HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:50:26 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the debate thang

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>-andy didn't watch the debate, but watched some excerpts and comments
>      that suggested that the drug war discussion was over legalization
>      and that some candidate had taken a "maybe we ought to think about
>      it" position.  Said coverage implied that Perot did, but didn't
>      provide direct evidence.  Andy wonders why the coverage had that slant.

As I recall, the candidates were agreed on this point: they were
all uniformly against legalization.
I think Perot said something about crack babies. Then Clinton said
HE had once held a crack baby in his ARMS. Bush had to make do with
pointing out that Bar had once held an AIDS baby in her arms.

It was sickening.

Jamie
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:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:00:41 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bloody Nose

  There is a tenedancy for people to either villify or heroize Columbus, and
I think to do either is a mistake.  Columbus can't be blamed for all
the inhumanity that the Spaniards  etc. brought to the new world, and must
be seen as a cog in the historical wheel -- a cog that happened to play
a fairly important part -- but Europe would have inevitablely have
encountered/ discovered/ exploited the americas anyway.

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:09:06 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Jewish Uprising?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:32:01 -0400 The Gilded Age is Alive and Well... or maybe i
>the question to ask is how valuable is self respect when you don't have
>a life? And what is foolish about defending what is yours? You are making
>a presumption that we will... human nature...animal nature is that
>we defend what is ours... i guess it comes down to whether you would be
>willing to take a life for a cause instead of just dying for one.

As a pacifist friend of mine put it when he stated he'd not commit
violence (for whatever reason) and someone confronted him on the
situation of someone raping his wife, "Well, I'm telling you how I
think I should behave.  What you've described is something a little
different."

>          Ask the Jews in Israel if they will ever let someone
>walk on them again... or ask them about the Masada?

Ask those same individuals/groups about a nuclear reactor they
air-raided in another country because no one else would and they
were concerned about the potential (not yet operational) threat
they thought it posed.

Remember:  "gore Clinton in '92!"
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: oy ve
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:11:15 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

anneliese writes:
>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.

I was also ten at the time.  Conspiracy?  I'll leave that to
the physics department at UW-Eau Claire to decide.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:56:48 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Libertarian Platform
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Yesterday, I was sitting there, minding my own business in the office
of the SDSU student newspaper, the Collegian, when my editor, Bobbie
Kriz, asks one of our resident conservative columnists (of which we
have several) if she has some of the literature the Libertarians gave
out when they visited the campus about a month ago. Our resident
conservative columnist said no. I said I had some. I also said that
I could probably get her a copy of the Libertarian Platform fairly
quickly.

OK, now I have my reputation as a political junkie at stake. Does
ANYONE out there have a copy on hand? Don't tell me about FTP because
I can't do it from here and I wouldn't have the time if I could.
Please help me.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
 Don't smoke
 Don't drink
 Don't f*ck
 Least I can f*cking think
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 08:37:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>        I meant attention in the media.  It might work like a smoke screen
>in the last parb4Lh9QT
>z7Irt of the campaign.

Now, Chris...no talking with your mouth full...:)

>                                        Chris MorU3 griso

Gary W. Olson, vacationing   "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...
From: CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET (todd pukanecz)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, kinda'
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:51:31 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>yes you are missing something.  The idea is not a simple drug dealer,
>but a major one who is in control of a lot of drugs that has the net
>effect of causing society to suffer in a great degree.  A single
>looter shooting a clerk is heinous, but so is a serious assault in any
>case, but the crime isn't so heinous to warrant the death penalty, so

Which brings us to the point of misunderstanding.  (Others have
correctly pointed out that capital punishment isn't, and has never
been, a deterrent to crime.  One could extend the argument that
draconian measures aren't effective crime deterrents.)
  What raised my ire was the idea that assault with a deadly weapon
is less of a crime than selling narcotics.  A case could be made that
assault with a firearm is always attempted murder.  A drug dealer is
like any other business man - he is supplying a demand.  It is only
because of the misguided prohibition established generations ago that
this businessman is by default a criminal.  From a non-legal, ethical
standpoint, a drug kingpin is no more, and no less, a criminal than
the president of Anheiser-Bush or Phillip-Morris.
  The detriments caused to society by narcotics abuse are almost
exclusively because the substance in demand is a contraband narcotic.
Decriminalize these narcotics, allow the government to distribute and
regulate them as is done with hard liquor, and many of the problems
relating to drug use disappear -- gang wars over distribution areas,
pushers on grade-school playgrounds, creation of dangerous "designer
drugs", etc.  And since the user is no longer a criminal it should be
easier and less stigmatizing for her to seek help for an abuse problem.
   todddddddddddddd
>
>   -Joe

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "LSD has been known to cause
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   psychotic reactions in those
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    who don't use it." - TL
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (Rick George)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Happiness is Bush
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:04:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>        I don't know if any of you guys are on the Perot list but Stockdale
>said that the 90 minutes of the Vice-Presidential debate were worse than the
>time he spent in the North Vietnamese prison.
>
>                                                        Chris Morrison


I wonder what four years of being Vice President would seem like to him?

In response to whomever asked about the polls about last night's debate
"winner," most of the polls I heard this morning said that people thought
Clinton won.  Maybe Bush ought to hope that Poughkeepsie is the
bellwether for the nation, as a Poughkeepsie Journal telephone poll of
700 people after the debate had Bush and Clinton pretty much even in
debate performance--36.8% thought Clinton won, 36.1% said Bush won.

By the way, the headline that I pray for finally appeared in the Po'k
Journal:  "$2.25 Million Lotto Ticket Sold By Deli In Town."  My mere
presence at work this morning is an indication that it wasn't me.

...Rick
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the kErry tickEt
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:56:30 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              15 Oct 1992 09:49:22 -0500 from <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>

On Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:49:22 -0500 VALENTINE M. SMITH said:
>My wife taped the Cosby show in question, I watched part of it the next day
>on the VCR. Too schmaltzy, VMS

I did not watch the episode in question; I was watching CNN.

Evelyn Duncan
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: The New Format
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:32:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Yeah, I agree with all of you, the new format is terrific.

The moderator was horrible. "Since we're short of time, let me ramble on
for a while, just to hear my voice and try to look cool."

Many of the audience members were also incredibly dumb. "How has the
debt affected you, personally?" Bush really blew that one, but frankly,
it wasn't his fault.

I am surprised that Martin thinks the format was unfair to Clinton in
that he kept going last. I am quite sure that Clinton strategists told
him to jockey for the last shot at every opportunity, and I thought it
gave him an advantage. For example, he showed the others up, I thought,
by waiting until they had blurted vague motherhoods in response to the
question about social security, pensions, and medicare, then giving very
specific answers. Similarly for the "personal feelings about the debt
question," he got a big advantage by waiting until the question was
forced, kicking and screaming, into a form that could be answered
intelligently.

Bush did look a little silly glancing at his watch. I'm sure it was
because he wanted to know how far into the debate they were, kind of
like a football coach watching the clock.

Overall, I agree, too, that Clinton won handily. It was his element. He
walked boldly into the crowd, engaged some of the questioners, even
asking them questions back, gave precise answers (relatively speaking),
and looked a lot more relaxed than he did on Sunday. He won the
"atmospherics," as NBC put it.

Bush didn't do too badly. I wouldn't expect him to LOSE support from
that showing. But I am surprised if, as Kerry says, he picked up more
undecideds than Clinton did.

Perot was the loser, in my opinion. (Strangely, the ABC focus group
scored it a virtual tie between Clinton and Perot, with Bush WAY behind;
the score was 26-24-2.) I thought his answer to the education question
was great. But aside from that, he just rehashed his very thin
repertoire. Cokie Roberts, who rashly said on Sunday that Perot was back
and dangerous, flip flopped this time and said that he was sunk.

If there were morning polls, could someone post them? I haven't seen
them.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:51:39 -0400
From:         "The Gilded Age is Alive and Well... or maybe it should be the
              Gelded Age" <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RE:Sorry..

you are right... we need to break the cycle... however... we as people
can't force others to do that, if we do, we violate the principles
the guns were used to initially protect and which may bring them back
stronger than ever before. A weapon is a strictly man made thing and it
will take us a long time not to use the weapons.. firearms are merely a
small part of a much greater problem. Just eliminating firearms will not solve
the problems, it will take much more than that, and i have a hard
time seeing a world in which violence and death will be eliminated.
   Another point is that man moves too fast for it's own good, we create and
invent things without examining the moral implications first. There is much
more to it than eliminating firearms, they are very small in the scheme
of things like violence. But going back to before, it would be nice to break
the cycle, but the cycle will not be broken unless everyone is happy. And
one last thing, most murders are committed as a onetime instance and the
murderers will never kill again, they did it in a fit of anger! Which also
means chances are they would have killed regardless of whether they had a
firearm or not.

                                john stith
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:03:17 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:47:52 CDT I. P. Freely said:

>You should write skits for SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE!  You're latest satire was
                                                  ------
>revealed a deeply rooted bigotry problem within you're comments.  I am
                                                 ------

Where's an education president when you need one? :{)

>Just for fun:  Wasn't it in Chicago, maybe a year ago, that one kid shot
>another with one of the super water guns and subsequently got shot with
>the real thing?  Looks like we don't even have to test your theory, those
>kids did it for us.

I believe it was in Boston as there were efforts to have them banned there.
I don't think it was one kid shooting another, I think a teen watered
down an adult who returned fire /c a real gun.

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:21:21 EDT
From: ^[corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Jews and other things

In article <9210092000.AA24233@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy
Freeman) says:
>
>>> "....the Jews...they were killed by the millions  50 years ago now...If
>they
>>had fought back with GUNS they might have not been slaughtered....."
>>
>>        Gee, sounds like a little bit of blaming thhe victim to me.
>
>Not at all.  It's just pointing out that soft targets are preferred.
>Available targets have the same disadvantage.  Attacker's preferences
>aren't "fault", but they do exist and there are consequences.
>
The Germans had an Air Force and tanks, the Jews didn't.


>>But even if EVERY person the Nazis were after had a gun,
>>it wouldn't have made a difference.
>Really?  It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that the Warsaw Ghetto,
>which held out longer than the Polish Army, didn't make any real
>difference, but to claim that dozens wouldn't have made a difference
>is absurd.
I agree, armed resistance can slow the invader down but it wasnt the French
Resistance that defeated the Nazis, it was the allies. The Baltic partisans
that resisted the Soviets in the 40s and 50s accomplished nothing.
The Jews were a minority among generally hostile populations in Europe,
there was no possibility of a successful "Jewish revolution" It would
have been crushed sooner or later.
>>attempting to rob, rape, maim, etc. you is one thing, shooting a  bunch of
>>soldiers who are rounding up your entire neighborhood in the middle of the
>>night is something else.
>
>It's EASIER.  Sure, they've got better uniforms than common thugs, but
>you've got more tactical advantages.  (BTW - since 1945, people with
>small arms have regularly won revolutions against govts with big war
>toys.)
People (often unarmed, look at Eastern Europe and Russia this past decade)
have won Revolutions against armed states not as a result of the fire power
of ordinairy people but because sections of the army have been won over
to the revoulution, look at Romania or Russia just last year. If it
came down to firepower between an army that backs the state and a population
backed with handguns, the State will win every time. Cuba's  population is
armed yet they're not going to start a shooting war with the army, now are they

In any case,this argument that an armed population is a safe population is all
bunk. Lebanon after all has one of the most heavily armed poplulations in the
world (though Yugoslavia may now be competing with that title)
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: wasting away again in margaritaville
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:57:08 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>(my parents used to fight about this all the time.  my father would vote
>party-line democrat and my mother republican and they would argue with
>each other about "cancelling each other's vote" {?}. then they would tell me
>that i was wasting my vote by voting libertarian.  just one big happy, that's
>my family.)
>
>anneliese.l
>
Do you think Perot has a chance? I agree that a vote is documentation of one's
feelings. I pose the question, though; What message is being sent by voting
for Perot? These are the candidates which through the primaries, emerged
victorious. Perot took his marbles and went away only to return in a timed
flurry. This may be politics, and a prudent business plan, but isn't this what
perotites are fighting against...manipulative government officials!
gpn
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him admire the view
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:50:18 GMT

>                                        Chris Morrison
>                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
>Who recently figured out that ANTHLAL stands for Anthropology Lab Anneliese
>Lorson.

Buzzzzzzzz.  Next contestant?

--Jimbo, funk king and Laura fan.
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: The Cable Bill
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:20:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I like that masters in Counseling Psychology and finds Politics interesting.
I wonder what the Abnormal Pych people would think of us?

                                        Chris Morrison
From: TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET (Travis Kidd)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Federally mandated leave constitutional?
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:35:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Perhaps you don't have your constitutional law books with you, but a
copy of the Constitution is not hard to find.  It is a VERY LARGE
corruption of the interstate commerce clause to say that a restaurant
serving out-of-staters is subject to federal law.  That is just
ridiculous.  The only thing the federal government can do (if the
Supreme Court disagrees with me, then I believe the Supreme Court to
be wrong) is regulate the ACTUAL COMMERCE itself.  When the states
ratified the Constitution, surely they did not intend for the federal
government to have control over everything in the state that might
have the remotest connection with something out of state.
It sounds ludicrous to say that how much a Burger King in Fairbanks, AK
chooses to pay a cashier is under federal jurisdiction.
-Travis
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 23:24:16 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: CLINTON HG ADDRESS?

In article <POLITICS%92100510373457@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, denisew
<DENISEW@BROWNVM.BITNET> says:
>
For general correspondence, please send your mail to:

        Clinton for President
        P.O. Box 615
        Little Rock,   AR   72203

** To call for T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Buttons,  etc. Please call: **

        (800) 428-8600

To send a FAX, please use this number:

        (501) 372-2292

To call the campaign HQ:

        (800) FOR-BILL

        (501) 372-1992

Online addresses (forums on both services):

        Compuserve      Clinton for President   75300.3115

        America Online  Clinton Pz

>HI, Does anyone have the address for Clinton headquarters in Little Rock?
>
>Thanks,  Denise
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:50:25 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Questions and Answers?
Comments: To: z_totahmc@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU

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

     First thing I'd do is kill the person who built your spell-
     checker. I think that asking most high-school students about
     congress is like asking most high-school students about the
     geographical position of Nicaragua: highly unadvisable. Yes,
     they will be the voters of tomorrow (actually, some of them
     already are voters), but many of the college students I know
     don't know who is running beyond the presidential level, and
     when it is Tim vs. Timmer and Daschle vs. Char Haar, the choices
     are not tough.

     I heard about this poll on Friday. These women polled a number
     of women in the Detroit area about the Hill-Thomas hearings,
     and their numbers are shown to be accurate by recent polls.
     They polled in depth, instead of a quick phone call asking about
     three questions while the respondant is getting ready for bed.
     Maybe, if you have time, you'd try that.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
politics, n:
        From the Greek "poly", meaning many, and "tic", meaning
        little bloodsucking insects.

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
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:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:09:14 -0400
From:         "Alexander saw the breath of his domain and wept for there were
              no more worlds to conquer" <STUSTARNES@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: No joke!

LIBERAL????? (Eyes red, blood boiling, Rush Liba(sp?) fan)

Did someone use the L-word?

>left-wing, liberal, unrealistic world of academia.......

I believe that is what is called a hasty generalization? Come now. I am in
college (academia) and consider myself far from liberal. So....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU