HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:05:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Rush

Song Weaver writes:

>Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh is a liberal plant designed to make
>Conservatives look really silly.

Come on, Julie, do you think they NEED help in that arena?  I mean, they need
help, but not to look more silly.

Interesting thought, though - that might explain our recent Nazi wave, too!


-T.

Oh, and liked your thoughts on World Views of America!
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 07:59:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

T: Different Feinnsten.  We're talking Pennsylvania, not Califiornia.

Anyway, I was just going to note that Bob Dole is pusturing for '96...

;-)

--Julie
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:56:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>I know that my area of responsibility is 20th C America, so someone care to
>help me out on this?  My church history reads that Luther was excommunicated -
>for TRYING to reform the church.  (BTW, the next Council made about 93 of the
>95 reforms).
>
>Besides, History Czar, doesn't this constitute a reckless use of historical
>analogy (that seems to have been incorrect) - using church history (Luther)
>to make the case for love-it-or-leave-it politics?
>
        First of all you missed the point.  My point is that the
Catholic church is opposed to homosexuality, and if you don't want to
be part of that church for that reason, then do not be a member.
There is no one forcing Roman Catholicism down your throat.  The
refernce to Martin Luther had nothing to do with the point that I was
making.  There are several Catholics who are gay and don't want the
doctrine changed.  My uncle is a practicing homosexual, and a member
of the Catholic Church, and he does not believe the Church should
change just for him.  With the Catholic Church, or any religion, I
believe one should love it or leave it.  The Church has a right to do
what it likes.

        Just out of curiosity, how did you come up with the link of
Church History and love-it-or-leave it politics.  It was not my
intention, and I would like to know how you cam to such a conclusion.

        Finally, immature name calling such as History Czar only
diminshes one's arguement.  When a person cannot conduct an
intelligent conversation on a topic, that person usually results to
name calling.  Personally, I believe that name calling is used to hide
a lack of facts, or conviction.

-Paul
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:22:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

In an earlier post, I mentioned that perhaps Steve might rate hate crimes,
ignorant intolerance and racism as - what was it, "marvelous"? - since that's
how he rated Pat Buchanan.  He replies:



>From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
>Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
>Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
>
>
>No I don't rate them up there. However, please explain what all those have
>to do with Paty Buchanan.
>--Steve



Well, there you have it folks.  For all those who have read Buchanan, heard
Buchanan, watched his speech to the Convention this year, and wondered, "How
in the hell can this man have any followers when he preaches such garbage?
How can people *LIKE* this man?"  The answer lies above. Obviously, his
followers simply don't KNOW anything about him - THAT'S why they can stomach
him!  Steve proves he doesn't know, and HE likes him!  See, I told you there
was a reasonable explanation for all this!  %-@

-T.
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:15:27 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU


	Around 1989 or so, someone on Usenet posted a message with the title "I
WILL KILL PRESIDENT BUSH".  He lost his account, got grilled by the SS and
probably will be monitored until the day he dies (or Bush does).
	Yes, he said he was joking, even though the article was
quite...inflamitory.
	You'd be a lot safer joking about bombs in airports.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:24:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan

>Sarcasm is perfectly evident in spoken conversation, but its (sic) hard to
>pick up in print.
>
>
>Jason

OK before you all jump on him, let me defend the Algonquin Round Table.
(Second thought, in the spirit if the table, let's ALL jump).

My dear Jason - I should have learned from your previous posts that you are
not a "reader".  Forgive me.  Please post your telephone number; if I ever
slip into sarcasm again on the list, I will try to remember to phone you and
speak aloud that which the rest delight in reading.  Will such an accomodation
suffice?

Meantime, now look up "Parker, Dorothy" in your encyclopedia.  And enjoy.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:03:02 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"

In article <01GQZTNSACSW000YNM@stetson.bitnet>, ASTMOLLI@STETSON.BITNET says:
>
>LET JAYCE SPEAK.  FINALLY THERE IS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING
>ABOUT.  LET'S HOPE WE CAN MAKE IT THROUGH THESE FOUR MISARABLE YEARS.
>MARSHALL

Stop shouting!
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 10:34:17 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

That's my point exactly, Jimbo. Libertarians ARE economically conservative
and so is Pat Buchanan. "quasi-Nazi antics"??? What are you talking about?
Nazi's were extreme liberal socialists who were pro-abortion and pro-opression.
Buchanan is on the opposite end of the spectrum from them.
--Steve
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:00:13 GMT

In article <00963410.A38C4B40.21943@alpha.hendrix.edu> erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU writes:
>That's my point exactly, Jimbo. Libertarians ARE economically conservative
>and so is Pat Buchanan. "quasi-Nazi antics"??? What are you talking about?
>Nazi's were extreme liberal socialists who were pro-abortion and 
>pro-opression.
>Buchanan is on the opposite end of the spectrum from them.
>--Steve

Libertarians ARE economically 'conservative'.  But we are also socially
'liberal'.  See, we find that to be a more consistent position... there
doesn't (to me) seem to be any reasonable way to separate the _economic_
sphere of liberty from the _personal_ sphere.  Buchanan (and the Religious
Right in general) is inconsistent on this point.

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:50:20 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

YES YES YES!!!! What an intelligent post!!!

--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:19:22 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Acceptance Speech

Well, I've been waiting for the concession speeches
to clear the screen before making any public statement,
but Jimbo offers:

>To my public, and on behalf of my party: I accept my election as
>President of the list.

Looks like liese got the list Stockdale as a running mate.
(So Jimbo, who are you?  why are you here?)

We would like to thank our many supporters, and, should
they choose to reveal themselves, invite them to pick
a nice cozy cabinet position or ambassadorship.

In the meantime, we have formed a transition team, and
have located ex-dictator Ramon.  He is currently holed
up in the Vatican embassy and we are trying to implement
a smooth transition with the help of a few hundred watt
amplifiers and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack.

Finally, we'd like to offer our thanks to our competitors
for splitting the opposition vote.

We hereby reconfirm Jamie's position as logic czar,
and have taken under consideration pleas from Amnesty
International to pardon Missy Justice and allow her
release.  (She is currently being held in Ekaterinburg.)

Thanks again to the poll keeper, Mr. McBride, and we'd like
to remind him to pick up his post in the administration on
the way out.

Oh, one last thing.  ^ for everyone.  There's some at the
end of the post.  Help yourselves.  Your taxes are paying
for it.


                           -Mr. President

p.s.:  someone asked about pluralities and the virtual house.
       since we won the plurality on politics, we get all of
       the list electoral votes.  a landslide.  a mandate.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:22:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Days of the Week

>Okay, since someone asked:

that was me julie (linda).
thanks - jess will love that the days mean something. especially since they're
named for norse gods...this will definitely be cool in his book.
by the way, i really enjoyed the rest of your post.

-linda (raising a virtual beer on odin's day to you)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:22:04 EST
From:         "Jan." <JPERRY@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new tariffs

 Not the offical USDA stand....I do not work in this topic area and these
are my thoughts only, and any other disclaimers that you can think of.
 One thought is, if European wine and cheese, truffles and a few others things
are more expensive in the US, then American wine and cheese will be less
expensive relative to European and we will buy more American goods.  Another
thought is if we make it more expensive for Europeans to sell here it will
disrupt their side of the market enough that they will change their
demands for price supports for their farms.  Many European countries count
farmers as a national security population and actively financially support
them staying on the farm-- also the farmers are seen as caretakers of the
picturesque country-side.
--Janet, expressions are clearly my own, and not of the USDA.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:59:53 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Small things first

>up a new definition.  Medically, psychologically, sociologically - you are
>completely incorrect in your use of the word gender.  You want to continue in
>your error?  Fine.  Please don't misrepresent THIS opinion as fact, though.
>It's just wrong.

  According to my informal survey of the Brown University Biomedical
Department, it is you, and not Jamie, who is incorrect in the usage
of gender.

  According to my informal survey of the Brown University Department
of Psychology, one refers to humans and animals as being of either
the male or female sex, not gender.  However, gender is used to
describe non-sexual differences between males and females in humans
(cultural or environmental effects).

  I didn't survey any sociologists, but there does seem to be a consensus
here among professionals in the field on usage, and it doesn't seem to
coincide with yours.

  Trying to be helpful,

                              Mr. President.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:10:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: RE:Catholic Tradition

Paul:
        When you say "the Catholic Church has it (sic) right to believe
whatever it wishes, and not change because of political pressure", I
applaud you.

        For the "Church" is NOT the hierarchy of patricarchs who have assumed
power in direct contradiction to Christ's word, but the People of God.  If you
don't know that, you don't know anything about Christianity/Catholicism.

        Yes, I too believe the people of God should believe WHATEVER they wish,
and not bow to the political pressure of old men in scarlet robes in Rome.  They
don't have the authority - the people do.  Thanks for agreeing with me!!


-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 10:47:07 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: Pats & Libertarians
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Todd, HOW are the Pats self-righteous and discriminatory and HOW do they
emphasise division? Please answer these questions before making any
accusations against them.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:51:35 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Facts are stoopid things . . .

>>Isn't Reagan the one who said "facts are stupid things"?:)--andy

>Whether or not he said it, it's true, at least to the extent that
>"dumb as dirt" can make sense.  Facts, like dirt, just lie there.

He did say it.  It was a gas.  Of course, to be fair to the great
prevaricator, it was a stumble in the middle of the speech.  He was
attempting to say "Facts are *stubborn* things."

The best thing about the whole incident was that, unlike other
occasions, Reagan realized he had erred immediately.  For the next
half minute or so, he stood there with a look on his face much like
the one your dog gets when you keep tossing the ball from one hand
to the other.  Wish I had video tape.

The other reason for this relatively substance free post, is to take
the opportunity to add a new quote to my signature.  See below, for
your, er, edification.

Steve R.

"In some sense, they're wrong.  Hate isn't as effective for rightist
goals as it is for leftist goals.  That's why it's so obvious when a
rightist tries to use it.  In another sense, they're correct.  Even
ineffective hate is useful to rightists; while relatively ineffective
hind-brain appeals do lose to more effective hind-brain appeals, they
always beat fore-brain arguments."
                                      Andy Freeman

Suitable for a double acrostic.  ;-)
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:10:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>     About bounced checks:
>
>My federal credit union has a neat feature for its customers:
>Automatic Overdraft Protection.  You see, if for some reason I
>can't transfer money, or I forget - or whatever, and I write a
>check for more than the amount I have in my checking account,
>they simply cover the check. The money is called a "loan", and I
>have the option of paying it automatically from my savings, or
>paying the amount over time, with interest.
>
        My account has the same function.  But this does differ from
the House Bank.  First, no one had savings to draw from.  Secondly,
and the most important point NO ONE PAID INTEREST ON THESE LOANS.
These were interest free loans, and some representatives used this
loan free money in campaigns.
        Also, I would like to note that Barbara Boxer did not want the
disclosure of the writers of bounced checks.  Many people in America
could be arrested for doing what some of these congressmen did.
Besides, why does the House need a bank of its own, at taxpayer
expense?

        -Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:36:02 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
              5 Nov 1992 14:04:47 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>        My objection is not that Bill slept around, but that he lied about it,
> even when it was obvious that he had had an affair.

Oh really?  I think people who say they don't care if Clinton served or
not, or whether Clinton slept or not but they care whether or he lied are
not truthful to themselves.  Look, it is obvious that George Bush lied
when he said Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person for the
job and lied when he said that Thomas' race was not a factor in his
decision.  So how come we are not up and arms about those lies?  Let's
be honest, many are upset that Clinton did not serve and that he
cheated on his wife.  So let's drop this nonsense about we don't
care such and such but we care about his lying about it.

One more point, lying about what you did on the job is way more
serious than lying about your martial infidelity.  Clinton might
have lied in an attempt to preserve his marriage (none of our
business whether or not he has been fateful in the first place)
but why did Bush lie to us?

> Brett'

--KAT
From: sme3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT MATTHEW ESTRIN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:15:28 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


>HOW CAN WE SLEEP AT ALL, KNOWING THAT SLICK WILLIE AND MR. TREEHUGGER ARE SOON
>TO RESIDE IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
>
I'm sleeping rather well, thank you.  With the elimination of trickle-down
economics and the addition of environmental emphasis, I'm sure the majority of
Americans will be happy to wake up knowing that they've still got their job
and their planet.  But then, that should come as no suprise, since the
same majority of Americans knew that Clinton/Gore were the best choice for
president.

            -- Scott
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:12:16 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What a flat tax isn't

Ok, now that we've got the terminology clear:

I like the basic idea of drastically simplifying income tax. The
president and/or Congress pretend to do it every once in a while (most
recent example was Reagan), but it never gets simpler.

Perhaps Paul will approve of my idea (or really Andy Freeman's) of
eliminating income tax altogether. Instead, the fed just prints more
money. Get rid of the IRS. Save billions on collection expenses. Save
huge headaches and harassment for taxpayers (former taxpayers).
I don't know how to make it progressive. I have a couple of ideas.

Jamie
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:56:14 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)

In article <01GQYSUZJBWW8WWGO7@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,
JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver) says:
>
>Steve, Steve, Steve...
>
>You say that "women are JUST AS LIKELY TO DIE FROM ILLEGAL ABORTIONS AS THEY
>ARE FROM LEGAL ONES."  You also state that "thousands of women have suffered
>from the ill physical and psychological effects of abortion."
>
>Once again, I ask you: SHOW ME SOMETHING.  You have this Reaganesque knack
>for stating "facts" without any clear basis in reality and no proper
>references or resources to back up your claims.  Are you going to keep
>_dodging_ me on this, or are we going to see something CONCRETE.  Put
>up or shut up.
>
>--Julie

Isn't Reagan the one who said "facts are stupid things"?:)--andy
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:52:48 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)

In article <01GQXBFFUTV8002RM2@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET says:
>>
>>There is a difference between abortion by choice and forced abortion,you know
>>
>>>used abortion exclusively to kill the children of those in concentration
>>>camps.
>>>--Steve
>>
>>Yes, but they didn't consider Jews to be human so they didn't see that as
>>a problem. Abortion was banned for "aryans". Please look these things up     e
>befor
>> you go spouting off in a huff. Abortion was banned not only in Nazi Germany
>>but in Stalinist Russia and most of Eastern Europe especially Romania under
>>Ceausescu. Consider the orphanages in Romania. Also consider that the
>greatest
>>cause of death for women of childbearing age in Peru, where abortion is
>banned
>>is death due to complications from botched, backstreet abortions. This is not
>>uncommon in states which ban abortion. Women still seek them, they just are
>>more likely to die in the process.
>
>Just out of curiosity, do you support China's abortion laws?

I am in favour of choice, the Chinese government is not

>Also, would you prefer the death of all those children in Rumania, and

the children are in a living death

>should we kill all babies that will be born into horrible conditions,
>just wondering?  Those orphans in Rumania are all not there because

no, but women should not be denied contraception of forced to carry
foetuses  to term

>their mother could not have an abortion, but because Ceausescu had
>their families butchered.

As a  Romanian myself, I can attest to the hardship which the ban on abortion
caused. Though things were bad, I am unaware of families being "butchered"
please give some examples of this as a widespread phenomenon.

Most of these children were in the orphanages because they're families could
not afford to keep them. Abortion and contraception were both banned in Romania
and one of the first thing (within days of Ceascescu's overthrow) that the
new government did was legalise contraception and abortion. Most of those
children were there (and live wretched lives) as a direct result of the
abortion and contraception ban. I understand why you may dislike these facts
but please don't ignore them because they don't fit your concept of political
correctness, ignoring facts because they are inconvenient is not a good policy.