HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:40:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

Kevin says:

>I guess just a guess!

Don't follow you, Kev - care to relate this post to the rest of reality?


-T.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:57:56 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning

In article <9211170942.AA16208@cuthbert.bashstreet>, Dunstan_Vavasour
<dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK> says:
>
>>>| Our flag is not just a
>>>|"piece of cloth," it is indeed a symbol of our country, one of if not the
>>>most
>>>|powerful of symbols.  What exactly do you find wrong about pledging
>>>allegience to a "piece of cloth"
>>
>>Would it not make more sense to pledge allegience to the country or its
>>Constitution? The US is the only nation on earth whose citizens pledge
>>allegience to a flag.
>>>
>
>As subjects we don't get to pledge allegience to anything. It is
>assumed and (in theory) lack of allegience would be treason.
>

True but in Canada (and I assume the UK) many government jobs, appointments
and positions require one to swear an oath to the Queen. This is starting to
change here but you still get the odd would be civil servant who is not
hired for refusing the oath. Also the Law Society of Upper Canada requires
applicants to the Bar to swear an oath of allegience to the Queen, though
I think exceptions are now permitted.



>D.--
> Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
> Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
>          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
>          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
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:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:26:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Military Expertise
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Jayce:  What if it were a war started by our "'beloved' President-elect'"
over something in which you didn't believe?  Would you still fight? What
if because of our President Elect you had to fight next to a gay man.
Would you still do so?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:13:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military

Christopher K. Gilbert writes:

>(some stuff deleted)
>Speaking as a United States Marine, I do not want to serve in peacetime, much l
>less during wartime, with homosexuals. I don't *think* (emphasis added) that
>any of my fellow Marines would want to either.  Hell, I'd probably shoot the qu
>queer bastard if I were in a combat situation with him/her/it.  I don't
>*think* (emphasis added) Slick Willie realizes that a gay can't kill the enemy
>by hitting them with his purse.....


You see, Christopher, where you have gone wrong, don't you?  *THINK*? *THINK*?
If we paid Marines to think, we'd have a completely different recruiting
procedure.  That's why we have so many homophobic neanderthals in the Marines
in the first place!  The United States Navy (sorry, I know that smarts but you'r
e still part of the Navy) looks for agressive, automatic machines in their
Marines - they don't look for thinkers!

And if you've ever been in combat, you've been in a combat situation with
a "queer bastard" - but you didn't know it, did you Christopher?  As your
commanders like to say, get with the program.  If not, no one's forcing you
to re-up.  Get out if you're so scared of homosexuals.


-T.
From: EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET (Every Man)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Showers part II
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:52:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


         I believe that if 'straight' soldiers have a problem with
         taking showers with the gays, it is the Straigh guys problem.

         Perhaps if the straights are 'uncomfortable' they can ask
         for permission to shower privately.  Or have a stall installed
         for straights who cannot handle feeling 'vulnerable'.  Or better
         yet, perhaps they could wear swimming trunks and a t-shirt!

         I personnaly believe that none of the guys in the armed services
         are really that bothered by it, and we are probably insulting
         a great many of them in saying they cannot handle showering
         with a mixed croud.  After all, a lot of these guys have seen
         seen and experienced REAL and HORRIBLE things.  Their friends
         blown to bits....torture....  putting it all in perspective,
         the shower issue is nothing at all....................
From: diviney@milton.u.washington.edu (Pat Diviney)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:32:14 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Egads!  The way some people are utterly terrified at the thought of gays
and lesbians "suddenly appearing" in the military.  It has been said that
such a move would cause a drastic decrease in enlistments.  If that truly
becomes the case, *GOOD*!  As someone who leans toward Libertarianism, I
look with disfavor upon the maintenance of a large standing army during
time of peace.  The cold war is over, we have no business being the
world's policeman and historically speaking, there has always been a
temptation to put large, underutilized armed forces to work against their
own people, i.e. the war on drugs and other activities detrimental to
our civil liberties.
From: wesson@fnalna.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:44:23 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalna.fnal.gov

In article <POLITICS%92112008471413@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, 
CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes:

> That Spy Magazine page was a good one - but if memory serves Gary Trudeau beat
> them to it with a similar Doonesbury!  It said you couldn't even *recycle* it!
> 
> 
> -T.


	Yes, Doonesbury had it in "Marvelous Mark's Konundrum Korner". 
We have it on the wall (along with other favorite comic strips) here at
our experiment. The problem was to dispose of the comic section without
violating Bush's proposed constitutional amendment on flag desecration.
It says,
	"> No using it to line a bird cage or train a puppy- that's desecration!
	 > No throwing it in the garbage - Ditto!
	 > No using it to start a fire in the fireplace, that's flag 
burning!
	Good Luck!"

	I think that the funniest part is the number of people who are 
adamantly opposed to flag desecration for any reason who did just that 
because they don't read Doonesbury.

				Dennis

P.S. By the way, I've been reading this group for a while and thought 
I'd join in finally.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:47:11 EST
From:         GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET
Subject:      sexual harassment and other goodies

I was reading the NYT at lunch today ( i left my new danielle steele
home. :-( )

and i happened across the article about Bob Packwood, the senator from
Oregon who has 10 counts of sexual harassment lobbed at him last
week.

in the article is said that Congress is exempt from Sexual Harassment
in the Workplace laws.

How can that be? Why is it that Congress isn't covered?

curiously,
jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:06:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: two quick points

>P.s. If Kerry gets to be list aunt, can I be the "older unmarried sister
>     who drives a diesel truck?"

ok, but if you're not gonna help out in the kitchen, let me know so i can
recruit someone else. you could pick up the groceries tho' since you have
that truck and all....

HEY! i just thought of something. i'm not married. does this mean you all are
b....er....illegitamate????

-linda
list (unwed) mother
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, 19 Nov 1992 18:31:59 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

>Secondly,  those of you who don't like the idea of Reagan making films for the
>military must have forgetten what Al Gore did during Vietnam.  He was a
> journalist.  That was his service.

Al Gore *was* a journalist, but not during Vietnam.  Although his father, then a
Senator, opposed the war, Gore enlisted.

>-Rich

-----Gayla
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Clinton's Cat
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:51:29 GMT

I just picked up a copy of yesterday's newspaper.  I was shocked.
I read that a bunch of reporters all crowded around Bill Clinton's
poor little cat and started pestering it.  I think one of them
even held it up in a rough fashion.

Bill's little girl was watching, too!  Do you have any idea how
it feels for a little girl to see her cat so abused?

Somebody needs to put a stop to such press antics.  America is
getting sick and tired of them.  First, they wouldn't lay off poor
old George Bush when his mother was about to die, and now this.

I SAY: the media should leave our leaders alone.  They are obviously
trying to do a good job and be patriotic.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:57:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >The military is NOT a democracy, NOT subject to the *same* laws as private
> >citizens or private/public businesses,
>
> Hmmmm.  So in other words, its okay for the government to force private
> entities to respect an employee's "right" to have a "nonthreatening" work
> environment.  But government agencies themselves are under no particular
> obligation to enforce that right for their own employees.
>
> Now this truly *is* the first sign of fascism (in its strict sense; the term i
> used so loosely people forget what it actually means).

ARRRRGH!!!  Can we get real here, people?  Jason, when the GAO or your
county Social Services department starts requiring that its employees
live together, then maybe this line of argument will be something less
than utter and complete nonsense.  Do you think the Supreme Court takes
communal showers (Oy, what a mental picture that brings! :-)?

If you have problems with the military's living arrangements, take it up
with them, not with us.  Traditionally, members of the warrior class
live together.  Go figure.  But understand--no set of living
arrangements, by itself, voluntarily accepted, constitutes sexual
harrassment.  Lots of us share beds with members of an appropriate sex
and have no problem with that.  It is actions by individuals that
constitute harrassment.  Living conditions cannot change that, even if
the conditions are accepted by all parties.  A man can rape his own wife
(at least morally, if not legally in some areas).  A soldier can harrass
another soldier (whether the brass is willing to recognize it as
harrassment is beside the point).

Sheesh!

Best,
Peter

> JasonZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:18:51 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

Dear Song Weaver,
  You surprise me by accepting an equivalence in the "draft dodging" of
Clinton & Quayle. The action in itself amounts to the same thing, to be
sure--but the point is that it must NOT be viewed abstractly, or "in
itself". Quayle thought the war was right: for you and me to die in, but
not him. This is hypocrisy of the most murderous kind, literally, since
some poor kid from Indiana may very well have lost his life in place of
Danny boy. The most elementary principle of moral integrity says that if
you think an issue is a matter of life and death, you START the bidding
with your own, not someone else's who happens to be less connected.
Morality is the issue here, not compliance with selective service legi-
slation. Okay?
Cheers,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:35:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      The ban on gays in the military

I'd like to add another question to the ones I raised the other day about who
would dodge drafts in certain circumstances - is there anyone out there who
faults Clinton for his actions concerning the draft AND would resign from the
military if they were active duty when/if the ban on gays is lifted?  Anyone
who would dodge a draft to avoid serving in the Armed Forces is the ban is
lifted?

Very curious,


-T.

"Said the Master:
        'Enlightenment produces this kind of person:
        To be public-spirited and belong to no party,
        To move without being bound to any given course,
        To take things as they come,
        Have no remorse for the past,
        No anxiety for the future,
        To move when pushed,
        To come when dragged,
        To be like a mighty gale,
        Like a feather in the wind,
        Liek weeds floating on a river,
        Like a millstone meekly grinding,
        To love all creation equally
        As heaven and earth are equal to all
        -such is the product of Enlightenment.'

On hearing these words, one of the younger disciples cried, 'This sort of
teaching is not for the living but for the dead,' and walked away, never
to return."

                                -DeMello, _One Minute Wisdom_
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:57:48 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning

In article <01GRAVGNC4008WX2D3@ITHACA.BITNET>, PBICKFO1@ITHACA.BITNET says:
>
>If people should be prosecuted for burning a flag, how much farther should
>the government take it?  Would stomping or spitting on a flag be illegal?
>How about chewing gum or talking during the pledge of allegiance?  What
>if I made a copy of our Constitution and burned it on the steps of Congress?
>What if I flipped the bird at the flag... or at the White House?  In my
>opinion, these are all acts which defame symbols of our country and our
>patriotism.  My point is, if we can't burn flags, there are always
>alternatives
>that will upset just as many people.  Face it, it's a freedom of speech that
>no law can stop because it wouldn't know WHERE to stop.
>
>Pieter
>PBICKFO1@ITHACA

A few years ago, when an anti-flag desecration bill was proposed, Spy Magazine
published a full colour flag in it's pages with a warning that the page can
not be thrown away, incinerated or disposed of on penalty of fine or
imprisonment:)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:16:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: gays in the military
              18 Nov 1992 08:57:00 EST from <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

> ...........................................  A man can rape his own wife
> (at least morally, if not legally in some areas).  .....................

A few years ago there were discussions in the Kentucky legislature
whether or not to criminalize wife-raping.  At that time I wrote our
newspaper political cartoonist and suggested an idea.  I told him he
should draw a cartoon similar to Ziggy, a man on a road reading a
road post that says: "Leaving Kentucky, last chance to legally rape
your wife."

Needless to say he didn't.  Go figure.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:00:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

>        I don't know what you're talking about with the hand shake thing.

it means "kiss and make up"

>few days, I rather thought I would have received high marks from the personal
judges on the list for my post to J.B.!

don't worry, this is not a test. suggestions:
listen to julie-she has the power to burn your food.
don't take robert seriously, it'll make you crazy.

>And I was offering encouragement to J.B. to strengthen his posting arguments!

this is a start - hopefully j.b. will accept your encouragement graciously.
(well, it may be a stretch, but mother's are always hopeful).


>So, IMHO, if there's anyone trapsing down the wrong path on this one, it's
>our The-One-Who-Would-Be-List-Aunt!

hey, that's my sister you're talking to!

:)-this whole thing is in jest in case anyone gets upset. i have a splitting
sick headache and can't take flames today. be good to your mother.

-linda
list mother
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:25:07 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <POLITICS%92112009514387@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>I didn't say that protesting should be illegal.  It is a right guaranteed by
>the Constitution and thus must be upheld.  I just said that I  do not agree
>with it.
>
>-Rich

You do not agree with protesting and don't think protesters should be in the
White House. Evidently you don't think very highly of George Washington or the
American Revolution. What about that nasty Boston Tea Party?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:31:31 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: RE: partisan idiocy

Clark:
>(Posting info from an expert doesn't *prove* a case.

Hmm.  If the expertise really is relevant, then it certain suggests
that the evidence will lean one way.  I'll try to remember Clark's
rejection of expert opinion for the future.  (Come to think of it,
Clark asked something in e-mail that suggests s\he thinks that police
opinion is relevant.  It would be surprising to see that backed up
with "because they're not experts", but ....)

>Besides, the info you posted had to do with the 2nd Amendment; my
>point was about how conservative s (IMO) have cornered the market on
>*rationalization* (somehow, you've gotten it into your head that
>*rationalization* means *self-deception*.  It doesn't).

Clark is half-right - it includes willful deception although most
usage is wrt self-deception so it is Clark's responsibility to make it
obvious that he's using it differently.

It is an interesting "argument".  The "Conservatives" happen to be
right on this one, so it isn't "deception" at all.  (Unless Clark
wants to argue that they incorrectly think they're wrong.)  It also
doesn't include any evidence showing that "Conservatives" have
"cornered the market".  Even if Clark was right about the 2nd, that
would only prove that "Conservatives" participate in the
rationalization market.  It takes quite a "liberal" to turn that into
"cornered", unless said "liberal" believes that conservatives always
out-compete liberals.

-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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:42:31 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>>| Our flag is not just a
>>|"piece of cloth," it is indeed a symbol of our country, one of if not the
>>most
>>|powerful of symbols.  What exactly do you find wrong about pledging
>>allegience to a "piece of cloth"
>
>Would it not make more sense to pledge allegience to the country or its
>Constitution? The US is the only nation on earth whose citizens pledge
>allegience to a flag.
>>

As subjects we don't get to pledge allegience to anything. It is
assumed and (in theory) lack of allegience would be treason.

D.--
 Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
 Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:08:38 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      GATT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

So we pulled back from the brink. At the moment the French government
are still posturing about how the deal is unacceptable to them, but I
reckon the deal will hold.

Current estimates are that this breakthrough will allow the Uruguay
round of talks to be finished by the middle of next year for
implementation at the beginning of 1994.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:15:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      just curious

I really don't care about armed conflict and reagan, bush, the birr in the bush,
or clinton.  I figure that they are all patriotic americans and would do
well for the country in this area.  all one will end up doing is agreeing or
disagreeing, for what ever reason, with a particular decision.
From: 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan and Facts
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:25:36 GMT
 <BxL7Fx.ML8@world.std.com>
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

In article <BxL7Fx.ML8@world.std.com>, crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) says:
>
>Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> writes:
>
>>>
>>>Isn't Reagan the one who said "facts are stupid things"?:)--andy
>
>>I have no idea.  However, I do know that Larry Speakes said that if
>>you repeat fiction long enough it becomes fact.  (And yes I _do_ have
>>a source for that and if anyone desires I will post the exact quote
>>and reference tomorrow from home, where I have the book located).
>
>>--Julie
>
>Similar to the musical idea that if you repeat the same mistake often
>enough, it becomes an arangement.
>
>Exactly what the Bush campaign attempted to do to President-Elect Clinton's
>character.  By repeating the charges that Clinton is a philandering, waffling,
>draft-dodging, tax-and-spend liberal liar, they had hoped to MAKE IT SO in
>the minds of the American voters.  No go.  My faith in the intelligence of
>the average American is (partially) restored.

Hmm, didn't Herr Goebbels have something to say about this concept?


>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl Rosen           |  My opinions are my own.
>crosen@world.std.com |  Irepresent only myself.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:04:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Movie Review

>'Francis Ford Coppola's new film, DRACULA, is being described as a phantas-
>magoric spectacle of hordes of vampires having nonstop sex.  Sounds like a
>preview of the next four years in Washington.'

my best friend in Atlanta said this about dracula.
"i left the theatre with one thought....the hairdo was a bit much."

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