HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:13:58 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>

> You did not get it, did U? In four years we will know who is right.

Right about what?  What is it that you are claiming?

> Clinton is gonna lose the elections; that's what I meant. Perot
> scared voters away from Bush. In 1998, the Republican candidate

You mean 1996 or 2000?

> will have the same advantage Clinton enjoyed as a result of Perot's
> running for presidency. TIME will show us; we just have to sit and
> wait. ...

How on earth Clinton losing in 1996 means he would have lost in
1992 if Perot had not run escapes me.

But that's only me.

And if I claimed that you are a satanist and in lieu of evidence I
said, "only time will show us," say..... in forty years, what
would you call that?

--KAT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:33:13 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The new vice presidency?

Well, finally we have a President who is confident enough to put someone
in the VPs office he considers an equal rather than an inferior.  In the
past, VP candidates have often been either people chosen to try to attract
votes at the opposite end of the country or ideological spectrum or people
who the Presidential candidate feels he can look really superior beside.
Rarely has a vp been someone the President actually has respect for and looks
upon as someone of equal ability and with ideas to contribute.
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:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 12:51:10 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I personally believe the "if Perot had not ..." argument is moot. He DID run,
he did or did not affect the election, apparently, he did NOT win a state, he
may have finished second in two places (I haven't seen "final" numbers), he
DID pull in 19% of the vote, his vote MIGHT have split a bit more one way
or the other (but WHO CARES?), but the result would "probably" (my guess)
have been the same. Though I am in favor of analysis, it seems to me that we
have to work with what DID happen, not what might have. That alone says Perot
DID tap into disaffection, that xyz voters emerged who might not have
otherwise, and that he lost bigtime. I figure it cost him (at $60 million,
probably higher in final accounting) that his 19+ million votes cost him $3
a vote, probably higher than the other two (it still amazes me that the media
and the electorate were apparently not alarmed by what appeared a blatent
attempt to "buy the Presidency"), and he lost significantly. But, where does
he go from here, and where does the American body politic go from here than
the fruitless "counting angels on the head of a pin" exercise of trying to
discern "if Perot had not..." My opinion on this thread, VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:05:59 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      question for andy

In his response to my post on the religious right and lack of
prosecution for sexual assault, andy says something to the effect that
maybe I think child molestation is all right? How can you possibly
draw that conclusion from my original post? I don't appreciate you
putting words in my mouth, it smacks of the big lie (somebody said
that Fred said this so it must be true). Please stick to statements
I have made and avoid attributing your speculations to me.

Your post, in my opinion, went on to say that "pursuing their political
agenda is more important than pursuing your pet crime". Should I take
this to mean that the religious rights political agenda, in your
opinion, is more important that preventing sexual and psycological
abuse to the women and children who trust these leaders? If this is
the case, I would love to see them put it in writing as a policy
statement: "We of the _______ denomination feel that crusading against
pornography is more important that prosecuting sexual offenders who
are a part of our ministry. Should an accusation of sexual misconduct
occur, our official policy will be to have the offender offer his/her
services to another community". Is that what you meant?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:28:26 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Quayle is not as dumb as some people would like like him to be.
> During the debate with Gore, he dominated the discussion and proved
> that he was able to think for himself, eventhough it ia very normal
> to be surrounded with top minds, who isn't? For sure he did not know
> the questions in advance!
He was a loudmouth bore who ignored the questions asked and sought to
insult rather than illudicate.
>
>
> What proof does anyone have that Quayle supported the war in Vietnam?
uh, Quayle himself.
> As far as him surrounding himself with the top minds in the country, I thought
> that's what you wanted.  That's what Clinton's done.  I belive Quayle held his
> own in the debate with Gore and proved himself to be able to think on his
 feet.
> He sounded more sincere than Gore's canned answers.  Did he know the questions
> ahead of time?
>
> -Rich
>
I gave my thoughts on the Quayle-Gore (Stockdale who?) debate above.
Gore is an incredibly intelligent man and his reasoned responses to the
questions given and to Quayle inaccurate blathering was impressive.

As for Quayle surrounding himself with smart people, you both have misunderstood
me (and I am not at all surprised).  I felt that that was reason that he
isn't more of a laughing stock than he is now.  If Bush had surrounded
himself with Quayle's people, he would have come closer to beating Clinton
than he did.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:56:24 CST
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Movie Review

A miserably cold and freezing rain-turning-to-snow Monday to all,

Hello -T., someone told me that there was another 'Clark' on the POLITCS-L
list. Glad to meet you.

About 'Dracula'.....

Hmm, I hope your right!  I would rather see the politicians in Washington
tearing up each other instead of us for a change.  But what I am afraid
of is when they suddenly realize what they are doing,....and then turn on us.

(I know this line wasn't from you however, I will answer it here.)

Republicans wimps????  Not true!  Christians were once considered an 'infest-
ation' on this list.  Well, since liberals have 'infested' the BUSH-L, I am
returning the compliment by 'infesting' the CLINTON-L.  So much fun.

Sue Clark

Scene:  Uncle Sam seated across the table from a foretune teller.

Foretune-Teller:

'I see the White House and Congress controlled by the Democrats...
I also see double digit inflation and interst rates and lots of foreign
policy screw-ups.'

Uncle Sam:

'I wanted you to tell me the 'future', not the 'past.'

Foreturen-Teller:

'I am.'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:33:33 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Clinton admitted in an interview with Sam Donaldson that he had led at least one
protest in England.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:22:42 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I am sorry, but Clinton did not receive an educational deferment.  I am not
sure if Quayle supported the war, but he does know how he got out of the draft.
Yes, I do not agree with protesting.  I disagree with things that go in our
government, but there are other ways of voicing your disapproval than by
protesting.

-Rc
-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:18:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pregnant women in the military

Jonathan:
        THe further back we go to look at pregnancy stats, the further we are
from our present situation.  We're talking about what's occuring NOW, not two
or three years ago.  Therefore, unless and until the figures are shown con-
clusively to be "skewed" because of Desert Re-election (sorry) Desert Storm,
the figure is our best example of the current situation.

        I would surmise at this point that if the hospital ship scenario
to which you referred in any way increased the number of at-sea pregnancies,
we would see a greater percentage than 16.  Alas, it is but a guess until I
learn the facts of the matter.


-T.

(who wants to point out to Julie and anyone else interested in telling me
how to think and act when I post that just because I guess, I don't mean to
imply I am more likely to be correct than the next schlep.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:14:54 -0500
From:         LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afraid to use it!
              <JULIEWS@IDS.NET>
Subject:      RE: Survey
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

T:

How can people in general be anything other than "average" intelligence?

--a confused Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:22:47 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Quayle is a dolt.

>> Interestingly enough, "potato" and "potatoe" are both correct.  Quayle
>> did make a mistake in this incident, but not the one commonly
>> attributed to him.
>
>This lame excuse has been tried to.

It's poor form to make spelling mistakes in a spelling flame.

>No you Quayle apologists
>reach for any excuse to forgive his ignorance.

Lack of spelling ability doesn't imply lack of intelligence.

Hint: pointing out that the Quayle attackers are being
dishonest/unfair isn't a defense of Quayle.

>> In public, everyone uses cards.  That's as true of Clinton/Gore as it
>> is of Quayle.  (Interestingly enough, CA just elected a Senator,
>> Feinstein, who cheated in a debate during the last election cycle by
>> using notes scribbed on her hand when the rules specifically
>> prohibitted such aid.  She lost that election, for governor, to
>> Wilson.)
>
>Not for spelling.

So?  Fischer claims that Quayle is a dolt for using cards.
If so, we either have a general result which applies to Feinstein
or ....

>> >His ability to question anything that is given to him does not exist.
>>
>> And now we know what Jonathan considers good evidence.  Maybe someone
>> will publically apply those standards to Jonathan's oxen.  Others will
>> do so privately.  Others will just go with "he's just another partisan
>> whiner, and not a particularly interesting one at that."
>
>Then why do you bother to respond?

Because I like pointing out the obvious.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:42:23 -0500
From:         "(Jeff Green)" <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject: RE: Gays in the Military (was Draft Dodging Illegal?)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

If I may...
>...
>military.  I am also not saying that gays would cause trouble in the military.
>What I am saying is that ignorance of the gay lifestyle will cause problems.
>A lot of the "men" in the military will react aggressively to open gays.

Good point. The real question is, WHY would the "men" in the
military react aggressively to open gays? If you can answer that
question we can solve the problem.

Jeff


_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green                              Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                        116 Dean Street Suite B
203.969.1183 Voice                      Stamford, CT 06902-6251
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:40:06 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: RE: partisan idiocy

>        For example: "liberals" who are fighting for gun control legislation
>are genuinely concerned and outraged at the level of violence in this country
>- no one can doubt that.  Can anyone offer a self-serving or subjective reason
>why these people might propose such legislation?

Some may be interested by Clark's assumption that "self-serving"
implies "have an economic interest in", why serving such an interest
is "bad", and why other reasons are good.  (I know very few racists
who think that that believe makes them money.  It's nice to know that
Clark approves of their motives and therefore their cause.)  I'm
beginning to wonder what s\he thinks "subjective" means.

There are plenty of "less than noble" reasons to support gun control.
The German Green party did so as a response to the policies of certain
political opponents; they didn't actually care one way or another but
saw the opportunity to score political points.

A racist who knows his/her history might well support gun control on
the "menacing minority" theory.  After all, there's nothing that
scares white amerika like a nigger with a gun.  (Couching gun control
as race control is the most effective way to get it passed.)

Then there's the culture war explanation.

BTW - I doubt that "`liberals' who are fighting for gun control
legislation are genuinely concerned and outraged at the level of
violence in this country" and have provided evidence on POLITICS
showing that things aren't as simple as Clark asserts.

>        The conservative viewpoint babbles about individual rights, purposely
>misinterprets the 2nd Amendment,

"Purposely misinterprets" is a curious description.  After all, the
wigged gents (Jefferson, Madison, et al) all seem to agree with that
"conservative ... individual rights" position.  (Leading Clark into a
"militia clause" argument is a bit unfair, but ...)

>and misrepresents facts in an attempt to
>oppose gun control - when in fact their main interest lies in the economic
>gain from gun sales.

Speaking of misrepresenting facts.  A couple of years ago I looked
into NRA finances.  I found that gun makers/dealers weren't
significant contributors, that the money came from millions of people
making small donations.  The only way that one can even begin to make
Clark's argument is by including advertising revenue, which is
dishonest because they'll buy advertising anywhere they can get it.

Interestingly enough, the gun control movement, which is better
funded, gets most of its funding in large donations from a fairly few
people.  Lobbyists on both sides do receive salaries, so presenting
their employer's position is in their economic self-interest.

>        One example doesn't prove my point; I offer it as representational of
>what I had posted earlier.

Yes, this argument is "representational of what [Clark] posted
earlier." but that's not a compliment.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:26:25 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> Did anyone see C-SPAN's little clip of Barbara Bush and Hillary
> meeting at the White House?  As is their custom, C-SPAN kept
> their cameras rolling to catch all the "boring" stuff before and after the
> photo op.
>
Thanks for this.  I desperately wanted to be a fly on the wall listening
to their conversation.  I'll bet they were at each tooth and nail!

Maybe C-Span will repeat it next weekend! (ha)
I only get a chance to watch C-span when I go down to mother-in-law`s
house.  I can't believe the incompetence of my cable company.

Jonathan
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, 18 Nov 1992 13:33:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military [Kat's ?]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt392766@drew.edu>, K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
> From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
>> Second, once you find this reason, explain how those who are willing
>> to take the job, knowing nudity is required [say a nudist colony, or
>> a Friday the 13th movie], can declare sexual harassment just by others
>> seeing them nude.  Can a Playboy model claim the need to expose
>> herself is sexual harassment?  Again sexual harassment is not belief,
>> but discriminary action.
>
> Joe brought up a very good point (with which I agree).
> Though a good point, I would like to point to a small flaw.

you would have to ruin it :-)

>
> What if Acme Enterprises hires you when there is no nudity
> involved and then changes the nature of the business and THEN
> require nudity from you.  Is that a sexual harassment since
> it was not in the original contract/job description?

Acme Enterprises would obviously have to have a very good reason to
change the nature of the business to require you nudity, but they
can't force you to do so during the length of your contract.  The
personal privacy issue would increase the strength of this requirement
(it's not like being a secretary and having to do one more thing that
wasn't part of the job description).   So, no an actress can't be
forced to pose nude, and must be given her money that the contract
requires.  But, it still won't be sexual harassment if it the job
requires it, it would just be a breach of contract.  If the
requirement is added for sexual gratification of the employer it will
be both sexual harassment + breach of contract.  As I noted, sexual
job descriptions are only harassment if they are not related to the
job, but only to harass.  Prostitutes are not sexual harrassment
sufferers unless the client goes past what was agreed upon.

>
> I *know* my analogy is not perfect, but maybe you would be
> kind enough to address my point anyhow.
>
>>   -Joe
>
> --KAT
>
Your analogy is not perfect because the military is different.  What
exactly is the job description of service?  They force you to do a lot
that is against personal freedom and privacy.  Jews can't wear
yarmulkes.  Men have to shower with other men, even men of colors they
might depise or religions they hate.  Women very well might need to
expose herself in some way.  Whites were forced to deal with blacks,
their supposed inferiors, etc.  So, I think saying it is a breach of
contract is wrong too.  Homosexuals will add to the military strength
(so the theory goes), so it's a just addition to the military rules to
allow them in.

-Joe, the kind one
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:11:51 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Wages and productivity

So, wages have fallen in the last 20 years.
But we also know that productivity has risen. That is, American workers
now produce more goods in an hour than they used to. But they're getting
paid less.
Where is all that extra money going?

Jamie
     (I think O'Andy already answered this question, in a way,
      but I thought I'd frame it more starkly for him.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:21:42 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: two quick points
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> 2. The term HOMOPHOBIA has become as prevalent as liberals on this list.
>    I know absolutely no one that is afraid of gays.  Do any of you?  It is
>    not fear that causes those opposed to gay rights to be that way.  The
>    gay lifestyle is sick, perverted, wrong, disgusting and anything but
>    *gay*.  For the sake of fairness, must we begin tossing the term
>    HETEROPHOBIA into these discussions?
>
>
> ---Robert

You have just given the perfect definition of homophobia.

Jonathan