HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle is a dolt.
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:52:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> >No sorry. That excuse has been tried and it don't cut it.
> >Rich, if he was confident of his spelling abilities, he would have ignored
> >the card.
>
> Interestingly enough, "potato" and "potatoe" are both correct.  Quayle
> did make a mistake in this incident, but not the one commonly
> attributed to him.
This lame excuse has been tried to.  The fact is that "potatoe" is only
correct in VERY outdated dictionaries (like the 1800's).  If this is
what Quayle was thinking..... OK you can stop laughing now....No really...
I'm trying to conduct a conversation here....I'll try again. If this is
what Quayle was thinking why didn't he say so?  No you Quayle apologists
reach for any excuse to forgive his ignorance.  Again this is similiar to
the people who forgive Perot for his lies and paranoia.
>
> >The fact is Quayle needed cards.
>
> In public, everyone uses cards.  That's as true of Clinton/Gore as it
> is of Quayle.  (Interestingly enough, CA just elected a Senator,
> Feinstein, who cheated in a debate during the last election cycle by
> using notes scribbed on her hand when the rules specifically
> prohibitted such aid.  She lost that election, for governor, to
> Wilson.)
Not for spelling.
>
> >His ability to question anything that is given to him does not exist.
>
> And now we know what Jonathan considers good evidence.  Maybe someone
> will publically apply those standards to Jonathan's oxen.  Others will
> do so privately.  Others will just go with "he's just another partisan
> whiner, and not a particularly interesting one at that."
>
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
>
Then why do you bother to respond?

Jonathan
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:16:03 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      *pout*
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
My mailer's been down since Sunday eve., and I don't know when it'll be
fixed.  If anyone has responses to posts I sent, or anything like that,
please send to me personally.

Looking forward to being reconnected :)
Kerry
kilburn@wvnwvsc.bitnet
kilburn @wvnwvsc.wvnet.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:13:25 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
              18 Nov 1992 01:51:54 EST from <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>

Well, to be fair, since we reported Shawn and Jayce to their
postmaster, maybe we should report Christopher (the Marine
who would shoot a queer) to his soon-to-be commander in chief,
President Elect Bill Clinton. :-)

I wonder if he is such a good marine that would shoot a queer
if he had to serve with one, what would he do if he had to serve
UNDER a draft dodger.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:18:36 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS

Quayle is not as dumb as some people would like like him to be.
During the debate with Gore, he dominated the discussion and proved
that he was able to think for himself, eventhough it ia very normal
to be surrounded with top minds, who isn't? For sure he did not know
the questions in advance!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:24:50 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

I guess just a guess!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:01:11 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

j.b:
>There was never any intent to take over the US.  The result is that US soldiers
>fighting in WW II were not fighting in defense of our soil, but for political
>reasons.

I thought the idea was that the nazis would take over the whole world.
Hence the ultimate solution.

Dunstan
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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:11:43 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Electoral College redux

A few weeks ago there was a question about the Electoral College and
whether we pay for all these electors to go to Washington, stay in
hotels, and cast their votes.

Today's Poughkeepsie Journal has the process for New York's electors:
On December 14 at 11:00 a.m., they will gather in Albany to cast
their ballots.  State officials then count the ballots and send them
onto the President of the U.S. Senate (VP Quayle).  Quayle will open
and count each state's ballots on January 3 and certify the election
for Clinton.  So at least in New York, the electors don't get a tax-payer
paid trip to Washington.  I assume that the state taxpayers will foot
the bill for travel to Albany (and overnight stays, although a night
in Albany is unlikely to have that draw that a night in Washington
would).

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: sme3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT MATTHEW ESTRIN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:49:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92111608340007@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY
.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
>People in the military are forced to share showers, bathrooms,
>and sleeping quarters with others in the military.  Is it really
>unreasonable for a male (female) soldier to ask that he (she)
>should not be forced to share those facilities with a gay
>(lesbian)?  Initially at least, it seems that this request
>is not unreasonable, though I would like to hear what others
>think about this.

I don't see this as a problem at all.  Homosexuals are victims of the
stereotype that they will jump any other male who crosses their path.  If I
were in the military, and a homosexual and I were both in the shower, I would
assume that he's got some self-control and wouldn't feel threatened by him.
I don't see a problem with this at all.  Of course, if he DOES do something
inappropriate, action should and would be taken, but you can't ban an entire
group because of what MIGHT happen.

Another argument against gays in the military is on the battlefield, with
regards to respect and aggressiveness.  As I see it, if he went through all
the military training required, then yes, he is capable of serving and
deserves the respect as any heterosexual in the same position.

To those who say "well, _I_ wouldn't want to serve with a [homosexual]"
(they'd probably use a more derogatory term), I say, "then don't serve at
all".  When someone is called for jury duty, they are asked if they have these
types, among others, of prejudice.  If they do, then they are rejected from
the jury.  If someone going into the army is that homophobic, that is THEIR
problem, not the homosexual's problem.  If anyone should be rejected it is
them.  I'm sure someone will twist this around and say that we will end up
with an all-gay military with this plan.  Well, that's NOT going to happen, so
don't even try.

                    - Scott
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:11:49 GMT
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-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Okay.  So what you all (those of you who favor letting gays into the military)
are saying is that if I wanted to set up my own business and require my female
employees to shower with men, none of you would have any objection.  None of
you would claim that this practice constitutes sexual harrassment, so none of
you would attempt to bring legal action against me.  If any of the females
protested that they felt uncomfortable, you would all agree that its *their*
fault for feeling that way and they should just learn to overcome their
inhibitions.

Rest assured that I'll be remembering this conversation the next time the
sexual harrassment topic comes up.  I'll be counting on your support.

JasonZ
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:49:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Proposed policies from the new History Czar

Brandon,

        No harm done.  You are hereby appointed Associate Czar in charge of the
18th and 19th Centuries.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "Lafayette, we are here!"
Marshall Univ. History Dept.            -Col. C.E. Stanton, 4 July 1917, Paris
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       "We've paid off that old fart Lafayette.  What
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU       frog son-of-a-bitch do we owe now?"
YEA003@MARSHALL                         -U.S. Infantryman after Battle of
                                         Soissons, 28 May 1918
From: STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Ever hear of a Compass?
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:19:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Clinton's performance in the debates looked off the cuff to me.  The truth is
 that his whole campaign was written by Linda Bloodworth Thomason the producer.
His vacation home is her house in California.  He doesn't do too well without
help either.  In a press conference after meeting with the Democratic leaders
in Congress he said that Hillary stayed for the meeting and probably knew more
than the congressman.  Wonder why no one asked Foley or Mitchell if they thought
Hillary knew more than them.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:18:04 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
              16 Nov 1992 13:13:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

> In fact, you combine someoe with _anyone_ other than their sexual
> partner(s) for months at a time and you will sometimes get some
> lust happening, but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation
> as much as a "substitution" of lust.  There are lots of situations
> in which otherwise heterosexual men would have sex with other men
> in extended all-male situations.  But somehow people see fit to
> blame this all on gayfolk and ignore everything else.

Let me take the last comment first.  I was very careful to
attribute the same thing to both homo- and heterosexuals.
So that "people" does not include me.

And what you say about homosexuals engaging in homosexual activities
in the long absence of sexual counter[parts is absolutely correct.

The difference between the lust among two homosexual males and
two heterosexual males is in the degree.  (Here I am assuming --
and please correct me if I am wrong -- that the attractiveness
between two homosexual men or women is more or less of the same
nature of the same between a heterosexual man and woman).  A
heterosexual male is attracted to the body of a female almost
instantaneously -- otherwise how do you explain circulation rate
of Playboy and the fact that sex sells -- but it would take an
awful long time of no sex before a homosexual male is attracted
to the body of another male.  And even then -- as you mentioned --
it is a "substitution" of lust not a preferred affinity.

Now I am extrapolating a bit here -- and as I said earlier, correct
me if I am wrong -- that a homosexual male is attracted to a
male's body the same way a heterosexual male is attracted to a
female's body.

> The simple fact of that matter, once again, is that the military
> is a work environment.  If someone doesn't like being looked at
> they can turn around or ask someone else in the shower to turn
> the other direction.  I've develioped a prettuy good skill over
> the years of just not seeing anything because I do not _want_
> to.  I don't think this is rare.  And my guess is that once anyone
> is in combat, they will see the people next to them as SOLDIERS,
> not "men" or "women" or some object of affection, and that is
> where it really matters.

I agree with you on most of these with the exception of shower,
sleeping quarters, and bathroom facilities.

I am not gonna reiterate what I said before.  Rather, let me ask
you this: according to what you said above we could also have
common showers, bathrooms, and sleeping quarters for men and
women in the military and nothing would happen.  Are you saying
that?

> --Julie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:25:33 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: New question: little guy vs. the big boys

>>ballpark is "Oriole Stadium at Camden Yards".  As the building neared
>>completion, the governor and the owner of the Orioles and the Stadium

>A point for clarification: are the governor (of MD?) and the owner
>the same person?

No.

>>     My is opinion is that the little guy got screwed.  While I
>>suppose a case could be made concerning prior use etc., I should
>>think that the man should be compensated if forced to release his
>>ownership of the trademark. It probably should be noted that this

>I agree on both counts.  This sounds like a minor league version of
>the Inslaw software case.  I'm curious as to how the governor is
>involved in all this.

I'm going to try to get more details on the decision - should make a
good letter to the editor.  ;-)

The governor is involved because William Donald Schaefer is involved in
everything in Maryland (note the economic mess,  ;-)  ).  Actually, the
governor is involved because the state *owns* the stadium, for the most
part.  Most if not all the building was paid for with public funds.


>   toddddddddd

Steve R.
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pregnant women in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:50:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Once again, people do not let ignorance of the military allow them to be
silenced on the subject!

KAT doesn't believe that 165 of women at sea in the Navy could get pregnant
in any given year.  KAT believes that they had to have been protected and/or
on the pill!  Are you laying out the milk and cookies for him this year, KAT?

If you knew the makeup of the enlisted ranks - the educational level, the age
group, the access to information - you'd know that hardly *any* of the women
*had* to be on the pill or make their partner wear a condom.  That's one of
the problems!

HIV infection is rising faster in the military than it is in the civilian
population - for many of the same reasons pregnancy rates are so high!  You
take a bunch of kids right from high school, give them extremely job-specific
training, limit their access to information, put them for months at a time
with no one but others from the same group, limit their personal freedoms, and
you get increased AIDS, pregnancy, - and the kind of "thinking" that MArine
showed here on the list earlier.

Oh - and the above should be 16% - not 165.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:53:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      what day is it....

hi everyone.
i just remembered .... today is friday....i forgot about it being friday.
beer day.
countdown shoulda started at noon, and here it is almost 1pm. oops.
unless the clock is wrong.
sorry for the delay, but well, i've been a little distracted writing this
stupid troubleshooting manual for geac. i don't know why i always get stuck w/
this stuff (i know i voluteered but that's beside the point).
doesn't matter, my life is a living hell anyway, what's one more thing....

so well, beer countdown started (officially) 50 minutes ago.

CHEERS!

who's meeting me for virtuals later???

distractedly yours,
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:39:38 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING"
              &MILITARY

Robert & T.
You got me lost. What are you both talking about? Is it Gore or gore?
                  KEVIN...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:27:01 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Gays in the Military (was Draft Dodging Illegal?)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Rick:

I am not saying that gays are to blame if officers and others retire from the
military.  I am also not saying that gays would cause trouble in the military.
What I am saying is that ignorance of the gay lifestyle will cause problems.
A lot of the "men" in the military will react aggressively to open gays.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:07:05 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      andy misses the boat

For the sake of disk space, I will summarize Andy's response to my post
on the religious right. He said, more or less, that it is "my (fred)
pet project to go after child molesters" and that the law enforcement
wasn't being strong enough in their pursuit, in my opinion.

Nothing in my post dealt with law enforcement. The law cannot become
involved until they know that a crime has been committed. My complaint
is with the people in power in organized religion who sweep incidents
of child molestation and unwanted sexual advances among their own
ranks under the rug while strongly pursuing locking up the guy who
wants to buy a playboy off the rack at the 7-11.

The bottom line is hypocrosy (sp?). A large percentage of sexual
assaults are perpatrated by someone known to the victim and trusted
by the victim. Only those that are committed by a stranger are likely
to result in substantial jail time. This does nothing to help the
majority of victims who suffer in silence.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:14:31 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> Jonathan -
>
>         Don't get so upset with -Rich for fearing Hillary's influence!  From
 the
> content of his posts, his mindview is pre-Donna Reed!  When your visual
 boundari
> es just can't accept women out of the kitchen and in the boardroom - hey, how
> can you be expected to understand a marriage where both partners are equal?
>
>         So let up and let's ease him into it, OK.  Maybe we should start with
> some basic info for -Rich.....like, oh, what century it is.  We'll take it
> from there.
>
>
> -T.
>
I know.  I know.  I know.  I just get carried away at neanderthal thinking!
Ah well.  I'll try that counting thing again! :-)

This from another board...
"
As to the role of first ladies, a recent (last 2-3 months) article in the
_Smithsonian_ backs up Kelly's post about activist first ladies.  It is
worth the read.
"

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:44:24 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

My parents were against the war in Vietnam and did not protest against it.
Protesters did absolutely nothing to bring the war to an end, in fact it is teh
belief of many, including Admiral Stockdale, that protesters prolonged the war
in Vietnam.
Also, my grandfather, who received a purple heart in WWII and knows what war is
 about, talked to a friend of his and got my father into the National Guard
because he was going to be drafted.  Friends of my father's did not have this
method of escape and went to Vietnam, some of whom never made it back.  If my
father had not gotten into the Guard he would have gone to Vietnam without
looking for another way out.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:52:44 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      CLINTON'S BACKPEDALING

"It would be very unwise for anybody to think that I'm going to
articulate a policy that would promote mass migration". This is
what president-elect said yesterday softening his foreign policy
stance on Haiti that would have eased restrictions for Haitian refugees.
He last week suggested an open-door policy for political refugees. While
I agree completely with his new stance, this quick changing of mind
worries me a lot. I'm afraid this is a sample of what we are going to
experience under Clinton's administration. I hope I'm wrong. Do you?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:16:00 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Gays and lesbians in the military

This may very well become Clinton's first rude awakening.

Though I absolutely agree with Clinton on the statement that
it should be conduct and not tendency that should count
and disagree with most reasons that people against gays and
lesbians in the military give, there is one point for which
I cannot come up with a good answer.

People in the military are forced to share showers, bathrooms,
and sleeping quarters with others in the military.  Is it really
unreasonable for a male (female) soldier to ask that he (she)
should not be forced to share those facilities with a gay
(lesbian)?  Initially at least, it seems that this request
is not unreasonable, though I would like to hear what others
think about this.

Much is made of the fact that today's reasoning against letting
homosexuals join/remain in the military is the same as those against
blacks joining.  Well, most of the reasons may be.  However, while
most fears against blacks were irrational and some against
homosexuals are, the one reason I gave above is a rational fear/
concern.

So what did we do when we allowed women to join.  We made them
separate showers, bathroom facilities, and sleeping quarters.
But how would we createe separate facilities when homosexuals are
allowed to (legally) join?  Separate showers for heterosexual men
and homosexual men?  Well that works for the heterosexuals but
would not work for homosexuals, since they are attracted to each
other.

I realize that the problem that I am discussing is not a fundamental
one but only a logistical one, nevertheless, one that I cannot
think of a solution for.

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