HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:51:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

Kerry Stephenson says:

>The question here is not one (necessarily) of quality, bring that we
>are dealing here in matters of opinion.  The question is one of
>*representativeness*.

No - the popularity of a work does not demonstrate *representativeness*;
a work may be popular, and yet break relatively new ground.  It matters
little whether or not it is representative.  If the two were equal, I am
afraid the US would be more like Rosanne and the Bundys (which, I
fervently hope, we are not).  Conversely, it also means that we are not
necessarily like Cicely, Alaska, either.

>If, indeed, those who follow Rush are great in number, AND we assume
>that they are in agreement with him on matters of politics, we must
>then take into account the possibility that his brand of conservatism
>is more influential than certain people would like to believe.

Bzzzt - Jamie?  Care to take this one?

"If, indeed, those who follow Madonna are great in number, AND we assume
that they are in agreement with her on matters of style, we must then
take into account the possibility that her brand of music is more
influential than certain people would like to believe."

Rush is not a "conservative political analyst"; he is an "entertainment
personality."  If you are to construe (and, I think, wrongly) anything
about Rush's influence, you must look at _entertainment_, not politics.
Even the most hardcore Rush fan (if indeed at that level we're still
dealing with sentient human beings) would have to admit that he neither
influences policy nor personal ideals.

He makes money by preying on the fears and ignorances of the huddled
masses.  He doesn't sway people - hit hits on their pre-existing prejudices,
and makes them feel good about their otherwise socially-impugned values.

        [Part Two of this response to Kerry Stephenson to follow....]


-T.
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 03:26:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      JAY JAY JAY JOY JOY JOY!

JAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, joy!  You have returned!  I am in a state of complete and
total rapture (well, not in the theological sense, but *you*
know what I mean!)

At last, I have a worthy ally (even if you intend to remain something
of a "silent" partner).

I want to have your baby!  Welcome back!

(Well, you know--I mean, like, if we met and you liked me and we got
married in a church and all like that.  You know.)

God bless Jay Steven Sultan and the conservative wing of the Politics
list!

       --NINAR Kerry (KSTE, Missy J, etc., etc.) :-)
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:27 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GTV50U9DW8006L4S@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,      
   The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
>>Generally speaking, it would be there on the horizon with little public outcry,
>>and perhaps less support than the Space Invaders Gulf War.
>>
>>                                                        Dan, ad nauseum
> 
>        So far, the only ones to characterize the Gulf War as a video-game war
>have been the left (or liberal, or whatever term you'd like to use :).

Accurate statement, but unnecessarily ad hominem.

Besides that, there was a major difference in the news images of Vietnam and
Desert Storm, although the opposing casualty counts were probably comparable.

							Dan, ad nauseum
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 10:22:36 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>> >A question for the 90's:
>> >
>> >What if they gave a war and nobody would televise it?
>> >-other Andy
>>
>>         I imagine the generals would love it.
>>
>I know that this subject has gotten further down the road, but I'm
>trying to catch up on my mail, so hang in there!
>This is what happened in the Persian Gulf war.  Nobody got to televise
>anything.  You bet the general's loved it.  But the people of this country
>got no info.  Even at this date, we have really no idea how many Iraquis
>died at the hands of _our_ military.  I wouldn't mind knowing about many
>Kuwaitis died from Iraqi's military.  Why is this info withheld?
>> Brett'
>>
>Jonathan

        It's not being "withheld".  The military made no attempt to deterimine
enemy losses in that manner.  There would be no "body counts" this time.
        Ironically, there are those criticzing the military for this, just as
there would be if they had done a "body count".  Damned if they do and damned
if they don't.
        And in my view, yet another thing that the public does not have a
"right" to know.  Paraphrasing someone else: if you want answers to those
questions, do the research.  The army isn't there to do it for you.
        Our casualties, yes.  Theirs, no.

        Now, the military does to loss projections (witness the map with the
various Iraqi units displayed as "half effective", etc.), however, I think they
learned their lesson in Vietnam about turning war into a game of numbers.
        The emphasis returned to defeating the enemy, and not counting their
dead.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:29:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
              25 Jan 1993 15:03:36 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:03:36 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>        It's too bad no one pinned Bill down to a specific unemployment number.
>
>        Let's do a list poll:  what's your prediction for unemployment at the
>end of January, 1994?
>
>        I think it will be 8.3%
>
>Brett'

I think Bill Clinton should learn from his predecessor (GHWB) and
redefine "unemployment."  For example, if he says that only white
male could be considered unemployed, I bet you the rate would
drop.

--KAT
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:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:55:00 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Deja vu?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

A recent article in NETWORK NEWS, a computer network user's magazine,
had an article entitled "User's Take Aim at Clinton Appointment".
The article was about Ronald Plesser (I think?), the Clinton
appointee to lead the technology/sciences part of the Cabinet.

The article goes on to explain that Clinton is opposing legislation
that would give public access to government databases on the grounds
that it would hurt the private sector service-providers of such
information.  The Bush administration has always opposed that
legislation, on the grounds that it would hurt the private sector
service-providers of such information.

Also, on Day Two of the Clinton Presidency, we still have no economic
plan-- as was promised for Day ONE.

Between the promises he breaks and the Bush Administration positions
he retains, I guess that Bill Clinton might not be such a bad
President after all.  I mean, he's just pulling a Dana Carvey...

                ...impersonating George Bush... or trying anyway.


-Stan


----------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 20, 1993: THE DAY AMERICA WAS TAKEN HOSTAGE.
                  A day that will live in infamy...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:30:14 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
              26 Jan 1993 14:31:24 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:31:24 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>Maybe this case IS fishy but the Supreme Court ruled for all
>>cases.
>>--KAT
>
>        As they should have.  "A criminal, having exhausted all other appeal
>routes, can not use a new claim of innocence to stay an execution or obtain
>another trial."  Would certainly be fair. It is a rule that a plea of "guilty"
>can not be changed once given, isn't it? Or am I  watching too much LA Law? :)
>
>        Specifically about Hererra:
>        Now, material evidence is another matter.  As far as I know, all that
>can be produced at this point are non-impartial witnesses and hearsay.
>

It seems that somehow you are not willing to face the
ruling.  The ruling did NOT just say that a claim of
innocencee cannot be made (I believe that that already
is not allowed if your appeals have been exhausted) but
rather NEW EVIDENCE cannot be introduced.  (To be more
precise it allowed the states not to admit new evidence
if they didn't wanted to.)

>Brett'

--KAT
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 16:15:38 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 15:53:10 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Brett':

Oh!  *New Age* theology!

Well, that's very different.

Never mind.

--NINAR 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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:32:50 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>That's a tough one. It will depend a lot on the monetary policy the Fed goes
>with from this point along with the global economic climate (remember Japan
>and its little "problem" with it's own economy?).  It would almost be easier to
>predict the weather for January 25th 1994.
>
>-Dan

        Unseasonably warm and sunny.

Brett'
(Thankful that *where* isn't specified :)
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 14:56:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

My mind is reeling because I agree with Brett :-).

> >         I'd have to disagree.  The same objections were raised first about
> > blacks, then about women.
> >         There is no *logical* reason to exclude gays.  They are already ther
> > which certainly proves that units will not implode because of any fault of t
> > gays.
> >         What does need to change, though, is the prejudices of those in the
> > military against homosexuals.  They only problems I see are the ones caused
> > those unwilling to accept gays as equals, just like the problems with
> > integration and women have come from those unwilling to accept them as equal
> >         If we are to accept a group of N+1 people rejecting some smaller gro
> > because "they aren't like us" then we're back to majority suppression of
> > minorities.
> >
> > Brett'
>
>    uh, brett, i agree with you, except for one point. what do we do
> while the prejudices remain? do we accept a serious, perhaps very
> serious, loss of morale and experienced personnel to accommodate a
> few people who demand that the protector of this nation's freedom
> radically change to suit *them*?

Yes.  What if the military brass were anti-Semites and demanded that
Jews be excluded?

Besides, all these rumblings of mass resignations aren't arguments.
They're blackmail.

>   this country has an all-volunteer military. if a gay person wishes
> to join, there is a simple way to do so; lie. lying to enter the
> service is a long and honorable tradition. women joined the union
> army in disguise (maybe the confederate army, too) and lots of men
> lied about their age to enlist, my own father among them.

Yes, the morally flexible often have an easier time of it in this
world.  Do we really want to encourage that?

>   it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
> is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.

Wrong.  Toleration means you don't mess with them.  It has nothing to do
with "approval," unless one wants to redefine not beating someone to
death (as in the case of a gay sailor last year) as approval.  Besides,
gays are not asking for Colin Powell's approval, except on the same
terms as everyone else in the military.

Best,
Peter

> rtf
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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:39:28 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> IMHO, the controversy over Hillary being named as head of the Health
> Care Task Force is raging because she's the First Lady.  A lot of
> people take a dim view of a First Lady who dares to do something other
> than show people around and take care of the family.  How many people
> complained when Bobby Kennedy was named as Attorney General by his
> brother?
>
> Evelyn Duncan


I can assure you that had I been alive then, I would be have been
complaining my head off.  I think I posted the HOFFA quote
previously, but for those that didn't catch it...

Jack Nicholson, starring as Jimmy Hoffa in the movie of the same
name, made his most viable contention unknowingly, yelling at little
Bobby, "At least I didn't have to get my f$#&ing brother elected
President just to get a f#^%ing job!"

Furthermore, how many people complained then?  Lyndon B. Johnson sure
did.  Hence, the anti-nepotism law.

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*.

--Stan Jacobs
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 12:54:28 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

toddd:

I don't want any confusion here.  Isn't "AK" Alaska?  I don't think
Alaska is as low on the education list as Arkansas.  (I *think*
Arkansas is "AR," but all those "A" states get confusing.)

Also, I doubt very much that the fuss over Hillary is about her
womanhood (after all, many see her as much more macho than Bill,
anyway.)  I think it has more to do with her status as an
unelected *and unqualified* person.  After all, the only jobs
she's ever *had* (beyond plain old lawyer, in which we are
hip-deep these days) were not only patronage jobs, they were
*nepotistic* patronage jobs (she works for Bill.)

BTW, for a surprisingly insightful analysis of what is most
disturbing about Bill Clinton, see Joe Klein's piece in this
week's Newsweek (p. 30).  He's no Jack Kennedy, indeed.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:42:24 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: getting the most for your money....

Tim:

It isn't what you learn *in* school, it's what you learn *from* school.
And what you learn *from* school is that it has almost nothing to do
with real life.

--NINAR Kerry
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, 25 Jan 1993 14:09:25 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      jackie wilson said (i'm in heaven when i see you smile)

hello.  i just got back from chicago, to find that
a) my pipes froze
b) i forgot to set nomail while i was gone
  1)adding insult to injury when i saw what was written there
c) the jackie wilson catalogue just went on sale at the electric fetus.

i'm one for three.

i will be succinct (taking a lesson from the nation of ulysses, and their
twelve-point plan).
kerry stephenson, hello, how are you, glad to hear from you, please
remember that all complaints must be submitted in writing, and no, i
don't agree with you at all on any of the issues you brought up.
glad i got that out of the way.
um, and i might point out that while rush limbaugh may be viewed as the
Savior Of The Modern World As It Ought To Be (tm), he is certainly
paid handsomely for it, commissions studies to determine his effectiveness
and ways to expand his audience, has admitted in various trade journals to
a broader agenda than he is espousing on the air, and claims that his
favorite aphorism is the same as one of my own:
"nobody ever made any money by overestimating the intelligence of the
american public."
references for these claims available on request, of course.

somebody in my sea of 400+ messages claimed that no one president ever truly
screwed up the nation.  in the words of another pawn of agribusiness and
aerodynamics companies...WRONG! over to you, jack germond.  the answer is...
andrew johnson.  say it with me, class...re-con-struck-shun.
now, for a brief bush-syntax interlude to describe this concept:  bad idea.
not good.  waddn't prudent.  no way.  big mess.
the legacy of this period of time damaged this country in the extreme.
we are still not dealing with how to unify the whites and the blacks. the
reconstruction taught us to ignore the problems of reunification of groups
of people.  it's a big problem.

anyway.

i'll explain more when i've got more time.
must dash.

anneliese.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:11:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]

-T:

Explain "ignorance."  Be careful.  Opinions and interpretations of fact
which differ from one's own do not count.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:33:10 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court decision

>        The same stuff you condemn the 'Choicers for, the 'Lifers
>do as well...

Hmm.  Missy was talking about violent acts.  Let's see what we have
in the list.

>Here in Des Moines, an OB/GYN who performs
>abortions has had one of your deeply concerned group
>1.  Stand guard across the street from his house
>for nearly a year...

No violence there.

>2.  Harrass him, his wife, and his children (example, this
>man has run up to the Dr.'s children-pre-teens-and told
>them that their father is a murderer...

No violence there.

>3.  Harrass the people who attend his synagogue, telling
>them that they're "all going to Hell for supporting that man"...

Still no violence.

>4.  Conduct an ongoing picket outside the Dr.'s private
>residence with other members of Op Res...

Still no violence.

>        Do onto others? Only if they aren't freaky enough to do it
>to you...

Looks like a lot of screaming to me.  Is it wrong because the
cause is wrong or is there a cause-independent objection?

BTW - does this screaming justify retaliatory violence?

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:52:37 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Clinton's balls
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From: Robert

Just wondering.  Have we ever had a president that came into office
with so many balls?


BTW, What has 4000 legs and 2 teeth?

  ... and the answer is ...

The Arkansas delegation to the Clinton inauguration

---Robert
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:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:03:25 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM

Hi again :)
rtf wrote, in response to someone's generalization about republicans (or
some such):

>    one of three things is behind this statement; ignorance of facts,
>blatant stupidity, or a blind hatred for anyone and anything labelled
>"republican" or "conservative". i kinda figure it's mostly the last.

Um, not to be mean, hypercritical, or ad hominem, but . . . if you were to
replace "republican" and "conservative" in the above with
"environmentalist", you'd have a nice response to rtf's statement about
prospective environmental policy under Clinton/Gore.

:) :) :)
Kerry
no offense intended - honest!!!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:32:50 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Fear and loathing of the USSR
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >While the standard "assumed" bug seems to be a very deadly, very
> >short-lived virus with little transferrence (important - malaria
> >is carried by mosquitos and rabies infects most animals, including
> >humans), there is some evidence (most of mine is anecdotal*) that
> >AIDS was a test-tube made virus.
> >From the Desk of Dave,

>         Anecdotal is right.  That is straight out of the KGB and East German
> propaganda machine in an attempt to win converts in Africa during the mid-80s.

>         The story was that the evil Pentagon created aids to kill Africans.

I admitted that this is straight from the realm of conspiracy
theory, right?

However, given the "official story" on how AIDS came about, the
conspiracy theory seems plausible.

> Brett'

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