Sexism is also to blame)
    On abortion:  If and when the Supreme Court bans it, there will be
little or no effect on the number of abortions. Either rulings won't be
enforced (Balance of Power, remember?), or a large underground movement will
be formed to allow women their rights, composed both of medical doctors and
others.  (And I will be a part of it, if I can.)

Be Seeing You,
Martin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: New Tax Structure
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:01:21 GMT

To get a progressive consumption-based tax (more or less), what
could be done is simply take our current system and raise the
rates WAY up while at the same time allowing people to deduct
100% of all money invested in productive assets via the mechanisms
of savings accounts, stocks, bonds, what have you.  

Then you get taxed some portion of the money you earned but spent 
instead of saved.

Might not be a bad idea... but ya know... it basically amounts to
a REALLY REALLY low capital gains tax rate?

Sort of, anyhow.

Rewards the same kinds of (good things) and lets the same kind of
people (rich ones who invest) off the hook.

Another idea along the same lines is an asset-based tax.  That is,
we tax people based on total assets.  The big benefit here is that
this helps to clear out the stock of unproductive rich people who just
inherited money and so on, without being a direct impediment to people
who are DOING THINGS to create new wealth.

I'm not advocating any of these, just commenting.

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:02:48 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush

>I am currently using now seven days a week.  Thanks to the newly elected
>Republican state legislature my tuition is expected to increase 20%, anyone
>can purchase an uzi,

The bill in question (about the Uzi) didn't become law and didn't
affect uzi ownership anyway.  Moreover, even if it did, what would it
matter?  (Hint - semi-auto uzis are just big ugly handguns.  Full-auto
uzis are already strictly, and uselessly, controlled at the federal
level, and Florio's bill didn't affect them anyway.  Of course,
Florio's bill didn't have any useful effect on crime anyway, but then
you'd have to actually know something about the relevant details to
understand why.)

When someone is completely wrong about things I know about, I find it
difficult to believe them about think I don't know about.  That's
an irrational response, but ....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
            <Bv4oLK.D5L@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:12:06 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: What is a "right"?

Since Travis and Jimbo have raised the issue of the concept of `right'
once again, and since my own modest contribution to the problem got
lost in a snarl of rightwing polemic, I make bold to state it again:
a right is a privilege of difference. No one thanks to claim a right
where the action or entitlement is generally accepted (e.g. the right to
walk at your own pace in a public park) or unconscious (breathing).
`Right' only emerges when old behaviour becomes controversial (eg
before 1980 it was a crime to destroy the assets of a company through
fraud) or new behaviour threatens older custom (eg computer hacking).
The social foundation of `right' is thus *difference* in conduct or
behaviour, and `right' must therefore mean the privilege or freedom
to pursue a difference.
Michael Morse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:28:47 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Thomas Jefferson and Arizona

>doubtful.... not even close as far as principled.... I would
>humbly submit Woodrow Wilson to that title.. for if Wilson were nothing
>else he was principled..

  JeffersoN - one of Virginia's own, and now WilsoN - also
one of Virginia's own.  Also both "soN" candidates.  What
better endorsement could be had?

                                -Tim"also of the Old Dominion"J

         know your history - vote JohnsoN/OlsoN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:56:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Will rape be a federal offense?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt344780@drew.edu>, macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:53:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
>>Well, I read in the paper that the Congress is considering a
>>Violence Against Women act, which will basically make rape and
>>spouse-beating a federal crime.  The justification: if it can
>>be proven the victim was chosen because of gender, it is a hate
>>crime, and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.
>>I DON'T GET IT!!!!
>
    First of all, the word is sex, not gender!  Drag queens are men
even if they dress up and act like women, right?  Second of all, what
don't you get?  I can see if you don't agree with the law, hate crimes
are problematic for various reasons, but the concept isn't that
complicated.  Hate crimes result when an individual harms another out
of a dislike or hatred of the other individual's sex/race/sexual
preference etc.  This bill would consider rape and spousal violence as
crimes of hatred against women -- they often are just that.  The bill
would protect the right of women to be equal under law.
    Difficulties arise though.  First, many would argue that these
crimes should be state crimes, but laws against violence against
blacks are federal crimes.  More important to say that all rapes and
all spousal violence cases are hate crimes is excessive.  Spousal
violence is often encountered with child abuse, so it can't be
automatically sex related (often the parent is abused as a child,
often by his father).  Rape isn't always a hate crime either.  One may
not hate women to want sex from them, nor hate the rich to rob them --
they just want something the person has.  Finally, many argue that
hate crimes is dangerous because crimes within groups are cheapened;
Nat Hentoff for one worries that black on black crime is ignored while
white on black (and vice versa) is centered on.  New Republic also
argues for more enforcement of hate crimes, not laws centering on hate
crimes.

   -Joe