HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:01:56 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CAU$E$ OF WAR$

Dr. Peter Beater has left out the many recent Elvis sightings as proof that
the international Bankers are attempting to undermine the career of Michael
Jackson, whose lyrics, when played backwards, reveal nefarious future plots.
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:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:57:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      clinton jams; bush rambles; perot advertises
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Who won?  Clinton, without a doubt.

His answers were clear, in many cases specific, well thought out without
sounding rehearsed, and he answered most of the questions that were asked,
without veering away.  This was particularly evident on questions regarding
gun control, defense, and the deficit.

Bush and Perot had good showings as well, but tended to ramble, and at times
seemed caught off guard by the questions.  Their inexperience with the format
hindered them as well, much as Clinton's familiarity with the format helped
him.  They tended to look all around the room while answering, while Clinton
looked directly at the person asking the question, and sounded very in
command of the issues, without sounding canned.

When Perot plugged his commercial that will be going on tomorrow, I wondered
for a second if Jerry Brown was his debate coach.  I think he might lose
points on this - maybe not much, but some.

Bush's answers might have been better if he had actual punctuation in his
responses.

As for the format, it was great.  The questions were focused on the issues,
and tended to avoid narrow questions of character, and seemed to bring the
best out in all three candidates.  This is the future of presidential
debating.

Gary W. Olson                "My lips may promise but my heart is a whore"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  - Nine Inch Nails, "Last"
19 days and counting down...
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: New York Presidential Poll
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:44:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        Well, my neighbor down the street, who graduated from Georgetown Law
School and which I dated once, sort of, married one of the men that works for
Giuliani.  That's neither here nor there.  I guess I sort of resent these
prosecutorial types, the Republican ones especially, who think or seem to
think that if you just lock enough people up, bring in the death penalty,
and do away with most rights of defendants, you can solve the crime problem.
I don't know if any of you get the Brookings Review, but there was an interestin
g article in the latest copy.
&
}
        Don't mind the wird characters (I should get Giuliani after them).

        The article said that there had been two attempts to revolutionize
crime programs.  One was the LBJ attack on the roots of crime, the other
was the Reaganite attack on criminals.  It said that neither had really
worked, then went on to suggest some pointers for developing a crime-control
policy.  It was an interesting article.

                                                Chris Morrison
                                                CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: And I said he had no sense of humor. Chris Morrison.
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:02:19 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

Didn't see the original of this:

>>          TONE OSCILLATOR TO THE ACUTE PLEASURE OF [his] SEXUAL CLIMAX,
>          GOING RIGHT OFF THE TOP AT THE MOMENT OF ORGASM.  All of

wow. guess that's why my african violets are blooming better since i moved them
to my bedroom.

-linda

But, it sounds sort of like J.G. Ballard in a way.  He's a great, and sort
of obscure author.  I'll post his "Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan" on
this forum soon....

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:34:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The VP Debates

        I have been assignerd the Gore book to read for school as part of
a course on politics and the environment, but haven't been to the store to
get it yet.  I only read the review in Orbis, Spring 1991:  Apocalyptic
Environmentalism by Robert J. Smith.  I look forward to reading the book.
You know I have to read a book by Noam Chimpsky?  I respect him but don't
like to read him.

                                        Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:35:30 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: New tax scheme

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>Are you really so insecure in your own abilities that you have to keep holding
>my undergrad status against me?  Tsk tsk.... :)

I usually try to look at arguments without regard to who is
expressing it.  But it was you who recently were trying to
give credibility to your arguments by stating that you have
been studying economics.  I am simply giving you your own
medicine by saying that I need to verify your opinion with a
person who has studied even more than you.  Anyway, it was
a joke.

>> So your ONLY objection to
>> doubletaxing is that it makes things complicated.

> Needless complexity is one objection that applies regardless, yes.  Double
> taxation is unfair if it is used as a backhanded way of treating people
> unfairly (unequally). For example, an flat income tax paired with a sales tax
> would be unfair, since the combined scheme would take a greater percentage of
> the poor's income than the rich's.  On the other hand, I don't see why double
> taxation has to inherently violate my definition of fairness.  I pointed this
> out in my last post.  Do they teach remedial reading at your grad school? :)

You are trying to weasel out of this.  Look, we *all* agree that a tax
is unfair if "it is used as a backhanded way of treating people unfairly,"
whether it is a regular tax or a doubletax.  And your example of a combined
flat tax and sales tax being unfair has NOTHING to do with them being
doubletaxed rather because sales tax is unfair of and in itself.

So it seems that it remains that your ONLY objection to doubletaxation
is that it is complicated, right?  Then maybe you should have said so
in the beginning and not imply that doubletaxation is somehow inherently
unfair.  That would have saved us several posts.

And about that remedial reading remark.  Look (like Jimbo pointed out
a very good example of inconsistency in your posts), you can't on
one hand admit that doubletaxation and unfairness are completely
independent and then turn around and say, "Double taxation is
unfair if...."

> Jason

--KAT
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: WWF (AKA the veep debate
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:26:00 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 <tfilt356163@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
>
>>Try again.  Those are two examples where it is easy to believe that
>>there's some wrong-doing on Bush's part, where it would be really
>>convenient if he'd done something wrong, but reality doesn't seem to
>>work that way.
>
> Readers should remember, though, that Andy does not consider
> provision of nuclear weapons to Iraq to be "something wrong."
>
>
> Jamie
>
Readers should also read the newspapers.  Apparently Bush now says
that he has been saying all along that he knew about the "arms for
hostages trade" when it is the case he said previously he knew about
trading arms, and attempts to get the hostages freed, but was out of
the loop in the "arms for hostages" fiasco.  Evidence, like from
previous cabinet members has showed this to be false.  The whole
Iran-Contra mess was investigated, but apparently no one did anything
wrong since I don't see anybody doing time for any of these things.
The whole investigation from the start of the Iran-Contra hearings was
a mess (see Haynes Johnson book on Reagan's presidency).
   The Iraq problem also was glossed over.  Bush sees this as the
highpoint of his presidency, stopping a dictator that for years upto
the final days before the war began he supported, even firing someone
for speaking of Hussein's human rights record on the radio (Voice of
America or something).  Gore put forth a record of this coddling of a
dictator and then saying ohmygosh what a horrible man he is, see how I
stopped him.  Yeah, like in Panama where you defeated Noriega who was
there so long because of Reagan-Bush support.  The CIA admitted
interfering with the investigation to find about the mess called the
Iran-Iraq policy.  Bush wants to take all the credit, but not the
blame.

    -Joe
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: parole
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:07:00 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 <tfilt355125@drew.edu>, Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> wri
   tes:
> *** Resending note of 10/15/92 06:50
>
>>                      ............  However, in parole hearings such
>>statements can be considered.
>>KAT
>
> Was the person found guilty of a crime? YES
> Was the person sentenced to prison?     YES
> Has the ENTIRE sentence be completed?   NO
> Has the sentence been commuted?         NO
>
> Then why are you trying to let this guy out?  What purpose does a parole
> board serve other than to release criminals before they finish their terms?
>
> ---Robert
prisoner followed the rules etc.; this helps keep order in the
prisons and is a reason for prisoners to better themselves in prison
by their volunteer work, studies, work done etc.  There is some value
to such a system.  Though with the arbitrary nature of parole (Jean
Harris was in jail for over ten years while serving many matronly
duties and was rejected while other likely repeat offenders are given
parole regularly), there is a lot to be said about standard sentences.
Those who can't keep order in prison could have time added to this
sentence, while those who redeem themselves can have privileges or get
out a little early.  This can also remove the farce of having long
sentences on the books, when most know they aren't followed.

    -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:10:10 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      a comment on appearances

brought to mind by kerry's remark about
Clinton playing to the camera.

one of my housemates, who, like me, got
most of the debate over the radio, and
only watched part of it on TV, said
Clinton came across much better over the
radio (despite voice trouble) because you
couldn't see his obsequious grin.

                    -T
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:47:44 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Just a Theory

As I said this is just s theory and does NOT answer
every aspect of what has happened.

It is possible that Perot never wanted to be a president,
I mean really never wanted to be a president?  He just
wanted to affect the outcome of this election for whatever
reason, whether his alleged personal vendetta against Bush
or the fact that it is alleged that most of Perot's money
is in tax free municipal bonds (hence he doesn't mind increase
in taxes and did you notice that yesterday in the debate,
he was suggesting that we should increase the interest rate,
hmm).

Anyway, so on Larry King Live he says IF you put me on every
single state I would run, hoping that that would not happen
and even if THAT happened he would never win because he is not
part of the establishment.  Then he starts being on the ballot on
state after state and if I am not wrong, being ahead in some or most
polls.  So he gets scared, he made a wish and it was coming
through.  So he quits in panic.  But he still has his original
motives.  He tries to influence the process still, keeps the
volunteers and keeps making news.  Later he notices that everyone
is calling him a quitter, he cannot influence the process
anymore, and even the networks are not selling him time.  So
believing the pundits that there is no way he can win if he
reenters, he enters just to attend the debates, buy political
time on TV and basically affect the process, and erase the quitter
image.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:57:48 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour@GEC-EPL.CO.UK
Subject:      Last week in Brighton
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Well, I returned from the Conservative Perty Conference at the
weekend, after an interesting four days.

The high spot for me was speaking to the conference in the environment
debate. I'm not sure which was the more unnerving - having about 3,000
delegates in front or Margaret Thatcher on the platform about ten feet
behind ....

There was a lot of pretty spirited debate about Maastricht and the
Exchange Rate Mechanism. The conference doesn't make any decisions,
but the debate was a lot more real than usual. Perhaps the party
managers were hoping that the issue would quieten down after both
sides had been allowed to let off steam (I don't think it will).

And the Prime Minister's address, usually the high spot of the
conference, was unusually low key and there were quite a few empty
seats (in contrast with the economy debate the day before).



Anyway, the heads of government of the EC are meeting in Birmingham
(that's our Birmingham, not the one in Alabama) to try to find a way
forward on Maastricht, or some derivative thereof. Reconciling the
demands of the UK and Denmark on one hand, and France and Spain on the
other will not be easy, and will probably not be possible at all.
Denmark hold the trump card, coz without significant concessions they
just won't ratify.

With my Sunday paper there was a full reprint of the treaty of
Maastricht. If anyone out there is interested, mail me with your Smail
address and I'll send it on when I've finished with it.

More later.

Dunstan.
From: YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: WWF (AKA the veep debate)
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:40:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I've got a question: Why didn't Gore bring up IraqGate and Iran Contra when
Quayle started jiving about an untrustworthy Clinton? Those two examples of
the Bush administration/Bush represent corruption at its peak.
Lance
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Addendum on
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:07:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:34:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
>If you are not old enough to vote, you are not old enough to die at the
>hands of the state.

But you are old enough to drive, to pull the trigger and end another's
life, to rape, to impregnate or become pregnant....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:57:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _Wings of Eagles_

>        Ha, I was in 8th grade in 1962 (3?  I don't have anything left to
>have carbon-dated).

yo, chris,
that's why they invented carbon-ation.
how abt. splitting a virtual pitcher w/lil 'ol me.

-linda

>                                        Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:00:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Libertarian Platform

>Please help me.

>Dave
>t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
> Don't smoke
> Don't drink
> Don't f*ck
> Least I can f*cking think


gosh, dave, i'm sorry. your fridays must be very boring.
can anybody help this man? start up a collection? send coupons for beer? find
him a date (preferably an older woman w/much experience)?

;)

- linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:08:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject: Re: Aztecs

        I'm not that upset.  There are worse games played on the list.

                                                Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:54:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: _Wings of Eagles_

Anytime.  Virtual or otherwise.  I get out soon on parole to grad school.  For
all I know I could be in your school, and someone who has friends in the library
would be a help.  See ya!

Revin' up the ol' wheel chair,                          Chris
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:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:07:19 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CAU$E$ OF WAR$

Robert E. McElwaine:> Most ALL war$ are ARTIFICIALLY CONTRIVED by 3RD PARTIES

Which 3rd Parties?  The Libertarians?  The Socialists? The American Theocratic
party (Based, I'm proud to say, in Memphis -- I think they follow
Malcom X in a really weird way...)? Perot or Anderson, perhaps?  The Know-
nothings?  The
Constitutional Union party?

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:15:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject: RE: chris! cut it out!

That was what I meant.  He was stopped at the last minute, given praise for
being willing to sacrifice his son..

You shouldn't have revealed how much you knew about that other stuff.  They
will probably try to get you now to silence you.

                                        Chris Morrison
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:16:57 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: No Subject

Hey Big Fella (Does this strike a more appropriate tone, perchance?),
  You mystify me. I keep claiming that the gun lobby is powered by
classical garden variety Freudian neuroses, and, far from refuting
this contention, you keep demonstrating it. Freud suggests that
guns are symbolic phallic replacements due to syndromes such as
castration anxiety and latent homosexuality. Since you have never
read, apparently, anything older than this month's _Soldier of Fortune_,
and thus totally missed the irony of the standard 19th c. formula "My
Dear Sir," YOU took this as an invitation to some sleazy gay-bashing.
But alas! like most gay-bashers, you inadvertently revealed your REAL
feelings about homosexuality:
 "Michael honey (does this mean that *WE'RE* out of the closet?)"
Emphasis added; perhaps you'd care to explain how your intended insult
of me turned unconsciously into a graphic personal documentation of
your own urges?
Bear with me, politics listers, this is of grave concern to us all. It
has been a serious plea from the left for many decades now that the
deep-rooted violence in the American psyche needs to be healed. What-
ever one's opinion of Freud and psychoanalysis (and my own is highly
ambivalent), the connection between eroticized violence and unhealthy
sexual development seems well enough documented that it is time we
finally address the problem in a major way.
Hey Rambo, you wanna know what I'd do about guncontrol? Yo! Educate
people to love their own bodies, that's what.
And, since you've demanded an argument for gun control, here 'tis:
it is physically impossible for a citizen, law-abiding or otherwise,
to shoot someone, accidentally or otherwise, if they only gun they
have fires water. The goddam things are designed for violence, and
should no more be let loose than tactical nuclear weapons. But, I
repeat, and I don't expect you to even understand this, let alone
agree, the problem is NOT guns per se but the intensely neurotic
social climate which channels energy into their fetishization.
Michael
(ps Will you PLEASE look up your adjectives in the dictionary before
posting them? Thank you)
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: more on veep debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:13:55 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

Hi, y'all:
Interesting ideas.  I personally think Quayle will go heavily for the
"environmental extremism" line -- I expect to hear lots about owls vs. jobs
and so forth.  I'm just hoping I can keep from throwing things at the TV.

I'm also curious to see whether Quayle plays to his fans or whether he
tries to play to potential swing votes.  Seems to me that doing the family
values thing (and the cultural war thing, and all that jazz) will go over
well with those *already* committed to his ticket, but I'm not at all sure
it'll attract undecideds.  The environmental extremism thing, though (and I
regret to say it), might play really well among undecideds.

I had this kind of funny image in my head of Gore responding by pointing
out his 77 rating by the League of Conservation Voters ("I'm not an
extremist!  Honest!).  Wonder if he'll try it?

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