HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:06:03 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The National Review

In article <POLITICS%92111120384429@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET (Kip Shaw) says:
>
>I used to enjoy reading The National Review for a while.
>However, when they caricatured the now President-elect's teen on
>the cover page of a recent past issue, the stock of the right took
>a dive in the opinion of many who sit on the center fence.
>The facts presented in the NR are still enjoyable but the magazine is now
>for all practical purposes far to the right, too far right to be comfortable.

National Review is far to the right, who would have ever guessed:)
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:48:40 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

>Brett
>===============================================================================
>80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
>GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	This is me :).  "Stupendous Man" is my network nom de plume.  (It's
nice to know that we do get messages posted to NEWS.)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:49:50 -0500
From:         Tom <SSTSTJB@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      A Referendum

          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.

          Youth and Freedom from Religious Fanatics!!  That's what I voted
          for.

          What really amazes me is that Bush and Quayle actually believed
          America believed in the 2-Pat's philosophy.
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, 4 Nov 1992 18:29:14 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      muddying the linguistic waters
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
My copy of Taber's Medical Encyclopedia defines *both* "gender" and "sex"
as the state of being male or female.  It distinguishes "gender role" and
"gender identity" from "gender" pretty much along Julie's lines.  For what
it's worth, I usually define sex and gender operationally in my classes
(i.e., I explain to my students that the definitions I use aren't
universal, but they work well heuristically).  Sex is the combination of
genetic material from two individuals; gender is the state of being male or
female.  Of course, in non-human animals, you don't often run into
socialized gender roles and gender identities -- so it works pretty well.

I think Julie's got the right idea -- as long as we define our terms so
each knows what the other is saying, we'll do just fine.

Wish I'd thought of that :)
Kerry
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: transition -- the lighter side
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:37:32 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-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
My, my.  So much to say, so little time :)  Anyway, last night I got to
thinking about the "transition thing."  I tried to imagine the process, but
blew more synapses than I can afford to lose thinking about the volumes of
information that have to be dealt with.  So I gave up, and started thinking
more about moving day.

I got this vision of the Gores and Quayles, the Bushes and Clintons,
getting together over drinks before doing "walk-throughs" of the veep
mansion and white house.  The Clintons need to ask about room dimensions,
window coverings, which pieces of furniture stay and which go (hey -- after
living in furnished government housing, do any of these people actually *
own* furniture?).  The Bushes kindly demonstrate how the door to the Blue
Room sticks when the humidity gets to high, point out the vagaries of the
heater, and discuss which china patterns go best with which silver services
.  The Clintons try to figure out how they can be polite and still find out
when the Bushes plan on moving out (they have to schedule the U-Haul, you
know).  I suspect the Bushes will be very gracious about it.

Try it yourself.  It's kind of fun.

Kerry
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:59:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Steve, Steve, Steve...

You say that "women are JUST AS LIKELY TO DIE FROM ILLEGAL ABORTIONS AS THEY
ARE FROM LEGAL ONES."  You also state that "thousands of women have suffered
from the ill physical and psychological effects of abortion."

Once again, I ask you: SHOW ME SOMETHING.  You have this Reaganesque knack
for stating "facts" without any clear basis in reality and no proper
references or resources to back up your claims.  Are you going to keep
_dodging_ me on this, or are we going to see something CONCRETE.  Put
up or shut up.

--Julie
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: A Moronic Joke!
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:56:19 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 <POLITICS%92111118195916@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes:
 >PS For an understanding of a Vietnam Vet's point of view in protest and symbols,
 >I suggest "Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry (now Sen.
 >John Kerry of Massachusetts)to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations",
 >April 23, 1971.  Would be happy to post if requested.

Yes, please do.  That would make a nice addition to my collection.  I
remember well when he gave it.

						Andrew MacRae
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: World View of America
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:16:46 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

>Julie responding to me:
>Most black South Africans are adamantly in support of sanctions against
>South Africa.  It's pretty much an urban myth that a lot of Black South
>Africans are opposed to sanctions.   The number of black people actually
>_employed_ by the companies that would be affected is exceedingly small,
>aproximately 45,000 people, compared to the complete population of South
>Africa.  I'll respond to your other points in another note.

	I didn't want to quantify how many were opposed, just point out that
there were those who felt the impact on the economy would be worse for blacks.
On a general note, economic sanctions are rarely effective.  Iraq and Cuba come
to mind immediately as failed economic embargoes.

Brett'
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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:48:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Paul:
>
>The Pope urged Catholics in America to actively fight laws which prohibt
>anti-gay legislation.  Furthermore, our own local Bishop Gelano of Rhode
>Island insisted that to vote for Pro-Choice legislation was a mortal
>sin.  Do you not conside that to be attempting to affect the body of
>politics?  Bishop Gelano used his position in the Church as a power
>base for influencing politics.  Now tell me how Rhode Island's Catholic
>Diocese is eligible for tax exempt status.
>
>--Julie

 Julie:

 I would like to know when the pope urged this anti-gay legislation,
but the Diocese in Oregon opposed the anti-gay legislation.  How is
Catholics urging people to support certain programs affecting
legislation, since (in most states) laws are made and passed by a
selevt few.  These few hold the power and the Church holds virtually
little power over these people.  Furthermore, you still failed to
asnwer my question of which legislation is the Catholic Church solely
reponsible for passing.  You know that the Diocese in R.I. is exempt
because of separation of church and state.  Just because someone, or
some organization does not pay taxes, does not mean they are not
allowed to speak of politics, unless you want the poor out of the
process also.

-Paul
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:35:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Who gained what in the 1980s
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>This gets back to the earlier distinction between equality and improvement.
>
>Some people prefer equality to improvement while others prefer
>improvement to equality.  The former look at concentrations of wealth
>while the latter look at how well off the poor are regardless of what
>the rich have.
>-andy

	I guess it's no surprise that I'm one of the latter.  For me, it's
similar to test scores.  I don't care what the top score is, as long as the
bottom performers have access to the tools needed to raise their scores.
Someone getting 100% doesn't mean someone else has to get 10%.
	Of course whether the system is flawed is another argument.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:35:02 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities
              5 Nov 1992 10:55:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:55:00 EST Song Weaver said:
>Who is Jennifer Grey?
>
>--Julie

One of the stars of _Dirty Dancing_.  She also is Joel Grey's daughter.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:57:32 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court Justice
              12 Nov 1992 13:33:07 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

James J. Kilpatrick is a newspaper columinist who has two types of columns:
(a.) politics and (b.) words (much like his fellow conservative William
Safire).  Jack Kilpatrick (as he is called) was on 60 Minutes in the "Point/
Counterpoint" segment (first against Nicholas Von Hoffman and then against
Shana Alexander).

Evelyn Duncan
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "On the Election, Afterthoughts"
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:13:32 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

>VMS:
>I gave Perot 15% in my last round of guessing, he got 19%, but he
>failed to win a state, failed to even finish second anywhere, thereby

	Perot came in second in Utah, and missed second in Idaho and Maine by a
percentage point.

>But, the Solid South (and the Far West) broke ranks (would they have
>had Clinton not been a southerner?) with Louisiana and Georgia going
>Democratic, as did Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevado, California,
>Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio, states usually going to
>the GOP. Had those 153 electoral votes gone George Bush's way, we'd
>be talking much differently today.

	The "solid south" is an illusion.  The south only became "GOP" with
Reagan.  Doesn't anyone else remember the commentators saying "first Republican
sweep since reconstruction" during the 1980 returns?  I've heard that Georgia
later went to Bush on final vote tally.  Rumor or fact?
	And as has been mentioned, Bush is no Reagan :).

	Mostly agreement with you on everything else.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:22:25 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
              9 Nov 1992 01:35:45 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>        Reagan is loved in the XSSR and Eastern Europe.  People there see him
> as a liberator.  Reagan is also respected in Japan.

I can vouch for that.  He received a few millions (4 or 8) for a
few minutes talk.

Now, I call THAT respect.

> Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:39:24 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> 550? Really Jonathon? WOW! 550 out of literally thousands of economists.
> --Steve
>
Don't forget the 10 nobel prize winners!
My point was very simple Steve, even though you found a way to ignore it.
Your diatribe about Clinton has really no basis in fact.  Otherwise, you
would be quoting some of these thousands of economists to which you cling.
You just hate Clinton.  Facts just get in the way of that.

And the name is Jonathan.  You can't even get something that simple
correct.  Why should anyone listen to your boring tales/lies of how the
economy is to fair under PRESIDENT CLINTON?

Jonathan
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:42:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Steve:
        Show us whatever you want about Clinton - the complaint is not that you
attack him - it's that you don't TELL us anything.  HOW will he destroy the
country?  Which policies SPECIFICALLY do you fear?  Use examples, friendd
d
d
d



ddd
Sorry, my keyboard is acting up!


-T.
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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:17:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30608

>From: Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
>Subject:RE: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:28:00 EST
>Message-ID:<tfilt380542@drew.edu>

>Paul:
>
>Read my response to Kat, because it basically outlines what the issue
>is with Churches and Taxes.  Churches are NOT tax-exempt by default
>because they are Churches.  They are tax-exempt because they are non
>profit.  For a non-profit organization to be tax-exempt it must not
>engage in LOBBYING and it can not work as a political action com-
>mittee.  Churches do both.
>
>--Julie
>
 Julie:

Could you please tell me what political action committe the Catholic
Church belongs to, because I would be interested in knowing.
Furthermore, what lobbying has the Catholic Church as an institution
done.  If a Catholic is a lobbyist, that does not mean that the entire
Church is lobbying.
Try taxing a church and they will tell you that they are exempt
becuase of separation of church and state, and they have won
in courts on the separation issue.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: president hillary
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:01:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110612291035@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, CCHILDER@UNMCVM
.BITNET (fred) writes:
>Mike sez: "If president Hillary will let slick willie" we can go into
>iran or iraq again.
>
>
>I have seen several CNN articles about Iran possible buying nuclear
>weapons from the former soviet union. Does this make anybody other
>than me nervous. Mike and company please note that this is happening
>on Mr. Bush's watch, and the clinton presidency doesn't begin until
>1993.
>
>fred
>
I am scared of how President-Elect Clinton would handle this situation.  Those
Middle Eastern leaders don't have a high regard of most Americans.  They do,
however, (except for maddaS that is) have a liking of President Bush and are
sorry to see him go.  I watched that assessment on CNN as well, and I think it
may go for most world leaders as well.  President Bush did not ruin our
country, he in fact helped us a great deal.  I'm sorry that we, as Americans,
turned our backs on him when he helped us so much.
                                        Jayce
P.S.  Those sentiments can be mirrored to Ronald Reagan as well
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:59:24 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Catholic tradition
              11 Nov 1992 14:24:21 GMT from <mit2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

From:         "(MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)" <mit2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

> ..................................  Maybe those people who aren't Catholic,
> shouldn't worry about the Catholic Church, because the Church does not impose
> any of its rules on them.  ..............................................

> --Mike

It certainly does.  The Catholic Church does not merely believe that
it is not permissible for Catholics to have abortion, rather no one
should be allowed to have an abortion.

--KAT
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:57:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>The fact that Bush lied about Iran/Contra doesn't disturb you?

        I am sick and tired of hearing about Iran-Contra.  For the
past six years, a special prosecutor with unlimited resources has
spent over $60,000,000 on Iran/Contra, and no one is sitting in jail
for this supposed illegal activity.  It's so sorry that Iran/Contra
keeps getting thrown in people's faces.  I hear it all the time at
Drew, and I keep saying no one really cares.

        Now, concerning President Bush.  Bush did not participate in
illegal activites, and you cannot say with any verifable proof that he
did.  Of course, as of yet, there is not illegal activity, because no
one has been prosecuted for it, everybody has been acquitted.  I don't
believe that President Bush has lied about Iran/Contra.  When Bush
knew that arms were being sold to Iran for hostages is irrelevant
because that ACTION WAS NOT ILLEGAL.  Some may say that it was bad
policy, but it WAS LEGAL.  The transfer to Nicaragua, which everyone
agrees that BUSH DID NOT KNOW, was the illegal part.  You cannot say
that you know exactly what every president and VP has done concernig
foreign policy.  Even Kennedy did things in secret.

        My point is that this Iran/Contra business has been a waste of
time and money.  It was a Democratic attempt to nail someone in the
Reagan administration and it has not worked.  Liberals will not be
able to use Iran/Contra forever, so they better start talking some
issues, that America cares about.  Bush should end this entire episode
by pardoning Casper Weinberger (if he is set free, Iran/Contra is
dead).  What does he have to lose.

        -Paul

P.S. I wonder if the special prosecutor will ever be used against
President Clinton or that Democratic Congress.
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:27:00 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was CONWAY_OWEN@BENTLEY
From:         CONWAY_O@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

        Isn't that what George wallace wanted to do, have it go to the House so
he could deal for his electors?  I see your point in wanting our leader to be
chosen by a majority of the people, but unless third parties play a major role i
   n
future elections (as they did in all elections that the winner didn't get a
majotity) I see no need for this. However, if it will help third parties
flurish in this country, Im all for it.  But unless other parties start to get
exposure and attention it will be pointless.
        O.C.
>        Okay I kinda like this only because it will help third party
>candidates
>because it will get rid of that winner-take-all system. But I still don't see
>what good it would do. Only a couple of presidents have been elected without a
>plurality of votes.

Two have been elected without a plurality (two too many, can you imagine
the outcry if that would happen today, how could Clinton gove
                 tually had gotten more votes) but 16 in all have been elected w
   ithout a
majority. A runoff (as in France) assures that a President has majority
support of the nation, if not first preference, and makes it more difficult
fordidate to squeak in in a three way race. Also, it would
end the argument thcandidate is
"throwing away your vote"  since all your doing is positihe could deal for his e
   lectors? I see your point that it would be in the best
intrest of the country to have its leader chosen by a majority of its people.
But this would only be needed if a minor parties continue tograb big numbers in
elections. Perot's movement turns into a third party, it will allow for more
parties and a need for a runoff. But unless that happens I do
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:35:10 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: right v left

On Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:04:44 -0500 <ZIMMERJ@WABASH> said:
>
>Kerry:
>
>>I'd be interested in your comparison of hard-core communist and our "left".
>
>Sure.  The way I was taught, the left-right spectrum runs like this:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|           |            |          |                              |
>Communism  Socialism   Democrats  Republicans                    Nazism
>
>Using this traditional spectrum, the hard core communists wind up on the far
>left.  Of course, that is not to imply that all those who are left of center
>are communists!

perhaps the hard core communists went so far to the left they popped out on
the other side      B-)

>
>Jason

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