HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 14 Oct 1992 10:42:08 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      oy ve

i watched scant moments of the debate, but had to turn it off when i saw
james stockdale acting all bumfuzzled.  i was moved to near tears, i will
admit.
i *have* heard this morning that a lot of people kind of liked stockdale,
in that he is not anything like a politician and that was confirmed by the
debate.  on the other hand, can anyone imagine this guy "one heartbeat
away from the presidency"?

i would now like those of you who regularly discard my posts to note well:
read this part.  i would like to publicly apologize for inadvertently
insulting tim johnson yesterday, when i commented that he, of all people,
might be culpable of "not being able to survive in the real world".  that
was uncalled for and patently untrue, actually.  tim has a long history of
outside work.  in an attempt to be funny, i basically blew it.  sorry, tim,
and sorry to any of you who were hoping to use this in your arsenal against
him in future listskirmishes.

valentine michael smith, nice to see your smiling face again.

i didn't vote for carter, either.  i was ten at the time.
on the up side, this means i also did not vote for reagan in 1980.

as a final comment, i will add that i am surprised that johnson and
olson have not yet represented themselves as the iNtellectual candidates.
(helene cixous fans will find this hilarious. really, i mean this.)

expecting snow on thursday, i thus remain
anneliese.

p.s.:  will mr. something, something corrigible please sign his letters?
this is listpolicy, for one, but courteous, for another.      a.
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Aztecs
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:03:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>used human sacrifice). This was a process of earlier times, it does not appear
>to occur now save on the altar of war - and is that not the MOST barbaric? VMS

human sacrifice is used only in a symbolic manner in the west...as in the
communion ceremony (bread to flesh, wine to blood).
some smaller sects still use animal sacrifice even when illegal such as the
cult of kali among certain hindus.
we seem not to give up our pasts, just re-dress them.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:28:51 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Elementary Logic for Carl

Although I have no claim to knowing anything about logic and would never
try to take another list member's job, I would ask Carl to take his post
about voting for Carter and insert Bush everywhere that he mentions
Carter. Is the logic the same in each instance? I think a lot of people
voted for Carter the man, not Carter the economic program.

Also, Carl, didn't you go away to work on several lengthy posts on a
couple of issues? Did you think it was safe to come back now that most
of us short brainers would have forgotten that you promised detailed
responses?

fred
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Perotdiction for the election
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:48:47 GMT


O.k., so I started off with a bad joke for a subject line.  I
am, after all, the funk king west of the rockies.  (Note well
that nothing from the expatriate belle's succulent yet truculent
lips escapes my notice).

Yet!  Bad joke alpha may lead to sad truth omega when the moon is
right.  And it is.  

I predict that Perot will do much better than the general consensus
opinion suspects.  I lived in Alabama, recall, in the days when
George Wallace won his last election... on the strength of solid
support from the black community.  This, the same man who stood
in the schoolhouse door fewer than 15 years previos!

I lived in America when a man named Ronnie sold us a bill of goods.
He said he would cut the deficit.  He said he would make more rational
our laws of taxation.  He said... but never mind what he said... it
mattered hardly as much as his vision... his Vision... his shining
bright VISION... he was the American dream embodied.

He had something to say and he looked good saying it.  He talked
with purpose and power.

Perot follows in his footsteps.

No one ever lost an election in the land of Travis, Robert, and etc.
by underestimating the stupidity of the American people.  I'm not
claiming that Perot will win.  But don't count him out just yet...


--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:59:31 CDT
From:         Len Rugen <C4322LR@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

Or maybe the EVIL of three LESSER's...

Len Rugen, Sr. Systems Programmer      E-Mail-C4322LR@UMVMA
Information Technology                  Alias-C4322LR@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU
University of Missouri System             Alt-CCFLEN@MIZZOU1
401 Clark Hall                             or-CCFLEN@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU
Columbia, MO 65211

314-882-9237           cc:Mail Gateway-UMCCFGW.RUGENL@SSGATE.MISSOURI.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:05:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ross's Home Video

>>In between Lindros's shifts, I watched Perot's 30 minute bit on CBS
>>last night.  First observation is that he obviously didn't spend a

>In the interest of staying awake, I could only handle about three minutes
>of him.  I switched (appropriately) to HBO's "Other People's Money".

um, well, i watched ross and i felt as if i had invited a vacuum cleaner
salesman into my bedroom (the kid was watching in living room).

unfortunately, a lot of people buy vacuum cleaners.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:32:39 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:09:00 EDT <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA> said:
>        I think the reason Clinton does not answer the questions more freely
>about the trips and the demonstrations is he feels that the Republicans will
>never be quite pleased enough that he has really answered all the questions,
>or at least they will say that he hasn't, and every answer will be followed
>by ten or twenty questions.  The press will say that he has acknowledged
>that it's an issue, and we will be off on another tangent.  I wish he had
>answered more completely earlier but if he had would it have been accepted or
>would he have been written off in the media?  I don't know.


Since when does he care what the GOP thinks?  Or is that what you really
meant?  He'd obviously not care what they think since he won't get their
votes anyways.  Kinda like I said about Perot doing thirty minutes at
a time.  Those who will sit thru [sic] the whole thing are probably
going to vote for him anyways...and he'll never complete his message
to those he's trying to sway.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Gonna try to be first this time
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:44:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        I was not happy at all with Gore, getting into a shouting match
with Quayle, one shouting tax and spend and the other shouting trickle down,
one shouting traitor and the other one McCarthyist, then Stockdale tells
them to both shut up and damn near gets a standing ovation.

                                                Chris Morrison
I said that on the Clinton list:  if the rest of the campaign is run like
that Clinton deserves to lose.  Boy, did I get shouted down.  But our boy
could have done so much better than he did!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:17:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: campaign politics -- uggh

>Linda, are you related to Norm Peterson?  :-)

no, but maybe we're kindred spirits?

>You should love him.  Yesterday I saw an episode in which he gets
>the job of inspecting beers in a brewery.  When it was payday he
>would say to his bosss, "No sir, I cannot take this, I just can't."
>Later there was this scene that he was hugging huge tanks filled
>with beer.

i saw part of that episode (i watch tv in spurts between cooking dinner,
reading, helping jess w/homework, yelling at jess to stop fooling around
and finish his homeowork, and fantasizing abt. life w/out children).

anyway, i liked the part where he knocked off work for lunch and a few
brewskies....

>Having you thought about a getting a job is a brewery?   :-)

do they pay more than libraries?

- linda (have a happy friday)

>--KAT
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, 13 Oct 1992 08:50:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      veep debate predictions
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Any predictions re: the veep debate tonight?

Al Gore will say something about the environment.
Dan Quayle will say or do something really stupid.
James Stockdale will turn out to have been dead for three years now. :)

Seriously, though, I expect the VP debate to be more aggressive than the
first presidential debate was.  Bush couldn't really do his worst since he
was trying to look presidential, but I expect Quayle to continue his point
man role on the family values issue.  Don't know what to expect from Gore,
since I'm not really familiar with him, and even less with Stockdale.

Unfortunately, I missed seeing Marrou on the Larry King Show - wish I would'a
seen it.  Probably was my only chance to see Marrou on tv, too...:(

>Kerry
>"the *real* question is can Oakland come back in Toronto this afternoon"

And your answer is...nope.  Oakland is toast.  You heard it here third.

Gary W. Olson                "My lips may promise but my heart is a whore"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  - Nine Inch Nails, "Last"
21 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:17:08 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Guns, Freud, and Psychology

>> Here's a start: I oppose gun laws that don't affect crime.  ........
>
>Fine.  But do you also oppose gun control laws that decrease
>crime?

As I wrote in the section that KAT didn't bother to quote, I oppose
unprofitable laws no matter what the subject; that applies to crime
laws as well, not to mention gun laws.  Whether or not the costs are
acceptable depends on the delivered benefits.*

The "is it a profit or loss" question hasn't come up yet in the gun
control discussion because there don't seem to be examples of benefits
regardless of cost.  I've love to see one because then we'd have a
good reason to discuss costs and how we value different things.

For example, I think that telling people not to do something they want
to do is a "cost", no matter what it is they want to do.  That cost
may be justified by the benefits provided by the restriction, but it
is still a cost.  (For example, I think that jailing murderers is a
cost.  It may well be justified by the benefits that come from jailing
murderers, but I think that the advocates of jailing murderers have an
obligation to show that the benefits exist and are adequate.)  Some
people disagree; they think that it is good to tell people not to do
certain things and we should do so unless other costs get in the way
(and sometimes not even then).  (Some of those people think that
jailing otherwise law-abiding people in that situation isn't a cost.)

Consider pornography.  Some people think it should be restricted
whether or not that provides any benefits.  I disagree.  My position
on porn restrictions depends on how the delivered benefits compare to
the incurred costs.  If there aren't any delivered benefits ....

-andy actually doesn't actively oppose every unprofitable law.  His
      "opposition level" depends somewhat on the loss incurred and
      what else he has to do.

* - Yes, the cost is relevant, whether we're talking about guns or
anything else.  For example, if we let the censors have their way, I'm
sure that there'd be some minor benefit somewhere.  (That wouldn't
show up in any statistics, but isolated incidents of benefit would
happen because most everything possible does happen at least once in a
population of 250 million.)  The costs however, would be much greater,
so we try to keep the censors in check.
--
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"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:48:51 -0500
From:         Nina <KCLARK@MACALSTR.BITNET>
Subject:      cancel subscription

cancel subscription to kclark@macalstr.edu.
From: ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The VP Debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:58:25 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

It seemed that Gore's biggest handicap in
the debate was his running mate.  I suspect
he didn't defend Clinton against Quayle's
allegations more than he did because he
couldn't, not for any secret strategy about
setting up for the next round.

Oh, and Travis, no one dared speak while
Stockdale was talking not out of respect
and admiration, but out of pity.  Though
it is hardly surprising that you misread
that.

                      -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:14:33 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      washington post

Today, the Washington Post came out big in favour of Bill Clinton.  In an
editorial entitled 'Clinton for President', the Post claimed that George had
'long since squandered whatever claim he had to national leadership....the
country's present weakness is in part a reflection of his own'.  In contrast,
the Clinton/Gore ticket 'represent a generation of progressive, realistic
Democrats skilled in public policy and freer in thought than the more
orthodox liberal generation that preceded them'.

It's perhaps not surprising that the Post has formally endorsed Clinton, but
I am surprised how strongly the backing is.  I was of the impression that the
Post, though comparitively liberal, was a little cagey in expressing it at
times.  Did Dukakis, Mondale, or Carter (in '80) receive such backing?

Have any other major newspapers committed themselves yet?  I don't think the
New York Times has come out yet.  Since I get the International Herald Tribune,
which carries editorial from the Times and the Post, I think I would have
noticed by now.  If Clinton loses now, it won't be have been because the vast
majority of the media were against him, as was the case in the British election
in April.



james p mc bride
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:56:35 CDT
From:         Craig Rooney U of MO-Columbia <C503108@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      The Cable Bill

  I suppose since the subject of my last letter was The Cable Bill, I should di
scuss it.  When I heard all of the debate concerning the cable bill, I assumed
that the cable companies were against it because they would be losing money.  T
his seems partially true; however, I talked to a PR representative at our local
 cable co.  and he posed several interesting points.  I am wondering if anyone
out there has heard any responses to these as I know I received a bias point of
 view.

  1) Under the new law, cable companies must pay a "re-transmission" fee to the
 Networks.  Cable companies are not allowed to choose whether or not they carry
 the network stations and the total cost will be between 1 and 6 billion dollar
s. This cost will be passed on to the cable consumers.

  2)  Cable companies must offer "special programming" services such as Per-Per
-View.  This, apparently, will require new equipment (which must also be instal
led in all rental property not currently occupied).  For our local cable compan
y this translates into 9 million dollars.  Once again, affectionatly passed on
to the cable consumer.

  3)  Cable companies have to sell their programming to the networks after a ce
rtain period of time.  The PR guy feels this takes away the creative business a
ngle of the cable industry.  No longer will one have to buy cable to see better
 programming.

 4)  Supposedly, under the new law, the cable industry becomes a "regulated uti
lity".  This means they're guarenteed a profit.  Again, the PR guy suggests, th
e cable industry's business angle is taken away, thereby risking bold programmi
ng to entice customers.



 Please don't misunderstand me.  I was glad to see the President's veto overrid
den (Hopefully, projecting a symbolic loss of power in the psyches of many Amer
icans).  My agenda here is not to attack Congress--I was just hoping someone ou
t there had more information on this new law.  Have a swell week.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:11:45 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>> I always thought double taxation was being taxed for the same PURPOSE
>> twice and simply being taxed twice.

> Well, I guess you thought wrong.  Anyway, I'm against double taxation only to
> the extent that it makes things a lot more complicated than they need to be,
> and often treats people unfairly.  If *everyone* was double-taxed in the same
> way, then I would have no big philosophical objection to it; it would just be
> a stupid thing to do.

So you think I am wrong?  You won't get offended if I ask for
a second opinion, from someone who is at least a graduate
student, would you?    :-)

Look (and I am using *your* definitions of "doubletaxed" and
"fair"), it seems to me that these two are independent of one
another.  In other words, you might be doubletaxed and be treated
fairly or not be doubletaxed and be treated unfairly.  Doubletaxing
is unfair ONLY if the individual taxes are unfair in the first
place, according to you, right?  So your ONLY objection to
doubletaxing is that it makes things complicated.  Well that is
progress, I guess.  When you first objected to doubletaxing it
sounded as if there was something fundamentally "unfair" about
it.  So I gather that your ONLY objection to income tax AND
wealth tax is that it is complicated.

>> That is right, I forgot.  THAT is taught in the graduate school
>> these days.  :-)

> Ha ha ha.  I'm sure you're laughing as well, knowing that you can't even
> intellectually conquer an undergrad, of all people  ;)

We normally try to teach students not "conquer" them.  Besides
if I did conquer you, would you know it.  Let's ask a third
person to check this out.    :-)

> Jason

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:35:07 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Demo Party Emblem or Truth in Advertising

From:         "I. P. Freely" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> It is rumored that Clinton is considering a proposal to change the
> Democratic Party emblem from a donkey to a .......................

> ---Robert

I would like to know what idiot would start and/or propagate
such a rumor.

--KAT
From: ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: the ineluctable modality of the visible; limits of the diaphane
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:45:02 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

jennifer is a rush limbaugh fan and a christian and therefore she is Right.
har de har har, that may not be so funny.
thank you, o thank you, you delightful soul who has read this list so
closely as to be aware that we
a) just finished a mammoth abortion debate, agreed to disagree because we are
all sick to death of the subject after lo these many months
and that
b) the quickest way into my heart is to call me a member of the liberal
cultural elite.  glad to see you all are really on top of things here.

liberal cultural elite...let's see...would that classification be extended to
include a yalie whose wife is actively involved with aids babies and the
promotion of literacy?  or perhaps the heir to a publishing fortune whose
wife is a lawyer?

in this great mahamanvantara that is indeed my life in an election year,
i will point out that i probably will not watch the vp debate.  it's the
same reason that i can't watch the gophers play football, or lucy ricardo
go get that job with the vitameatavegamin company, or even jan brady racing
around the house covering for the surreality of her pseudoboyfriend, george
glass:  i know the outcome, it's humiliating for someone (even though it comes o
   ut all right in the end), and it just hurts me psychically to sit through it.

look, dan quayle does lots of things well, i'm sure:  he probably actually
knows what a mashie niblick is for, for crying out loud.  but "thinking
on one's feet" is really not his strong suit, and i just can't take it.
i'll leave it to gary to tell me all about the new series, My Favorite
Corpsecold Candidate, which i suppose may be optioned into a movie
should a miracle of 1969 mets proportions hit us and perot/stockdale be
elected.

gonna go read a little matthew arnold.
gonna go pick up my ticket to see my two favorite football teams a week from
sunday.
and, perhaps, read a little thomas aquinas, since it seems that others now
will want to dredge up natural rights and all that.  nice to have you with us.
   or something like that.

anneliese.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:24:00 CST
From:         HIGHLANDER <940253JT@GBVAXA.UWGB.EDU>
Subject: Where are the numbers from... Bush on Clinton's tax increase.
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

	I'm not sure... but I heard on NPR that those tax figures are based
on some rather shaky assumptions.  The way it goes is something like this:

		Bush assumes that not all of Clinton's plans will make it
		through Congress. (I'm not sure which...)

		He assumes that Clinton's current plan will not raise the
		revenue that it's expected to...

		And.. he assumes Clinton will then raise taxes to pay for
		his programs.

	Now, while that may in fact happen.. I don't think that speculation on
whether revenue plans will work is enough to project exact tax increases for
specific people in the future.  Bush's advisors are on shaky ground.
	Not to mention that Clinton's plans, even if he does raise taxes, will
provide some useful programs.  Bush has raised taxes hundreds of times..and
we've got nothing to show for it.


						J.T.