HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:29 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GU0CCH7Q0W0075GB@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,       
  The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
>        [Cuomo] is, after all, a mafioso-butt kissing "do
>anything" power hungery politcal hack only admired by those who want the power
>he has so they can srew [sic] as many people as he has.

No, Brett.  You have the wrong New York politician.  You mean D'Amato.  :-)

						     	Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:20:35 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision
              25 Jan 1993 10:43:00 EST from <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

Peter:

The people that gathered last Friday to scream "ban abortion" weren't
molested?

Whose line are *you* buying?  Pay attention.  When DC police are called
in to restrain counter-demonstrators to a peaceful public march,
*something* is going on.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:18:51 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > >>         And Iraq was, right up until the failed coup, a client of the
 USSR.
> > >bzzzt.  Sorry Brett'.  The United States 'tilted' toward Iraq virtually
> > >immediately.  We have been supplying Saddam with money and arms for over
> > >a decade.  It could also be that they receieved money/arms from the USSR
> > >as well.
> > >Jonathan
> >
> >         I eagerly await the list of arms that we (the US) provided.
> >
> > Brett'
> >
Brett',
I'll get to this...

>
>     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
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:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:44:50 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing House

KAT:

Ok, maybe I am missing something here that I should be getting,
but what residence did they pick?

jbc
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 16:30:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: states rights and federal funding
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >I do not believe that the intention of the Founders was to subjugate
> >the states, merely to unite them.  The Bill of Rights applied originally
> >to the Federal government alone, and was intended to curb them
> >excessive impulse of a centralized government to act *on* the states
> >and the people, rather than *for* them.
>
> I don't know much about intent, but couldn't it be that, in addition to the
> intentions you mention (which sound eminently reasonable to me), the
> Founders also intended to secure basic individual rights to all citizens,
> regardless of which state they lived in?

I think so.  After all, the states themselves led the way with their
various pre-Constitution charters of rights.

Although I don't think that there is any greater tendency for a central
government to mistreat its citizens than there is for a local government
to do so.

> >To enforce the will of the Federal government upon the states implies
> >the assumption that control (on that issue) is better exercised by
> >a centralized government than a local one.  There are, indeed,
> >large and necessary projects that only a larger government is capable
> >of undertaking; however, regulation of individual behavior is not
> >one of them.
>
> And, if part of the intent was to secure basic individual rights, would
> that perhaps fall under the category of "large projects only a larger
> government is capable of. . .?

I don't see how we can consider a right "basic" if it can be abridged
legally when someone crosses a line on a map.

Also, arguments based on the sizes of various governments may not be
completely reliable.  About half the states today are more populous than
the entire country was in 1790--does that mean we have two dozen Federal
governments :-)  ?

I find it more fruitful to think in terms of the relationship between
citizens and their government.

Best,
Peter

> Kerry
>> NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:20:46 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      "On An Ongoing, and Fruitless,
              Discussion,and Further Remarks to..."
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

(STUFF DELETED, from a Val post I have total agreement with.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYMORE EITHER!)

> PS. I agree that my comments on "looking radar" versus "locking on"
> radar in the Iraqi case were in partial error, and I concede that
> "locking on" radar use by the Iraqi IS provocatory. However, I
> believe that the US does NOT have a "mandate" to be Iraq's "keeper."

The UN forces have a cease-fire to enforce. Whether or not you
think that cease-fire is good policy or another act of American
agression, it is still a cease-fire. As for the "keeper" argument,
we are all responsible for keeping a peaceful global society.

> I also feel strongly that we destablize Iraq, as odius as that regime
> is, at our peril, for what that action does is aid, abet and ensure
> the strengthening of an equally deadly, if not more, "opponent,"
> Iran (who has been arming steadily since 1988, buying subs, tanks and
> planes from the ex-Soviets, and rumored to have bought some tactical
> nukes from an unnamed "CIS" state). Does anyone think that Iran is a
> more desirable power to hold sway in this area of the world, and more
> importantly, what will the UN or the US do should Iran seek to spread
> its "influence" by military force? V.

This is exactly why we did not and will not kill Saddam. If Saddam
dies and we do not immediately step in and create a puppet state,
then one of two things happen: 1) more bloodthirsty, less imaginative
leader comes from the Ba'athist party and we have more Desert Storming
to do, or 2) Iraq becomes equal parts Iran, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and
Saudi Arabia. This would give Iran more land, more oil, more power.
THAT would give our friends in Foggy Bottom more headaches, more
ulcers, more high blood pressure. If we come in and take over, we
place ourselves in a position more sticky than Vietnam. I mean, SOME
vietnamese liked us. Also, *WE*, the Demon Americans, would be the
first line against the fundy Iranians. This would not be good.

So it is damned if we do, damned if we don't. But if we don't, Iran
will be THAT much farther from "civilization."

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:46:41 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 'On Gay Rights ...'

>From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>>     ...  I wrote that some pedophiles want to specifically have
>>sex with male minors.  Homosexuality is a desire to have sex with someone of
>>the same gender regardless of age.
>
>No sooner than I gave you another chance, you went
>ahead and blew it.  If "homosexuality is a desire to
>have sex with someone of the same gender regardless of
>age" and if "pedophiles are people who desire sex with
>children," then one may conclude that all homosexuals
>are pedophiles.     (Logic Czar: a ruling please.)

Scope ambiguity.

There are two things the first sentence can mean.

1) It can mean that for any age chosen, someone who wants to have
   have sex with a person of the same sex of that age is a homosexual.
2) It can mean that someone is a homosexual if and only if s/he
   has an age-neutral desire to have sex with people of the same sex.

I hope that answers the question.

His Infinity, the Logic Czar
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: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:47:53 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      did I miss something?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

. . . Or did the UN Security Council adopt a resolution (#7-somthing)
calling on Israel to bring back the deportees from Lebanon?  And didn't B-G
(I can't begin to spell the guy's name) call upon the Council members to
enforce the resolution?  Is anyone doing anything about this?

Kerry
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 14:22:13 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>I don't know and therefore am seriously asking, but how "off-guard"
>were we at the onset of WWI and II?

        In 1939 our army's total strength was 300,000 men, which translates to
about two divisions of useful fighting power.
        In 1941 there were over 500 divisions of men fighting in Russia (on
both sides).

        Immediately after WWII, we again trashed most of our military hardware
and let most of the troops go home.  We took brand new aircraft and blew them
up.  It's a heart-wrenching scene :(.

        It was Korea that drove home the message of being prepared for any
contingency at any time.

>Furthermore, I know some who could make a very good case for us
>not having gotten into either of those.  That being the case, it
>really wouldn't matter even if we were caught off guard.
>
>As I said, I don't think that there is much reason to have a massive
>military unless there is the possibility of an invasion of US territory
>proper.  I simply don't see this as a real threat in any fashion.

        The problem is we can no longer count on having 6 months- 1year to
prepare for war.

>I might add that I use the term "massive" because of the amount of
>defense spending our country has.  Given the geopolitical world since
>the end of the Cold War, I find that it is unwarranted.
>jbc

        Post-1989 I would agree.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:38:12 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >What does an army do? It kills people and breaks things.

Kerry, what about the Corps of Engineers?

I'm sorry, but my dad was a civil engineer in the Air Force until
I was 18. I've been in buildings he has helped build. I've been
helped by the fire department under his control when he was Base
Civil Engineer.

Yes, the destructive end of the military is the most photogenic
and the most expensive, but as anyone who knows about the Missouri
River, for one example, knows the military does more than destroy.


From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:34:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Example: Virginia

-andy asks:

>Does this mean that they don't sell inflatable sheep in Virgina?

Don't rightly know where Virgina is, -andy.

Being a temporary resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia (and a proud
native of the great State of New York), I posted that bit in bewilderment
of this...this...."state".

Of course, you might check your own personal California rubber sex-mate
surrogate supplier to find out if you could pick up what you want while
in Virginia.

What is it you were looking for, -andy?  Inflatable sheep?  Wore yours out,
eh?


-T.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jhalat@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (James Halat)
Subject: Re:      re: Abortion, Quayke, and Bush
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jhalat
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:10:26 GMT

In article <POLITICS%93012012135912@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
|> [...] Rather it all depends on the context in which
|> you present the information.
|> 
|> --KAT

Rather it all depends on the the information in which
you present the context :).

--Jim Halat

-- 
James Halat                    e-mail:  uunet!csfb1!jhalat          
The First Boston Corporation   -- I speak only for myself --
New York City                     

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:09:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A bit more on Zoe Baird

Okay, Joe:

Let's put this in perspective.  According to PC liberalism, it is
BAD for rich people to exploit poor people.  This is what is done
by Big Business, the Military, and All Republicans.

Zoe Baird made $660,000 per year, and wasn't willing to pay the price
for a *legal* nanny, of which there are plenty for the kind of
price she *could* have paid, but was unwilling to.

However, Zoe Baird was picked by Bill Clinton, former moderate lately
turned into the Messiah of the PC liberal left (just to make the group
as accurate as possible.  Please note:  I do not mean leftists=liberal=
PC.  I mean PC+liberal+leftist = thought: Clinton is the Messiah.)

A problem arises, then.  What to do?  Answer: send out Little George to
say "problem?  what problem?" and hope it goes away.

Complication:  Ms. Baird decides to demur, knowing she can't endure.

Zoe Baird is no Clarence Thomas.  More of a Douglas Ginsburg.

Go back to the law firm.  Do not pass go.  Collect another $660,000.

Result:  Clinton looks loyal, Baird looks persecuted, Little George
looks nervous, and the rest of us look elsewhere.

--NINAR Kerry
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:31 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan23.195736.1409@altair.selu.edu>,
 pcs$1703@altair.selu.edu writes...
>For a informative view on politics listen to Rush Limbaugh on the
>AM dial.

Here we go again!  I'm hoping Limbaugh turns out to have as much staying power
as Morton Downey did.

								Dan, ad nauseum 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:43:16 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The supremes sing the blues
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Well, now that the military brass has made their stand on allowing
> non-heterosexuals to serve in the miltary very clear, does anyone think
> they will attempt a legal challenge to Clinton's executive order? What
> grounds/precident will they base their case upon?

As the L.A. Times explained this morning, the President can order the
Justice Department to *NOT REPRESENT THE MILITARY*.  Because the
military cannot represent itself in civilian court, there would be no
way to enforce military action against gay members of the military.

>
> If Nancy Reagan could be the drug csar following the dictates of her
> astrologer, what is wrong with Hillary leading the health care plan?

The most significant is her track record with the Arkansas state
educational system.  If we're going to say, "Hillary is able to do
the work of a Washington policy-maker", then let's give her a similar
evaluation.  No other policy-maker with her track record would be
given this position-- were it not that she happens to be married to
the President...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,
             @MIZZOU1.missouri.edu:CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:04:06 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

On what grounds is the War Powers Act unconstitutional? Without a ruling
saying such from the SC, what do you base your assertion upon? VMS
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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:31:02 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The good old days
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Fine.  Then you run for president.  Because Reagan and Bush didn't make
>the government smaller.  They just quadrupled the debt.
>Jonathan

        Reagan and Bush are not joined at the head (no jokes about null
connectors :).
        And actual amounts of debt are quite meaningless without context (as in
% of GDP for example).

Brett'
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 13:09:43 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Inquiring minds want to know
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Since Brett' has looked at penthouse on at least one occassion, does
>that make penthouse a conservative magazine? Does that mean that Brett'
>approves of/condones exploitation of women? Does Rush share your tastes
>in literaure? :)
>
>This disclosure could seriously jeapordize your efforts to become a
>buddy with the right wing members.
>
>fred

        Shhhhh!  It's a sinister Libertarian conspiracy to penetrate their soft
underbelly.
        If caught, we will apologize for something (generally) and seek
forgiveness (on a blanket level) for things which we might have done had we
really achieved it.

Brett'
004 1/2
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 10:52:19 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

Mistress K,

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>The War Powers Act has been argued by every President since it was
>written to be an unconstitutional infringement on the President's
>authority as Commander in Chief.

The President is Commander in Chief. That means he gets to
make strategic decisions, and lots of other decisions. Of course.
But he does NOT get to declare war! That is as explicit as
anything in the Constitution.
The War Powers Act is about who has the authority to decide
with which countries the United States will be at war.

I have never understood the constitutional objection to the act.

>Each has refused to comply with it.  Ford, Carter, and Reagan notified
>Congress within the required 48 hours, but refused to acknowledge the
>time limits within the Act.

That's not refusing to comply with it! That IS complying with it.

> Only Bush actually asked the Congress's
>to declare war before embarking on a full-scale, public military
>intervention.  (And he did it voluntarily, nobody required it of him,
>and he did not acknowledge his action to be a concession to the WPA).

Congress required it of him. Of course, he did do it voluntarily,
because Bush, like most presidents, voluntarily accepted his
constitutional duties.

>Whether the act is *actually* unconstitutional is a matter of debate,
>much like the President's alleged line-item veto power.

It is a matter of debate, but one of the sides has no good argument.
(The President has no line-item veto power. Who alleges that he does???)

>It has yet
>to be tested.  However, since there is no power by which the Congress
>can enforce it against the President, it is unlikely to ever be
>fully accepted by a US President as constitutional.

There sure is a power by which Congress can enforce it. It's called
"impeachment."

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