HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:59:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Religion, rights, Hitler reincarnated,

> Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:04:56 GMT
> From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@COPPER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
>
> Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:

  ....Stuff deleted....

>
> >There will be a test; you will not pass.
>
> I am reminded of your request for a freshman in college level
> explanation for my little statement about what a right is.
> I laughed when I read it, since all the words I used ought to
> be easy enough for a college freshman to understand.

   Being a political list I would not laugh at such a request.  Remember
that when discussing these issue every word counts and maybe your original
definition did not suffice.  The more important issue is your lack of
humbleness, your response was very haughty.  I cannot respect people like
that.  I hope to God that you are not a teacher, or even a TA.

>
> >--Missy P 2 B
>
> --Jimbo

Carl-----------+
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (j.b. cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:07:54 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

It may not be what Barbara meant, but it is what she said.

If she needs to have speechwriters to help her keep on track,
then maybe she should get some before she continues speaking.

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:25:00 EST
From:         Gary Parsons <PARSONS@FAUVAX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Elections

        R - Kemp or Bennett
        D - Tsongas or Brown
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:32:55 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Somewhat Unusual "Family Values"

MacPhil:
>Were they born with those low skill levels or did they just decide not
>to take advantage of a free education and better themselves?

Um, for my neighbors, at least, it's more a problem of expectations and
opportunities -- higher education isn't highly valued around here,
especially for women.  Family and other kinds of peer support for bettering
oneself through education is often very hard to come by  (if my female
students are telling me and my colleagues the truth).  And, even when
education is pursued, it's a given that a woman's career will take second
place to her husband's.  So, when women decide not to take advantage of a
free education, etc., it's not necessarily out of laziness or ignorance.

Hope that clarifies things a bit :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:48:00 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jim Baker

Doesn't Baker's move make you wonder why he wasn't
elected President instead of good old George?

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:31:00 -0400
From:         "Men-- can't live with 'em,
              can't shoot 'em" <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality

>Julie:
>
>What, exactly, makes you think of Quayle as "dangerous"?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

I think if Quayle were President he'd enforce a great deal of
mysogynistic and homophobic legislation.  He's also shown a great deal
of utter disregard for the environment.  Furthermore, I believe him to
be racist as well.

Beyond that I just don't think he is qualified for the job.  He has
yet to demonstrate a great deal of competence or saavy and the idea of
more incompetents running the White House scares me because of the
immense amount of power at their fingertips.

--Julie


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @ Mother: "Is it a boy or @
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @   a girl?"              @
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @ Doctor: "I think it's a @
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   bit early to start    @
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   imposing roles on it, @
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @   don't you?"           @
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @  --Monty Python's THE   @
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @    MEANING OF LIFE      @
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:28:31 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      math and economics for mcphil

MCphil, your posting on the carter presidency is a brilliant example of
lying through statistics or restructuring the truth to fit your needs.

In terms of real economic growth, the carter presidency was stronger
than the last three republican terms COMBINED. (Source: Newsweek magazine
and the communist news network). There has been little growth under the
republicans except for service industries that turn a fast buck for the
owner and do little for the worker. The future of the american worker
has been sacrificed to produce a quick profit for shareholders. Bonus
points if you can identify the party that represents the stockholders
and the one representing the workers. GHWB's cheerleaders are a bunch of
spoiled rich children who have never worked for a living. Their income
comes from old money or the efforts of others so he has no incentive to
establish a true employment program.

George says that trust will decide the election. I think he is right but
he has miscalculated who the voters trust to save their jobs.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:36:20 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: too little too late
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:16:07 CDT fred said:
>Talk of an across-the-board tax cut is bound to be popular but it is a
>simplistic strategy to grab swing votes and ignores some very real
>problems:

>1. how can you justify decreasing revenues when we are past our ears in
>debt? If income taxes are cut you know that some other form of tax will
>have to be increased to cover the shortfall.(actually, I hope we have a
>longfall; it's my favorite time of year).

Revenues can be decreased if you also decrease spending.  Hence the
Democrats' fight against a balanced budget amendment:  if push came to
shove to balance the budget, they know the social programs would be cut.

>2. Income tax relief won't mean much to the person with no job. CNN has
>reported that first time claims for unemployment were at an 11 year high
>in june. Did george address unemployment, I missed his speech in favor
>of some good R & B. (Sorry, Bill wasn't there to play sax!)

Yes, Candidate Bush mentioned it in an attack on Congress.  He said
if his proposal had been enacted back in January (?), 500'000 new
jobs would have been created by now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 19 Aug 1992 14:44:38 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RNC-second night...
              19 Aug 1992 16:21:03 GMT from <ncovey@BRONZE.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Ncovey:

Let me remind you that prochoice Republicans did *not* file a minority
plank to be voted on.  If there are so many of them, if they are so
insistent, if they are so in danger of being lost, how come they didn't
even make an attempt?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 08:56:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, rights and more rights

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 22:41:34 EST
From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Rights, rights and more rights
>
>The existence of the UN charter effects neither the condition of
>natural rights (which, obviously, would obtain with or without the
>Charter) or the political and social rights in the United States
>(a sovereign entity that makes its own laws, regardless of the UN
>Charter.)

From Article VI, Section 2, US Constitution:

        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
        shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
        which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
        shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . ."

Jason, can you fill us in on the legislative history of the UN Charter?  Was it
recommended for ratification by the Senate and signed by the President, thereby
making it a treaty?  Are there any provisions within the Charter for a country
to decide not to abide by it (other than the Security Council veto)?

        Can't have a post without some history:  Norman Graebner argues that,
in addition to the problems with laying taxes, one weakness of the Articles of
Confederation was in the area of treaty-making.  The central government could
negotiate treaties with foreign powers but could not bind the states to them.
Hence, we have the "and all Treaties made" clause in the Constitution.

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: More on rights
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:54:17 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>So, you're saying that you consider hugging to be "sexual" behavior?

Depends how you do it, really.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:40:44 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92081812185156@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>KAT:
>
>I decline your invitation to explain the rape/incest exception, because
>I reject the position about which you inquire.  As I do not and have
>never held such a position, I am in no position to explain the
>thinking of those who do (or, at least, I cannot do so with the
>experience and eloquence such people would bring to the debate.)

Well, Missy, even if you can't explain the thinking of those who
DO hold that position, you could surely explain the thinking of
YOURSELF.

What is the exact position you have with respect to the right to
an abortion, and why?

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:09:14 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

Was it kinda weird watching Manhattan, knowing what's going on with
Woody and Mia?  (Isn't Manhattan the one where he has an affair with
a high school kid?)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:59:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      I hate it when...

  Is the server saving up all the messages again to bombard us all at
once this afternoon.  Or has somthing happened to my account.  I hate
this evil side of e-mail ;-}

Carl------+  PS Now I know what linda felt like last week.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:02:23 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

On Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:55:23 -0600 VALENTINE M. SMITH said:
>I think my honorable running mate was speculating, not accusing. "Might
>as wells" are a dime a dozen, she used three examples, you used three
>examples. No retractions are necessary. V.

Thanks!  Yes, I was speculating.  Anyone who knows me would know that.

Evelyn
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, 17 Aug 1992 15:57:43 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      tax cuts?

Howdy.
I'm sure y'all have heard the speculation that Bush might propose tax cuts
during his acceptance speech.  I'm curious about how this might play out
given the 1990 budget agreement -- would he have to propose spending cuts
to balance the tax cuts?  Anyone know how this works?

Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:48:42 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: My humble apologies
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1992 08:41:41 MST Roger said:
>MacPhil......
>
>Sorry bout that.  We're in a different time zone out here.  Plus, the
>newspapers are all owned by the Pulliam family, of which Dan Quayle is
>a member.  As a result, not much negative Republican news can be found.
>
>                                             ---roger

Roger, you've got nothing on Indianapolis.  The only local mainstream papers
here in Indianapolis are owned by Quayle's maternal grandfather.  Why do you
think newspapers such as the Chicago Trib and NYTimes do so well here?

P.S.

If you decided to make the Quayle family tour, just look for the
license plates that start /c a "35" here in Indiana.  Aside from
the larger counties (Marion/Indianapolis, and Lake/Chicago),
the first two digits are the county.  35 is Huntington and there's
a buncha Quayle's relatives up there...

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:24:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      here i am in the dark again

no mail all day. sigh.

just heard that the princeton's library system (geac, same as we have) blew up
and started smoking yesterday too.
is anyone from princeton? could you verify this for me with maybe the time it
happened. too much of a coincidence for me to think it was lightning.
i think st. joseph's in phila. has the same system. if anyone knows anyone at
that school, i would be interested in whether they had problems or not.

thanks,
linda
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:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:17:42 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: About Buchanan

>>Clinton blew it so much that he had a 20-30 point lead after the convention.

>Ancient history.  In case you haven't squinted at a newpaper lately or heard
>the local or national vocals on the TV or radio the 'dropping' lead is now
>only....um....19 points.  The media refers to it as a 'whopping' 19 points,
>when only just before that it was the 'whopping' 30 points.  My, how soooon,
>they forget, or want you to forget.  Oh, the liberal-bull hype of our lovely
>4th estate.

By about this time during the Republican Convention four years ago, Dukakis's
lead was gone.  Clinton's has only dropped, which was to be expected.

>However, even the various medias know..and have said.. that after any political
>convention there is always the over-inflated point hype that always fades.
>So, even after the Republican Convention there will be the usual 'surge', but
>the points will even out to a lot closer race as the days pass.

>Now, why is Clinton's 'whopping' 30 point lead down to only 19 points?  Could
>it be that our lovely liberal press is overblowing Clinton?...YES.  Could it
>be that people are catching on to the (har-har) moderate charade of the Demo-
>crats?...YES.  Did you notice Senator Kennedy's corpse-like enthusiasm for
>Clinton's speech, as well as the liberal Democrat leaders at the Garden?..YES.
>Did they appear to be worried?..YES.  Does even Senator Kennedy know a loser
>when he sees one?.....YES.  Are people catching on the grotesque taxing plans
>of Clinton?....YES.  Are they remembering the joys of the last time we had a
>Democratic president and a Democratic Congress?....YES!!!!  KABOOM!!!  The
>Clinton bubble 'blows.'

Liberal Democratic leaders were worried because Clinton is a moderate, and they
would far rather see a true liberal in the White House.  But the energy level at
the Democratic Convention was much higher than at the Republican Convention,
because the delegates think they have a winner this time for the first time in
years.

What "grotesque taxing plans"?  Clinton's plan calls for higher taxes on the
upper class, not the middle class.  Bush raised taxes on everyone--after he
promised not to.

>But then, if you want those good 'ol days back then Clinton is your man.  But
>he is not mine.  We will all have to wait and see what happens after the
>Republican Convention, then we can do more dog-fighting.

>Sue Clark

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:25:33 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality

Missy-- are you by any chance one of those liberals in disguise
designed to help republicans look really silly?  (That's my theory
about Dan Quayle, btw...)

--Julie

   uh, julie, neither party needs infiltrators to make it look sorta
  silly. reagan nodding off during cabinet meetings and quayle's very
  interesting speaking style are matched by teddy's libido and jesse's
  continuing attempt to have people take him seriously . . .

    you have quayle pegged wrong, btw. if bush had made him defense
  secretary instead of v.p., people would be mentioning him as a
  serious contender for the main chance in the future. he just got
  picked off the tree too early, when he was still green. give him
  a few years to ripen, and he'll be sorta o.k. except that the press
  will never let him repair his image now.

  rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:23:34 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      ironic isn't it?

Probably no single issue helped ronald reagan get elected more than the
hostage crisis in the middle east. Now the republicans are facing their
own hostage crisis; GHWB is being held hostage by saddam hussein. Would
the US allow another nation to tell us what areas of our country were
open for military exercises? Not likely! Never thought I'd hear myself
type this but I would really like to hear Jay's assessment of the problem.

The republicans are alienating vast blocks of voters, a poor strategy if
you want to win an election. They are giving away the labor vote, minority
vote (several different minorities), and the people who live from paycheck
to paycheck vote.

Dan better brush up on his editing skills because come next year he will
be back in the newspaper business.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:00:30 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Jimbo

> Since you asked, my position on "the right to abortion" is that there
> is no such animal--morally, Constitutionally, or otherwise.

> Abortion is the indefensible taking of undefended innocent unborn
> human life.  As such, it is not only murder, but a particularly
> reprehensible kind of murder, except when exercised in self-
> defense to save the physical life of the mother.

And amazingly -- and I am not directing this to Missy, necessarily --
when a woman after considerable deliberation chooses to go under
abortion and "murder" an innocent child, she is called a victim.

Back to Missy: I have a question or two regarding this self-defense
business.  If the situation is that either both will die or only the
mother can be saved, then I have no problem.  But in a situation
where one can be saved, why should it be the mother.  Is the
child any less human, with less rights?  If all else is equal,
I have to give the vote to save the baby, after all s/he did not
have any say in the pregnancy.

           Are not we not going to consider the fact that it was the
woman who invited the innocent child into her womb?  Didn't she know
that there is a chance of complication?file file kat that calculated
risk and lost why should a defenseless innocent child pay the price?

> Next question.

There.  I just asked you a couple.  I hope it doesn't take you
10 years to answer it.   :-)

> --Missy P 2 B

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