HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM (Chris A. Sloffer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:22:46 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>"if your not a part of the solution, your part of the problem". . . Aside from
>the grammatical errors, this is a rash generalization. I, myself, am NOT a part
> of the
>of the solution but this does not include me what causes the problem. In
>addition, Clinton will not "rule" MY life but he will have a strong bearing
>upon it -- to much so!
>--Steve


I don't want to get into your argument, but it seems to me that if I were
going to criticize the grammar of others, I'd be damn sure that I didn't
have an error of my own in that very paragraph.  :-)

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:49:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Modest Request
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

REPLY TO THAT MODEST REQUEST

Well, my name is Paul Siciliano (doesn't this sound corny), and I'm a
student at Drew.  I've been on this for a week now, and my political
viewpoints should be well known, unless everyone else is a moron,

Now for the questions:
1.) Don't do crosswords.
2.) SAT's top 10%
3.) Wear Nike Airs
4.) Toss up between Haig, and Greenspan.  Bothe held positions I want:
 Haig was President of the U.S. (for a real short time, the story
about Haig is great) and Greenspan has the most powerful postition in
America, chairman of the FED.
5.) Wouldn't be any of them
6.) I'd invest my $10 million and make more, like a good capitalist.
7.) Learn
8.) Piss of others, especially my liberal professors, and friends.

I don't know if I qualify to be a moron, but I hope so!

-Paul
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:37:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Paul:

        If every text you have ever read (what - 2, 3?) placed AD after the
year, then every text you have ever read is wrong.  (this could explain a lot -
maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on the lad).

        The term AD stands for "In the Year of Our Lord ..."  Therefore, it
is correct ONLY to place the AD (Latin - Anno Domini) BEFORE the year.

P.S.  maybe you should read texts that deal with subjects other than AD/BC.

-T.
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:06:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQQUCWK24G00034O@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>"T" -- What I know about Hill is from seeing her speak.  She is articulate,
>intelligent, sensible and she seens extremely competent.  I have not read
>anything she has written, but I really respect what she has gone through
>and how she has handled herself with complete dignity through it all.
>
>That's it.  I just have a great deal of respect for her _as a person_
>regardless of how she would vote on specific issues and I think she is
>worth serious consideration.
>
>--Julie
>
I REALLY can't belive what I'm hearing.  How can you say Anita Hill deserves
consideration as a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE when she isn't even A JUDGE!!!  How
stupid of a choice would that be?  Just because she's a woman doesn't mean
that she is qualified to be a judge.  Period.
                                    Jayce


                                    
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:28:31 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: bounced checks

>Actually, I don't know what the original purpose of the bank is/was.

According to the defenders of the bank on CNN, it was a very old
institution created to handle a problem that hasn't existed for years.
(Said defenders didn't mention that the problem doesn't exist - they
just described the problem.)

The problem was that critters were broke when they arrived in DC after
being elected.  Between campaign and travelling expenses, they were
seriously hurting until their first paycheck came in.  The bank was
set up as a mechanism for instituting a "collect your pay as you work,
instead of after you've worked" system without putting it out in the
open.

Frankly, I think "the bank didn't record deposits in a timely fashion"
excuse is quite damning.  If they can't run a bank competently ....

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:04:40 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

First to Kerry:

>In fairness, I recall reading and hearing that the procedures followed by
>the House bank were less than thorough -- that deposits didn't always get
>recorded in a timely fashion and so forth.  Thus, at least some of the
>overdrafts (or no-interest loans, as the case may be) were not necessarily
>the fault of House members.

True.  That's why I would be willing to overlook a few bounced checks ... oops
... overdrafts I mean, especially if the $s involved were relatively minor.
Remember, though, that we started out talking about Barbara Boxer who had 147
overdrafts.  I don't know the ammount of any of them, but that seems like more
than an occasional oversight on her part.

And to KAT:

The fact that the "bounced" checks are merely overdrafts in no way affects my
point that the people who had excessive overdrafts are either stupid for being
unable to balance thier checkbooks or dishonest for taking advantage of a
safety feature.

That is, unless you think that the house bank was set up FOR THE PURPOSE OF
allowing members to write themselves interest free loans.  In that case,
Boxer&Co. used the "bank" as it was intended and my dishonesty argument would
fall.  Of course, I could then argue that the reps in question were sleazy by
giving themselves perks that the rest of us don't get, but it would, I admit,
be a weaker claim.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:10:23 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I haven't had much to say because I've been ill since Election Day, but I
noticed Kerry K. being called "presumptuous" this afternoon, and felt I had
to react. I'm no paragon about sexism, though I try hard to keep myself
reasonable in my public remarks, but if Kerry thought some level of sexism
was being expressed, she was NOT being "presumptuous," but actually thought
such was occurring. She is one of the few people on POLITICS I've actually
seen and spoken to, and she just is too careful herself about usages to
accuse anyone of sexist behavior unless there was a sincere belief about it.
I have noticed some new list people being vaguely inflammatory in the past
few days, along with a couple of disappointed older list members. What will
this accomplish? Is it necessary? Flip remarks about Chelsea or Hilary Clinton
are akin to someone making flip remarks about YOUR mother, sister, wife or
significant other. Would YOU like it? I suggest we get back to politics, and
off of personalities. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:12:48 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

NO, women are JUST AS LIKELY TO DIE FROM ILLEGAL ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE FROM
LEGAL ONE. This is documented proof. When abortion was legalized in 1973, there
was ONLY A DECREASE OF 15 DEATHS from illegal abortions to legal abortions.
 Thus,
legal abortions do NOT iundicate safer abortions. In additions, thousands of
women have suffered from the ill physical and psychological effects of abortion.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:55:33 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Economic View of the Depression
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>-Paul
>
>P.S.  I have yet to receive an answer to my question of when a tax
>increase in American history led to prosperity?

	You probably won't get one.  Increased tax rates have always led to
increased spending.  Barring a war, this wouldn't exactly spur economic growth.
	(That's increased spending by the government.)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
<92312.0223352893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:11:30 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996

>One name you left out; Pete Wilson, the governor out here in the land of
>nuts and fruits.  He had a moderate record while in the senate, but has been
>courting the fiscal conservatives while in Sacramento.  That great budget
>debacle last summer (sixty plus days without a legal budget) was primarily
>aimed at showing how tough he could be.  It was pretty much a make or break
>play for him.  If the economy of the state improves enough for him to win
>re-election in '94, he will be able to make a good run at the nomination.

CA Gov. Pete Wilson (there's a SF-area TV "newscaster" with the same
name) can't even rely on a majority of Repubs.  The only thing that
can change that is a "greater evil".  He'll lose in 94 if the Demos
nominate someone that the Repubs don't vehemently hate.  I expect
Feinstein to take him on again, as her senate term will be up then and
the Demos may be silly enough to think that taking him out will help
in 96.  Feinstein may be disliked enough to "save" Wilson (she was in
90), but is making a serious move to change that.

The CA Repub party really got hammered and Wilson deserves a lot of
credit for that.  It's unclear if he can evade responsibility for
that, but even if he does, he won't have much of a base to work from.

Wilson seems to think that taking one stand demonstrates principles.
Bush thought that too.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 1996
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:26:46 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>If the conservatives on this list are so convinced that a terroble mistake
has been made.............

There was a terrible mistake made that mistake is electing a democrate into
the whitehouse. I don't so much fear Billiary as I do the congress. Theres no
one to control them any more. No one to sew up those holes in there pockets.
Bush was a great leader he showed his strength throughout his presidency. He
protected democracy and was a compassionate leader who cared. His only problem
was trying to work with congress and that did him in. Theres new leaders in the
republican party with new ideas and some good old ones.

>I personally believe that Republicans have unknowingly admitted that Bush/Quayl
   e are not who they supported at all....but instead extreme right-wing values
that the American public has voted out of office.

First of all if you think that Bush was part of the extreme wing of the party
you are wrong. Bush was a moderate. Perhaps if he had been more to the right
he would never agreed with congress on tax hikes. Remember Billiary had to
call himself a moderate moving to the right to get elected. His past record
of protest against America show that this isn't his real position.

Are you telling me that you voted for Clinton, a lying,draft dodging,adulterer
with a poor record as Govenor of a Backward state. No you voted for the left
wing values of the democratic party.

In '96 another republican will be elected and I hope that he is less moderate
than President Bush. We are going to need it to undo the damage that Billiary
and Ozone boy are going to create.
An opinion that's RIGHT.
   ---mike....
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:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:09:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: right v left
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Robert: No one wants an awaard for being gay.  We just want homophobic
morons to stop penalizing us for it.

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

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:35:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Flag Burning / Dating
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Two observations:

flag burning: The purpose of the burning of the symbol of a country
with various problems has been noted, but examples besides feminist
tainted bra burning may be in order.  An earlier flag burning case,
decided on somewhat facetious pure free speech grounds, came into
existence when a rational type burned a flag when he heard a well
known black activist was killed.  The Constitution, which with the
Declaration of Independence is our American Creed, was burned by those
against the evils of slavery it condoned.  At the time of the flag
burning case, people in Eastern Europe was cutting holes in flags
there to protest its communist dictatorships.  Though I don't know
particular examples, I wouldn't condemn Native Americans who feel a
need to burn our flag or homosexuals who many of their representatives
call deviant perverts.  Nor do I think many who don't like it here (1)
could leave (2) like others places much better, but instead want
to make their home better

Dating: Jesus Christ was born c. 4 B.C.; the dating was messed up the
the monk who set it up.  Wednesday is an English day of the week, not
a standard like "A.D." so it's not comparable, nor surprising to call
an English day of the week after an Anglo-Saxon God.  Nor is the
dating totally standard -- Muslims would tend to use A.H. (after
hagira of Muhammed) nor is it comparable to latinized scientific terms
because homo sapiens is not a religious statement while A.D. is.  I
really don't care, except on a theoritical basis, but it's not
surprising others more religious in a different religion that
Christian would.


    -Joe
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      RE:Catholic Tradition
Date: 12 Nov 1992 05:01:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GR1HBF4Y60003TWH@drew.drew.edu>,         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
 >         Furthermore, it was my point from the beginning that people
 > should stay out the Church's business.  I was the one who was saying
 > that the Catholic Church has it right to believe whatever it wishes,
 > and not change because of political pressure.

So *who* is the Catholic Church?  I was always under the impression
that it was people who made a church.  Why do you say that people should
stay out of the Church's business?  Who else is there?

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:18:35 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
              10 Nov 1992 13:20:40 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>


>       And who is it that pays the salaries of House members?

>       Oops.

>       So, in effect, taxpayers gave House members interest free loans.  No
> *additional* money went to the House members, but when the local paper showed
what ordinary folks like you and I would have had to pay in overdraft fines and
> bad check fees, it came to almost $52,000 for the worst offenders.

And who is it that pays the liquor bills of the family of the House members?
Well, the members themselves, who else?

And who is it that pays the salaries of the House members?

Oops.

So, in effect, taxpayers gave House members free liquor.

>       And *that's* what pissed people off.

Now, I am really pissed off.

> Brett'

--KAT  who knew when you take the derivative of a large number
       you end up with zero, but never thought the same principle
       holds for names too.    :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:46:10 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The Youngest Science

From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>  Using Freud to back up statements concerning psychology is about
> as reliable as using Aristotle to back up medical claims.

WHAT?? You mean, you don't believe that brains are organs for
cooling the blood?

Heretic.

I suppose you believe that lunatic paranoid "germ theory," too.
Right. Tiny little organisms that we can't see cause disease.
Sure they do.

You really need to get your humors in order. Or, I have some
nice hermetic recipes you might try.

Jamie
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:31:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Boy, Robert, you just don't get it, do you?  If someone clearly encounters

the essence of Christianity and never returns, they're wimps and wrong; it

is not in your little sphere of possibility that Gandhi could have been right?

Clearly, we know that whatever else Gandhi was, he was one of the most

courageous humans in history.  Loser, he was not.  Losers are we when our

narrow little blinders don't allow us to see what's right in front of us.


-T.


"Opening one's eyes may take a lifetime.
 Seeing is done in a flash."

                -DeMello, _Taking Flight_
From: SSTSTJB@VCUVM1.BITNET (Tom)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: 1996
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:49:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


          If the conservatives on this list (ie...Republicans) are
          so convinced that a terrible mistake has been mand, AND
          that Bush/Quale are the best possible choice for America,
          Why are you not promoting Bush/Quale in 1996?  I hope this
          does not come as a surprise to you, but both of them can
          run again in 1996.  I personally believe that Republicans
          have unknowingly admitted that Bush/Quale are not who
          they really support at all.....but instead extreme right-wing
          values that the American public has voted-out-of-office.
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: new tariffs
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:17:06 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Does anybody know who is responsible for introducing the proposed 200%
>tariff on certain european goods such as wine, cheese, etc? I don't see

	President Bush.

>how this can possible make our farmers more competitive. Just when many
>are seeing a bumper crop, the prices are going down the tubes. I think
>we will see a lot of retaliation if we proceed with this policy.

	It's the price of French goods that will go up.  (Although some US
companies will undoubtedly use this to rais their prices a little also.)

>I'm not crazy about government support for prices farmers receive but
>maybe it hurts less to pay less at the store and have taxes pick up
>the difference. One thing is for sure, you can't make a living at
>farming if prices are down and markets are closed.
>
>fred

	The tariffs are in response to subsidies of French farmers that the US
claims are illegal under GATT.  The tariffs target similar French goods being
sold in the US.

Brett'
I love the smell of a trade war in the morning
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:56:39 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996

>        I'm confused.  Did you say Feinstein would take on Wilson in '94
>'cause that's when her Senate term would be up?  Sounded like that.
>Senate's for six; House's for two.  It's late. Don't worry.

Yes.  I not only wrote that, but it's correct.  (I did make a mistake
in another posting I wrote that day.  In my suggestion that critters
from large state delegations should be term-limited even if those from
small delegations aren't, I wrote that term-limited critters in that
system could limit the effects of incumbency.  I should have written
"seniority".)

Wilson was elected to a full-term Senate seat in 88; his term would
have been up in 94.  In 90, he was elected CA governor.  He resigned
his US Senate seat and appointed Seymour to serve out his Senate
term.  (Governors appoint replacements.)

Appointed members don't get to serve until the end of the term; they
only get to serve until the next "opportunity" in the 2 year cycle.
That's true even if the term of the person they replaced wouldn't have
ended then.  The person that wins that seat at that "opportunity" gets
to serve out the remainder of that term, whether it is 2 or 4 years.
(In other words, if Seymour had been appointed to that seat in 89, he
would have had to run for reelection in 90 for a term ending in 94.
If he'd been appointed in 93, he'd have had until 94 and would have
been running for a full-term, 6 year, position.)

Elected replacements of appointees are special in another way.
They're in office as soon as the election is "official"; defeated
appointees don't get to be lame-ducks.  Feinstein is already a
full-fledged member (albeit the most junior in the Senate until the
new class is sworn in) not because Seymour resigned early to give her
a leg-up on the seniority system, but because he ceased being a
senator as soon as the election was over.

Boxer ran for the seat currently held by Cranston.  (He is a lame-duck
and can hold out for a couple of months.)  He was elected 6 years ago;
her term will be up 6 years from now.

-andy
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:00:00 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

Okay, Steve, you are finally saying something that I can work with.
You say that you are terrified of how his plans will utterly destroy
the economic fabric of our country.  Why?  What plans in specific?
Can you narrow this down?

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