HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:17:52 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>

> Well Jonathan,
> In the eyes of everyone. Your opinion is just a speculation.
> Most of Perot's voters were protesting against Bush. This protest
> vote helped Clinton, whether you get or not. Exit polls do not tell
> the whole truth. People like me will be always convinced that Clinton
> would not have won the elections had Perot not run.

If Jonathan's opinion is a speculation, then certainly yours
is too.  Though I vaguely remember Jonathan was using the
result of exit poles as evidence.

Let's take a typical voter.  She comes out of the voting booth,
she is asked who she voted for.  She says, "Perot."  Then she is asked
who she would have voted for if Perot was not on the ballot?  He answers,
"Clinton."

Now Kevin McDade tells me that I should not believe the voter but
believe him when he says the voter would have voted for Bush.

That is insane!

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:36:30 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Sundry Errors

T.:
Urp.
I forgot when Warren was appointed to the Supreme Court.

Good thing I'm not the Memory Czar, huh?

>From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

>I would advise, in general, against obtaining financial advice from
>librarians, personal or otherwise.  Librarians are not, in general,
>noted for financial acuity.

Wow, embarassing typo there, Wales.
Jimbo meant "Libertarians," not "Librarians." Obviously,
librarians are quite reliable on such matters.

Jamie
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 09:51:44 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

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
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: AIDS & HIV (was Gays in Military)
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:14:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"

OK, folks, someone posted today on gays in the military - about
how they would be scared of contracting AIDS from homosexual
soldiers ("they're more likely to be infected with HIV than
heterosexuals...").  I had read recently something about HIV here
in the Commonwealth of Virginia; being the diligent researcher I
am, I have retrieved the figures from the source.

Whenever someone tests positive for HIV in Virginia, the doctor
is required by law to report that case (including name) to the
Comm. Health Department - whether public, private, or U.S.
military.  The Health Department releases figures broken down
into a number of categories; here follows AIDS and HIV cases
reported in Virginia through November 1, 1992.  Please read:


              _Commonwealth of Virginia  11/01/92_


Number of _AIDS_ cases in general pop:          3,310
Cases reported from homosexual/bi contact:         64.8%
Cases reported from heterosexual contact:           5.5%

Rate of _HIV_ in general pop:                     1/250
Cases reported from homosexual/bi contact:         32.4%
Cases reported from heterosexual contact:          27.0%

(Virginia) U.S. Military _HIV_ Cases reported:    270
Cases reported from homosexual/bi contact:          3.7%
Case reported from single hetero contact:           1.1%
Cases reported from multiple hetero contact:       67.4%

(City of Norfolk, Virginia) HIV Cases
Cases reported from U.S. Military:                 45.6%
Case reported from Public Health Facilities:       17.4%
Cases reported from Private Health Facilities:     10.7%



A number of things come up.  First, the _rate_ of HIV infection
is now higher among heterosexuals.  Second, if you're scared of
HIV and you're in the military, you have a better shot SLEEPING
with a homosexual or bisexual than with a heterosexual who's had
more than one sexual partner.

Suffice it to say, yet another myth destroyed in not only the
fight against AIDS & AIDS Ignorance, but in the fight against
Ignorants Who Fear Gays in the Military.


-T.

"A disciple asked the Master, 'Why is is that the West has
material progress and the East has spirituality?'

'Because,' said the Master, 'when provisions were being handed
out in the beginning, the West had the first choice.'"

                    -DeMello, _One Minute Wisdom_.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:25:27 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!


In article <POLITICS%92111914333350@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>Clinton admitted in an interview with Sam Donaldson that he had led at least  e
>on
>protest in England.
>
>-Rich

So what!?--andy
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 18:32:20 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Quayle is a dolt.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> >> 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.
>
> It's poor form to make spelling mistakes in a spelling flame.
That wasn't a spelling mistake you putz, that was a typo.
>
> >No you Quayle apologists
> >reach for any excuse to forgive his ignorance.
>
> Lack of spelling ability doesn't imply lack of intelligence.
Blindly following a mispelled card does, IMHO.
>
> Hint: pointing out that the Quayle attackers are being
> dishonest/unfair isn't a defense of Quayle.
>
> >> 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.
>
> So?  Fischer claims that Quayle is a dolt for using cards.
> If so, we either have a general result which applies to Feinstein
> or ....
So, Senator Feinstein has been using cards for spelling?  When did this
happen?
>
> >> >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."
> >
> >Then why do you bother to respond?
>
> Because I like pointing out the obvious.
So do I.  Quayle is a dolt.  And his defenders aren't much higher
up the ladder! :-)
>
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
>
Jonathan
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Perot's influence on the election
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:31:34 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

>
> Well, it seem that Perot's voters would have voted for Bush had he not
> run. Perot campaign did serious damage to Bush's, and made the latter
> lose many of his would-be supporters.
>
Kevin,

It seems in whose eyes?  Didn't you listen?  Didn't you read the
exit polls all by yourself?  What's up with that? (the latter to
quote Cliff Clavin of Cheers!)

NO, THE PEROT VOTERS WOULD NOT HAVE ALL VOTED FOR BUSH.  Got it.  I
knew that you could.

To repeat (again). The exit polling nationwide showed that the Perot
vote SPLIT EVENLY.  Aside from a question about Ohio (It would have
brought it within the margin of error), no other states would have
shifted. Clinton still would have won big.  In fact, if Perot hadn't
run, Clinton would have received greater than 50% of the vote, which
would have stopped people like you from claiming that the majority of
people voted against Clinton.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:56:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: partisan idiocy

> Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:44:00 EST
> From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: partisan idiocy
>
> >Does the list have a "basic sanity czar" to step in when the arguments
> >get _really_ silly and whip everyone with a wet noodle?
>
> i don't think we have a sanity czar, and i might not like that cause i'm not
> quite sure i'd pass a basic sanity screening.
>
> *but*, i'd be willing to step in as "list mother" and chastise, punish, and
> administer wet noodle whippings when appropriate. i mean, what the hell, i'm
> already doing the list cooking.

   That should also include the cleaning and washing :-)

>
> -linda


Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:57:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Malcom X
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Amen to what Gayla said.  Lots of people have only small aspects of
X's life as their basis for supporting/hating him.  The movie deals
with him as a whole person, from beginning to end, looking at his
life and ideals as parts that make up a whole.

I think it's wrong to look at people and judge them by small snippets
of how they are at various points in their lives.  In two small
years I have gone through massive changes in my philosophies and
ideologies.  I hope that when I am remembered for future generations
that they know what I once was to better understand what I am now
and what I will be in the future.

We have this knack for looking at political figures as if we can sum
them up into simple terms, forgetting that ther are real living
and breathing human beings behind it all.  I think we should really
_know_ our heroes and enemies before we can understand them.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:51:05 -0500
From:         Jeff Green <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning and Malcolm X
Comments: To: uunet!ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu!POLITICS@uunet.UU.NET

>So what do flag burn banners think of the opening to "Malcolm X" where the
>perimiters of an American flag burn away until an X shape is formed? Should
>the opening be banned even though it is clearly an artistic and political
>statement?
>

Nothing should be banned. Everyone has the right to either view or not
to view, as well as to comment. Banning takes that right away.

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor                  "The Alternative Press for BBS Users"
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                     Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:35:57 -0500
From:         Jeff Green <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject: Re: guns and linquistics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>I have one question for those that say original intent should matter *most*:
>Does the line "...all men are created equal." have any other meaning than
>[White Land Owning Males]?  Because THAT'S the writer's original intent of
>the phrase.  Have we evolved that phrase over time to understand that it means
>all citizens?
>
>What do you say?

Thanks for changing the subject away from Gay in the military!

The answer, in my humble opinion, is that those words now refer to
mankind.

While it is true that those that wrote those words really only had in
mind white landowners, over the age of 21 (and Christians to boot,
Catholics not allowed!) that is all that their experience would allow
them to see.

Times have certaily changed as has our use of the common
American language , and it is fine to say now that the word "men" can
easily mean "mankind", or more properly, "humankind".

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor                  "The Alternative Press for BBS Users"
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                     Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:25:37 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

>         You are right.  Slick Willie is in for many rude awakenings.  As far
 as
> allowing gays in the military, I really hope he's not that stupid.  Speaking
 as
> a United States Marine, I do not want to serve in peacetime, much less during
> wartime, with homosexuals.  I don't think that any of my fellow Marines would
> want to either.  Hell, I'd probably shoot the queer bastard if I were in a
> combat situation with him/her/it.  I don't think Slick Willie realizes that
> a gay can't kill the enemy by hitting them with his purse...
>
>
>                                                 Christopher K. Gilbert
>                                                 pasc1961@altair.selu.edu
>                                                 Bob Dole in 1996!

This is amazing.  So it's OK to KILL but it's not OK to be openly gay.
'Cause you ignorant F*** there already are gay marines, probably your
best buddy is gay!  But back to your post, not only is it OK to kill but
open insubordination is OK too, as long as you are not gay.  Hey, Chris
you DO NOT REPRESENT THIS COUNTRY WELL.  Why don't you just quit.

Jonathan

P.S.
Dole is likely to be dead by 1996.
From: GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET (jcs)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:33:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
>
>
>If homosexuals showering with heterosexuals is not problematic,
>then why men and women showering together is.  I have not seen
>even a remotely satisfying answer to this except Julie's contention
>that homosexuals are raised to control themselves (which *was*
>remotely satisfying :-).
>
>--KAT

The bottom line is that there are plenty of gay and lesbians serving
in the armed forces right now. This piece change of heart by the
government should only serve to say that "you won't be kicked
out if we find out you are gay".  Homosexuals will continue to be
harassed, however, but that really shouldn't be the governments
concern. People with big noses, and women with large bosoms
will also be harassed. Its the nature of the beast. I'm not
saying its right, i'm just saying it's just the way things are.

I always figgered that people who are overly concerned with
homosexuality touching their lives in some way, are just
confused about their own sexuality.

The marine says that gays shouldn't be allowed in the military
and when i asked him why, he couldn't give me an answer.
He just said that it wouldn't work.

I'll bug him for more details. Maybe he's just not telling
me something...;-)

jenna
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 18:10:01 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Clinton was ten points ahead of Bush before Perot's reentering the race
> because many voters were undecided.
> These voters turned to Perot when he decided to run.
>

Geez, what WORLD are you living in?

Yes, many voters were undecided but NOT enough to change to election.
Polling data was very consistent.  Bush could NOT get enough of the
undecided to win or even pull close.  The Bush people NEEDED Perot so
that Bush's low numbers would give him a chance.

Here are two numbers to think about.
Bush's approval rating was consistently between 35 and 40 points.
The number of people who said that there was NO way that they would
vote for Bush was 50 percent.

In case you don't know, approval rating is a very good indication of
the final percentage vote.  So Bush was never going to get more than
40% of the vote.  With Perot in the race spliting the other 60% there
was a chance that Bush could squeek by, but nobody really thought that
there was a chance in HELL.

Jonathan
P.S. Bush finished with 38% of the vote.
Clinton's approval rating was around 45%.  He finished with 43% of the vote.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:47:10 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

Let me guess Steve, are you planning to run for the list presidency?
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Uncl: two quick points
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:42:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Robert:

Please describe "The gay lifestyle" to which you refer.  This is a test.
You have one hour.  Your rults will be graded.  Especially important
is how you define such terms as "sick" and "perverted" and how they
apply.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:44:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: partisan idiocy

>> *but*, i'd be willing to step in as "list mother" and chastise, punish, and
>> administer wet noodle whippings when appropriate. i mean, what the hell, i'm
>> already doing the list cooking.

>   That should also include the cleaning and washing :-)

carl dear, i applied for list mother not list slave  :)

list mother to be
(you mess it up, you pick it up...don't i have enough to do around here?)
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:16:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Don't know if anyone's beaten me to it, but Carl---+:

Pledge allegiance to the "republic", not to the "nation."

I think that also changes your last part about pledging to "people"; we
truly are pledgind allegiance to the type of government we have created.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:55:24 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Politics (yes, this is a _politics_ list)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

This sounded like fun and lot more informative than the crap
that had been spread on this net! :-)
> Anyone have any recent information on Bosnia?
Yeh, they're getting slaughtered and noone is doing anything about it,
including the foreign policy president.  Oh, that's not new! :-)
>
> What about the new stories about the State Department having ordered
> investigations into Clinton's passport files?
Well, the special investigator said categorically that Baker knew
about the search WHILE it was going on and did nothing about it.  Despite
that evidence, he declined to say that there was White House involvement!
After Jan 20, this nightmare will be over.
>
> What do you all think about the transition team.  Is it working?  How
> smooth a transition do you expect from Clinton?
Looks REAL good to me.  I could not imagine this transition being
any better than it currently is.
>
> How do you feel about Libertarianism?  Is it something you would like
> to see implemented?  Do you think it is practical?  Do you think it is
> a bad idea?
Yep, I think that it's a bad idea.  I think that we need government.
If the Libertarians really believe that it's a good idea, I'd like to
see an entire city run in with an ideal Libertarian philosophy and see
what happens.
>
> What do you think of Feminism?  Is it a positive force on our nation?
Absolutely, just look at the positive influence of Hillary.  If Barbara
had had more of an influence over George, he might have been re-elected.
>
> What are your own political leanings?  How do you identify yourself
> politically, if you choose to do so?
I used to think that I was right-wing.  I voted for Reagan TWICE (of course
his opposition was nothing to write home about!).  My wife teased me
constantly about it.  But as I've aged, I've gone more left.  However, while I
feel that I am left socially, I think that I am more to the right when
it comes to economically and more left when it comes to internationally.
I guess I am saying that I am confused. :-)
I just changed party back to Democrat and plan to stay that way for
some time. Especially with the in-fighting of the religious right.  In
fact, I think that I could say that it was the predominance of the
religious right that scared me enough to move back to being a Democrat.
I, also, firmly believe that no one will win the Republican Party
nomination without, at least, the tacit approval of the religious right.
>
> --Julie, just trying to bring us back to some form of discussion
>         of an issue...
>
Good Idea.  But shouldn't the list president be doing that. :-)

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU