HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:58:09 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Where Bush went wrong

The upset election of liberal Harris Woffard in last year's Senate race
against Dick Thornburgh (sp?) principally on the Health Care issue should
have sent a strong message to Bush that he should concentrate on domestic
issues, primarily the economy, or else. While there was a lot of commentary
about the upset, and while it did send the White House into a temporary panic,
the lesson wasn't learned. If Bush had run in January on a campaign of
fighting the recession and cushioning the impact on ordinary Americans, he
could have won, instead he turned right to fight the Buchannan 'threat'

By the way, Woffard's campaign manager, the guy who insisted on building
Woffard's campaign on Health Care is the same fellow who managed Clinton's
campaign. (I forget his name but he's the bald guy from Louisiana with the
Chesire smile and the loud laugh who dates Mary Matilin)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:19:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate

>Boy, it might be worth nipping on over to Virginia to see if I can
>get some work developing campaign ads for North's opponent...

i just wonder what it is people like paul are nipping on.

-linda

>-other Andy
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:07:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Who gained what in the 1980s
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brett':

How about those of us who earn unde15,000 or $10,000/year?

Furthermore, how does this relate to the amount of work done?  Were
people earning the same amount for the same amount of work, or did
they have to work more hours and for more or less pay?

I'm trying to figure out how you derived those figures as well.  I
think that "gains" are only relevant on certain levels when discussed
exclusively in terms of finances.  For example, do they take health
care and other benefits into account?  If someone loses their health
care benefits, is that reflected in your figures or not?  If someone
has more annual income now than ten years ago, but are much further{
in debt, is that a gain?

Just trying to clarify.

--Julie
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Things
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:24:57 GMT
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

Hi, y'all:

To JasonZ:  I'll try to remember to post some interesting info on working
poor for your benefit.  Basically, the authors point out that a
frighteningly large number of two-income/four person households can't make
ends meet.  And that's with both spouses working full-time.

To Brett:  I'm not trying for sympathy (well, maybe just a little :)), but
some of us work in professions that (1) have declining or stagnant real
wages and (2) are sufficiently oversupplied that transferring is difficult.
In public higher ed, at least in primarily 4-year state institutions, hard
work, good qualifications, and so forth *don't* guarantee much in the way
of financial security.  Over the past 5 years, my workload has increased, my
wages have stayed just even with inflation, and my opportunity for transfer
has declined (no one's hiring).  And I really don't know that I could've
predicted all of this when I began graduate school, or when I chose to
continue grad school even though I needed student loans to finance it.

I guess my point is that the work ethic doesn't work the way it once did.
It works to some degree, but it seems in far more limited fashion than it
did, say, for my parents.  Although I am better educated than my father and
work just as hard as he did, I do not have the same earning power as he did
at a similar point in his career.  I think that's what T. is sort of
getting at.

Cheers :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:16:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      can i be whitehouse cook?

Congratulations to the Tall Guys.

Thanks to James for staying up late and counting all the Xs.

so, anyhow.....can i be whitehouse cook???

well,
i must say, i was a little more excited about this election than i thought. my
emotions have a way of surprising me....i'm always the last to know how i feel.
anyway,
as soon as jess went to bed i poured some port and sat down for the results.
dear jeff called around 10 and we watched..er..listened...together.
now i am proud to say that my guy won. i finally voted for a winner. i know, i
know, its the process that counts, even if he hadn't won, i should be proud i
participated in this great process, but hell, MY GUY WON. amazing. i always lose
when i vote (almost), or when i play poker, or go to racetrack, or play go fish
with jess.
jeff was happy too. well, not exactly happy, more like resigned.
he's a republican, poor deluded baby, but he voted for
clinton because he's watched his income drop by more than 1/2 last couple of
years, but mainly because of the direction he's seen republican party go in
regards to women's rights, abortion, etc.
i was sad to see lynn yeakel lose to specter, but it was exciting watching
their numbers. they inched each other the whole time. that is so surprising
because specter has always commanded such great support. amazing that a
democrate and a woman to boot got anywhere near him.
i lost that one. jeff picked the winner.

does anyone know yet what the voter turnout was for the nation?
seems that everyone is talking record numbers, but i haven't had time to check.

i was 816 person in my district to vote shortly after 5pm.
maybe i should play that number.
just this once.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:00:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Who gained what in the 1980s

Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:12:48 EST
From: "(Stupendous Man)" <demon@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>               Who gained what in the 1980s
>
>       Income          Gain
>       < $25k          19%
>       25-50k          39%
>       50-100k         25%
>       >100k           23%
>
>       Change in average net worth, 1983-1989, in real 1989 dollars.
>
>       (Forbes 400 issue, 10/19/92, page 78.)

        I'm a bit confused about what these figures actually say.  Do these
data claim that income grew by the indicated percentage for each quartile (and
by the way, aren't such data usually divided by quintile?  Why did Forbes use
this non-standard division?)?  If so, why is there no mention of change in
total wealth?  By my recollection, this latter measure indicates a much more
drastic concentration of wealth in the hands of the upper classes (I will have
to find that data).  Or, do these data show changes in total wealth (net worth)
by people in each income category?  Even if the latter, I still have some
reservations about the numbers.  A 23% change in net worth for one whose income
is >100k is much greater than a 19% gain for those with income less than 25k.
As a matter of fact, these figures do not refute the claim that, of total
wealth in the economy, the 1980s saw a greater _concentration_ in the hands of
the wealthiest Americans.  Lastly, why the dates of 1983-1989?  Wouldn't a more
valid comparison be one made between a time _before_ Reagan took office and
Reagan's term itself?  Why compare trends within the term?

        Please note that the History Czar staff welcomes disagreement and
discourse, even within its own ranks.  We are simply ever-vigilant against the
abuses of history.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   LADY ASTOR: Winston, if you were my husband, I
Marshall Univ. History Dept.      should flavour your coffee with poison.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       CHURCHILL: Madam, if I were your husband, I
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU         should drink it.
YEA003@MARSHALL
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:53:37 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

JasonZ:
>Again, it suggests that the representative in question (namely Barbara Boxer)
>is either a boob or a scoundrel.  Whether or not she actually broke the law or
>playe around with public funds is beside the point.  Either reason is certainly
>cause to vote her out of office.

In fairness, I recall reading and hearing that the procedures followed by
the House bank were less than thorough -- that deposits didn't always get
recorded in a timely fashion and so forth.  Thus, at least some of the
overdrafts (or no-interest loans, as the case may be) were not necessarily
the fault of House members.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:20:18 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Sure thing T. Yes, what I'm saying is that under Clinton's policies there will
be MORE people on welfare. You could even take this one step further by
saying that these welfare recipients would be getting less welfare money. Why?
Becuase the more pepople on welfare, thew more that money is divided, thus, the
 l
less each individual receives. Clear now?
--Steve
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:48:43 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

    Here's an idea, how about getting rid of the Electoral College and doing
what France does. Declare the candidate that gets over 50% of the vote the
winner, if no candidate does that on the first ballot, have a run-off between
the top two candidates in two or three weeks time. Your current system holds
the possibility that a candidate can get a majority in the Electoral College
and come in second in the popular vote (it's already happened once, late last
century). It's a strong possibility in especially close elections.
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:40:00 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

Okay, first off I'll state that Act-Up has many chapters and the Rhode
Island chapter is not the New York chapter.  Furthermore, the actions
taken against the Cathedral in NY City were taken by SOME members of
Act-Up, not endorsed by the group.  I personally do not object to them,
though I would never have engaged in them.  The members of the group
who were involved in the NY protest in which the host was desecrated and
condoms were thrown were actually all Catholic and that issue, as far
as I am concerned, was an internal issue of the Church.

I'll also note that Paul's comment that he is sure that Act-Up's actions
in Manchester were not non-violent is simply conjecture, with no basis
whatsoever in fact and actually, is not true to the best of _my_ know-
ledge and I was _there_ at the time.

Now, regarding Buchannan: My own beliefs about him are based on what he
has SAID HIMSELF, and not much more.  I've seen his adds, I've read his
speeches, and he, to me, seems to be little more than a hatemonger.  I
think he is dangerous and I think he promotes violence and homophobia
through his attitudes.

Paul also asserts that 50% of the population thinks that homosxuality
is abnormal (is that what you said, Paul?  I don't have the original
message any longer) and I really don't know how to respond to that
because I really think it's (a) irrelevant and (b) false.  Care to
explain to me the point behind bringing that up Paul and where you get
your figures?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:52:03 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!

>Remember Gore 2000


    Bennett'96
From: KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET (Kip Shaw)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Fire! vs. There may be a fire!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:19:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

A terrific thundering thriller movie is running to a packed theater.
The entire audience is glued to the next moment on the screen.
Suddenly a man gets up in the audience and shouts: Fire!
                                                   ------
Then he runs toward the exit.
The entire audience panics.


A terrific thundering thriller movie is running to a packed theater.
The entire audience is glued to the next moment on the screen.
Suddenly a man gets up in the audience and shouts: There may be a fire here!
Then he runs toward the exit.                      --------------------------
The entire audience panics.

This above example is only an approximation to the original.
The original example was given by a Supreme Court Justice in an analysis
of an amendment pertaining to free speech, I believe.


Any deep thoughts perhaps?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:16:44 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Just in case you missed them

>From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
>
>Doesn't Jamie giving the award to James smack of nepotism ?
>
>Dunstan

Dunstan seems to know something about my sister that I don't.
I wasn't aware that I have a nephew at all.

One more crack like that and I'll have your inference license revoked.

Don't mess with the Logic Czar.

Jamie
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: the answer to Kip's question
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:05:57 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

It's obvious.  The answer is "never."  A major law of politics is that
liberals and conservatives can never meet halfway.  :)

Kerry
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:28:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30381

>From: Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
>Subject:RE: Poor losers!
>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:16:00 EST
>Message-ID:<tfilt378909@drew.edu>

>I guess what I would like is rather than hearing cheap shots at Clinton
>that people say WHAT concerns them about him.  Not just "he'll raise
>taxes."  WHY do you say he will raise taxes, and what do you think is
>the big problem with him doing so.  Qualify your statements rather than
>engaging in cheap shots and sleaze politics.

        Saying that Clinton will raise taxes, is not a cheap shot, it
is the truth.  We say that Clinton will raises taxes, because he
promised to do so and it is in his book.  If you think that their is
no problem with raising taxes, then maybe you should take a simple
economics course.  In 1931, Herbert Hoover raised taxes during a year
of economic slump, and what happened.  1932 became the worse year of
the Great Depression.  The economy went down the tubes because of the
tax increase.  Could you tell me one instance in American History when
raising taxes resulted in prosperity and economic growth.  Even John
Kennedy cut taxes, because he knew tax cuts result in growth!


>See the difference?  I think Clinton's alleged affair with Flowers is
>irrelevant but obviously some here do not.  Don't call Clinton an
>"adulterer."  Tell us WHY you think it is relevant.  Tell us what
>you think is the issue, don't rant and rave at us.  I think we'd
>get a lot further that way.

        Most of us do not really care that Governor Clinton had an
affair with Jennifer Flowers, the fact that he lied is what is so
disturbing, and Bill Clinton slept with Flowers.  Then, can you
explain how Flowers received a prominent position in the Arkansas
Governor over a more qualified African-American women.  Furthermore,
Clinton was personally responsible for Flowers receiving the position.
If Clinton can lie about his affair, then what will not stop him from
lying to the American people.  That is the relevance of the affair.
Also, it was pretty relevant with Gary Hart.  And Republicans have
been trying to prove this point, but the press does not present things
in such a manner.

> -Paul
  A proud Conservative not permitting liberals defining conservative
values.
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan Fisher))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: bounced checks
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:47:20 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

> Again, it suggests that the representative in question (namely Barbara Boxer)
> is either a boob or a scoundrel.  Whether or not she actually broke the law or
> playe around with public funds is beside the point.  Either reason is
 certainly
> cause to vote her out of office.
> >--KAT
>
> Jason
>

Look I probably wouldn't have voted against her even if she was running
against a moderate, though it would have been a close call.  The fact is
she was running against a right-wing neo-facist neanderthal.  There was
no option.

Jonathan
From: TJGOH@RTI.BITNET (TIM GABEL (EXT. 7415))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Is there anybody out there?
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:51:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: RCCW21::IN%"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: TJGOH
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

>i have been sending all sorts of stuff to all sorts of people with no
>reply forthcoming.  maybe you all just don't like me, or read what i write,
>but...is anything getting through?  on the off-chance that this gets anyplace,
>i will reiterate todddddddd's point to shawn that all-caps is not
>really necessary, and is basically kinda annoying.

>happy motoring.
>anneliese.

anneliese,
    I especially appreciated your welcome message to my initial posting.
Glad to be on-board.  And glad *not* to be in wintery MN.

Cheers - Tim G.
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:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:29:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: right v left
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt386704@drew.edu>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU writes:
> Jimbo:
>>Does anyone have a handy copy of the libertarian 'smallest political
>>quiz' with the so-called 'Nolan Chart' or whatever it is called?
>
> Is that the two-dimensional one with economic freedom on one axis and
> individual liberty (or whatever) on the other?  With libertarians in the
> high economic freedom/high individual liberty quadrant and so forth?  I
> can't remember the correct names that go in the others, but basically
> traditional liberals go in the high individual liberty/low economic freedom
> spot and "Republicans" (I don't remember the correct label) in the low
> individual liberty/high economic freedom part -- is that about right?
>
> I liked that chart.  I found it gave me a much better way to think about
> the right/left stuff (and that's sort of what I was driving at in my posts
> to JasonZ).
>
> Kerry
>

   Something like this?

   ----------------------------------------
   l                                       l
   l Liberal  Democrat  Populist Communist l
   l                                       l
   l                                       l
   l                                       l
   l                                       l  Equality
   l                                       l
   l                                       l
   l                                       l
   l                                       l
   l Libert.   Repub.   Conser.  Fascist   l
   -----------------------------------------
   Freedom                             Order



       -Joe
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:29:49 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

Steve writes:
>Kerry, I NEVER implied anything about women getting dates because of their
>good looks or lack thereof. NEVER. And your implication that I DID, as well
>as your labeling my joke as 'sexist,' implies that I, myself, have sexist,
>or chauvenistic qualities about me. This is entirely untrue. Neither my joke
>nor my attitudes are sexist in any way. If you have any further problem, please
>take it up with me privately and spare these fine folks from your
>presumptuousness.

From this post I am rapidly inferring that Steve and I differ in our
definitions of "imply", "sexist", and "presumptuous".  I don't know my way
around the archives, so I can't pull up the earlier posts to back up my
assertion that (1) I was accurate in my assessment of the implications of
the joke in question (in the context of earlier posts) and (2) that I said
nothing about Steve's attitudes (I believe I even admitted it wasn't his
joke :)).

Methinks the young man protesteth too much.  But that's OK.  I'll even let
him have the last word, if he wishes :)

Steve, have at me :)
Kerry