HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 5 Nov 1992 09:41:58 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ==> YES!!!!!

>       Or anyone who isn't a member of one of the speical interest
>groups who are considered likely Democratic voters...

Just as a lubricant to the debate process here; Mr. Head could you
please post a list of those people/groups that vote or seek political
influence that are not "special interest groups" or members thereof.


>                                              Robert Head

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:31:27 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Actually, because of the new labor taxes, unemployment will be up as
companies will not hire as many workers and will even lay some off. This
companies will not hire as many workers and will even lay some off. This
will eventually cause welfare to shoot throught the roof.
--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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:04:24 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>OK, I'll bite.  What does that other symbol (which I can't replicate) mean?

:~) cold/runny nose
ewwwww!

Brett'
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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:18:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul:  I don't think ANY church that uses its pulpit for political purposes
should be tax exempt, unless we change the tax exemption laws.  I don't
care if it's Jessee Jackson or Bill Clinton or Pat Robertson.  I think
personally that tax exemption for Chruches VIOLATES separation of Church
and State because it allows breaks for religious organizations which are
recognized by the state and not ones which are not.

--Julie
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: re: Robert's religious fervor
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:51:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>                                /\    /.            this target represents
>                              /    \ \  )           a simplistic worldly
>                             |      \...            view.
>                              \      \
>                               \       \
>                                 \   /
>                                     \/
>
> "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"

	How can you consider a real-world approach to problems rather
than solutions based on a book of fables to be a simplistic worldly
view?  When I was passing out Marrou literature at the polls this
Tuesday, some right-wingers dropped off pamphlets to some Republican
volunteers saying something like this:

Christian Beware:  To Vote for Bill Clinton is to Sin Against God

[ Goes on to list scriptures in the Bible which condemn abortion,
homosexuality, etc., etc... ]

	Up until this point, this is no different from any of the other
insane ravings that we so often hear from religious fanatics, but what
truely appaled me was the section which talked about the economy:

	Yes these are tough economic times, but we must not sacrifice
our morals for financial gain.  [Apparently whoever wrote this feels
that Clinton will do a better job improving the economy that Bush, but
is voting for Bush anyway]  If we continue to allow these sinners to get
away with it [something to that effect... ] then how can we expect God
to bless the economy?

	Do you, Robert, feel that it is simpleminded to suggest that we
actively try to improve the economy rather than waiting for a blessing
from above?

					Robert Head
					rhead@s850.mwc.edu

(  BTW -- the Republicans did the sensible thing and refused to pass out
this stuff, lest Virginia might have ended up in the Clinton column. )
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:27:55 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

>I haven't said much because I've been sick since election day

Hey I know what you mean I've felt pretty lousy myself after that day. Maybe
something inside you knows the truth

Mike....
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: sexual harrassment
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:59:36 GMT
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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

What a nice, neutral subject for calm and reasoned debate :)

Thanks, Joe, for your comments.  Let me just add a couple points in
response to JasonZ.  Sexual harrassment is not "a few ribald remarks" (or
whatever the precise wording was), although such remarks may constitute
harrassment.  It *is* a crime.  Is it serious?  I don't know what all the
potential penalties are, so I can't judge based on punishment.  Based on
the act itself, I guess the assessment of seriousness depends on subjective
things like experience.  That is, if you've never experienced sexual
harrassment or its equivalent, you might not think it serious.  If, like
myself, you have encountered it in the workplace off and on for 18 years,
you might think it is quite serious.

I don't know if it's possible to imagine what something like this is like.
But you could try:  imagine being continually subjected to verbal and
physical acts that demean you as a human being -- that demonstrate your
lack of worth simply because of your anatomy.  Imagine realizing that such
acts are not only hurtful (emotionally and physically) but illegal.
Imagine recognizing that any legal action you might take could potentially
result in (1) yourself being "put on trial"; (2) attacks on your veracity,
motives, integrity, etc.; (3) the loss of your job; (4) the prevention of
job advancement even if you don't lose your job.

It really doesn't feel very nice.

Kerry
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: A simple Joke
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:26:46 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110418352893@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, CLARK@EVMSVMS.B
ITNET writes:
>A more complex joke:
>
>OCTOBER SURPRISE        IRAN-CONTRA     IRAQGATE
>
>Thankfully though, this joke is OVER.
>
BUT, A BIGGER ONE WILL BEGIN ON JANUARY 21.

HOPEFULLY, SOMEONE IN THE MAFIA OR THE CIA WILL

END THIS JOKE BEFORE IT CAUSES TOO MUCH HARM.
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:15:34 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Julie,
>  I know that Jennifer Grey is for Clinton because she came here to
>Akron U. to introduce Hillary to the students.
>Evelyn

	*GASP* Say it isn't so! (Weep)

	Maybe she's still an economic supply-sider, like Tsongas.

Brett'
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: term limits
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:49:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

************

Can Someone tell be how many of the term limits initiatives passed?
----mike..
************

  all 14 of them passed. we can only hope that our congresscritters
noticed. if they don't, we may need to remind them . . . .

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:00:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: RE: This "12 years" thing

MWM says:

> 1. Of course the "argument from analogy" is a well-known fallacy. But
> I made no argument, save to simply point to the existence of similarity
> altogether. Most of my points, you chose to ignore.

I don't see any similarity in the periods, and I think the comparison is
odious. As for your other points...

> 2. Those you did accept, you try to shift the responsibility for to the
> congress.

I wasn't shifting responsibility; just saying it was shared. Congress
makes the laws.

> congress didn't pack the administration with criminal loonies like Watt,
> Meese, and North; the congress didn't deregulate industries with wild
> abandon; the congress didn't flout international law with the impudence of
> a gangster;

1) Implementing a controversial policy doesn't make one a criminal (except to
Lawrence Walsh).
2) Why is "allowing" businesses to operate without unecessary government
interference wrong? (This doesn't apply to S&Ls, as their profit potential
was privatized and risk socialized, through taxpayer-financed deposit
insurance).
3) I'm not sure of what you're refering to here, but a
sovereign nation has the right to take unilateral action to protect its
vital interests.

> the congress didn't suggest with its every gesture that great
> wealth is an end in itself, to be acquired by any means necessary. I don't
> see how the leadership of R/B can be interpreted in any way consistent with
> civilized morality; and, in that respect, it is comparable to the earlier
> terribe time.

I don't share your opinion.  I also disagree with the idea that Bush
continued the Reagan policies. As (supply-side?) Brett pointed out in his
recent posts, Bush repudiated "Reaganomics" with a vengence.

- David

David Clem      BITNET: $GET@PCCJES2
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:06:08 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQSE0ZTUWY000OY3@RHODES.BITNET>, FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
writes:
>>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
>nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>>                                        Jayce
>
>THAT was entirely inappropriate, Jayce, and illustrates your total intolerance
>and immaturity.  This list is not for flaming -- it's for the exchange of
>ideas.  If you intend to make insults, do it on another list.  Although
>some witty exchange is a welcome amusement, to call someone a "DICK" is
>utterly unacceptable.  Telling someone to "shut up" is equally unacceptable
>on this list.  If you want to spread your ideas, you must do so without
>insults such as these.  Otherwise, you have no place on POLITICS.
>
>-Martin
>
 THANK YOU FOR TELLING JAYCE HOW HE MAY EXPRESS HIS OPINION, DADDY
From: mit2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:26:39 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQTXEHX11W8WW36F@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>No one, not even the people who supported him, should stand behind
>Clinton blindly.  I have no prolem with the fact that there are
>Conservatives who dislike what is going on.  I think any government
>needs dessent to keep it in line.  However, what we need is balance
>between divisiveness and silent complicity.  I voted for Clinton and
>I am glad I did and expect to remain so.  However, I also feel an
>obligation to challenge him, to write him and say "I voted for you, but
>I have a problem with how you handeled X" and to make myself known to
>my duly elected president.  I _do_ feel good that I finally was on a
>winning side in a presidential race for the first time in my life, but
>that's irrelevant now.
>
>I guess what I would like is rather than hearing cheap shots at Clinton
>that people say WHAT concerns them about him.  Not just "he'll raise
>taxes."  WHY do you say he will raise taxes, and what do you think is
>the big problem with him doing so.  Qualify your statements rather than
>engaging in cheap shots and sleaze politics.
>
>See the difference?  I think Clinton's alleged affair with Flowers is
>irrelevant but obviously some here do not.  Don't call Clinton an
>"adulterer."  Tell us WHY you think it is relevant.  Tell us what
>you think is the issue, don't rant and rave at us.  I think we'd
>get a lot further that way.
>
>See?  Everyone still gets to speak their mind but there will be a lot
>more communication at the same time.
>
>--Julie
>
I agree with you completely!  I don't have any problem with people voicing
their opinions.  But, I do feel that the thoughtless insult that many have
directed toward Clinton are ridiculous.  If anyone wants to make a point, they
should have no regrets about doing so.  But, do so in a manner that is
respectable and reasonable, not abusive.

--Mike
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:04:14 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Before you blame anyone read the script

Last night I was having a non-virtual beer (sorry to gloat linda, across
the street from home) with a friend who is a small business owner. He
said that he felt he had to vote for Bush because of the republican
track record of providing a favorable business climate. Another small
businessman joined us and immediately went on a tirade about how
Clinton was going to ruin the country. (Has anyone else noticed that
many of these types of comments are direct sound bytes from the party
conventions or commercials?) He couldn't provide any details, he just
knew it was so (He will do for the US what he did for Arkansas!) I asked
for details on Clinton's record in Arkansas but this gentleman was not
aware of any, he just knew what would happen. Sound familiar?

For the person who began the thread on respect for the flag, would
you outline your personal military involvement for us? I find that
a lot of flag wavers somehow have done no service of their own. I have
no service background and while I have never burned a flag and have
no plans to do so, I think that the country is more important than
the symbol, as our neighbor to the north pointed out. If we have so
much respect for the flag as a symbol, how could we allow the color
guard to present that potent symbol of another country upside down
at the world series?

I would like to begin a list of things that we can't blame Clinton
for. I will open with the tariffs on wine and cheese from France
and the failure of a large number of banks that we have been told
to expect early in 1993. Any other contributors?

fred
From: PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: RE:Catholic Tradition
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:27:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Paul:
>
>I've said multiple times that I don't have any interest in changing
>the Catholic Church's internal functions.  My interest is in assuring
>that they do not impose _their_ morality on _me_.
>
>--Julie

 Julie:

 I was not referring to you personally.  Anyway, how is the church
imposing it's morality on you, by preaching it?  So many Catholics
do not follow every Catholic doctrine.  You really do not have to
worry about the Church imposing morality on you.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:57:28 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I would agree that Hillary is a forceful and dominating woman. She has
an uncanny ability to make things work the way she wants them. Her
intelligence surpasses many in the political arena and she works extremely
hard to get what she wants. However, I don't think that all of her hard work
passion, or zeal would make her a good president. I think we'll stick
with Bill for now!
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:07:36 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: Small business and Clinton's mandate

Kerry
If you can find out more on this subject. I'd be glad to hear it. I can only
hope small business will survive under clinton and not move south.
I got the 54.8% figure from an analysis by senator Phil Gram.
I'll see if I can post it. Have to check copyright.

If any one else has information on this subject I'd like to read it.

----mike..
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:58:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      b-0

beer countdown commenced....now

happy friday, we have 5 hours til beer.

cept for fred, who took off yesterday for a 4 day wkend.
don't know abt. anyone else, but i'm sending him hate-mail.
but i'm not bitter .....

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: careful careful

Robert:

        I've been wondering something.  I know from your e-mail address that
you're out there in Steers & Queers Okie-Dokie Homa, and that you apparently
love God and Country, but tell me:  what's the deal with your little Boy I
Feel Like a Man With A Neat Little Nom De Plume?

I'll explain my question:

You seem to be real right wing.  But your idols belie a different "you":

Teddy - lost to Carter in the 1980 primaries, right?

Jack - lost his life to a fellow God & Countryman's bullet, right?

(And here's where the question comes in:)

Eddy?  Eddy?  Who - Haskell?  Munster?  The Courtship of___'s Father?

You do realize, do you not, that Teddy and Eddy are nicknames for the same
name - Edward?  I mean, I know all you dustbowlers are kin to one'nuther, and
like to hear the same names pop up 'round the ranch, but Teddy AND Eddy in the
same name?

Kind of gives the Waltons' names an aristocratic ring, don't it Junior?

And listen, pardner, the only right-wing pictures that scare me are
Jesse Helms' Velvet Elvis on the Cross and any campaign poster with lil'
Danny Quayle and the word "President" in the same frame.


I've had enough of your catfish and Proverbs-style America.  We look
towards humans in the White House, and a lot less garbage from the likes
of you.

And lay off the mother shit - you don't want what'll come next.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Sorry

Sorry for the last nessageSorry for the last message... this editor is
 crewing up!1!  Please ignir
Se e what I mean?  Please ignore...

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:43:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!

First, of all, Paul, I was not name-calling when I called upon the History
Czar - I never once called you or anyone else a name in that post.  Perhaps you
are unaware of our virtual administration.  Whenever someone uses historical
analogy recklessly to prove a point, they will be called on it.

And my wry reference was to Archibald Cox (see Nixon:Resignation; Saturday Night
Massacre;Senate Watergate Hearings;Presidential Crimes;etc.).

Ford pardoned Nixon.

Now that you mention it, though, all three - Nixon, Reagan and Bush have been
president during a Special Prosecutor's investigation of members of their
administrations.

-T.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Churches and Tax Exempt Status
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:19:01 GMT

RE: Constitutionality of income taxes

===============================
16th Amendment
   The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States and without regard to any census or
enumeration.
=============================

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
civics/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/civics/constitution.us

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/civics constitution.us
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:10:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
              5 Nov 1992 03:14:30 GMT from <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

From:         "(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)" <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

> That is definitely not true.  Clinton is no MODEL for any intelligent
> American.  I would disown any child of mine who wants to be ike him.

> Jayce

Aren't we a bit rough on Clinton here?  I mean you could ARGUABLY
call him a traitor (sp?), a coward, a draft-dodger, an unfaithful
husband, but not un-intelligent?  Let's for a minute forget his
marriage and draft problem.  This guy went to Georgetown (I hope this
is true), became a Rhode Scholar (read it again Jayce, not a Road
Scholar -- thanks Ross :-), got a high level government job when
he was quite young, became a young governor, got re-elected
several times, chose the best people around him (that by itself
takes a special brand of intelligence that regular intelligent
people might not have), conducted a brilliant campaign, and finally
got ME to vote for him.

Now, I would question the intelligence and/or the sincerity
of anyone who questions the intelligence of Bill Clinton.

Let me guess Jayce, you had a combination of 24 Bush/Quayle
yard signs, bumper stickers, buttons, etc., right?     :-)

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