HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:40:00 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

>
>I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
>protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
>
>-Rich

In other words because Reagan and Quayle "dodged" the draft during
wars that they actively supported whereas Clinton "dodged" the draft
while opposing the war, Reagan and Quayle are more qualified to be
Commander-in-Chief?

--Julie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @                      @@
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @  "LOOK OUT!  She's   @@
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @   got a life and     @@
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   she's not afraid   @@
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   to use it!"        @@
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @                      @@
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @   --L Sian Gramites  @@
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @                      @@
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:21:38 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan:
    What proof do you have that Quayle supported the war in Vietnam.  Any
 specific interview or quotes that you would like to share with me?  Just
 curious because I do not know definitely either way.
-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:40:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" &
              MILITARY

Robert:


        We don't see eye-to-eye on gore; you refer, of course, to that ugly,
sick, disgusting shit you people put on posters and mailings and commercials
to further the cause of "life."  That's *gore*, and I don't agree with your
perverted tactics in using it.


-T.
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, 16 Nov 1992 15:09:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Robert:  I think KAT misttyped.  Look at the context and you can figure
out what he meant to say.

Anyway, I'd be glad to admit that no sexual orientation has a monopoly
on behavior which could be called "restraint."  Gay men and Heterosexual
men are all capable of behaving with something other than their brain
calling the shots.  However, this is irrelevant.

Once again I will state that behavior is the important thing when it comes
to military service.  I would not advocate men and women sharing showers in
a military situation because I don't think that men in this country are
socialized to be capable of behaving themselves professionally in such a
situation.  However, gay men are taught from an early age to be very
careful about how they behave in showers, and I think they're quite
capable of behaving sensibly and not letting their lust get the better of
them.  This is not beause I think they are "paragons of virtue."  Just
that they don't wish to get killed.

And once again I will note that no matter _what_ happens with regard'
to lesgays in the military service that this situation will STILL exists
because there are non-heterosexuals in the armed services.  All that
repealing this executive order will do is insure that people will not
get kicked out of the service for being honest.

And if you are concerned about the "morale" problem, I suggest you
look at such cases as that of Mariam Ben-Shalom, who was kicked out
of the service for saying "yes" when asked "are you a lesbian?"
_After_ coming out of the closet and being kicked out, her >own<
squadron nominated her for Seargeant of the Year.  They didn't seem
to have a problem showering or sleeping with her and I would hope
that the rest of the Armed Services could be as sensible and not
rely on gut reactions and baseless fears to justify their homophobia.

--Julie
From: E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Steve Rafferty)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: New question: little guy vs. the big boys
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:01:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


     Here's a situation I would appreciate comment on.

     The Baltimore Orioles have a brand new ballpark - they finished
their first season in their new home this fall.  The name of the new
ballpark is "Oriole Stadium at Camden Yards".  As the building neared
completion, the governor and the owner of the Orioles and the Stadium
Authority speculated on a variety of names for the new ballpark.
A local entrepreneur hazarded a (fairly obvious) guess that the name
of the new stadium would be "Camden Yards".  He filed for and received
ownership of a trademark using that phrase; and began selling tee-shirts
with that trademark months before the governor and owner, etc., decided
on a name for the new stadium.

     When the Stadium authority then applied for a trademark, and learned
that this individual owned it, they sued him for infringement.  Today's
Baltimore _Sun_ reported that the man *lost* the suit.  The judge ruled
that since the name Camden Yards was bandied about in newletters and
various documents produced by the Stadium Authority, the Stadium Authority
had established "prior use" of the name.  The judge acknowledged that
the trademark application and process was all in order, but that the
Stadium authority should prevail.

     The lawyer for the Stadium Authority said that "the name Camden
Yards is properly owned by the Stadium Authority and shouldn't be
exploited for commercial gain."  Of course, what he means is that
the Stadium Authority is the only entity entitled to exploit the
name for commercial gain.  The Stadium Authority *is* selling
various souvenirs using that name.

     My is opinion is that the little guy got screwed.  While I
suppose a case could be made concerning prior use etc., I should
think that the man should be compensated if forced to release his
ownership of the trademark. It probably should be noted that this
local entrepreneur was just *some guy*.  It wasn't an established
business, it was a construction worker (not on the stadium project)
who thought he had a good idea.

     In the words of a famous West Virginian, what do y'all think?

Steve R.

Steve R.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:45:54 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Clinton's Cat

>I just picked up a copy of yesterday's newspaper.  I was shocked.
>I read that a bunch of reporters all crowded around Bill Clinton's
>poor little cat and started pestering it.  I think one of them
>even held it up in a rough fashion.
>Somebody needs to put a stop to such press antics.
>--Jimbo

  Oh relax, Jimbo.  I'm sure the cat hardly notices.
The way I understand it, Bill, himself, is often out
chasing after ... kitty.

                        -Tim
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Wages and productivity
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:23:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Jason Briggs Cormier:

        The *problem* with your post was that I couldn't give a good god
damn *what* you "thought" of his post - I want to see you blow his argument
away!  It's irrelevant *what* you feel about his position - what's relevant
is how you refute it!

        I know there's a good debater in there somewhere - but it gets lost
telling people their positions "suck".

        That's all I meant.  No sensationalism.  No high and mighty (since
that seems to bother some people on the list - although I think it's an
esteem question).  Come on - give us some good _arguments_ - not trashy
language!

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:45:26 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Words

>Boxer, I guess, has been in the news and her opponent was a neo-facist!

"Fascist" = "a person some liberal doesn't like".

One interesting thing about these discussions is that there's no
leftist equivalent of "red-baiting".  That is, they do engage in
similar behaviors, but that's supposedly acceptable, if not laudable,
behavior.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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, 20 Nov 1992 10:12:12 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Marge Schott

>        It would not be out of character for her to say those things, however,
>as this is America (for a little while longer), unless/until it's proven let's
>not refer to her as a "racist".
>
>Brett'


If referring to Martin Luther King Day as Nigger Day, referring to black
baseball players as niggers, keeping a swatika armband in your dresser
and showing it to a Jew, referring to the Japanese flag as "the Jap
flag", and referring to Jews as "money-grubbing" does not prove someone
harbors deep racial and religious prejudice, I'd be curious as to what
you think does.


This whole matter will be swept under the carpet by Major League
Baseball.

...Rick
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: two quick points
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:28:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

After Robert's last post, I'm beginning to see that the Pro-Life movement
believes that life actually begins when you *agree with them*.


(apologies to Dennis Miller)

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:40:00 -0500
From:         Jeff Green <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: Survey
Comments: To: uunet!ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu!POLITICS@uunet.UU.NET

1.  Where on the political spectrum do you place yourself?

        Slighlty left of Center

2.  In general, do you consider yourself

         B. Average intelligence

3.  In general, most people in this world are of

         B. Average intelligence

4.  On the average, whites and non-whites score equally on IQ tests

       (a trick question I am sure)
       A. True
       B. False

5.  People with strong religious beliefs are more likely to be moral people
    than people with no religious beliefs whatsoever

        (another trick question)
        A. True
        B. False

6.  Political ideology distinctions cut across all socio-economic and
    intellectual divisions

         A. True

7.  Do you consider yourself a religious person?

         B. No


8.  Non-whites tend to be more passionate than whites

        (another trick question)
        A. True
        B. False

9.  People of Germanic descent are more stoic and rigid than people of Spanish
    descent

        (again!)
        A. True
        B. False

10. My educational level is:

         D. Bachelor's degree


_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor                  "The Alternative Press for BBS Users"
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                     Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: rmstrngj@unix1.tcd.ie (John Armstrong)
Subject: Clinton's Economists
Summary: HELP URGENTLY REQUIRED
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:25:41 GMT

Please could anyone supply me with the list of the President-elects
100 economic advisors along with their specialised area and the college
that they are attached to.   It is of crucial importance for me to get
the list as soon as possible.

Thanks,

JOHN ARMSTRONG 

P.S.  I live in Ireland so newspaper references from the States are
unfortunately not much help.
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Showers part II
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:24:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

> Gays and straights showering together is *nothing* like men and women
> showering together!

      Well some people first give evidence and then conclude, some
      conclude and then give the evidence.  Since "T." has already
      concluded I am sure he will give evidence later.  We'll see. :-)

> You cannot assume that since straight men and women are attracted
> to each other - and *supposedly* this would lead to rampant sexual
> harrassment if they showered together - that the same thing would
> happen among gays and straights in the shower!

      Well, no evidence here.  :-)

      I never implied ANY sexual harrassment (maybe only one time
      I came close to it).  My concern was always the privacy
      thing.

> I think Julie was right; too many people think that *they* would be
> attractive to gays!  Gay people are probably attracted to straight people in
> the same proportion as, say, straight men are to lesbians, or straight women
> to gay men.  Not often.

      Again no evidence.  :-)

      I agree with you that gay men are attracted to straight
      men at the same rate that straight men are attracted to
      lesbians (at least I think).  But do NOT tell me that
      gay men are attracted to straight men at the same rate
      that straight men are attracted to gay men.  I just won't
      believe THAT (maybe you didn't say that but I had to
      make it perfectly clear.)

      However by your statement above you are implying that gay men
      showering with straight men is as problematic as lesbians
      showering with straight men.  Well that IS pretty
      problematic.  I know others might not agree with
      this but that is what you implied.  At any rate, my
      concern still stands.

      However, I am 100% satisfied with Jamie's answer (not
      because he is right but because he is "pathetically susceptible
      to flattery" :-).  All I wanted someone to tell me/admit was:
      "We realize that there would be some privacy problems and
      1) we would try to separate the groups if possible and 2) if
      not possible, tough!

      The list would be amazed if I told you that during the time
      that I was arguing supposedly anti gay (*I* would not
      characterize it that way) on the list, I was arguing pro-gay
      with my student.  And I have been giving him the same answer
      that Jamie just gave (more flattery that you can handle, Jamie,
      eh.)

> -T.

      --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:23:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: GATT

>So we pulled back from the brink. At the moment the French government
>are still posturing about how the deal is unacceptable to them, but I
>reckon the deal will hold.

dunstan dear,
does this mean i can buy my wine and cheese w/out taking out a bank loan?
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:32:47 EST
From:         Loren Ryter <ST701831@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan and Facts

>
>Hmm, didn't Herr Goebbels have something to say about this concept?
>
Actually, this is Hitler's big lie theory:

Says Der Fuhrer:
"The great masses of people...will more easily fall victims to a
big lie than to a small one."  --Mein Kampf

A general truism which applies from mundane medium lies like
characters smears to massive big lies like trickle down
economics.
--Loren
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:41:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> A few years ago, when an anti-flag desecration bill was proposed, Spy Magazine
> published a full colour flag in it's pages with a warning that the page can
> not be thrown away, incinerated or disposed of on penalty of fine or
> imprisonment:)

"Our only Prexy refused to sign the bill making it highly illegal to
burn the American flag; he let it become law without his name on it on
grounds that we really should amend the Constitution on this burning
issue.  Bush's last birthday cake was in the form of the American flag,
and _he_ate_it_--stars, stripes, and all.  Think about where that flag
wound up--I call that desecration."
                                           --Molly Ivins, 1989

Best,
Peter
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: CE, BCE, and God
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:48:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>"In God We Trust"
>"...one nation, under God, indivisible..."

i think i mentioned this some time back. "one nation under god" was added to
the pledge of allegience during the eisenhower admin. when i was originally
taught the pledge it went "...and to the republic, for which it stands, one
nation, indivisible, with liberty ...."

i know that the "in god we trust" was also added to the currency at a later
date, but i don't remember when that happened. our currency also used to
have a message on it that stated it was legal tender and could be turned in
to the gov't. for its equivalent in real money (ie: gold). that was
conveniently dropped from paper money around the same time as all the gods
got added to everything.

-linda

>                        - Scott
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

>       Allright, who is the virtual lawyer around here? :)
>
>Brett'

I was small when I was a kid, and my best friend Anthony Notaroberta was a
*tank*.  He pretty much fought all the physical battles that came upon us
then.

I am beginning to realize that the purpose of legal representation is more
or less the same thing, only for intellectual lightweights. :)  :)  :)  :)


-T.
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, 16 Nov 1992 15:23:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the Military (was Draft Dodging Illegal?)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Rich:

That is conjecture on your part.  Most out of the closet personnell
report nothing but major amounts of support from their own squadrons.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:49:01 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

Seems to me that Clinton is attempting to serve his country now, for
better or for worse.

Why don't we try judging his service record in the HERE AND NOW?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:16:31 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> I am sorry, but Clinton did not receive an educational deferment.  I am not
> sure if Quayle supported the war, but he does know how he got out of the
 draft.
> Yes, I do not agree with protesting.  I disagree with things that go in our
> government, but there are other ways of voicing your disapproval than by
> protesting.
>
> -Rc
> -Rich
>

I am sure that there is someone that is more expert on this situation than
I am, but I'll take a shot.
Rich,
Let me ask you this.  It's 1968.  You are in England studying.  You
receive an induction notice.  You call up the draft board and explain
that you are in England studying.  They say fine wait until you finish
the year and then come talk to us.  What would you call that?
That's what happened to Clinton.

As for your insiduous (am I using that word too much?) concept that
protesting your government is wrong, I find that subversive.  Perhaps
you like they way that the ex-Soviet Union handled voicing disaproval
at the government better?

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:20:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Influence and the presidency

>I think the problem people have with her is that she is also the
>president's wife.  Wouldn't want her sitting in on cabinet meetings
>AND whispering in Bill's ear at night like an evil incubus now,
>would we?

this is exactly the problem that i think people are having.
mysoginistic thinking has always cast the woman as seductress with evil
intent.
a man once said to me that behind every war, a woman was whispering in
the king's ear at night.
ok - so let's say she whispers - if she sits in at least they'll be
informed whispers.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU