HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:33:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject: Re: my life with the thrill kill cult
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt387031@drew.edu>, james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE> wri
   tes:

[post on Ireland deleted]

> Takea utopian situation, unity by complete agreement.  The costs involved in

> james
>

a good time to keep in mind that "utopia" means "no place"

          -Joe
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: flowers and hill
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:39:30 GMT
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

>if Clinton and Flowers had an
>affair that was mutually consentual then I am not really going to make
>an issue of that because it says nothing about Bill Clinton.

Huh?  The fact that Clinton had an affair to begin with clearly shows that he
is less than perfectly trustworthy.  He didn't sneak around to protect national
security or anything semi-noble like that.  He broke a public vow just to get
laid.  I think that says an awful lot about someone.

>Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and
>that's not something I take lightly.

Sorry, but "sexual harrassment" (making a few ribald comments) hardly qualifies
as a "serious crime."

Jason
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: lets see a show of hands...
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:21:19 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

Gee, I don't see anyone raising their hand. Perhaps you should write to each
of us personally and ask us for our phone numbers and then call us and talk to
us. Better yet though, just get a life. If this is the best way you have of
attacking us, you're really worse off than I thought...
--Steve
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:28:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

On the seriousness with which the FBI and Secret Service take
asissination threats on the president, I have a little story.

I know someone who wrote a little note on the back of an envelope
which he mailed to a friend, which said something to the effect
that he'd like to kill the president.

A few days later, he was taken in for questioning by the FBI, as was
the friend who received the letter.

Now this guy can't leave the country, has to inform the local authorities
when he leaves the state and has to go to the county jail every time
a significant poltical figure comes within a 100 mile radius of his hometown.

Of course he didn't mean his threat, but it was taken quite seriously
by the authorities.

j.B.
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:30:39 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110621273640@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, CLARK@EVMSVMS.B
ITNET writes:
>Jayce:
>
>        I believe the word is "imbEciles", not "imbIciles".
>
>Gete itt write - orr us imbeciles wil stirt to gett uppsette!
>
>-T.
>
If you want to buy me on eof those $60+ dictionaries, I'll give you my
address.  If not, lay off of EVERYONE'S typing.  I take it that you understood
what I meant, right, and that's what's really important......
                            Jayce

                            
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:43:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!

>Sure thing T. Yes, what I'm saying is that under Clinton's policies there will
>be MORE people on welfare. You could even take this one step further by
>saying that these welfare recipients would be getting less welfare money. Why?
>Becuase the more pepople on welfare, thew more that money is divided, thus, the
> l
>less each individual receives. Clear now?
>--Steve


No, Steve, it is not at all clear.  You may not run around yelling "Under
Clinton, X is gonna happen!! Y is gonna happen" without backing that up with
facts.  Conservatives may simply see a Democrat and get that "Uh oh more
Welfare" knee-jerk reaction, but we want to see some proof.

Has Governor Clinton issued any statements that he would increase the Welfare
rolls?  Has his staff published any papers on the subject?  We want to know,
besides being an automatic reaction, WHY you think that Welfare roll numbers
will increase in the next Administration.  You would do well to follow this
advice in any of your arguments.  We can't listen to "I just know. I just know.
He's Democrat. I just know."

Pardon the cliche (and the gender misidentification), but Just The Facts, Maam.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:07:02 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Potatoe

>        As much I love trashing lil' Danny boy, that comment about Latin in
>Latin America is an urban legend - didn't happen.  MOST everything else we've
>heard did happen, but not the Latin thing.

  Actually, the comment did happen; it's just that Dan didn't make
it.  It was then Representative Claudine Schneider of Little Rhody
who made the remark as a joke, a slam on the hapless Danster.  It
got picked up by the papers, and the rest is history.

                                 -T
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 10:45:06 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: Pat Buchannan
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Julie, HOW is Pat Buchanan homophobic? And HOW does he rely on hatred as
a motivational force? Unless you can answer those questions, do not resort
to "shallow and foolish" ways of attacking someone.
--Steve
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 14:15:36 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > If Hiallary becomes President, I expect mass numbers of Americans flocking
> > to Canada or other countries. Also, neither Hillary nor Chelsea even look
> > very pretty.
>
> On the other hand Jennifer is a knock out.
>
> --KAT :-)
>
What does Bush's mistress have to with Clintons' presidencies?

Oh, I get it, you mean Gennifer!  I think she'll be allright after
reaping in 6 figures for her lies in the Star and a million Plus for
a repeat of those, plus a spread in Penthouse.

Jonathan
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: sexual harrassment
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:51:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQTW7PNGN48WW36F@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>Thomas was accused of repeatedly harraing Hill not just by making
>comments, but by pressuring her to go out on a date.  I think the comments
>are problematic, but the pressure for a date was the really serious
>thing.
>
>--Julie
>
Can you imagine the nerve of that guy?  He asked her out for a date a couple
of times.  I vote for castration, how about the rest of you?
                                    Jayce

                                    
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:35:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Minority President?
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Rich:

Do you have any polling data which suggests that "If Perot were not in the
race, most of the Perot supporters would have voted for President Bush."?
Or is this just conjecture on your part?

--Julie
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Jason Euculano and Judicial History
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:03:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


>-------------
>Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
>Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
>Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
>YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
>YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
>
I simply stated that Anita Hill is an unqualified candidate for a Supreme
Court Justice.  The fact is that she has no experience and we would not even
know her name if it were not for the hearings. Julie sounds like a feminist to
me so I can see why she would support Ms. Hill.  I am not a feminist.  Hope
noone is shocked at that bit of info.  I don't see why Mr. Clinton couldn't
appoint a judge that IS ACTUALLY QUALIFIED!!!!!!!!!!!!! There must be one or
two around......
                                    Jayce
                KEMP/BAKER '96!!!!!!!!!

                
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: whew!
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:33:24 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

I love advising.  It means I can plan on getting nothing done between
appointments with confused young students who don't understand their
general education requirements.  Since I can't get anything useful done, I
can play on the list :)

Val, james, Julie, Jimbo, and everyone else to whom this applies:  bless
you for your collective voices of reason!

Shawn, please don't shout.  In case no one's mentioned it, typing your
messages in all upper-case letters is the equivalent to yelling.  It really
doesn't help!

To whoever's been calling Gore "eco-geek", and engaging in similar name-
calling, please stop.

To whoever's been calling for a hit squad, please stop.

Please, please, please, please.....some of y'all are making Jay Sultan look
like the voice of calm and reason :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:51:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Poor losers!

Replies to KAT's comments.

>        And I guess Dan Quayle is OK because he LEGALLY dodged the
>        draft.

Well, yes, the legality of the means *can* make a difference, although
they may be morally equivalent.

>        And maybe you can cite the exact law that Clinton broke when
>        he "illegally" dodged the draft.  BTW: don't let the little
>        fact that Clinton actually drew a draft number (is that what
>        is called?) stop you from your accusations.

I can't cite the law but here are two points: 1) by military regulations,
Clinton's participation in anti-war demonstrations made him unfit to
be an officer, and, 2) he concealed the fact that he had received
an induction notice, which would have prevented him from enrolling in
the U. of AR. ROTC program.

-- David

David Clem      BITNET: $GET@PCCJES2
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:41:24 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A notice ...

>based on the content of their posts solely, Shawn and Jayce's accounts at
>Lehigh are "frozen" until such time as their Computing Science folks have a
>talk with them about responsible posting. I believe the business of "shut up"
>and the "threat" against the President-elect may have been the final deciders
>on the part of the postmaster and superiors. They be back, but under a
>sanction of good behavior or loss of accounts, I'm given to understand.
>My only action here was to forward copies of their posts to their postmaster
>- so if you must gripe about the action I took, do it to me personally, and
>not to the list. VMS

Legit threats are the province of the Secret Service, not sysadmins.
If the "threats" in question did not justify a call to the SS, they
certainly didn't justify any other action.

Since other "threats" and "shut up" have not roused VMS to action, it
is both appropriate and honest for VMS to state that it was their
other content, the stance, that roused him in this case.  "It's my ox"
is a principle, one that too few people admit to.

-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-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:58:07 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Hi, Brett':
>       But the point was that they are indeed tax dollars.  How many should go
>to pay for someone who abuses the house bank?  Do parents reward their kids for
>spending their entire allowance on bubble gum?
>       I hold my reps to financial accountability.  If I'm going to pay for
>their time, I expect them to be honest.

Following Steve R's recommendation, I'm not going to ask about legality :)
But I would like some clarification on what you've written above.  You
elect your reps, and you pay their salaries.  Of course you expect them to
be honest.  No problem.  But do you hold them accountable for how they
spend their money -- assuming they've earned it, and that they're not doing
anything illegal with it?  That seems to be the implication of what you've
written, and I have trouble believing that's what you meant.

The example of parents and bubble gum doesn't quite apply, I don't think.
First, although a parent won't reward a kid for blowing his/her allowance
on gum, that parent won't *punish* the kid, either.  The money's there for
the kid to spend.  If the kid blows it, tough -- but I don't cut off my
daughter's allowance when she spends her money foolishly (I just rub her
nose in it, so to speak).  Second, the role of parent to child seems to me
quite a bit different from the role of constituent to representative.  But
I could be wrong.

Thanks!
Kerry
p.s.:  so *that's* what ;) means!  I always thought that was used by folks
too lazy to bother with the shift key!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:52:43 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: I can't help it . . .

>. . . and I'm going to indulge myself in one little tiny gloat (aside to
>our new list administration: do we have a gloating quota?  a gloating limit
>?).

  There are no government established limits to gloating, and we
will veto any efforts by the virtual congress to establish *quotas*.
The market will regulate itself.  Rash gloating will controlled by
the ever present threat of flaming, and simple supply and demand
will ensure sufficient gloating.  Laissez-faire gloating.

  (Of course, our administration feels no need to remind our
opponents of our electoral college mandate, particularly not
Jimbo"I'm in charge here, now"Haig, whose ticket was crushed
by the juggernaut of JohnsoN/OlsoN's popular appeal and
historical context.)


                          -Mr. President
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:37:03 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Julie:
>For anyone who is interested, I _do_ know of a few cases of people getting
>out on "unfit to serve" classifications  _earlier_ in the war, but after too
>many people tried they started to take some things less seriously.  THings
>that _did_ get several people exempt were:

I also heard about someone who when asked to hold out his hands held
them out one with the palm upwards, and one with the palm downwards.
When asked to turn them over, the first had the palm downwards and the
second the palm upwards ... and he wasn't trying to draft dodge.

D.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:05:18 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
              10 Nov 1992 16:56:29 GMT from <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

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

> ......  To burn our flag is to present one of the grossest displays against
> our country that is possible.

And yet this country (that you love) has decided to protect such
activity.  So make up your mind: are you with the country (that you
love) on this or are you gonna be against it (the country that you
love) even though many people have given their lives to preserve
it (the country that you love) the way it is?

>                              I know you will say that this is a free country
>and some more liberal crap like that, but how do you think it has stayed free?

So "this a free country" is a liberal crap, right?  Should I assume
that conservatives believe this in NOT a free country?

>    Now there is a Liberal push to outlaw firearms.  Do you think this is a
>good thing?  I do not.  Look at how our country was formed.  Farmers and the
>like could stand up to oppressors because they had the weapons to do so.  Look
>at the oppression that ran rampant in the ex-Soviet Union, they could not own
>guns because the government knew that would take away some power.  We MUST be
>allowed to keep armed.  .....................................................

This puzzles me a bit.  If XUSSR people had guns they would have
fought against their government, right?  So, let me see, we should
have guns so we can fight against our own government (say if they
want to send us to an unjust war) but we cannot burn a flag to
protest the same government?  Interesting logic!

>                                       Jayce

--KAT
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:41:34 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Great Depression - a shorter lecture

>A basic explanation of the Depression must begin by noting the
>Stock Market crash.  During the "Long Boom", prices on the
>exchange had continued to spiral upward - creating a false paper
>profit.  Then, in October 1929, the British raised their interest
>rates in an effort to bring back capital lured abroad by American
>investments.

Actually, I think you might start by noting that there was a fairly
deep depression in 1920-21 that the farmers and factory workers
didn't really recover from by the time of the 1929 crash. The
consumer economy was very weak still at the time of the crash.

As to the reason that one might associate Britain with the crash
one ought to consider that in 1927 a representative of the Bank
of England (Montagu Norman) asked Benjamin Strong (president
of the NY Federal Reserve Bank) to ease US credit on the theory
that the money would find its way overseas in the form of loans.

The money that was pumped into the system rather than being exported
wound up entering the American markets and fueled the speculating
frenzy that followed.


>I will not go further ( unless of course someone asks).  I simply
>wanted to point out that when someone says "Hoover raised taxes,
>and the depression got REALLY bad", they're oversimplifying to a
>great degree.  In fact, they're wrong.  I've tried to outline the
>major causes of the depression so that people would not run
>around thinking that Clinton's policies alone could equal another
>Great Depression.

Most of the books that I have read on this topic lately seem to
suggest that Hoover was simply a hapless victim of the times and
that the failure that made the Depression worse was the Federal
Reserve Board's.

The proper thing for the Fed to have done was to "flood" the markets
with money to prevent runs on the banks and reassure the public.
They did not do this, in fact, according to some of the internal
memos and notes written by the Fed governors during this period
suggest that they felt that this event rather than being tragic
was a positive thing that ought be left to run its course.

>-T.

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:02:53 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      new tariffs

Does anybody know who is responsible for introducing the proposed 200%
tariff on certain european goods such as wine, cheese, etc? I don't see
how this can possible make our farmers more competitive. Just when many
are seeing a bumper crop, the prices are going down the tubes. I think
we will see a lot of retaliation if we proceed with this policy.

I'm not crazy about government support for prices farmers receive but
maybe it hurts less to pay less at the store and have taxes pick up
the difference. One thing is for sure, you can't make a living at
farming if prices are down and markets are closed.

fred
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:39:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics/History Trivia - Who woulda thunk?
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Steve:  No I did not _forget_ the smiley next to the Ed Meese joke.  I
was merely attempting to be subtle.

:-)

--Julie, being frightfully frivolous.
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 21:36:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: C.E. not B.C.
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30910

>From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
>Subject:RE: C.E. not B.C.
>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:37:00 EDT
>Message-ID:<tfilt383475@drew.edu>

>Paul:
>
>        If every text you have ever read (what - 2, 3?) placed AD after the
>year, then every text you have ever read is wrong.  (this could explain a lot -
>maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on the lad).
>
>        Well of course the texts are wrong, they are written by a
bunch of LIBERAL professors!

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