HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:30:45 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Playing Poker

Hello to the quiet list today,

Between the ranting and ravings of students, I thought that I would pop
this thought off.

I love October, we always manage to get a 'surprise' in this month...so
here we go.

How many see the trademark of James Baker in President Bush's response to
Clinton's tauntings of 'Chicken George' along the campaign trail?

Good, I see all hands.

How many realized how hard he would respond to Clinton with his version of
the World Series?  Not three but four debates, that is what I just heard.

Oooh, fewer hands.

Well, my   hand would have also been down on question #2.  What I thought
and said before on this list is that if there was a debate, it would be at
the end of the campaign.  But brother, I and no one else I know believed
that there would be four!  It must have knocked all on their ear.  Bush
apparantly suggested that he would do two debates Clinton's way and two
his way.  Sounds fair, I guess, and with each debate we would hear different
questions.  Now Clinton is balking and wavering.  Why?  If two debates are
in his favored style, via the committee, why worry?  Did he have the debates
planned out already his way?  This little slam-dunk by Mr. Bush is the
mark of Baker.

Anybody ever see the movie Ivanhoe?  Ivanhoe slammed five shields with his
lance in challenge.  I swear Baker must have had that scene in mind when he
gave Bush the go ahead to give his answer to the debate issue.

No wonder Bush wanted Baker so bad.  Sheesh.

I am curious as to Clinton's response.  What do you think, Kerry (My Favor-
ite Aggie) Kilburn?  It sounds like the Bushies and the Clinties are going
to go for it.

If this all comes to pass, it should be verrrry interesting.

Sue Clark

'And here I am, the best political brains in the country outside of Jim
Farly..'  - scene from 'State of the Union' by Jim Conover or maybe Jim
Baker, what's the difference.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 21:44:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: perot

Speaking of Perot:

How do we know he won't decide to quit if he's elected?

Could we change the oath of office to include "serve out my term"?

--Missy P 2 B
From: LIBRARY@UNMCVM.BITNET (Sue Clark)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: New Energy Bill
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:58:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Hello Kerry,

Yes, the idea of deregulating this is indeed very frightening to me.  When
I see the confusion and chaos still going on since the deregulation of the
telephone company, i.e., the break-up of Ma Bell in 1981 our phone bill has
risen 70% and has included such new entries as 'occupational tax' and the
cover-all statement as 'new basic charges' and 'telephone line insurance'.

Plus the AT&T bill combined, which we never use, because we just don't call
long distance at home.

The deregulaiton of the airline industry seems chaotic as well.  I do not
fly like some people here at the UNMC do, but they tell me their horror stories
also.     Are you a flyer?  I would like to here personel air-war stories.

What does scare me is the chaos that will occur if energy is deregulated.
Don't we have enough instability as it is now?

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:39:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Federal gun control

If in the manufacture, sale, and ownership of a full-auto Uzi,
the Uzi in question does not cross state (or national) lines,
does the feral gummint have Constitutional authority to control
these guns?  (Also assume that it is never shot across state lines.)
-Travis
From: FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: dos & donts
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:45:05 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

Robert: > Those who can, [Idiotic stuff deleted], those who can't are democrats
Oh.  So your not in favor of democracy now, eh?  I should have already known,
of course.  Perhaps you meant "Democrats", as in the party.

Be Seeing You,
Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:59:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Will rape be a federal offense??

On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:01:57 EST macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> said:
>>Well, I read in the paper that the Congress is considering a
>>Violence Against Women act, which will basically make rape and
>>spouse-beating a federal crime.  The justification: if it can
>>be proven the victim was chosen because of gender, it is a hate
>>crime, and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.
>>I DON'T GET IT!!!!
>Don't forget who sponsored the bill:  Biden.  Since his name is
>going to be forever remembered as the one who presided over
>the Thomas hearings and came across as an overbearing moron, he's
>got to do something to try to redeem himself; i.e. he smurfed up
>and is trying to make up for it.
Kinda makes you wish Maryland took over Delaware, huh?

> MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:27:54 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Thomas Jefferson and the Civil War

>Let's take Tim's suggestion about Thomas Jefferson living in the 1860's
>and run with it.  What would Jefferson have thought about the politics
>of the 1860's, the secession of the South, and the Civil War itself?
>Evelyn Duncan

  Oh please.  Let's not.

  Forget I ever mentioned His name.

  (Someone warned me to stay out of this...)

                                 -Tim

(But, he would have opposed the economic and political
 tyrrany of the North, would have written a declaration
 of independence, ressurected fellow good Virginians
 Washington to help Lee, and Madison to restructure the
 government of the Confederacy so that the abuses of the
 damn yankees could never be repeated, and led the
 faithful to the promised land.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:18:34 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "No Cost" Family Leave Bill

>> I'm not amazed that people who aren't involved think they know best.
>> I'm not amazed that people who have nothing to lose are quite willing
>> to take risks with other people's stuff.  I'm not amazed that people
>> think that there are no consequences to bad biz decisions.
>>
>> If family leave works, biz that don't have it will suffer and biz that
>> do will benefit.  That's what "works" means.
>>
>> If we think that biz should have policies that don't work, we should
>> pay for them.
>
>Your arguments might have more force if they weren't also equally
>valid against the minimum wage, child labor laws, wage-hour laws,
>workplace safety laws, unemployment insurance and lots of other things
>that everybody takes for granted.

"takes for granted" doesn't mean "good" and whether or not those
things are "good" doesn't tell us anything about the "goodness" of the
proposed family leave bill is.

>                                       The market didn't provide any of
>these by itself.  All of them impose costs on businesses.  Some of the
>costs might be significant (overtime, for example).  But an elected
>legislature decided that the costs were less than the benefits to the
>society.

Note that Peter's argument is changing.  Before he asserted that
unpaid leave (with benefits) was profitable to the companies.  Now
he's claiming that it is beneficial to society.  (BTW - The elected
legislature didn't decide that they were beneficial to society, it
decided that they were politically appropriate.)  Oops....

>       You haven't argued that there is no benefit to family leave
>(although you've made the irrelevant argument that if the market doesn't
>provide it, it can't be worth anything).

Try again.  I've shown that the relevant parties think that the costs
exceed the benefits.

>> >Unfortunately, managers do not always do what an outside observer would
>> >call the best thing to do.
>>
>> "outside" <> "correct".
>
> And "inside" <> "infallible".

Errors by insiders are corrected by the market; losers fail, and they
do so with their money.  Peter likes to gamble with other people's
money.

We're now seeing estimates of the costs of the family leave bill by
its advocates.  They're quite low.  Let's see how accurate they are;
let's pay for the program using tax dollars.  If the advocates are
right, that won't be much, if any money, and if they're wrong, we all
pay for it.  Surely they're sure enough of their numbers to risk money
on them.  What?  Even they don't believe the numbers if they'll lose
if they're wrong?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:26:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual election comment ...

>        Might I also mention that buying votes is perfectly legal in a
>virtual election, and since the subject of beer has been mentioned this
>seems like a good place to start.

bEErs on the virtual house every friday at 5pm sharp.


> I will
>also reserve the right to lie about it and vote for her after having bolted
>the ticket (I know this is lying and she would disapprove but what can I say?)

men are scum, but that's okay. the E-tickEt may disapprove of lying and bolting,
but we will never discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or scummness.


>                                        Chris Morrison
>                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
>By the way, anybody planning on building new breweries in my state?  The
>issue here is drinks, drinks, drinks.


the E-tickEt maintains that brEwEriEs be located in every state in the union,
plus all territories. this has always been our position, and we promise that
these state of the art breweries will be up and running w/in the first 100
days of our administration.

votE E. wE do it bEttEr.
linda suE saboE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:33:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Virtual election comment ...

>>Beer is fun in moderation, and everyone should as much as they's like to
>>have, of whatever kind.
>>Val

        At least he didn't try to say he didn't swallow.

                                        Chris Morrison
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.politics:15145 alt.politics.usa.constitution:469 alt.politics.reform:15
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Libernet: a libertarian/classical-liberal forum
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:52:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu


This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:12:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

>I have no response for JasonZ

Ah!  The sweet silence of concession!

>Jamie

Jason
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:51:45 GMT


In <POLITICS%92092923382280@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET writes:

#         It's about the only thing that dates me.
# 
#         Trouble is, more that I think about it, the more convinced I am
# that Will Stockdale's naivite is at least honest and I'm not sure about
# Ross Perot's after that 800 number poll scam of his, to name just one
# example.
# 
#                                         Chris Morrison
#                                         CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet

	Ross Perot's poll reminds me of one of my all time favorite
	true stories.  One of my professor friends once sent to his
	colleagues a paper written by one of them which he had
	been asked to show around.  Knowing his colleague well, he
	attached a 'ribbing' note which said, "For your favorable
	comments."  I suspect Perot is very much like the man who
	wrote that paper and wanted it passed around for comments...

Ginny

	

===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 21:50:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Do you guys agree with this man? If so,
              I will shut up. Chris.

Chris:

No, I like your messages.  They are short, to the point, and about one
subject.  But you might elaborate sometimes when replying.  I don't
always remember what you are responding to.

Later,

--Missy P 2 B
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, 5 Oct 1992 00:25:16 -0400
From:         "If I Were A President,
              There Would Be 2 States: Sanity and California!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Thomas Jefferson and Arizona

but you failed to Carter... He was from Georgia.!
    Also... you could look at the standpoint
that the most principled were the least affective excluding Jefferson..
for example.. LBJ.. tons of legislation passed in his tenure.. or maybe
Lincoln.. politician's politician.. he got away with a lot!



   John Stith
   Stustith@eku


     "Kentucky has the best government money can buy!"
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:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:02:13 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Jefferson's new party affiliation
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>  If Bush loses than the real nightmare begins.  I can
> live without the double digit inflation and the 20+% interest rates at the ban
>k.  The only solutions Clinton offers is more government....

We interrupt this nightmare...

Um... Corrine, do you really suppose that either candidate should they
become president will have any real control over interest rates, or for
that matter, inflation?

Do you suppose that maybe some other nominally governmental organization
mught have something to do with that, like say... oh I don't know...
(wait for it...) the Federal Reserve Board?

>If Jefferson were alive today he would be a Republican.

Geez, can you state with some certitude what party affiliation Jefferson's
slaves (and children by them) might have were they alive today too?

We now return you to your nightmare already in progress, stay tuned for
further updates...

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:24:14 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <LIBRARY@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New Tax Structure

Hello to one and all,

Hello Jamie,

In the matters of money, I become confused very quickly, so I need some
help here.  In one of your postings, I read:

> Folks (economists, I guress) often complain that Americans save less
> than comparable nations.

That is true, I have heard that Japan is the most 'saving' nation in the
world, and that the US is one of the least.  I don't save as I should either,
however, I do have modest amounts removed from my paycheck and placed in
a TIAA-CREF retirement program.  But without that program, saving for me is
virtually impossible, as it sounds like for others on the list.  As it stands
right now, this program is would hurt more than help.

How does a nation like Japan allow for so much saving by consumers when we
literally taught them our economic system where we are failing and they
are succeeding?

> The idea is that if we collectively forgo consumption now, then we have more
> real wealth to invest in the future.

The trouble that I see with this is that right now is that there is already
not enough consumers buying to maintain the, especially small businesses, that
are still in business.  Doesn't the buying power of the consumer encourge bus-
iness growth, rather than saving?  If we as a body collectively forgo con-
sumption now, more businesses will close, growth will halt, and more unem-
ployed consumers created by collective saving will not be able to save them-
selves.

Collective saving may be good in the long run, like you said, but what about
now?  Tax breaks for small businesses to encourage growth, maybe?  Getting the
banks to open up to grant commercial loans?  (The banks have to get over the
S&L scare sometime.)

Would investment in businesses pay more returns quicker than saving, i.e.,
create a broader tax base quicker than just implementing taxes on savings?

I read George Will's article, but, as usual, money matters are a real
mystery to me sometimes.  Does anyone on this list know of any real good
books on money matter for the *sigh* the beginner?

I must admit, this 'New Tax System' posting is veeeeeery interesting to me.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:40:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Maybe James Stockdale's brother Will would make a more fitting running mate
for Ross Perot.

                                        Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:16:00 EDT
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Just to clarify....

For everyone who doesn't understand the Republican Party Platform or
anything else they're harping on this political season, here's a list
of definitions for you from "The Power of Babble" by Norman Soloman.
Enjoy!

Character:      virtue ascribed to any fellow politician who's not a
                convicted felon

Jobs,jobs,jobs: carrots, carrots, carrots to dangle, dangle, dangle

Law and Order:  A call ONLY for stopping crime in the streets, not
                crime in the suites

Middle class:   an intentionally vague category that blurs all distinctions
                between households with annual incomes of $20,000-$100,000

Party Unity:    Shut up, and get on with the program

Family values:  The positive values instilled by families, but never the
                negative ones.

Special Interests:      People who give money to the opposition

The People:     Some of the people

Market Economy: An economy where profits are privatized and risks and
                losses are socialized, a.k.a. socialism for corporations

Shore up:       Bail out (as in banks, oil companies, etc...)

Crisis of Confidence:   An ominous upsurge of perceptiveness on the part of
                        the general public

God-fearing:    Knowing who's really the boss, i.e. the government

I do not mean to imply: People didn't hear what they may have thought they
                        just heard (note from Derrick: See Dan Quayle)

Clean Air:      Cleaner than alot of other air

Complex Issue:  Don't expect to make sense out of what I'm saying

Consumer Confidence:    The willingness of citizens to go deeper into debt

Serious Downturn:       Economic setbacks as described by administration
                        detractors. Not to be confused with Temporary
                        Downturn as described by supporters

A 1000 Points of Light: Lots of private efforts taking care of human needs,
                        so government can be let off the hook.

Our argument is not with the people of _______: We may have killed alot of them
                                                but that wasn't the point
                                                (note from Derrick: see Iraq,
                                                Panama, etc...)

Lynch Mob Atmosphere:   Discomforting critical attention

Enhancing the role of the individual:   Cutting the social programs so those
                                        ungrateful people can fend for
                                        themselves


Hope this gets some discussions going! =)

Derrick Field
dfield@ithaca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:17:35 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Chris Morrison claims to have a lot of respect for Jeanne Kirk-
patrick. On what basis, pray tell? Her taste in clothes? Or in
dictators, perhaps?
Michael