HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Oliver North for Senate
Date: 12 Nov 1992 04:59:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GR1H5TFAES003TWH@drew.drew.edu>,         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
 >         Let me remind you, the selling of arms to Iran was not even
 > alleged to be illegal in the Iran Contra scandal.  If you do not know
 > the basics, then please do not argue the case.  Besides, where in the
 > Constitution does it say that the President must have Congress'
 > approval to sell arms overseas.

Ah, but the lying under oath to Congress *is* illegal as well as
the destruction of potential evidence after being notified by the FBI
that an investigation is under way and that those files were to be
preserved.  Ollie North freely admitted to the destruction of evidence,
that he knew that it was an illegal activity at the time.  (He admitted this
while testifying before the Senate committee when granted immunity.)  In
addition, at the time Ollie North was funneling money to the Contras,
it was illegal to do so.  Again, he has testified that he knew this as
he was doing it.

Bush on the other hand appears to be guilty of simple perjury.  He testified,
via a written disposition, that he had no knowledge that the money
generated by the arms for hostages deal was being funneled to the Contras.
Now, in the last few months, evidence has been found that directly contradicts
that testimony.  Have you an answer for that?

						Andrew MacRae
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:44:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

*grin*.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:05:22 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: it's around the back,
              just a half-a-mile from the railroad track
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

'liese
[various ramblings deleted]

>what's going on with john major?  he avoided a no-confidence vote a couple
>days ago, right?  but i think i heard someone say that there was some deal
>that they maybe voted again?  to boost his self-esteem or something?  can
>this be true?  this blessed realm:  this england.

It wasn't a real confidence motion. It was a so called "paving bill"
before the real stuff to do with Maastricht goes through later this
year or early next.

Different parties treated the bill in different ways. The Labour party
who are basically pro Maastricht voted against this one as a way of
needling Major. They hoped he would keep to his threat of calling an
election if the bill fell (rumour has it that the Queen told him she
wouldn't allow an election even if he asked for one, so the threat was
dropped).

So the next excitement will be the real vote, probably next year.
However, the Labour party may well go along with that one, in which
case it would go through easily.

But don't think that major's troubles are over. I reckon his position
will be dodgy for at least the next six months. The worst is probably
past, but he's got to tread carefully.

Dunstan.
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 1996
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:17:08 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <92312.0223352893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:

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

As for the others...

Baker:	His liability is lack of election to any office.  The general populace
	used to seeing him as a behind the scenes man, not a candidate.  He
	would have to begin campaigning pretty soon.
	
Kemp:	He is out of work come January and will need some kind of public
	platform to speak from.  Watch for what he does in the next six
	months.
	
Quayle:	Dan is going to be made over during the next two years much as Dick
	Nixon was turned into Richard Nixon between '62 and '68.  Remember
	"The New Nixon"?  Starting in '94 you are going to be seeing a bunch
	of planted stories about "The New Dan Quayle, mature, seasoned,
	etc".
	
Two things to look for; whoever becomes head of the Republican National
Committee will have enourmous clout, and two; look for the above three to
do an enourmous amount of campaigning in '94 for Congressional and state
level Republican candidates, trying to line up favors.  That is what Nixon
did in '64 and '66.  There wasn't a Republican running for office that didn't
have an offer from Nixon to come and speak on his behalf, no matter how low
the office.

							Andrew MacRae
							
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:52:12 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Steve here. No coward, and no bad loser! Just a little joke ok! No need to
get uptight! Remember.....KEMP '96!!!!

--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE (james p mcbride)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:50:24 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
              8 Nov 1992 23:19:57 GMT from <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>

On Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:19:57 GMT andy said:
>


[stuff about Quayle deleted]


>>
>And what am I supposed to do with my anti-Quayle t-shirts!:)
>

If you've got a spare flag or two, why not have a bonfire?  B-)

>andy
>>
james
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Justice
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:11:00 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

In article <tfilt385883@drew.edu>, K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
> From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>
>>> With names such as Governor Mario Cuomo and J. Kilpatrick being invoked
>>> in the media, one wonders.
>
>> Who is J. Kilpatrick? Just wondering.
>
> He is a newspaper columnist, somewhat on the conservative side.

having read his columns, "somewhat" doesn't seem to fit, though he
appears to be more a libertarian on certain issues.  For
instance he wrote a book about "smut peddlers", but would protect
their right to publish the forementioned "smut".  Was he the one who
was against desegregation or was it another guy?

> In an answer to the question of who would be appropriate for
> the Supreme Court, Clinton, I believe appearing on MTV, said
> that he thinks Cuomo would make an excellent Supreme Court
> justice.

the question seems to be if he would appoint him.  It's like Clinton
saying Perot has some good ideas but not really taking them.

>> There are no "formal" qualifications, though.
>
> You mean not even an age limit?  I am pretty sure U.S. citizenship
> is a requirement, though.

Supreme Court judges are like the pope -- you would think there would
a bunch of requirements for such an important post, but there isn't.
A look at the Constitution doesn't offer any requirements for these
people.  Like I don't see a rule (please show my ignorance) that would
make it impossible for Madonna to be a justice or even some street
urchin in India.  Since a justice only "shall hold their Offices
during good Behavior", I reckon felons can't be one, but I'm curious
to see some reason why foreigners can't be -- that is "formally".
There is surely no age limit.

>> Jamie
>
> --KAT

Jamie felt it was weird for White to want a Democrat to chose his
replacement since he put forth many conservative decisions.   True,
but he is also a hard one to place on a conservative-liberal spectrum.
He dislikes absolutes on both sides tending toward a moderate
conservatism, but voices dissent when the conservatives go too far
esp. in crime and free speech issues (ex. nude bar decision).  So with
the fact he probably sees himself as a Democrat, the more "moderate"
position of Clinton vs. the less moderate position of the last two
Republican presidents, he would want Clinton to appoint his successor.
Still, it does seem strange esp. since he is a private person and
doesn't like controversy.

   -Joe (who is formally qualified to be a justice)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:02:13 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...

In article <POLITICS%92110903501431@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE (james p mcbride) says:
>
>On Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:19:57 GMT andy said:
>>
>
>
>[stuff about Quayle deleted]
>
>
>>>
>>And what am I supposed to do with my anti-Quayle t-shirts!:)
>>
>
>If you've got a spare flag or two, why not have a bonfire?  B-)

This being Canada, burning of the US flag is not only tolerated, it's
occasionaly encouraged:)
andy
From: dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK ((Dunstan_Vavasour))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: GATT
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:50:15 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Yesterday Ray McSharry, the EC's principle negotiator unresigned and
made up with M. Delors.

At the same time Herr Kohl was meeting with Mr Major in deepest
Oxfordshire, and they kissed and made up.

It is clear that Kohl is irritated with the GATT impasse, and is
throwing his (really quite considerable) weight behind a resumption of
talks with a clear aim to achieving a real agreement. It now looks as
if the French realise they're going to have to make concessions.

The next few days should give clear indications as to the direction
things are going to go. The EC reckon that it is in their best
interests to get a deal with the Bush administration rather than have
to deal with the new mob who with freshness and zeal might try to
extract further concessions.

There is no doubt that the USA's action has focussed minds on both
sides of the channel, and it is to be hoped that a deal will now be
reached.

Dunstan.

P.S. An article in today's Guardian gave an example of the process as
applied to bananas. If I get time, I will copy it to the list.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:57:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Mike-

        Let me remind you, the selling of arms to Iran was not even
alleged to be illegal in the Iran Contra scandal.  If you do not know
the basics, then please do not argue the case.  Besides, where in the
Constitution does it say that the President must have Congress'
approval to sell arms overseas.

        The alleged illegality was the transferring of funds that was
earned as a result of the arms sale to Nicaraguan rebels.  The reason
for this to be illegal was that the President was forbidden from
selling aiding Nicaraguan rebels.  The Iran part was totally legal,
and no one is arguing that it was not, please get your facts straight.

        Now I know that people may not like the sound of this because
everyone gets so upset, but I do not see where Iran-Contra was
illegal.  The only people convicted of a crime was for purgery (not
Iran-Contra).  I believe that President Reagan side-stepped the
Congressional bill, found a loop-hole, as some may say.  Although
Reagan may have encouraged arms to Nicaraguan rebels, freedom fighters
(might I add at this moment that the Congress should have supported
the rebels and not the Communists, but what do you expect from
democrats), Reagan did not directly give arms to Nicaragua, a third
party did.  It may sound unethical, or under-handed, but I don't see
it as illegal.

        Remember: A man is innocent until proven guilty.  I find it
amazing how liberals forget this principle when a conservative is the
accused.

-Paul

P.S.  If Cap is set free, I think the $60 million spent on this affair
should be taken from Welfare.  (Just a joke!)
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Justice
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:07:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

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

>>> Who is J. Kilpatrick? Just wondering.   [me]
>>
>>He is a newspaper columnist, somewhat on the conservative side.  [KAT]
>>
>  *She* is former US ambassador to the UN, and currently speaks/writes on
>generally conservative issues.  [Demon Brett']

Jeanne Kirkpatrick????

That HAS to be a joke. Jeanne Kirkpatrick has no Supreme Court
qualifications whatsoever.

And she isn't "somewhat on the conservative side," either. She's
a raving conservative.

Kirkpatrick is the woman who gave us the famous distinction between
Authoritarian and Totalitarian, which amounted to, "Horrible dictators
whom I like" vs. "Horrible dictators whom I don't like."

Also, the infamous Kirkpatrick doctrine, according to which the
events in Eastern Europe (and Nicaragua, for that matter) in the
past 2 years could not possibly have happened.

>        A very good choice for VP, but not for the SC.

Uh, well, anyway, certainly not for the SC.

Is Jeanne Kirkpatrick really the person whose name is bandied about
as a possible Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court? That is
VERY hard to believe.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Fairly random comments
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:14:22 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi, Tim:
>As a rookie to POLITICS, I'm curious about a few things:
>
>1.  Are most of the regulars academics?  Students?  Both?

Near as I can tell, it's a mix of all sorts of folks.  I know we have one
or two professor-types, various undergrads and grad student-types, computer
-types, and even a few librarians :)

>2.  Should I expect the frequency of postings to drop now that good has
>    triumphed over evil?

The frequency of posts seems to fluctuate quite a bit.  I think it has
something to do with solar flares or something.

>3.  Are there POLITICS rules of etiquette I should be aware of?  I seem to
>    recall a posting in the last few days to that effect.

We're supposed to avoid ad hominem (and ad feminam) attacks, avoid logical
fallacies the names of which some of us (at least) can't pronounce, try not
to re-send long posts we're responding to (use the "stuff deleted" line),
and generally have lots of fun.  See Jimbo's excellent example for
clarification :)

>4.  If virtual beers are consumed every Friday afternoon, will I start
>    having virtual headaches on Saturday mornings?

I think it depends on how much and what kind.  But I only drink real beers
on Friday!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:25:22 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A little political humor. . . .
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

No, Michael McCarthy, I would not automatically assume you're a Republican!
Fascinating that folks might make such an assumption. Val
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:57:53 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>Well, Jason, your argument about "floating interest-free loans" holds no water,
>either;

You mean there were none?  Granted, the overdrafts were never called
"interest-free loans" by the "bank," but the result sure seems the same.

> all the Members of the Bank, when signing on, agreed to such a service -
>and the money came from THEIR ACCOUNTS.

You mean they agreed to let each other borrow as much of their money as they
wanted whenever they wanted with no regard to when it was paid back (since "due
dates" were never really enforced)?  Gee, those guys sure are generous...

>No taxpayer money went to "float"
>these loans.  It was something they all shared in, and NEVER had a problem
>with.

I conceded the part about taxpayer money a long time ago.  As for the rest, my
arguments stand unless you (or KAT, who seems much more adept at argumentation)
show that the purpose of the overdraft protection was to let members write
themselves loans.  I doubt that this was the case, so I stand by my original
claim.

>-T.

Jason
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Potatoe
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:55:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I must say this:  To anyone out there who has said that we should refrain from
personal attacks, have you ever poked fun st Vice President Quayle for that
"potatoe" incident?  Talk about insecure.  This campaign all we heard is how
"negative" President Bush's commercials were, how about the press that Dan
Quayle received over the past couple of years?  He is a good, honorable man
that I respect for not turning his back on the American he was serving.  I
hope that I have as much understanding if I'm ever faced with such a
situation.
                                            Jayce
                    KEMP/BAKER '96!!!!!!
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      "Bob Roberts"
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:49:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GR1720T3PC8WWLSY@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> writes:
 > Have any of you seen the movie "Bob Roberts?"  It's a very powerful film
 > beneath all its humor and satire.  What I am curious about is (a) whether
 > people thought it was a "realistic" movie and (b) if so, what do you think
 > it implies in terms of modern politics?


No, I haven't had a chance to see it yet (one of the results of having
small children is that movie going is cut way down), but I do know a *really*
good trivia question about its director/star - I think his name is Tim
Robbins?

The question is...<drum roll> for what did his father gain fame?  (It may
have been fleeting, Andy Warhol's fifteen minutes style, but fame none the
less.)  It actually has some slight bearing on the lead character of
the movie.

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:57:57 -0500
From:         Every Man <EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Brett

          What motivated you to state 'i think you mean what you want
          him to be?'  I have no idea what I want my 2 year old son
          to be.  40 years ago, effort, hard work, skill and knowledge
          _did_ earn its rewards.  They do not now!  I too have been
          privledged....i was able to get a masters degree by age of 21
          and have a well paying and comfortable job.  But I really
          believe that I have been sold a bill of goods by the
          previous generation.  I know very few people who are able to
          live the lifestyle I am able to provide my wife (who quit
          her wage-earning job two years ago) and son.

          I believe most people today are victims of a society that
          pretended too long to believe in what is now obviously false.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:42:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: RE: This "12 years" thing

MWM says:

> I can't help being reminded of another revolution that only lasted 12
> years.. and that one was supposed to last a thousand.

I think comparing the Reagan/Bush years to the Nazi period in Germany
more than stretches the bounds of reasonableness.

> Will Clinton/Gore be able to clean out the Augean stables of 12 years of
> "fiscal responsibility" which more than tripled the national debt, made
> millionaires of thieves, and destroyed the economic infrastructure?

Even granting your first and second assertions, there is plenty of blame
to assign, to include the Democratic-led Congress.

-David

David Clem      BITNET: $GET@PCCJES2
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU