HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GE0793@SIUCVMB.BITNET (Steve Bratten)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Carol Simpson, people who work, bbs-gateway...
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:35:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

My first instinct, after watching the debate, was to comment about the
moderator. I thought some of her statements to Perot and Bush were
distracting; particularly toward the beginning of the debate; seemed to
me she did better as time went on... gee, I wish I would have sent
that note; it could have been my first *intelligent* contribution to
these discussions.

At the risk of looking stupid (certainly won't be the first time), I
also thought President Bush's reference to attending a "black church"
sounded peculiar.

Anyway, just wanted to let y'all know that I'm still here and reading
all the discussion concerning the campaign with interest. In case no
one remembers me, I'm the guy who got off to such a great start here
by making the statement about the "liberal, un-realistic word of
academia, etc..." Then I vowed to give more thought to any further
comments only to immediately trash that idea by asking another sub-
scriber if he, "had ever really worked a day in his life."

I found out he sure has and also got responses from a few other folks.
Anyway, I tried really hard to think of some type of justification for
those comments but couldn't. But, I was particularly impressed with
a post from a lady who explained, very patiently, what all she has to
do to satisfy the administration of her particular institution. (I
think this was from a female; apologize if I am incorrect.)

What amazed me was her tolerance of the statements I had made and that
she took the time to tell me that she, "understands how I feel"... well,
that and the fact that she knows what a toolpusher is.

"Also, even the guy I accused of, "not having worked a day in his life,"
was nice to me; thanks Tim.

If there's any point to this at all it's that, in my opinion (at this
very moment) labeling people is bad but tolerance is very good.
The fact that those two let me rant and rave and didn't feel the need
to reciprocate, really *mellowed me out."

Oh yeah, to the guy who introduced himself and, referring to my present
berth in Graduate Admissions, said something like, "you're the guy who
gives me the blank stare when I'm trying to register; glad to meetcha."
No, you're thinking of our dean.

Also, I guess what I'm trying to say is I know I was wrong again. BTW,
regarding the *gateway* between the Politics list and my bbs; it's
history -- too much work!

Last but not least, Linda (again, I think it was Linda) said she was
going to check her library for "Bloody Williamson." Were you serious,
and, if so, did you get it?

see 'ya
Steve Bratten a.k.a. roughneck the typing clerk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:20:14 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Guns, Freud, and Psychology

Hang on to your hats, folks, this one's a corker. Andy Freeman
actually said:
 "Freud said that gun/ weapons FEAR was associated with psychological
problems, that such fear was manifested in attempts to ban and control
said weapons of others."
  I know, it's hard to believe that anyone could stoop to such dazzlingly
stupid fabrication (Oliver North would be proud!), let alone expect to
get away with it on a list like this one. But I have an explanation: Andy
does not mean Sigmund Freud in this quote, but BILLIE BOB Freud, master
taxidermist and Local Bailiff of the Grand Knights of the National Rifle
Association, Muskogee Lodge. What SIGMUND Freud said on this issue is
of course altogether different:
"It is quite unmistakable that all weapons and tools are *USED* as symbols
for the male organ: eg ploughshare, hammer, gun, revolver, dagger, sword, etc."
[_Basic Writings_, p.373; emphasis added]
  and, more generally (and the pertinence of this quote will only be
evident to the opposably-thumbed members of the list):
"That cruelty and the sexual instinct are intimately connected is beyond
doubt taught by the history of civilization, but in the explanation of this
connection no one has gone beyond the accentuation of the aggressive factors
of the libido. The aggression which is mixed with the sexual instinct is,
according to some authors, a remnant of cannibalistic lust.."
[_ibid._, 570]
People like Andy and Robert are a disgrace to American education. What
kind of system of education could produce students so paranoiacally full
of themselves that they feel they have the right to invent facts when the
truth is an inconvenience to their prejudices? What a travesty, a tragedy;
a nation where people are free to find out, to gorge themselves on truth
if they want, and instead spend all their effort shutting out any idea
which would disturb their idiotic preconceptions even slightly. What is
so profoundly disturbing is not the transparent fabrications in Andy's
postings, but the cultural system which produced them.
MW Morse
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (Rick George)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: New York Presidential Poll
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:40:04 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

For those interested in state polls on the Presidential race, Marist
relased another poll (taken after Sunday's debate, but before last
night's affair) of New York State voters:

      Clinton   52%
      Bush      27%
      Perot     12%
      Undecided  8%


Also in New York, tomorrow is the first of three scheduled debates between
Al D'Amato and Bob Abrams.  They'll appear from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
on New York City radio station WFAN (660 AM--clear channel) on the
"Imus in the Morning" show.  Needless to say, Don Imus is not Hal Bruno.

The race between the two has taken on the appearance of a World Wrestling
Federation match of late:  Abrams got a little carried away at an
appearance at SUNY/Binghampton and called D'Amato a "facist."  Later, he
said that he really meant "right wing extremist."  He also compared
D'Amato to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.  D'Amato has been demanding
an apology since the facist remark, and Abrams has declined (although
he did offer a general apology to Italian-Americans).  D'Amato has
called Abrams, among other things, a "sleaze bag."

The New York Post is reporting that Rudy Giuliani will endorse D'Amato
today.  This is significant because Al and Rudy have hated each other
ever since D'Amato supported Ron Lauder in the last NYC mayoral race
and it got a little ugly back then.  D'Amato is doing his best to paint
Abrams as anti-Italian--he's even got clips of Gerraldine Ferraro
criticizing Abrams in his ads (although Ferraro has asked D'Amato to
pull the ads).  Abrams was conspicuously absent from the NYC Columbus
Day parade (where ALL the politicians show up).  There's also a case
going on in NYC where an employee has charged CUNY with being anti-Italian
and Abrams is defending CUNY (as Attorney General, he is required to).
There's talk that D'Amato will soon integrate that into his attacks.

And my two cents on the VP debates...

It got to the point where I cringed everytime it was time for Stockdale
to say something.  I just felt embarassed for the guy and embarassed
to be watching him.

I can't believe that Gore didn't stick up a little more for Clinton when
Quayle was attacking him (Clinton) on not being forthright.

And if Dan's going to play pit bull, he needs to lose the nervous
laugh that he has and stop trying to say things that are funny (when
they're not funny).

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:16:38 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: clinton jams; bush rambles; perot advertises

Good format.  But why did Bush keep looking at his watch?  Did he
have something to do later last night?

...Rick
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: No joke!
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:49:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt352550@drew.edu>, Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> wri
   tes:
> *** Resending note of 10/13/92 10:16
>
>>Personally speaking though, I think some of these discussions might
>>benefit from some fresh viewpoints and preferably some from outside the
>>left-wing, liberal, unrealistic world of academia........
>>Steve Bratten a.k.a. roughneck
>
> Someone pinch me!  Am I dreaming or is it Christmas?
>
> ---Robert
>
actually I like getting all sides of a debate, but I hate it when the
other side uses logic that is so off the wall and easily rejected that
it's a joke.  Take the Supreme Court.  I like Scalia, conservative
intellectual, who is balanced by John Paul Stevens moderate-liberal
intellectual.  But, when Rehnquist puts forth his conservative views
via flawed logic and history (ex. religion), it annoys me to no end.

    -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:36:40 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      That patriotism thing, again.

Once more George Bush is questioning the patriotism of
his opponent.  I am seeing a trend here: if you are against
George Bush, you must be unpatriotic.  Sound like some of
our POLITICS friends.  :-)

I have to admit, I am somewhat dismayed at Clinton's lack
of candor.  I keep thinking, "if it was me, I would have
put everything on the table."  But then I realize, *I*
would have never been elected for any office.

So the question keeps coming back to me.  Why is Clinton
behaving the way he is?  I came up with one answer, let's
see what you people think.

As of now, Bush seems to be loosing.  That is, enough people
are more or less committed to Clinton, and for him
to lose, he has to lose some supporters to Bush.  And Bush
knows this.  And Clinton knows that Bush knows that too.

I think people are willing to switch from Clinton on
character issues ONLY if that issue has not been raised
before.  You see, I think it is a psychological thing.
If a person supports Clinton now, it is despite the possibility
of an affair that he had with Gennifer Flower.  Now, if Bush
brings up THAT again, in fact it might even backfire.  Because
such an attack will be viewed as an attack on those who are
supporting Clinton despite that character flaw.  Such an attack
might in fact might strengthen the resolve of those supporters.

The same with the draft/war protest/trip to moscow issue for
Clinton.  Had he revealed/admitted to it long time ago in ONE
shot, many voters would not have even considered supporting
him.  So he decides to do this in small installments.
So the first news about his draft comes out.  Yes, he would
lose some supporters but not as many as if he had told
everything at once.  Now once some voters decide to support him
despite the draft news, then they are somehow locked in
(psychologically that is) in that support.  Subsequent little
erosions by Bush may not hurt Clinton's support base by a
large margin.

So it seems to me unless there is revelation of a drastically
more volatile nature about Clinton's anti-war activities --
such as accepting money from KGB to organize protests -- that
no amount of statements by Bush such as "Call me old fashioned
but protesting against your own government on a foreign soil
when our sons and daughters were dying in Vietnam, that is
wrong.....it is just wrong," would not do any considerable
damage.  Especially, considering who the alternative is.

Then again I might be wrong. :-)

--KAT
From: CCSYS006@CCSUVM1.BITNET (Gregg Henderson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: PAPER: "The Gulf Crisis and the United Nations"
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:36:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Oct 1992 21:24:06 GMT from <harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU>

You have done a good job of ignoring the savage attacks upon Kuwait
by Iraq.  Saddam Hussein was given sufficient warnings to withdraw, but
apparently, he couldn't stand to lose face and withdraw.  Instead, he
sacrificed thousands of "volunteers", while his elite forces were safely
away from the heat of battle.  If you are looking for someone to blame
for the Gulf crisis, why don't you start with the man who started it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:52:42 CST
From:         "Steve Bratten" <GE0793@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      No joke!

>>  Some pretty hot discussions on this message area. I, being a Rush
>>Limbaugh fan and a Christian, know that my point of views are right.
>
>  Umm, anyone taking bets on whether or not this is a joke?
>
>                                         -Tim

Tim,

This is no joke. However, I should probably clarify something to the
subscribers of this list. (I hope  I can't get arrested for what I'm
about to confess to.)

I am the sysop of a bbs in Herrin IL and have developed a method for
*gatewaying* messages between listserv discussion groups and the bbs.
I've been downloading all of the messages from this list for about one
week and, thus far, Jennifer is the first person who wanted to respond
to this list. If there are not too many objections from subscribers and,
more improtantly, the list owner(s) I will continue to do so. Herrin is
a small town and I only have a few users so I don't foresee adding any
significant volume of mail to what I know is already a very busy list.

However, I may have got ahead of myself, so if someone is majorly upset
by this or knows that it is something that is against the policies of
the network, by all means, let me know; I certainly don't want to rock
the boat.

Personally speaking though, I think some of these discussions might
benefit from some fresh viewpoints and preferably some from outside the
left-wing, liberal, unrealistic world of academia. Of course, that's
just my opinion and probably not one that will get much attention
from some of you "highly educated" folks.

Steve Bratten a.k.a. roughneck
BTW, I wish I was back workin' in the oilfield with some 'good ole
boys' in Oklahoma. Ross Perot would love it as it is definitly a place
where one has to be accountable.
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: To Those Who Voted For Carter
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:07:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        OK, I admit anyway I was glad to see you back on.  I'd even like
to see Screaming Jay Sultan back on.

                                        Chris
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, 7 Oct 1992 18:32:01 -0400
From:         "The Gilded Age is Alive and Well... or maybe it should be the
              Gelded Age" <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sorry...

the question to ask is how valuable is self respect when you don't have
a life? And what is foolish about defending what is yours? You are making
a presumption that we will... human nature...animal nature is that
we defend what is ours... i guess it comes down to whether you would be
willing to take a life for a cause instead of just dying for one.
I guess i'm sounding horrible...but as a voice of experience...I personally
don't appreciate being walked on... and i will stop it if i can. Now
the next things that if i feel threatened, i will fight back... but
perhaps you are right... we should ban guns... that way when we kill
people we can look them in the eye and watch them die!
          Ask the Jews in Israel if they will ever let someone
walk on them again... or ask them about the Masada?


         the point is that sometimes violence is needed to maintain control
because violence can if nothing else be used to create fear... now
in that period of fear...order can be restored!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:30:11 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Questions and Answers?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>
              9 Oct 1992 11:19:28 CST from <z_totahmc@CCSVAX.SFA SU.EDU>

On Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:19:28 CST <z_totahmc@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU> said:
>I am currenlt working on a paer Entitled The Image of Congress According
>to High School Students (50-60) Government students only.  I am
>asking for help in developing questions to use.  For example, What do
>you think of todays Congress?  I was also thinking about
>using pictures to see if students could name theiir senators.
>I still have to redo my secondary research because it was inadequate.
>Any ideas.  Should I take a high school perspective, for example,
>this is how future voters see the congress and waht effects this
>might have?  If you have any thoughts they would be
>appreciated.

I think the comment(s) presented here several weeks ago sum up Congress
exceptionally well: (author since forgotten)

Basically, that most people think of Congress as a collection of bums,
except for those representing their own state, hence the reason the
retention rate is so high.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:36:10 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A reformed Death Penalty
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:51:39 -0500 <PHARRIS@UMKCVAX1> said:
>Hello, I have just recently signed on to this list and have been intrigued
>with the discussions that are going on. I would like to make a comment
>on the existing death penalty. I won many debate rounds with my argument
>that a person convicted to death should be allowed only two appeals.
>At the conclusion of the second appeal, if the original ruling is upheld
>the criminal should be executed the minute they step out of the

1) I remember people who won many rounds back on the resolution of
   "The Federal Gov't should guarantee comprehensive medical care for
    all U.S. citizens." back in '77-'78.  So it's a matter of competition.

2) Why two?  Is this arbitrary on your part or do you have some
   special reason to justify why two rounds will shake loose everything
    that needs to be brought to light on the case?



Remember:  gore Clinton in '92.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:24:50 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

Ok, my last post on this subject.  In fact I think we have
agreed on most counts, but only a tiny logical point remains.

In his last post JasonZ said:

>Doubletaxes generally produce an unfair tax system, but yes, that is generally
>because the second tax (or both) is unfair in and of itself.  I said this long
>ago, and don't quite see why you keep bringing it up.

Look, if doubletaxing and unfairness are COMPLETELY independent
of each other then your statement above is at best misleading.

Let me give you an example.

We agree that brushing your teeth before having unprotected sex does not
increase your chances of getting pregnant, right?  Now let me construct
a sentence exactly like yours and you tell me if it sounds ridiculous.

Brushing your teeth before having sex generally result in pregnancy,
but yes, that is generally because the sex is unprotected.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:45:56 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      The Debate Format

Maybe now Sue Clark could tell us which debate format
serves the people better.

Quayle improved on the moron image.  He distorted, acted like
a child, was viscous (an old joke), but improved on the moron
image.

Gore's responses sounded like prepared statements.  Did not
give any blow to Quayle (I am disappointed).  When Quayle said
regarding environment and jobs, that it is not an either/or
proposition, Gore should have said, "With the Bush/Quayle
thicket it is a neither proposition."

Stockdale was terrible.  My daughter said several times, "poor
guy."  Her voice was so sorrowful that I actually started
feeling sorry for my daughter.  If Perot had a slim chance of
winning, that chance is gone now.  Who in their right mind
would want a thicket with the bottom part someone like him.
Oops!  I take that back.  Remember four years ago?

--KAT
From: BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE (james p mcbride)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Who's the ignorant one, here?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:20:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>

On Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:39:08 CST Steve Bratten said:
>
>>
>>  Jamie, Jimbo, liese, and the rest of y'all - I think
>>you are being way to harsh on this guy.  I mean, I sort
>>of agree with him.  I think having uneducated opinions
>>on the list is important.  The ignorant doubtless have
>>a lot to teach us.
>>
>>                     -Tim"I'm a fan of Geraldo, so I know I'm right"J
>
>You are a prime example of the type of arrogance I was referring to
>in my last post and your statement paints a picture of you in my mind.
>I can't help but wish I could how you would survive in the oilfield or
>any other type of hard labor. On the other hand, I'm holdiny my own in
>your world. But, I suppose I am jumping to conclusions just as you
>have. So you tell me, have ever really worked a day in your life?
>
WOOAAAAHHH  Silver!!  Hold it there.  I think I've just about had it with
people who assume that just because you have a college education, it
automatically means that you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.
Besides summer vacations spent exterior painting (badly), and working in a
warehouse (quite well, thank you very much), I have worked on farms and
spent many back-breaking weeks harvesting peat (solid fuel popular in Ireland
because we have lots and lots of suitable marshland) so that the family home
could be warm at night.  I have supported myself in London, Boston, and now
Dublin, in my first academic job.  I am more than confident that I could hold
my own quite comfortably on an oilrig or any other workplace you care to
mention.   AND DESPITE THIS - I PRIDE MYSELF ON HOLDING VIEWS THAT WOULD
PROBABLY MARK ME DOWN AS BEING TO THE LEFT OF JESSE JACKSON were I to be
involved in politics in your country.
So before you go making ignorant comments like that again, kindly try
thinking first.

>roughneck

james p mc bride
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU