HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:33:44 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Politics/History Trivia - Who woulda thunk?

>You're not suggesting we make Ed Meese a Justice on the Supreme Court,
>are you?

I certainly hope you *forgot* to put a smiley after that comment.  ;-)
Ed has done more than enough damage to the nation and to the
credibility  of government than any goofy looking guy has a right to.

I had noticed in doing the research on the background of the Supreme
Court justices that Atty General was a common prior appointment.
I thought this was interesting:  that SC justices come frequently
from a "prosecuting" position.  A "law 'n order" background if you will.

I would nominate Ed Meese for prison laundry detail, however.  ;-)


>--Julie "if the ^&%*$* fits..." W.


Steve "my  ^&%*$* 's are size 10.5" R.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:25:37 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Just in case you missed them
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Doesn't Jamie giving the award to James smack of nepotism ?

Dunstan
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Poor losers!
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:00:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GR0QGBO4KI94F9ZA@TOE.TOWSON.EDU>,         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET> writes:
> Good to see you back again Andrew !


Thanks.  I've somewhat busy the last couple of months - actually working
on a political campaign for the first time since 1972.

It's funny how the names change, but the arguments remain the same.  Always
someone trying to explain how Ollie North is a True Patriot because he
was willing to break the law to save his boss's skin.  How people died
to preserve our Freedom of Speech, so in gratitude we had better not
exercise it.

Now the newest, that because Clinton received less than 50% of the popular
vote there is something not quite right about his presidency.  Quick - name
a president who received less than Clinton's 43%.  That's right, Lincoln.
He received 41% of the popular vote.

How many people out there read the analysis of the exit poll data?  You know,
the part where they found that had Perot not been a choice on the ballot,
those votes would have been split between Clinton and Bush with a slight
margin given to Bush.  Clinton would have ended up with between 51% and 53%.
How can anyone claim with a straight face that all those who voted for Perot
were in reality voting against Clinton and therefore may be counted as
Bush supporters?

Sheesh, the education system these days is really going downhill fast.

						Andrew MacRae
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:59:08 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
> Buchanan would be the greatest thing for this country since the model-T.
> "Ideology knows compassion when properly empowered."
> --Steve
>
	Do you think there's any way that you could quote the messages
that you are replying to?  With the great volume of mail that comes
through, it is almost impossible to keep track of who said what, so it
would help if you could refresh our memories by quoting the previous
posts...
					Robert Head
				rhead@s850.mwc.edu

"Marrou in '96!"
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:20:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Jason Euculano and Judicial History

        Jason Euculano, between fits of temper and impropriety, suggests that
experience as a judge is a necessary prerequistite to serving on the Supreme
Court.  Doubtless he would conclude that his case is strengthened by my
pointing out Earl Warren's lack of judicial experience (although Warren was
appointed by a Republican), but there is at least one other example of an
appointee who had no previous judicial experience, and one whose policies
Euculano might even support:  William Howard Taft.  As chief justice, Taft
struck down federal child labor legislation (_Bailey v. Drexel Furniture
Company_, 1922), nullified the minimum wage for women in the District of
Columbia (_Adkins v. Children's Hospital_, 1923), and ruled that U.S. Steel's
monopoly did not constitute "restraint of trade" as long as that company faced
_any_ competition, no matter how insiginificant (_US v. US Steel_, 1930).
Thus, there have been other appointments than the proposed Anita Hill who have
had no prior experience before the bench.

        To list members, please do not take this response to be a
legitimization of Euculano's postings.  I find his recent display against James
McBride to be abhorrent and, quite frankly, embarrassing.


-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
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, 8 Nov 1992 00:15:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I'm not sure we can say much of anything about how other world
leaders think of our own presidents.  When Reagan made his
comments about outlawing Russia ("We begin bombing in five
minutes") he scared the hell out of a lot of Europeans.  Bush,
during the 1980 primaries suggested that a "limited" nuclear
war was "winnable."  Carter, from what I have heard, was really
liked in the mideast.  African nations absolutely hated Bush
and Reagan, primarily because they were opposed to sanctions
against South Africa.  Of course, the South African gov't has
been fond of both of them.

Israel, I believe, is scared of Clinton because of
one of the members of his transition team (I forget his name)
who, as a Carter Aide, wanted Israel to make more concessions
than they wanted to.


I'm interested to see more about world view of the U.S. in
the coming months.  I think we are approaching world gov't
on many levels, though it is hard to see what form it would
take in the long run.  I'm sure Europe is rather pissed with
us right now with this supposed "trade war," which I hope
will be really short lived.  We'll see what happens.

--Julie
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: C.E. not B.C.
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <9211102047.AA10659@wizard.netx.com>,         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM> writes:
 >I really don't want to get into a discussion on religion (why am I here then?),
 >and I can't speak for most Jews or since I'm not an historian, Judaism.  But,
 >for me, a Jew, the correct terms are B.C.E. and C.E.  You can call them
 >whatever you like.  But I don't feel that this falls into the inclusive
 >category of political correctness.  I simply don't feel that Jesus should
 >mark the politically correct calendar that everyone uses in America Today.


An interesting stance.  Do you feel the same way (for similar reasons) about
calling a day of the week "Wednesday"?


							Andrew MacRae
							
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, 8 Nov 1992 17:09:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: re: T's libelous rantings
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

T: _I_ for one don't care whether or not Robert apologizes.  Furthermore,
I don't care who is "right" about this nonsense.  You two are airing an
internal issue on the rest of our time.  Please, both of you: Drop it
or take it private.  Why bother the rest of us with it?

--Julie
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: A Referendum
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:39:43 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
>           Early in the campaign, I was leaning toward Perot.  What caused me
>           to back Clinton with every resource I had, was first the Democratic
>           Convention....I saw the opportunity for YOUTH to take power.  I am
>           40 with a wife in her 30's and a 2 year old son.
>
>           MOST importantly however, was the Republican convention with
>           Pat Robertson.  I despise the religious right!!!!!!!!  And to
>           see the two-Pats up there pontificating was my worst nightmare.
>
	It sounds as if you want to put the government back in the hands
of the people, but don't appreciate the way religious fanatics have
taken control of the Republican party...  I would urge you to tak a look
at the Libertarian Party, which is the ONLY party which has a bona fide
plan to reduce government and empower people (not just folksy sayings
like Perot).
					Robert Head
				rhead@s850.mwc.edu
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:59:33 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>1888  Cleveland     48.62%  The other guy (TM) one this one.  Are these his
						^^^^
	Aiieeee!  It's spreading!  Somebody stop me before I post again!

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:31:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

I can't remember - where was Clarence Thomas a judge?  Really - I don't seem to
recall.  Anybody give me a hand?  Jayce?

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:20:19 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Authority

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

>>I guess that you are more of an expert on the economy than the 550
>>economists and 10 nobel prize winners who endorsed Clinton's plan.

>This is little more than ad hominem, from either side.  Simply _saying_
>that Bill Clinton will ruin the economy is insufficient; one must give
>reasons.

It isn't really ad hominem at all. Too bad, James McB., our
near-namesake didn't read the list of fallacies.

>Similarly, simply _saying_ that 550 economists and 10 Nobel Prize
>winners 'endorsed' Clinton's plan is insufficient; one must
>explain what reasons we have (a) to trust those economists or
>(b) why we should agree with their conclusions.

In fairness to Mr. Fischer, he might be interpreted this way:

"I don't know enough about economics to enter the argument
directly, so I rely on an institution of experts, whose
expertise I trust more than that of casual posters."

In any case, I do agree with Jimbo about the general point.

(I think this is kind of humorous, because a couple of years
ago Jimbo offered the following form of argument on the
list, against rent control: I looked up 49 articles about
rent control, and the majority of them were against it,
so I conclude that rent control is bad.
At the time, I said I thought this was a rather poor form
of argument. I guess Jimbo now understands why I thought so.)

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:53:22 EDT
From:         Evelyn <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan

After we jump, do we get to play a spirited game of croquet?
Woollcott at a game of croquet makes John McEnroe look like a pleasant
guy to be around.

Evelyn Duncan
(an Alexander Woollcott fan)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:16:36 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
              4 Nov 1992 12:52:52 CST from <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU>

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:52:52 CST <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU> said:
>
>Please excue the typing and grammar. I've been up all night and I'm not
>my usual self. Besides, if that is the ONLY negative remark you can make
>regarding my post, then I suggest that you too vacate this list or else
>succomb to a lack of being able to adequately attack a post.

I merely made the statement to show how petty and vaccuous I thought your
comment was in the first place.  Clinton has just been elected, and you
don't even have the grace to accept it, but instead keep criticising, and
continue with the standard Republican smears.  At least give him a chance
to take office and start implementing policy before lambasting him again.


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:11:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject: Re: What a flat tax isn't
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Paul's later messages suggest that he is opposed to tax preferences,
>which distinguish income on the basis of source/destination; they are
>an entirely different bucket of ducks.
>
>-andy
>--
  I don't remember sugeesting that I propose tax prefernce.  I did say
later that I do oppose the income tax, but since I know it will not be
abolished any time soon, I suggested a better system of tax brackets.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:12:31 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: my life with the thrill kill cult
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

liese:
>someone wanted, in the mass of 400+ messages i just waded through, an
>example of any instance in which mass murder was carried out in the name of
>christianity.  okay.

[stuff deleted]

>3.  northern ireland.  this one baffles me even more, 'cause they aren't
>    fighting about christianity so much as denominationalism.

It's not really about denominationalism either, although the
denominational labels are generally used. It's about the
constitutional status of Northern Ireland - whether it should be part
of the Republic of Ireland or the Uhited Kingdom.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:35:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: A simple Joke

A more complex joke:

OCTOBER SURPRISE        IRAN-CONTRA     IRAQGATE

Thankfully though, this joke is OVER.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:35:45 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Julie:
>I'm not sure we can say much of anything about how other world
>leaders think of our own presidents.  When Reagan made his
>comments about outlawing Russia ("We begin bombing in five
>minutes") he scared the hell out of a lot of Europeans.  Bush,

	Not those who really knew what was going on.  It was obviously a joke,
and only those with propaganda purposes/politcal axes to grind made an issue
out of it.

>during the 1980 primaries suggested that a "limited" nuclear
>war was "winnable."  Carter, from what I have heard, was really
>liked in the mideast.  African nations absolutely hated Bush
>and Reagan, primarily because they were opposed to sanctions
>against South Africa.  Of course, the South African gov't has

	Many black South Africans also rejected sanctions because they knew the
only people hurt would be poor blacks.  "African nations" is also a pretty
broad stroke.  Can you name some?
	Reagan is loved in the XSSR and Eastern Europe.  People there see him
as a liberator.  Reagan is also respected in Japan.

>been fond of both of them.
>
>Israel, I believe, is scared of Clinton because of
>one of the members of his transition team (I forget his name)
>who, as a Carter Aide, wanted Israel to make more concessions
>than they wanted to.

	This simply isn't true.  US Jews voted for Clinton by 80% over Bush or
Perot.  They did this because Clinton has supported the status quo in the
Mid-East while Bush has been pushing for land concessions by Israel.

>I'm interested to see more about world view of the U.S. in
>the coming months.  I think we are approaching world gov't
>on many levels, though it is hard to see what form it would
>take in the long run.

	US/Russian alliance will eventually dominate the world.  Europe will
fall in line since the alternative is second tier status.

>I'm sure Europe is rather pissed with
>us right now with this supposed "trade war," which I hope
>will be really short lived.  We'll see what happens.

	I don't see why they should be pissed.  It is their subsidies that
violate GATT in the first place.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:36:44 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reagan and Facts

>Isn't Reagan the one who said "facts are stupid things"?:)--andy

Whether or not he said it, it's true, at least to the extent that
"dumb as dirt" can make sense.  Facts, like dirt, just lie there.

Any intelligence is in the use of facts/dirt.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:17:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>Martin,
>    It seems as if you are trying to play a father figure on this network.
>Although, it is a respectable attempt.  Please, enough of this nonsense.  If
>they wanted guidance, they'd go to thier parents.  We also can go without the
>scoldings that you think you're giving out.  Let us just let the stupid
>Republicans make fools of themeselves on their own.  If these fools want to
>act  like immature baby's, let them.  It only
>makes us look better.  Besides we are in control of congress and the
>presidency(ha!ha!) as of January 21.  So please, try to keep your comments on
>more of the political side and on less of the condescending side.
>
>         Mickey
>                     I don't know about '96, lets worry about the present
>
>
Well Mickey, I am worried about the present.  That's why I look towards the
future, to give me some hope that the new administrations time won't last
forever.
                                            Jayce
                                            >
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:55:46 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject:  abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)

In article <00963523.C24F41E0.22710@alpha.hendrix.edu>,
erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU says:
>
>No, Nazis were NOT anti-abortion. In fact, the scientists who were in charge
>of murdering the Jews in the concentration camps experimented with many vaired
>ways of killing people...gas chambers...firing
>squads...hanging...starvation...
>They also experimented to find out what hurt people the most both physically,\
>emotionally and psychologically. They found that for killing future children
>it was better to kill them before they were born. Thus they killed the
>children
>who were already born and they killed unborn children. They found that by
>using abortion to kill unbron children, they could not only kill the child but
>infict great emotional and psychological distress upon the mother. Thus, they

There is a difference between abortion by choice and forced abortion,you know

>used abortion exclusively to kill the children of those in concentration
>camps.
>--Steve

Yes, but they didn't consider Jews to be human so they didn't see that as
a problem. Abortion was banned for "aryans". Please look these things up before
 you go spouting off in a huff. Abortion was banned not only in Nazi Germany
but in Stalinist Russia and most of Eastern Europe especially Romania under
Ceausescu. Consider the orphanages in Romania. Also consider that the greatest
cause of death for women of childbearing age in Peru, where abortion is banned
is death due to complications from botched, backstreet abortions. This is not
uncommon in states which ban abortion. Women still seek them, they just are
more likely to die in the process.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:26:58 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ought-to
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>         Have any of you seen Grand Canyon?  Definately my kind-of-movie!

        Uck.  Exploitation of urban violance packaged as deep thought.

>         The society here in the USA is NOT they way I was taught it was.
>         Things do not work the way our parents (I'm 40) told us they did.

        No, they don't.  And things 40 years from now will not be the way we
tell our children they should be.  Nor were things 40 years how they were
"supposed" to be.

>         For example, you can work somewhere for 16+ years, have great
>         performance reviews year after year, and still lose your job.

        You can also work for 16+ years, get all kinds of experience and
knowledge and just when your employer is counting on you the most--leave for
another job.
        It's a two way street.

>         I have a two year old son.  I often wonder how he is going to
>         have a chance to realize any of his dreams or goals when effort,
>         knowledge, fairness, and abilities count for so little.

        I think what you mean is will he be what you want him to be?

        Which is something else entirely.

        (If knowledge, fairness, abilities count for so little where you are,
I'd suggest a change of venue or a change of associates.)

Brett'
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:56:53 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Pat was marvelous at the Republican convention...
--Steve