HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:47:06 EST
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      Clinton 1040
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@Virginia.EDU>

Mike,

     The simplified 1040 joke has been around for a long time--at least since
the 1986 tax reform bill and probably earlier when somebody doctored up a
real 1040.  The most recent incarnation has Clinton's name on it and I saw it
a few days after the election.  This is just another way for Republicans to
let off steam about the election.  I've also seen a variation on it as a
"fundamtentalist tithing form."
  Scott W. Fischer
Mr. Jefferson's Resort                  Mary Washington College
University of Virginia                  Fredericksburg, Virginia

                             Home address:
                         717E Mountainwood Road
                    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
              (804) 296-4752
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, 16 Nov 1992 19:47:26 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gays in the military

First, to T:

>My thought here is that since homosexuals are no more sexually active
>on the average than heterosexuals, and there haven't been problems in the past,
>why the concern?

Fine.  But first, you'll have to take the same challenge I issued to Linda and
Julie.  If you can honestly tell me that you would feel comfortable taking a
shower with 20 gay men, or 20 women for that matter, then I suppose your
argument would have some validity.  Whether or not any "incidents" occur is
beside the point (the blame there lies with the perpetrator, as always).  The
point is that allowing gays into the military means that you will be forced to
expose yourself in front of men to whom you are a potential sex partner.  If
*any* private entity required men and women to shower together (even though
they aren't necessarily attracted to one another), most of the people on this
list would cry sexual harrassment faster that the Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy could
play revele.  Why would you exempt the government from such a policy?

Next to Jamie:

Yeah, on the *very* few occasions when I'm stuck using a communal shower, I
don't particularly worry about the guy next to me being gay.  The reason why I
don't worry is because I have no idea if he's gay or not.  Although I've never
been in this situation, showering with someone who you KNOW is gay would be a
different story, though; the comforting element of uncertainty is gone.

Here again, though, if military personel really don't mind living with
out-of-the-closet gays, then I don't see why gays shouldn't be let in.  As with
women in combat, the only argument I can see against it is that it reduces
morale in one way or another.  If that falls, then I suppose Julie et.al. would
have made a convincing case.  Of course that's a big if . . .

JasonZ
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: guns and linquistics
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:34:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I have one question for those that say original intent should matter *most*:
Does the line "...all men are created equal." have any other meaning than
[White Land Owning Males]?  Because THAT'S the writer's original intent of
the phrase.  Have we evolved that phrase over time to understand that it means
all citizens?

What do you say?

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:11:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gays in the military

JasonZ:

        I responded to your post because you were indignant that the military
doesn't function like the private/public sector.  I correctly pointed out that
it doesn't because it ISN'T the private/public sector.  Whether or not it
SHOULD be different was not in your post; consequently, it wasn't in mine.

        Don't get all redfaced when you're corrected - just acknowledge your
ignorance on the matter and get on with it.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:01:56 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject: Re: New question: little guy vs. the big boys

>ballpark is "Oriole Stadium at Camden Yards".  As the building neared
>completion, the governor and the owner of the Orioles and the Stadium

A point for clarification: are the governor (of MD?) and the owner
the same person?

>     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

I agree on both counts.  This sounds like a minor league version of
the Inslaw software case.  I'm curious as to how the governor is
involved in all this.
    toddddddddd
>
>Steve R.

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "A policeman isn't there to
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   create disorder.  [He] is
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    there to preserve disorder."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:50:25 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pregnant women in the military

>         The last figure my wife has for Navy pregnancy was that 16% of all
> women in the Navy *at sea* became pregnant there.  (I think that's for 1991).

This 16% figure is an awfully large number.  I am assuming here
that even if unprotected only a fraction of intercourse end up
in pregnancy.  Now throw in the fact that most these women must
have been on pills (at least one hopes so), and that 16% becomes
a very large number.

Could it be that some got pregnant (maybe even before they left
their homes) so that they don't have to fight?  I have no
evidence what so ever, but that 16% seems too large.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:20:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?

About Dan Quayle and the draft - there is a major difference bewteen what CLinto
n did (oppose the war - he's on record for that - and seek every means of escape
) and what Quayle did (run scared like the privileged boob he is and have his
family pull strings to get him into the guard). Nothing was preventing Quayle
from legitimate service in the Army, Navy or Air Force - not personal objection,
not religious conviction, not academic study, not living overseas - three of
which caused Clinton to avoid overseas service.

Who is more competent to lead the Armed Forces?  That's a matter of personal
opinion.  Reagan dodged the draft and was never considered incompentent for
that reason (he was considered incompetent for a great many *other* reasons,
but his draft-dodging wasn't one of them - :) ).  Personally, I look at Quayle
and see a scared rabbit who tucked tail and ran - a man without the mettle or
integrity to lead a Boy Scout troop.  I look at Clinton and see someone who
actually made a moral *decision* (not just issue a moral *policy paper*, like
Quayle's limit of experience in the moral arena); someone with guts who chose
to be true to his feelings - patriotic feelings - and fight to end an unjust
war.  Who's more competent?  Certainly not lil' Quayle Rabbit!  Clinton *is*
the next Commander in Chief.  Deal with it.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:51:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Purpose Of Government

>  The students who've worked as my field assistants have all
>learned that I have no sense of direction and can't follow a trapline, even
>when it's flagged.  Even when it follows a game trail or forest service
>road!

kerry,
it appears we share in the same affliction. i've mentioned this before to
someone....i have a theory about the chronically lost. i think this could be
categorized as a neurological deficit disorder.

anyway, everybody says "you just don't pay attention"....that's not it.
i simply cannot figure out my orientation to the rest of the world.
i absolutely have no clue as to what direction i'm facing. if someone points
and says - the sun is east, where's north - i have to literally face the sun,
extend my arms to find north on my left (i think).

if i read a road map, and find the street i need to get to and the street i'm
at, i have to move the map so that the street i'm on and the direction of the
line on the map correspond.

i get lost inside houses. i have no idea once i'm inside how the house is
oriented to the street. i have to look out the window to check.

with decent directions i can get to where i'm going, but getting back is a
major hassle. people say, just reverse what you did in getting here....but it
doesn't work. it's almost like some kind of cosmic shift happened while i was
inside, and the streets no longer go where they went. (i can't prove this of
course, but i'm working on it).

i know people who know where they are at all times even in places they've never
been before. i've asked those show-offs how they figure out which way to go, and
they always say, well, i'm east of such and such and i want to go home so i just
go west (or whatever). HA! i say, but how do you know which way is west, and
these homing pigeons just look at me with pity and amusement and shake their
heads. they think i'm joking. the ones that realize i'm not joking (like dear
jeff) make jokes about me. well, i like a good joke as well as the next guy, but
is it really okay to make fun of the orientationally handicapped??? jeff thinks
this is a cute endearing little quirck i have, but it's actually a real pain in
the butt, and at times a dangerous handicap if you say, get lost in the middle
of a crack neighborhood in north philadelphia at 2 am and can't find the
boulevard to take you home (which you find out later was only 2 blocks away
when you asked the least harmless looking junkie which way to get home).

well, anyway, i know how you feel. i know how gore felt. hell, i even know how
quayle felt (remember my Q-less post?).

-linda (who can't find her way out of a well-lit paperback)

>Kerry

ps. some months back, discover mag. had a piece on this in "light elements".
i got so excited when i found out that the author came to same conclusions i had
about our affliction. i'll try to find the piece.
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:42:29 -0500
From:         "(Jeff Green)" <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: showers?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>         Should gay high school students be prevented from taking
>         Phys Ed?
>

No, only straight bullies!

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green                              Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                        116 Dean Street Suite B
203.969.1183 Voice                      Stamford, CT 06902-6251
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 18:13:46 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Secondly,  those of you who don't like the idea of Reagan making films for
 the
> >military must have forgetten what Al Gore did during Vietnam.  He was a
> > journalist.  That was his service.
>
> Al Gore *was* a journalist, but not during Vietnam.  Although his father, then
 a
> Senator, opposed the war, Gore enlisted.
>
> >-Rich
>
> -----Gayla
>

Actually it's my impression that Gore was a journalist in Vietnam.  This
doesn't discount from the fact that he enlisted and he went into combat
areas armed.

Jonathan
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:55:59 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

>Maybe the good people of MD are saying that what Steve is doing isn't
>worth much to them.

"The good people of Maryland" are saying that most things are not
worth much to them, except for stadiums, tourist attractions and
other assorted "pet projects" of certain politicians.

Among the things that the good people are saying this to are, higher
education (which as a sub agenda, they are saying research institutions
are more worthwhile than teaching institutions), police, firemen,
emergency medical services, K-12 education, services for the poor,
homeless, infirm and aged... the list goes on and on.

I suspect that the story is similar in many states with declining
revenues.

>Why is that their fault and why should they
>change?

I don't know... could it be that they want decent services and quality
education?

>-andy

-other Andy
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: back on line!
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:05:21 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

T:
>        In your post about the NPR story, you wrote that 1500 gays were
>discharged in th 1980s.  Surely that was a type - right?

Should have been 1500 *per year*.  That about squares with the 17,000
figure below.  And the $27 million was the cost of recruiting and training
replacements for just the homosexuals discharged in 1990 -- it didn't
include the cost of finding, charging, and discharging the homosexuals.  So
the $500 million figure seems pretty reasonable.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:07:03 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Public Relations

>"The University of Minnesota is beginning a $200,000 television- and
>print-advertising campaign to buff an image tarnished by a string of recent
>scandals and to build support for the university and for public education in
>general."

That's a silly approach.  It's far more effective to bulk up the
sports programs.  They might have to decide between football or
basketball, but ....

Lou Holtz probably isn't available, but surely there's a good
head-coach out there waiting to hear from the Gophers.

-andy noticed that hiring bill walsh pretty much ended Stanford's
      bad press about indirect recovery rate scams
--
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: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:38:46 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

>You guessed right KAT. "MORON" is not a word you should use when
>engaging in political discussion. Four years from now, you'll discover
>that I'm right about Clinton.

On the contrary Kevin, apt and timely use of the word MORON can lead
to a successful run for the list presidency.

Steve R.
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 15:22:05 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> My point is that you voted for Bill and not Hillary and it appears that both
> should have been on the ballot.  I can understand her giving her opinion to
 her
> husband but as far as being involved directly in meetings and decisions it is
> not right.
>
> -Rich
>
I don't want to flame.  I don't want to flame. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

AAAHHHH.

Rich,
The man is married.  His spouse is an equal partner.  This is the way
that he governed.  You .....
How about this, Rich? Mrs. Reagan RAN the White House.  Was that OK?
She MADE decisions sometimes without even mentioning them to Ronald.
Was that OK?  You vote for someone who is married, you expect that the
spouse will take an active interest in the other spouse's job.

Hillary is Bill's chief advisor.  That is the way that it was, that is
the way that it is.  As I said in another post, if she wasn't his spouse,
she would be favored for a post in the administration.  As it is she is
an unpaid advisor.

Get used to it.  You get 8 more years of it!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:21:42 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      test message
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

soz about the bandwidth, folks
Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:32:51 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Another Victim

From:         Sue Clark <LIBRARY@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> I'm sure that there will be opposing views, but IMHO he is aiding in the
> desensitization of people's attitude to death in the country.  That to
> me is a danger signal.

> Working to put in conservative Republicans in '94 and '96,

Hi Sue.

I suggest that you look elsewhere for a "conservative" party which
would value life, and one which work against "desensitization of
people's attitude to death in the country."

You see the last time Republicans ran for presidency they were
using people like Bruce Willis and Arnold Shwartzeneger (sp?)
to stump for them while bashing Murphy Brown.  Needless to mention
that those two fellows portray the lowest form of respect for
human life, while she kept and nurtured a baby that many others
either abort to abandon.

> Sue Clark

> Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know what is 'tort law.'  Some postings
> are referring to it on the BUSH-L and I would like to know some about it.
> Thank you.

Now that is kinda cheating, isn't it?      :-)

Actually I only have a vague idea and wouldn't mind reading about it.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:03:32 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance

>are saying is that if I wanted to set up my own business and require my female
>employees to shower with men, none of you would have any objection.  None of
>you would claim that this practice constitutes sexual harrassment, so none of
>you would attempt to bring legal action against me.  If any of the females

This all depends on the business you are running.  If you are organizing
archealogical expeditions then communal showers may be appropriate and
the individuals should know the conditions before engaging in the contract.
If you are running a shoe store then the first question is, "What the
hell do you need showers for?".

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a blanket statement that covers
the whole bed in which you wish to lie.
   toddddddddd
>
>JasonZ

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "The comforts you demanded
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   are now mandatory!" -JELLO
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    BIAFRA,_Shut up, Be happy_
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:41:46 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

Clinton was ten points ahead of Bush before Perot's reentering the race
because many voters were undecided.
These voters turned to Perot when he decided to run.
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 15:09:33 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Well Jonathan,
> In the eyes of everyone. Your opinion is just a speculation.
> Most of Perot's voters were protesting against Bush. This protest
> vote helped Clinton, whether you get or not. Exit polls do not tell
> the whole truth. People like me will be always convinced that Clinton
> would not have won the elections had Perot not run.
>

Hey believe what you want, for god's sake don't let the facts get
in your way.  A lot people didn't like Clinton and were not going
to vote for him anyway.  These people though weren't crazy about
Bush, so they chose a third way.  The description of these people
are that they are typically conservative Republicans.  Not so
conservative that they are anti-choice, but conservative enough
that they wouldn't vote for a Democrat.

Back to the facts, you can throw away exit polling all that you
like, but that doesn't change the fact that 8% of Perot supporters
would have voted Clinton, 8% would have voted Bush given a choice
between the two. You'll note that the majority of Perot voters
aren't counted for.  A good percentage (and now my memory starts
to slip) would have stayed home.
So Kevin believe what you want, but this is not speculation,
this is not opinion.  What you have brought forth is opinion and
it's WRONG.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:52:32 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

On Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:43:00 EST linda said:
>
>
>we are building an extended family.
>hey, this is going to work out well. i can be list mother.
>julie can be asst. list cook.
>kerry can be list aunt (mother's need all the help they can get, plus i do want
>another sister).
>...anybody want to be my brother? i don't have a brother (sniff).

You can have mine if you want (god knows I don't want him  B-)).

>...and what about a list father ;).
>
>-linda
>list mother


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU