HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:15:36 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Hi, all.


> >     Unfortunately, this one CANNOT be blamed on GHWB.  His foreign
> > policy is the one area where I'll defend him any day...  (and from
> > the looks of this list, it'll probably be EVERY day...)
> Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with you.  However, I can rip up Bush's
> foreign policy any day.  I think that Bush's foreign policy was one of
> the most overrated things in the entire campaign.
> But back to the Gulf War.  What I can blame on Bush is the hyperbole that
> led up to the war, the hiding of the war from the press and the total
> mismanagement of the aftermath of the war.  Like what possible reason
> would we have to allow Iraq to use it's heliocopters to destroy the
> Kurds after Bush urged them to rise up and destroy Saddam??
> >
> > --STAN JACOBS
> >     "In Defense of Richard Nixon", Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, and
> > several other inappropriately maligned characters.
> >
> Stan,
> If you truly believe that Nixon, Limbaugh, and Bush are "inappropriately
> maligned characters", you will be spending a lot of time defending your
> misguided convictions!  (although, I agree you with that the above-named
> people are 'characters').
>
> Jonathan


The Kurdish issue is unclear.  There were internal reasons for not
supporting them that still have not been released.  Without such
information, I am hesistant to defend or attack the said policy.
    However, I will admit that from its appearance, the Kurdish issue
was a bug in the system, as the Bush administration attempted to use
them to overthrow him (thereby maintaing stability by their assuming
some leadership position that he had without having the US physically
go in and do it).  But when the situation changed, it went off the
scale of "programmed response" reactions.  We could not physically go
in and defend the Kurds, as that was neither offered nor authorized
by the UN Council.

As to defending RMN, Limbaugh, Bush, and others...  I know I spend a
lot of time.  3 or 4 hours a day with Internet e-mail alone!
However, it's worth it to see some good discussion (and to clarify
some issues on these peoples' REAL merits, so often overlooked by
those who simply disagree with their perspective).

From the Right,
STAN JACOBS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:57:50 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military

I have two thoughts on this whole issue.

1)  I realize that this is probably impractical or something,
    but why couldn't people wishing to not serve in a unit
    with a known homosexual be allowed to transfer?

2)  Why couldn't a person not wishing to serve at all in a
    military which allowed homosexuals to serve, be allowed
    early discharge(honorable)?  One thing that this would do
    is reduce the size of the military(at least a little) and
    would allow for some budgetary saving.

jbc
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:06:21 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>Don't forget income averaging.  At any rate if I win a
>lottery, I don't get to keep the first $10K and then be
>taxed 5% on the next 10 and so on.  Why is capital
>gains such a sacred cow?  I tell you why: because most
>middle income and almost all poor people never much of
>capital gains.  Because mostly rich people have capital
>gains.

        I'd have to disagree.  Anyone who owns a home is (probably) sitting in
an unrealized capital gain.  And it doesn't take millions or even thousands to
buy securities or other investments.
        A hundred a month over a working lifetime will bring back over a
million if invested properly.

>>        Do we really want to do that, or let them keep most of the first $10k,
>>a little less of the next $10k, and even less of greater amounts...in other
>>words, as a parallel category to income.
>
>And if I worked a SECOND job to better my family's life
>I don't get to have a parallel category to FIRST job
>incomes.  Why is capital gains such a scared cow?  Why?

        Because you've already been taxed for the money once.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:44:56 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: Return of the shadow government
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>For you newbie politickers, JSS's former claim to fame is as head of
>the shadow government. I seem to recall some discussion about a child
>produced through the assistance of a certain outspoken redhead dwelling
>in the great white north. :)
>
>I think Leise's posting about her "pipes bursting while she was in
>chicago" was a coded statement foretelling the return of the shadow
>government. :)

Speaking of reappearances, where _is_ Liese these days?  I rather miss her
dialy didactic prose!

It's not that she is buried under white in the great white north, is it?!

Chris

>fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:23:21 EST
From:         Robert Kelly <rkelly@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Hi,

        Well now I think I have heard it all.  Mr. Stan Jacobs sounds as if he a
ctually
 believes that Mr. Limbaugh is the political advocate of the right wing.  He is
 not, what he tells on his talk show is funny but not a good stand to support in
 very few if any political forums.  Tell Mr Limbaugh to stay in showbusiness and
 out of real life.
                                Nick Kelly
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:02:56 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      i just don't get it
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Can someone explain how Ed Meese was able to be confirmed as Attorney
> General with his background while Clinton's first choice never got
> past first base? It must be because the press is so pro-republican
> don't you think, rtf and brett'?:)
>
   the press had little to do with it. apparently many senators were
flooded with mail/calls/etc. urging that she not be confirmed. not to
mention the fact that it's not a simple matter of "thinking like a
mother, not a lawyer". she and her husband make well over half a mil
a year. they could afford a phd in child psych to take care of the
kid. it was greed overriding her knowledge that what she was doing
was illegal. just a hotshot yuppie is all . . . also, she was not
clinton's first choice. the first two women he asked turned him down.
(i guess men aren't qualified or something.)

   meese's sliminess was not immediately apparent, i guess. he did
put out a seriously perverted book, tho . . . :)

> I think Harry Truman was the shortest president. He was about 5 foot
> nothing, give or take a couple inches. Anybody seen any new Ross Perot
> infomercials?
>
    i think madison was way short as well. dunno who was shorter. ross
has been hiding out from libyan terrorists again, i think.

> Randall Terry was in town last week. He told the woman pastor of a
> local church that she is a jezabel and stood outside the church
> admonishing those about to enter service that they would go to hell
> if they took communion from this woman.Any of the lawyer types on
> the list know if this could be interpreted as slander?
>

    i doubt if a court would touch this one with a 10-mile pole.
and i guess terry likes being in jail or something. we oughta put
him in marion for a week and see if he likes it there, too. terry
is one of the persons killing off the anti-abortion movement . . .

> Are the pro-gulf war people happy that Clinton has not halted our
> military venture in this region?
>
   what should he do? stopping it, or even easing up, would give the
green lite to saddam to resume doing annoying stuff again. me, i'd
tell the cia to do a little wet work, and to hell with any idiots in
congress who don't like it.

> fred

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:10:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

STAN says:

>Finally, complain because she is the First Lady?  I think not.  I
>would actually support making a single exception to the anti-nepotism
>law and appointing Hillary to be the Attorney General.  This is one
>case where someone's real ability is being limited by their
>relationship to someone in power *UNLIKE the JFK-and-Bobby-too story*.

Why not do a little research on RFK's time as AG?  JFK tied his hands
on Civil Rights for a few years, but 1963 should provide you with
a lot of good details...also, in referencing this topic, look under
Kennedy, Robert F., as Attorney General, and: Organized Crime.

Why the hell do you think Hoffa was so mad at RFK?  Because he was
a _bad_ AG?

From AG, he didn't sink back into oblivion (as so many other former AGs
have); he became US Senator from NY, and was on his way to an overwhelming
victory in November 1968 as President of the United States when he
was murdered.

I agree with the CW that JFK was a mediocre Executive during the short time
he had...RFK, however, (quite different than his older and younger brothers)
would have been one of our greatest Presidents.  If you don't know that,
you don't know the man.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:26:57 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Musical Presidents

I heard a snippet of Billy Clinton (that's *Mr.* President, to you)
playing sax at his own inaugural bash last night (some people always
have to be the center of attention :).  I was admiring his noodling
when it struck me that a president with musical ability, although
showing the president's breadth of interest, might not be a good omen.

This morning's quiz for the list members is a two parter:
1) Who was the last president of the US who was a proficient musician?
2) Assuming that such an inclination is not a bogus and irrelevant
   indicator, how does this bode for the incoming administration?
     todddddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "It is not enough to be
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   Hungarian.  One must also
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    have talent." - UNKNOWN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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, 26 Jan 1993 17:50:45 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

On Fri, 15 Jan 1993 11:53:24 -0500 KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU said:
...
> What timing!  In this morning's paper, an article from the NYT service
> explains the Census Bureau's recent findings that poverty is a major factor
> contributing to the breakup of American families.

        I think the Census Bureau has it backwards.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Musical Presidents

Stan says:

>2. It depends how you look at Richard Nixon...

You mean...as a megalomaniacal paranoid schizophrenic?  OK, go on...

>Unlike Clinton, he HAD some clue about foreign policy.

A few things: 1. Nixon had a CLUE about foreign policy?  Does that include
Vietnam?  Laos?   Cambodia?  Ohhhh!  You mean that Nixon had a clue about
how to pursue _illegal_ foreign policies!  Oh, yes!!
2. Nixon's _people_ were the foreign policy "experts", not RMN.
3. What gives you the notion Clinton doesn't have a "clue" about foreign
policy?

>Unlike Clinton, he had the media against him.

Don't know where you were during Nixon's Admin, but that's plain wrong.  It was
only at the END of the Watergate Affair (note that The Post was out on a limb
for over a year...alone among the media following the story) that the press
got on Nixon...he had very favorable press for most of his two (oops!) one
and two thirds terms.

>Unlike "Slick Willy" Clinton, he did not have a good public image.

First of all, your use of the term "Slick" aptly demonstrates a bit of what
Clinton's media image was for some time..both Clinton and Nixon are pretty
much responsible for their images...both good and bad...and besides, Tricky
had "rehabilitated" himself between 1962 - 1968...he brought his image back
into the dumpster all on his own (like Clinton brought his out!).

>I honestly believe that in ability alone, Richard
>Nixon was a great President that Bill Clinton can never compare to.
>Sorry, Bill, I just don't like your tune...

If that's your honest opinion, I think the "sorrys" go to you; as in
"You think Nixon was a _good_ President?  I feel sorry for you."...

BTW - You don't have to like his tune...you don't have to listen to his
tune....but his tune sure will be playing for the next 4 years....


-T.

Still getting used to the idea that after a dozen years, a human
couple inhabit the White House....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:12:02 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>OK, I think.  Did he explain how he arrived at that conclusion (this has
>probably been covered already, but I'm slow)?  Was it that women-seeking-
>abortions aren't a class (didn't I read that somewhere?)?  Or that OpRes
>wasn't "targeting"?  Or that no infringement occurred?

The first. Women-seeking-abortions are not a class in the relevant sense.

Actually, I think Scalia was correct about THAT.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:01:58 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

Evelyn:

How many people complained when Jack made Bobby AG?  Lyndon Johnson,
for one.  And he did something about it.  That's why Hillary isn't
AG today.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:33:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Hi, Jay, and related matters :)

Kerry Kilburn says:

>So . . . does *anyone* know of any source (that I might be able to locate
>using our wonderful library resources) that supports the allegations made
>by opponents of lifting the ban?  And let's remember that "people don't
>like it" doesn't work as a reason to deny someone his/her individual rights

No - there simply aren't any.

But, as I suggested months ago, do some research into 1948, when Truman
was integrating the military....same _exact_ arguments being handed down..
"They'll cause morale problems"  "What if a solider doesn't feel comfortable
having one in the next bunk?" "THere's a privacy issue here" "No one
will fight or lay down their life for one of them" "The American public
agrees that they are not the kind of people we want in our military."
etc etc etc

You know, it's funny...the _military_ with its bivouacs, MREs, chemical
warfare, PT drills, tanks, jets, parachutes - they claim that having
gays in the forces would make soldiers "feel uncomfortable".
AAwwwww, idint dat sad?  We'd make da liddle soldiers uncomfy?
Wouldn't want _that_, now, would we?

>And, a related question:  if Clinton issues an executive order requiring
>that the military no longer ask recruits about sexual preference, would
>that also apply to ROTC?

It would, IMO, apply to all branched of the national military, including
active, reserve, IRR, ROTC, academies, and Coast Guard (not officially
part of the military until times of war, but federal nonetheless).

It wouldn't affect the National Guard (at least not without a much
bigger fight than he has now).


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:44:17 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SAFE T DANCE
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>>         Penthouse has a cartoon of Bill and Al as the Blue's Brothers.
 Almost
>> appropro 'cept Al doesn't have rythm.
>>
>> Brett'
>
>  brett! i am *shocked*! where in the world did you get ahold of that
>piece of filthy trash? get rid of it *immediately*!!
>
>:)
>rtf

        As trite as this is about to sound... :)

        I do read Penthouse's fiction articles.  Being an aspiring SF writer
I've found their fiction to be quite good.

        On the other hand, I think it was Cindy Crawford's presence on the
cover that swayed me this time :).

Brett'
(Evil exploiter of women, obviously)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:41:41 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

Jamie:

>The first. Women-seeking-abortions are not a class in the relevant sense.
>
>Actually, I think Scalia was correct about THAT.

Clarification, please?  I know they're not a class in the taxonomic sense,
but how does one define a class of protected persons (or whatever)?

Kerry
beginning to understand . . . :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Encoding: 10 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:05:00 EST
From:         AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV
Subject:      Hillary as Attorney General
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I agree with whoever said the one post for which Hillary Clinton would have
been most qualified is Attorney General, but I have a question.  It seems
clear that Clinton could NOT appoint his wife as AG now that he's President,
but what if she (or a generic spouse) were already AG or Supreme Court
Justice (as Hillary's mom had hoped she'd be, I hear)?  Would that have RULED
OUT the possibility that Bill (or the other generic spouse) could run for
President?  Or any other elected post?

--Anjani
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:23:35 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Policie d'Ayiti (was Re:rantings of the Right Wing)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         In any event, it's Clinton's words that have increased the boat
>> bulding.
>
>And why did the boatbuilding start about a year and a half ago? Before
>then, going the "Boat People" route was fairly rare. There there was
>a flood.

        The present boat-building, that was spurred by Clinton's words, is
unprecedented.  Even when compared to the Mariel boatlift.  (Haitians have been
coming to America since before the coup.)

>The situation is different than Brownsville, hoss.

        No kidding.  The comparison was to highlight the obvious ramifications
of going to an area with existing tendenicies for illegal immigration and
saying "we're not goint to stop you".

...
>>         The one solution that appears (to me :) to be optimal is to raise the
>> standard of living in Haiti so that people don't want to leave.  Of course
>> restoring democracy is a necessary step.
>
>Crucial step. Vital step. If you take out the current regime and
>reinsert the only democratically elected ruler in the island's
>history, Aristide, then the boats would stop.

        I think some of the post-independence (from France) leaders were
elected, but my memory of that is foggy.  But after decades of dictators it's
pretty obvious that it's the first democratic leader in their lifetime.

>>         This is the solution that Salinas has for Mexico.  Mexico will become
>> place where you can earn a decent living so people will no longer go north.
 I
>> he succeds, we'll have a nice model for the rest of the developing world.
>
>I hold there is a difference between the immigration problem
>from Mexico and from Haiti. There was no large emigration from
>Haiti until the coup. Now there is, and the main difference is

        There has always been boat building.  The last large-scale exodus was
Mariel.  So there have been previous examples.

>is the military government. History shows us that these kinds
>of governments do not solve any problems besides the small
>balance in the despots' Swiss bank accounts. Yes, Haiti has
>serious problems above and beyond the government, but unless
>this government is removed, not one bit of positive change is
>possible.
>Dave
>t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu

        I agree, but my point remains that the current large scale boat
building is a consequence of Clinton's poorly worded statement(s) on the issue.
        Dictator or not, they wouldn't be building so many boats if they didn't
think Clinton had given them the green light.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:NETNEWS@PACEVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics