HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Economic Summit?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 03:24:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

So, where are all the complaints from the Bush-ites about the upcoming
economic summit?  Surely this must be yet another example of how
Clinton plans to run this country straight into the ground.  After all,
it can't be a good idea if Bush didn't do it, right?

Of course, it does sound a lot like what Perot was saying he would do
if elected.  "Gather all kinds of people together, legislators, economists,
business people, etc, take a good look at what is good, what is bad, and
figure out what needs to be done." or words to that effect.  'Course everyone
*knows* that when Perot suggested it it was just another kooky idea.

						Andrew MacRae
						

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU (Michael J. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Acceptable Behavior
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:35:00 GMT
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


        In regards to the talk of murdering our President-elect (an abhorrent
proposal, even if made in jest), one of my former professors has remarked to me
about the intense feelings of hatred for liberals that he senses from some of
his conservative students.  He notes that these sentiments go beyond
disagreement and beyond even dislike; rather, they are strong emotions of hate.
This recent suggestion is one example of such feelings.  Now I realize that
most on this list are reasonable, even those with whom I disagree, but could
someone attempt to explain (rationally, a qualifier which would seem to
eliminate the poster of the original suggestion) the causes for such hatred?

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "Lafayette, we are here!"
Marshall Univ. History Dept.            -Col. C.E. Stanton, 4 July 1917, Paris
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       "We've paid off that old fart Lafayette.  What
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU       frog son-of-a-bitch do we owe now?"
YEA003@MARSHALL                         -U.S. Infantryman after Battle of
                                         Soissons, 28 May 1918
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:43:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Weapons designed for human destruction?

-andy:

        Please explain your definition of self-defense.  In the U.S., the law
that allows for self-defense is clear: if you are attacked, you may DEFEND your
life - it does not allow you to KILL the person who has attacked you.  There is
a big difference.  Also, the law provides that if the attacked may make a safe
withdrawl, they MUST do so.  If the means of escape exist, they may not continue
"defending" their life.

        Please explain your definition.


-T,
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 00:14:40 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

Julie
've got a real thing for putting people who don't tell the truth into positions
of power. Come on you have one as president, we don't need another.
---mike....
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:33:15 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flat Tax Now!

The Flat Tax puts an equal burden on those who are least able to pay as on
those who are best able to pay.

                              --andy
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:53:44 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"

In article <01GQU40OTD8W000QJY@RHODES.BITNET>, CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs
Cormier) says:
>
>On the seriousness with which the FBI and Secret Service take
>asissination threats on the president, I have a little story.
>I know someone who wrote a little note on the back of an envelope
>which he mailed to a friend, which said something to the effect
>that he'd like to kill the president.
>
>A few days later, he was taken in for questioning by the FBI, as was
>the friend who received the letter.
>
>Now this guy can't leave the country, has to inform the local authorities
>when he leaves the state and has to go to the county jail every time
>a significant poltical figure comes within a 100 mile radius of his hometown.
>
>Of course he didn't mean his threat, but it was taken quite seriously
>by the authorities.

Well, considering the number of President's who have been shot or shot at
and the subsequent criticism the SS received, I'm not surprised they're
so dilegently.

Of course, 20 years ago a film called "Alderman O'Donouhue Must Die" was
released in Toronto, I'm not aware of any action against the film, the
filmmaker or Alderman O'Donohue ( a real person I should add)
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:07:23 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

No I don't rate them up there. However, please explain what all those have
to do with Paty Buchanan.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:53:07 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: right v left

From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

>> I'd also like to know what you mean by "social engineering" that you
>> suggest the Democrats endorse.

> I view attempts to redefine societal mores as social engineering.  IMO
> teaching our children to accept abnormal as normal is sentencing them
> to live in amoral ignorance.  IMO the traditional family is being
> targeted for destruction by those who resent the very thought of living
> in a society that believes in a moral right and wrong.

Since I rarely quarrel with definitions, I would not question yours.
However, what I would like to know is whether or not social engineering
is inherently wrong and evil or the *present* social engineering just
happens to be bad.

If the former, then I would like to know whether or not abolishing
segregation (or slavery, for that matter) was also social engineering
and whether or not it was an evil thing.


> ---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:11:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan

Dear ZIMMER@WABASH:

Got a dictionary up where you are?  Ready?  Now, look under "S", for this
word...it may be tough, it's got THREE (3) syllables: SARCASM.

When you finish reading the definition (or finish having it read to you), go
back and read my post to Steve about homophobia.

See any connection?

GOOD!


Maybe next time we could learn "REACTIONARY".

-T.
From: YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: who's who in a Clinton administration
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:59:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Give Clinton a chance before we start jumping on him with lines like your
cabinet doesn't look like America. He's still got plenty of time before he
has to give a final list. His cabinet will be pretty diverse. I wonder what
George Steponapholis (sp) will be given in terms of a position. Also how about
James Carevale and the other Clinton campign hacks. There will be some
pretty young people high up there in the White House if Clinton uses many
from his campign team elite.
Well,what other news can we come up with about Clinton's future cabinet.
Lance
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 11:23:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      It wasn't me.
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Mike:

        Why are you singling me out by saying that the Smoot-Hartley
tariff was signed in 1930, I never mentioned it.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:27:19 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>My federal credit union has a neat feature for its customers:
>Automatic Overdraft Protection.

Congratulations.

>  You see, if for some reason I
>can't transfer money, or I forget - or whatever, and I write a
>check for more than the amount I have in my checking account,
>they simply cover the check. The money is called a "loan", and I
>have the option of paying it automatically from my savings, or
>paying the amount over time, with interest.

This would have been a good argument, except for the fact that Congressmen
didn't have to pay interest, unlike the ordinary citizen.  If you followed this
story, you would have known that the real gripe about the whole check-bouncing
story was that Congressmen got to float themselves interest-free loans.

>There is no major difference between that policy and the one they
>used to have at the House Bank.

Other than that mentioned above.  Nice try though.

> Now, if I took advantage of this
>policy at my bank frequently, would this paint me in a bad light?

Yes.  It would show that you're either too quantitatively incompetent to
deserve a checking account, or that you're taking advantage of a system meant
for emergencies.  Especially if you bounced checks 147 times.

>-T.

Jason
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:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:51:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

oops... sorry about the single line message-- it was
supposed to be in private mail.

*blush*

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:47:53 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Once again Jace, kudos for your post!

--Steve
From: sme3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT MATTHEW ESTRIN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:22:52 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQSL7TBHGG9OE1DY@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>, 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMAS
TER.CA (MIKE) writes:
>>Pat Buchanan-- He'll do for America what he did for George Bush
>
>Bill Clinton--  He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.
>
You mean unemployment will be down from the time that he takes office?
I can live with that.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:10:09 -0500
From:         Every Man <EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      ought-to

         Clart@Evmsvms posting on ought-to-be said it all for me.
         Have any of you seen Grand Canyon?  Definately my kind-of-movie!

         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.

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

         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.
From: PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:31:00 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

I have no problem with Jews using C.E. and B.C.E. but why are
universities and other liberal institutions using this termonology?
If a non-Christian should not be expected to use A.D. and B.C. Why
should a non-Jew be expected to use C.E. and B.C.E.  Besides, the
people who use C.E. and B.C.E. that I know are Christian, so what
other motivation is there besides political correctness.

Special note:  Political Correctness began in the '60's, but you hear
more of it today.

-Paul
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Acceptable Behavior
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:50:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110611411005@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, R3EJD@AKRONVM.B
ITNET (Evelyn Duncan) writes:
>Roger,
>  I, too, am outraged over someone talking about killing Clinton and Gore.
>Like it or not, they were elected President and Vice President.  We have
>to work with them to make this country better.  If they don't meet our
>expectations, we have the chance to vote them out in 1996.
>  I always feel a little sad this time of year because I remember a
>young, vibrant President who was murdered at the peak of his life.  I
>hope this doesn't happen again.  It would be a tragedy.
>
>Evelyn Duncan
>
I too think it was a shame that JFK was assassinated.  He was not, however, a
saint.  He also had a few screw-ups as President (Bay-of-Pigs, Vienna, his
"Marilyn" thing).  I am proud of him for sticking up to Kruschev, though.
                                    Jayce

                                    
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 14:30:05 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This is depressing

>dear kat,
>don't worry sweety....its just post-election blues .... or maybe its the
>weather.
>anyway, have a beer. i'm sure the rest of the public will screw up royally and
>you can again be a proud outcast.

...and don't forget there is always the comfort of being able to say that
you were ahead of the masses...even when it wasn't cool... B)

>-linda

-other Andy
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:10:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: CE and BC
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Let me clear up this B.C. and C.E. situation.

I don't understand why people are switching to the use of C.E.  It is
useless.  You cannot tell me no other reason why C.E. is usedin place
of B.C. and A.D. because the latter represent Christianity.  There is no other
reason.

Besides, what the heck is the Common Era (please explain this to me)
and what is the difference betweem the Common Era and the Year of our
Lord (A.D.)?

-Paul
Born A.D. 1974 (that's for the one who loves to deal with
technicalities, who checks grammar by the way.)
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:23:37 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

Ert (can I call you Ert?), hi, I am one of the official list smart-asses;
and in that capacity I would like to discuss sexist humor with you.

>I don't like sexism either. How you can call my joke sexist really
>bewilders me!

Your joke which characterizes a teenage girl as a "dog," is at one
level mean-spirited and at another sexist.

Note carefully, Ert, "dog" is a derisve term that is applied to females only.

The term "dog" is linked to a whole chain of thought which at its root
values women for only a few limited qualities and functions, usually having
something to do with bedrooms, kitchens and servility.

>Did you not se my joke about Bill looking old?

First, two wrongs do not make a right; evaluating everyone on this limited
scale does not make it right to do it to a single individual.

Second, the set of values that the application of terms which evaluate a
persons attractiveness do not apply equally to men and women. Calling
Bill unattractive (assuming that you consider signs of aging unattractive)
does not carry with it the same cultural baggage that calling Chelsea a
dog does.

> erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU

-other Andy
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:04:47 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I don't really _care_ whether or not Gennifer was telling the truth.  That
>is something between her and Bill because whatever happened, there seemed
>to be no question about consent.  I.e., if Clinton and Flowers had an
>affair that was mutually consentual then I am not really going to make
>an issue of that because it says nothing about Bill Clinton.  If we were
>going to judge all politicians base upon with whom they sleep then we'd
>run out of politicians.

	My objection is not that Bill slept around, but that he lied about it,
even when it was obvious that he had had an affair.

>Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and
>that's not something I take lightly.

	I don't either, but on the issue of credibility, the fact that she
waited 10 years (while staying in touch with Thomas) leads me to believe that
she wanted to ride his coattails, and that the issue of sexual harassment was
secondary to that.
	She *was* in the very agency that was supposed to protect women from
that, for crying out loud!  If I were female, I'd be chastizing her for putting
her political career in front of women's rights.

	Just my opinion.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:18:06 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: election fatigue
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

James,

You forgot the Danish Referendum, the French Referendum and (although
not an election as such) the vote on the Maastricht paving bill in the
UK parliament.

After Ireland, is it France up next ? (assuming the Italian government
holds together).

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:37:45 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
              5 Nov 1992 13:14:49 -0400 from <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>

From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>

> Well Julie that not something I take lightly either. If it was a crime, why
> didn't she take it through the judicial system?  That is were we deal with
> serious crime. But then again purgury is a serious crime also maybe that's
> the reason. ...............................................................

> --mike.....

"Reason" what????  Lying to the Congress IS perjury and IS a crime.

--KAT
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:53:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul:  You have no reason to quote an entire passage only to add a
paragraph at the end.  It's cumbersome to our mailers, especially for
those of us who have to read at 1200 baud!

--Julie, who doesn't feel like discussing abortion right now.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:04:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!

Steve:

        Two no-no's on the list I found out about the hard way are:  one
please do not send messages that say things like hooray, wonderful post
etc.  Say what it is you like or don't like about a post.

        Also please try to identify which post you are referring to and
maybe specify parts.  It isn't necessary to enclose long parts of it, just
mention the important things you are discussing (I can hear the older listers
laughing, I have been one of the greatest violators of this).

        Please try not to call people names, we all do this once in awhile
and have you ever learned anything from being called a name?  I sure haven't.
Try to look at Robert and Carls's messages.  They are at least as
conservative as you are and yet it is possible to talk with them rather
than having an alternate shouting contest that nobody listens to.

        Also try to lay off Clinton a bit.  I did not lay into Bush until
last year, and the reason I was so harsh was that I had such great hope
for him in the beginning.  I am a liberal, but I am an internationalist,
and I do have a libertarian streak in me.  Don't worry, if Clinton turns
the shop over to Foley & Co., a lot of us will vote against him in '96!
Tell us about what you think the Republicans should be doing now.  I have
been on Bush, too, and the people on that list get along ok with me
including many of the college Republicans.  I think we have all had too
much of talking about how terrible the other side is.  Let's talk about
who we are, and why we believe what we do.  Then let's discuss our program
for the future.

        So, am I being unreasonable?

                                                Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:53:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This "12 years" thing

>Brett
>(I noticed there is another Brett on this list, should I differentiate?)

yes, you can be dubbed "other brett". or, the other brett could be other brett.
whatother, i mean ,  whatever.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU