HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform
Subject: Campaign '92 Documents Available--FREE
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:25:46 GMT
Reply-To: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).

-- 
T.M. Grundner, Ed.D
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Box 1987
Cleveland, Ohio 44106 - e.mail: tmg@nptn.org
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:38:12 GMT

Subject:  AUTOMATED CLINTON/GORE MAIL SERVICE
 
 Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
 into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
 At this critical time in our country's history it is imperative that 
 we all do everything in our power to make our system work.  
 
 We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
 democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
 internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
 your comments and ideas back to us.
 

 To learn more, send mail to the automated Clinton/Gore mail server 
 
    clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org



 RECEIVE THE LATEST SPEECHES:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info speeches" to the mail server, 
 you will receive all the latest Clinton/Gore speeches as soon as 
 they come on-line.


 RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE POSITION PAPERS:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info all" to the mail server at, 
 you will receive the full set of Clinton/Gore position papers.


 QUERY THE CANIDATES -- INTERNET POLL:
 
 If you have a question for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 question to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "question propose".  

 Send the Subject line "question get" to get the current numbered 
 list of questions.  

 Send the Subject line "question vote <X Y>" to vote for questions 
 number <X> and <Y>.  For example, you would send the SUBJECT line 
 "question vote 3" to vote for question number 3.

 Each week the questions with the most votes will be forwarded to 
 Little Rock.

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

 If you have a suggestion for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 suggestion to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "suggest propose".  

 Send the Subject line "suggest get" to get the current numbered 
 list of suggestions.  

 Send the Subject line "suggest vote <a b c>" to vote for suggestions 
 number <a>, <b>, and <c>.  For example, you would send the Subject 
 line "suggest vote 18 4" to vote for suggestions 18 and 4.
 

 The questions, suggestions, and the campaign's responses will be 
 posted to the network.  You can help redistribute this and other 
 information by sending the Subject line "volunteer email distr" 
 to the mail server at

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: sl25@emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: mini EC
Organization: Cambridge University DAMTP
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:22:10 GMT

I have the impression that the German view is they can more-or-less absorb the
French economy and those of the low countries without taking much damage themselves. They may not be right of course.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: Re: mini EC
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:44:38 GMT

yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh) writes:

>I've heard that _Der Spiegel_ reported that Chancellor Kohl and President
>Mitterrand have agreed to coordinate the central banks and to "fuse" 
>the mark and the franc together, even though the two have been public in 
>saying they are *not* >out to set up a "mini EC."

>I'm assuming this will calm lots of EC supporters down, but what about 
>the German public?  They're generally against for giving up the mark.  
>Any information on how they're reacting to this?

Most people don't really care. But there is a mistrust against "weak"
currencies -- understandable on the background that elder people in
Germany have experienced two complete breakdowns of the monetary system:
in Nov. 1923, when the Mark was devaluated to "Reichsmark" at a rate
somewhere about 10^8:1 (I don't remember and have no encyclopedia around
here in my office), and in June 1948, when the Reichsmark was changed to
DMark at a rate of 10:1, in both cases with the loss of all savings accounts,
bonds etc. (only shares get the value). And in 1990 East Germany was "unified" 
into West Germany at a rate of 2:1 for the small amounts, and much worse rate
for savings etc.
On this background opinion polls show a majority against any "fusing" of
the mark, but with many "don't know's".

Peter

-- 
.     ________________________________________________________
      Snail-Mail:    P.O.Box 2503 - D-2900 Oldenburg - Germany 
      Voice:            +49-441-798-2901 or -4521 (Fax: -2155)
      E-Mail:     Peter.Gorny@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE 
      ________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: lacom@dxcern.cern.ch (Giuseppe La Commare)
Subject: Maastricht treaty info
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:30:42 GMT


The file Maastricht.Treaty.tar.Z in princeton.edu (now also available via anonymous ftp in my own machine hplaa02.cern.ch - 128.141.201.135) contains the text of the latest addition to the Treaty, the complete text seems to be available via anonymous ftp from ox.ac.uk (129.67.1.165), directory /ota/laws/eec.

I didn't manage to access this server, could some of you please try to get there and let me know?

Thanks in advance,
Giuseppe
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: gumby@Cygnus.COM (David V. Henkel-Wallace)
Subject: anti-maastricht != anti-Europe (was: [soc.culture.nordic] Why did Denmark)
Organization: Cygnus Support, Palo Alto, California
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:57:09

   Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:52:54 GMT
   From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)

re article 5399@daimi.aau.dk from olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen):
   You listed up some arguments in Denmark against Maastricht. You didn't 
   say whether you agreed with those arguments or not. Anyhow, beeing a 
   Pro-European, I would like to refute those arguments, the best way I can.

One can be anti-maastricht and still be pro-european.  In fact I hope
those who wish to live in a unified, democratic Europe _do_ oppose the
treaty.

The treaty is not particularly democratic, and certainly the way it
has been forced on many countries by their governments is digraceful.
It was depressing to hear the rhetoric surrounding the French vote:
anger at the Danes for not following along where their politicians
wanted to force them, for instance.

The politicians were trying to focus on the treaty as the goal, rather
than the treaty as a path to the eventual goal.  In that latter light,
it's an unfortunate documents.

d
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: War and democracies
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:54:23 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
>A military union, consisting of countries with a long and strong democ-
>ratic tradition, is something positive. In all wars in history, there
>has always been at least one party in the conflict that has been a di-
>catorship. Wars between democratic nations are impossible! (Try to find
>a "democratic" war!)

Simple. The governments and presidents of Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina
and Serbia are democratically elected. True, none of them can be
regarded full-grown democracies, but there are little too many demo-
cratic features in these countries to write them off as dictator-
ships. And, particularly: with democracy came the war.

Another example to consider is the war which lead the secession
of Bangala Desh which followed of the result in the parliamental
elections in Pakistan which due to their democraticness lead to
a majority for the more populous east half.

One should also remember that there are several cases where the
acts of war with a democracy on side where the democratic state
has been the agressor. The Suez crisis 1956, the American invasion
on Grenada 1983 are two examples.

It sounds nice that wars between democracies are impossible,
but I believe that while democracy probably encourage peaceful
solutions, it is naive to believe that it is foolproof.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
There are many sorts of Macedonians: Greek, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Macedonian...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:26:01 GMT

A repost from soc.culture.nordic:

From: ryyti@jyu.fi (Jarmo Ryyti)
Subject: Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:11:08 GMT

smudge@alfred.carleton.ca (Sandra Mudge) writes:
: I am a university student in Ottawa, Canada, working towards my
: Master's degree in Political Science.  I am doing research on the
: Maastricht agreement and the future of European integration.
: 
: One element of that I am interested in is why Denmark voted no.  Can
: anyone tell me the basic arguments, for and against, that were used
: during the referendum campaign?
: 
: Thanks
: 
: Sandra Mudge
: smudge@ccs.carleton.ca

Hi,
A Dane can answer more about the contents of the campign.
What the Danish authorities did they translated the Maastricht Treaty
into the Danish language and it was sent to every home.
(This was the biggest mistake:-)

For instance in Finland, which is applying the membership this error
will not be made because of different " democratical" traditions.
When it was asked from a representant of the Foreign Minister why the
Maastricht Treaty is not translated into Finnish he answered it is 
too difficult and people however would not understand its contents.
Your answer still remains unaswered but a Dane can give further details.
But still I think one should know this background of the Referendum
 in Danemark.

The referendums are very uncommon in Europe besides Switzerland
where in effect  a representative democracy is not considered as
 a true democracy.
In a representative democracy there are representants of the people
and these representants "know better" than the people what is good
 for the people:-
Regards,
Jarmo

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [soc.culture.iranian et al] EP issues IMPORTAN resolution condemning suppresion of women
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:31:45 GMT

A repost from soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.arabic,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.europe:

From: saied@cwis.unomaha.edu (Saied*)
Subject: EP issues IMPORTAN resolution condemning suppresion of women
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:10:36 GMT

 
  
European Communities

	               EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
			
The European Parliament,

A. concerned at the new and unprecedented wave of official
   suppression of women in Iran, including arbitrary arrests,
   flogging, and assaulting in public,

B. noting that the Iranian women were already deprived of their
   most fundamental rights,

C. taking note of the horrific dimension of this suppression,
   where, according to the government-run press, more than 113,000
   were arrested during one year since August 1991, for `propagating
   moral corruption and mal-veiling,'

D. taking note of the United Nations Subcommission for Prevention
   of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of 26 August 1992,
   which expresses `grave concern at the rise in the number of
   summary executions following the recent anti-government
   demonstrations in cities such as Arak, Mashad, and Shiraz, and at
   the arbitrary arrest of thousands of people during those
   demonstrations, attributed by the authorities to the Mojahedin'
   as well as the clampdown on women,

1. Condemns the flagrant violations of human rights, and
   especially suppression of women, in Iran, 

2. Supports the message by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, Secretary-General
   of the People's Mojahedin of Iran, urging the public to defend the
   oppressed women of Iran, and also her request from international
   bodies and personalities to table this subject and take urgent
   action,

3. Welcomes the statement of 1,500 parliamentarians from 20
   countries, including parliamentarians from Member States of the
   European Community, condemning the violations of human rights in
   Iran and supporting the Iranian people's struggle for peace and
   democracy and its democratic alternative, the National Council of
   Resistance,

4. Calls on all Member States to present, on the basis of the UN
   Subcommission's August 26 resolution, a substantive resolution on
   the United Nations General Assembly urging a General Assembly
   condemnation of the violations of human rights in Iran, and
   particularly the suppression of Iranian women,

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to all
   Member States, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the
   President of the General Assembly and Mrs. Maryam Rajavi,
   Secretary-General of the Mojahedin.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc
From: jbuhl@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Buhl)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 19:46:50 GMT

olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:

>jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>>[...]

>[...]

>My memory of what was said in the Danish debate back in April and
>May, before the referendum, is not excellent. I remember arguments
>against Maastricht like
> - One goal of Maastricht is a military union. We don't want to be
>   part of that.
> - When EC takes over regulation of environmental issues, the rules
>   are going to be weaker than they are in Denmark now.
> - Same goes for rules about workplace security
> - the bodies in control in the European Union are beyond
>   democratic control. (The debate on this point has intensified
>   _after_ the referendum I think. For most Danes it probably
>   hasn't been important when they voted.)

I do not agree here (being a no-sayer). This was THE most interesting 
topic in discussions, at least where I was present. I might be that its
not the real reason for saying no (if such a reason exist), but in my
local environment it was what was discussed at most times.

> - Maastricht will allow more immigration into Denmark than we
>   want.
>It would be nice if someone could find some of the original campaign material
>from then.

I agree here, but I thrashed mine .)

> Ole V. Villumsen              
> Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
> ovillumsen@daimi.aau.dk
-- 
					Jesper Buhl / jbuhl@daimi.aau.dk
					Computer   Science   Department,
					University  of  Aarhus,  Denmark
					"I hate I Hate I HATE Peter Pan"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: Re: "Democratic War"  (Was:  Why did Denmark...)
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:58:47 GMT

etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:

>In article 5399@daimi.aau.dk, olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:
>> - One goal of Maastricht is a military union. We don't want to be 
>>   part of that.

>A military union, consisting of countries with a long and strong democ-
>ratic tradition, is something positive. In all wars in history, there 
>has always been at least one party in the conflict that has been a di-
>catorship. Wars between democratic nations are impossible! (Try to find
>a "democratic" war!)
	This is a BIG statement (but IMHO not great). I cannot imagine any
	historian saying good for it. If you take the monarchies at the end
	of the last century (democratic?? or dictatorships because of weak
	parlieaments??) -- looking only at Europe. 
	(Britain, Denmark, the German (Second) Reich, France...)
        You must certainly stretch the definitions dictatorship and 
	democracy to make them fit to your statement.   :-)

(Try to find a "democratic" war!)
That's something different.....   I agree.

Peter




-- 
.     ________________________________________________________
      Snail-Mail:    P.O.Box 2503 - D-2900 Oldenburg - Germany 
      Voice:            +49-441-798-2901 or -4521 (Fax: -2155)
      E-Mail:     Peter.Gorny@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE 
      ________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:26:58 GMT

A repost from soc.culture.nordic:

From: zaphod@diku.dk (Ole D. M. Lennert)
Subject: Re: Why did Denmark say no to Maastricht?
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:34:33 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

ryyti@jyu.fi (Jarmo Ryyti) writes:

>smudge@alfred.carleton.ca (Sandra Mudge) writes:
[Sandras text deleted]

>Hi,
>A Dane can answer more about the contents of the campign.
>What the Danish authorities did they translated the Maastricht Treaty
>into the Danish language and it was sent to every home.
>(This was the biggest mistake:-)

Actually, the translation of the treaty was distributed via post
offices and libraries. You actually had to pick it up one of these
places, if you wanted to read it. But a lot of danes did this - which
surprised the politicians quite a lot. I think the treaty is the most
popular printed work in Denmark this year :)

[Rest of Jarmos text deleted]
> for the people:-
>Regards,
>Jarmo

Ole Lennert
(zaphod@diku.dk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:14:09 GMT

etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:

>In article 5399@daimi.aau.dk, olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:

>> - When EC takes over regulation of environmental issues, the rules 
>>   are going to be weaker than they are in Denmark now.

>Strong rules in the 4 or 5 million people big Denmark is nothing, compa-
>red to just a little bit stronger rules in the 320 million EC. Denmarks 
>environmental voice is much more needed inside Denmark than outside. Even 
>if Denmark stays outside the EU, market pressure will probably force Den-
>mark (an Sweden) to have about the same environmental rules as inside the 
>EC, not to lose Denmark's competetive edge. So where is the environmental 
>gain then?

Since in Germany the concerns are the same - just add 80 million on top
of the 5 million in Denmark...

>> - Same goes for rules about workplace security

>About the same answer here.
ditto. The regulations are much weaker in all Southern countries in 
Europe and somewhat weaker in France in comparison to Scandinavia and
Germany.

>> - the bodies in control in the European Union are beyond
>>   democratic control. (The debate on this point has intensified
>>   _after_ the referendum I think. For most Danes it probably
>>   hasn't been important when they voted.)

>The only way to increase "democratic control" today is by letting issues, 
>having to do with implementing the single market, become supranational 
>[European] issues. If Europe doesn't have the power to control the single 
>market, no one will have that control. Absolutly not any of the 12 nations 
>in the EC. A single market can only be controlled by a European political 
>system.
Agreed - but Maastricht does not strengthen the European Parliament.
(BTW: something many Danish voters are also opposed to that!)



-- 
.     ________________________________________________________
      Snail-Mail:    P.O.Box 2503 - D-2900 Oldenburg - Germany 
      Voice:            +49-441-798-2901 or -4521 (Fax: -2155)
      E-Mail:     Peter.Gorny@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE 
      ________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky alt.politics.ec:12 talk.politics.misc:49094