HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:45:08 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Monday musings

>examples of US ... failure to comply with UN resolutions.....

>How about when we veto UN resolutions against
>Israel because they are our partners?

Say that again?  The US is failing to comply
with UN resolutions that have failed to become
UN resolutions?  Nice trick, that.  Personally,
I don't have any problems with it, though.
(Nor do I have any problems with citizens in
the US breaking laws which don't get passed
into law.)

                                      -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:41:57 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
              25 Jan 1993 15:03:36 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Robert & Brett':

Judging from the past, I think you are underestimating the unemployment
number.  I predict double-digits.  Low double-digits, but
double-digits nonetheless.

Want to try for the national debt?  Inflation?  Misery index?

Happy change, everybody.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:50:55 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      SAFE T DANCE
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>    On a lighter note....

>    Did everyone enjoy watching Al and Tipper trying to dance to Graceland?
> At least we know that Al is hip.  Why didn't Al and Tipper mosh at the MTV
> Ball?

Hip in a vague, yuppie style. He listens to Paul Simon and wears
Jerry Garcia ties. *YAWN* (Yes, I have _Graceland. I am thinking
of buying the _Complete Simon & Garfunkel box set. What's it to
you?)

Why didn't they mosh? Because moshing and the music that goes with
moshing are as removed from "rock" (defined as music released between
the British Invasion and the release of _Never mind the Bollocks) as
"rock" is removed from "rock & roll" (defined as music released
between "Rock around the Clock" and the arrival of the Beatles).

When a presidential ball features the Suicidal Tendencies, Megadeth
or Henry Rollins (in any way, shape or form), I'll buy invite you
over for a pizza party and blast Enya or, god help me, Kitaro.

> Carl---+

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:38:12 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Hi, Jay, and related matters :)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Welcome back, Jay.  I haven't responded point by point to your post,
because it'd be too long.  For now, let me offer the opinion of a military
guy I watched on MacNeil-Lehrer last night.  He is a 30-year Navy man,
whose service included 10 years commanding submarines.  His service was
prior to the 1982 ban (I'm not really clear on this -- I thought the ban
was an old one, but they were talking like it was something Reagan did --
any help out there?).  He stated categorically that (1) he had never
experienced and knew no one who *had* experienced any incident in which a
military action failed to take place because of the presence of homosexuals
; (2) no empirical evidence has ever been provided in support of the idea
that the presence of homosexuals would erode morale, reduce readiness, etc.
; and (3) prior to the 1982 whatever-it-was, one of his submarine crew
members was an acknowledged homosexual, and it created *no* problems.

So . . . does *anyone* know of any source (that I might be able to locate
using our wonderful library resources) that supports the allegations made
by opponents of lifting the ban?  And let's remember that "people don't
like it" doesn't work as a reason to deny someone his/her individual rights
.

And, a related question:  if Clinton issues an executive order requiring
that the military no longer ask recruits about sexual preference, would
that also apply to ROTC?

Thanks!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:45:05 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: A renewal of my argument about "rightism" ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        You're BOTH wrong... In your definitions of Facisim that is.  Facisim is
simply
 the sacrifice of the person, the individual, to the state.  While it is
true that it does take quite a charismatic person to put this across to the
public, that is not the ultimate engine of the doctrine.  Read some
Mussolini sometime, it might (although not being very palatable) shed
some light on this subject for you.
                                                                Travlr
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:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:31:24 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      the five burroughs of new york; or,
              taking a cab to your naked lunch

well, in my experience, cabs are a strange form of transportation, no
matter how you try to look at it.  medallion or no medallion, basically
you've got your 3 types of cabbies:
a) the hostile non-native speaker of english
b) the hostile native speaker of brooklynese/queens patois
c) the passive-aggressive quiet psychotic (known to industry insiders as
   "the travis bickle")

my question is, where are all the people-movers that ford and gm promised us
in those disneyland exhibits about "the City of Tomorrow"?  come to think of
it, where's *all* that stuff?  we can put a man on the moon, but we can't
make one of those cool gizmos that you just tell what you want for dinner and
then it makes it for you?  what about all that nonsense about vacuum
cleaners that run on their own?  cars that don't need drivers (or roads,
for that matter)?  self-cleaning windows?  huh?  haven't we got the right
dynamics for the new frontier?  or is it just that robert sheckley
freaked everybody out too badly with that vacuum cleaner story?

sigh.  living on the edge of the new millennium is so disillusioning.

anneliese.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:47:54 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>         Well now I think I have heard it all.  Mr. Stan Jacobs sounds as if he
 a
> ctually
>  believes that Mr. Limbaugh is the political advocate of the right wing.  He
 is
>  not, what he tells on his talk show is funny but not a good stand to support
 in
>  very few if any political forums.  Tell Mr Limbaugh to stay in showbusiness
 and
>  out of real life.
>                                 Nick Kelly

Couple of responses. Kelly's reponse "SUBJ: Re: Rush Limbaugh and STAN
JACOBS."  Read it. Rush Limbaugh has a political message that is
presented in more entertaining format than a MacNeil/Lehrer
editorial.  However,the style does not reduce the content to mere
entertainment.  People that have long protested government action by
creating anti-war, anti-government, or any other MUSIC, do not have
their entire message reduced to mere songs, do they?  Of course not.
They are seen as political messages in a different format.  The same
can be said of Rush Limbaugh.

As to the "advocate of the right wing", that must be qualified.  I
never intended to imply that Rush Limbaugh reflects the perspective
of the entire right-wing.  On the other hand, anyone who agrees with
Rush IS in the right-wing.... ("for the pursuit of liberalism is the
root of all evil" according Rush.)

I am admittedly a conservative, and am very loyal to the Republican
Party.  Yet, that *DOES NOT* mean that I support everything that Rush
Limbaugh states.  (I'm simply arguing in his defense 1> to explain
why his message is as political--and perhaps better prepared--than
most I've seen on this forum, and 2> just for the hell of it.)

    After all, I AM having "more fun than a human being should be
allowed to have..."


--Stan

P.S.  "With half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:24:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: "On Gay Rights ..."

> Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:31:25 -0400
> From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: "On Gay Rights ..."
>
>         Most experts make a distinction between gays and pedophiles.  Were you
> assualted because you were a kid or because they were gay and you were male?
>
>         Gays have had to fight the "gays are rapists" because of pedophiles
> assualting kids (the studies show that it is the age that is important to thes
e
> people, and not the sex of the victim).  If they only have access to males (eg
> priests), then it appears as if homosexuality is the "cause".
>

   A homosexual act is a homosexual act.  Besides, if gays and pedophiles are
   different then what about NAMBLA.  To NAMBLA both sex and gender are
   important.


> Brett'

Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:15:00 EST
From:         KILBURN@WVNWVSC.BITNET
Subject:      whew!

Good morning, y'all:
What an. . . um. . . interesting bunch of messages!  Welcome back, partner
(may I call you NINA now, instead of Missy J? :)).  I see you haven't lost
your touch :)

I would like to echo Ramon's message re: the abortion thing.  I, for one,
would really appreciate it if anyone who wants to discuss it (I don't)
would include the word in the subject line, for ease of deletion.  But
that's just a suggestion.

Having said that, I *would* like to find three pieces of information, and
could use some help.  First, what has happened with the number of abortions
performed annually *subsequent* to the Executive Order banning fetal tissue
research?  I think I heard that it's gone up, but that's just hearsay.
Second, does anyone have numbers on the abortion rates in Arkansas during
Clinton's governorship?  He said, on some talk show or other, that abortion
rates declined.  Third, does anyone know how/where I can find the text of
the Freedom of Choice Act?  If it was actually introduced last year, and
was given a number, I can probably get it at my library.  Otherwise, any
suggestions would be appreciated.

No, I don't want to *discuss* any of this :)

Now, if you want to talk about spotted owls . . . :)

Later, y'all
Kerry
not to be confused with Kerry
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: broader question
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:47:12 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:58:00 EDT <CLARK@EVMSVMS> said:

>But we're not talking about whether or not people should be "held to
>the laws"; we're discussing whether or not an individual who is guilty
>of a crime, AFTER they have "paid" whatever sentence the law exacts,
>should be able to be a full contributing member of society.
>
>No one (that I heard or read) _ever_ suggested that Ms Baird _not_
>be held accountable for her crime; what is at issue it whether or not
>the commission of _and_ payment for a crime should disqualify an
>applicant to high government service.
>
>If you feel that she should be fined, sentenced, etc - we are in
>agreement; whatever the law allows for a guilty plea or verdict.
>However, you cannot say that _after_ a penalty has been suffered, we
>should _continue_ to exact other forms of payment (such as appointee
>disqualification).
>
 And no one (that I heard or read -- I think :-) _ever_
 suggested that we should codify into law that whoever
 breaks the said immigration law should be additionally
 punished by being barred from holding the post of
 Attorney General.  Rather, we think that such
 violation and its surrounding circumstances could and
 should be considered when such appointments are
 considered.

 Moreover, it is the opinion of the overwhelming
 majority of the people and apparently their
 representatives that Zoe Baird, having violated
 (intentionally and knowingly I might add) a law that
 she would be in charge of enforcing, should not be
 confirmed.

 I thought our own list president made a very good
 case.  If Zoe Baird was nominated, say for Commerce
 Secretary, then I would say her violation of the
 immigration law would not have been that serious.

>-T.

 --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:07:40 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      reply to the return of kerry

I'm sure that the spelling of jezabel would be a major contention in
determining whether or not it was a negative response. The Omaha World-
Herald, (affectionally known as the Wierd Harold), from which you often
cite, went on to explain that by jezabel, Mr. Terry meant "whore", that
is, the biblical reference of a jezabel is used to refer to a whore.
Is that a possibly complimentary reference for a christian leader?
I sincerely doubt it. I wonder why you didn't include this in your
post?

fredf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:30:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: give the people what they want

On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:24:00 EDT CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET said:
>             like (pick any southern state) treat
> blacks accused of anti-white crimes (even today)?
OK, I pick Virginia.

-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:27:34 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Is it JSS? Is it KAT? No, it's Big Dave....
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >It's like removing an unknown from a math problem: you get a wrong
> >answer.

> Interesting.  And if you have more than one unknown per equation,
> you can't get an answer without removing some.  What a terrible
> fix we are in.  To follow up, then, on this very apt model for
> political behavior, this means that we can't get the right answer
> if we try to reduce govt., and we can't get any answer if we
> don't.

> A damn shame more political philosophers weren't mathematicians.
> We could have been saved a lot of fuss and bother if they had
> all just thrown up their hands and quit.

You know full well the difference between factoring out and just
ignoring, but if NEED an explaination, I'll give you one.

You don't worry me, Prez; I got a civil service job here!

> But, it gives me an idea.  I need to appoint an official unknown
> to my cabinet.  That way, if there is a coup attempt, they have
> to throw out the unknown, and if they do that, they will be wrong.

> Send your secret requests and bribes to this account to become
> Cabinet Member X - long lost brother of official chauffeur
> Speed Racer.  (Part of the perks - you get to take Army M-1,
> Dukakis' old tank, out on the track on weekends in the
> presidential demolition derby - our own way of reaching out
> to the common man.  Bush had his pork-rinds.  We have Monster
> Truck Madness Madness Madnesss, With An Echo Echo Echo.)

>                                -Da Prez

I say we pick a lurker at random. Sound OK to everyone?



Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
From: pcs$1703@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:57:36 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

For a informative view on politics listen to Rush Limbaugh on the
AM dial.



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:48:39 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Have you, Kerry?  My wife teaches in a middle school and, what do
you know, the throng of Madonna-wannabes has long since receeded.
They may still be listening to the music (although they do that in smaller
and smaller numbers- see the Billboard charts), they have moved on to
greener pastures stylewise.   Ah, but so goes a fad... First, obsessive
devotion and consumption (sound familiar to any "Ditto Heads"?), then
a gradual lessening, or even a sudden drop, in interest, until finally
the whole thing becomes sort of a dim memory.
        Now, to predict your next line of questioning: No, this is not just
wishful thinking on behalf of a frustrated liberal, and no, I am not
dismissing Rush's influence at the moment.  There will always be
conservatives, just as there will always be liberals... Just don't put
all your money on the Messiah of the moment...
        Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:34:06 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]

This whole discussion is getting bizarre.

Think about this (taking it to an even more bizarre level).

Gay rights activists (or, as one of the leaders of Queer Nation calls
them, "militant queers") make the argument that straights (or, as he
called them "breeders") are bad for society because they are violent.
This violence is evident by the way in which they react to the harmless
presence of non-breeder sexually-oriented individuals in their midst.
They harrass, intimidate, and attack.  They are violent.  They kill
people and break things.

What does an army do? It kills people and breaks things.

The same problem arises in the "women in the military" argument.  When
one group is alleged to be less compassionate, nurturing, and reasonable
than the other, it does not further the image to actually *seek to
engage in* the offensive behavior itself!

WHY would those who oppose the values held by a group--militaristic,
even "macho" values--want to JOIN that group in the first place?

IF women enter combat in numbers and successfully kill people and break
things, what do they prove?  That they hold the values they claim to
despise.

The same holds for ANY group that uses its public offices to denounce
the values of the military, yet demands the right to enter that
same military.

And we have not even *touched* upon the very high degree of *extra*
personal danger a sodomite (to be behaviorally accurate) puts him/herself
in by offering to engage in combat with a foreign enemy!  After all,
though we can certainly say that some nations (the Brits, the French,
the other "enlightened" European nations) accept this behavior as
"normal," how many of you really believe that American soldiers are
likely to be fighting Western Europeans in war?  Hands?

No.  Our far more likely adversaries tend to come from cultures in
which, if you are a heterosexual male, you will only be tortured to
the extent that you are a prisoner (bad enough).  But if you are in
any other way perceived as "different" to your captors--a woman, perhaps,
a "pervert" (make no mistake--in most Arab, Asian, African, and Southern
European nations this behavior is not only considered immoral, it is
ILLEGAL, sometimes a capital offense)--you are not just a prisoner,
you are a toy.  Cruelty knows little sympathy, and cruelty animated
by repugnance knows none at all.

And don't tell me that modern, high-tech warfare obviates the possibility
of personal contact.  We are not going to fly over Serbia and drop
bombs and leave.  We will have to go in on the ground, hand-to-hand,
face to face.  And it's just plain stupid to endanger the lives of
soldiers by sending in choice targets with them.  It's harsh, but it's
true.  War is like that.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:50:44 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Saint Richard
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >But you
> > do have to give it to RMN, foreign policy, secret wire tapping,
> >burglaries, slush funds for bribery, obstruction of justice... What a well
> >rounded guy!  We should bring him back as King...

>         Nixon's crime was not Watergate (break-in, etc.) but his attempt to
> cover it up and prevent prosecution(s).

This, as well as failure to pay taxes, etc... but Watergate coverup
was it.

>         The Repubilcan Party (elements) decided they needed to bug the Dem's
> and find out their strategy for '72. (!)

As anyone who has ever read _Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail,
1972_ by Hunter S. Thompson knows, the Dems did not have a strategy.
If they had a strategy, they wouldn't have suffered the most depressing
defeat the Dems had received in years.

According to some sources, some people were running a prostitution
ring out of (among other places) DNC headquarters. Among the , err
"specialists" involved were a number of white House secretaries and
Maurine Biner, the Girlfriend (and now wife) of John Dean.

Beats either Gennifer or Jennifer any day, doesn't it?

(unfortunately, my primary source for this has no real bibliography,
but I could do some searching into it . . .

>         As for any White House tapes...that has been done by every president
> since (at least) FDR.

I believe that.

> >>>>Unlike Clinton, he had the media against him.

> >        Ohh, poor Richard... You don't think maybe his complete distrust
> >of the democratic system (as well illustrated by his Watergate actions)
> >had something to do with his dealings with the media?

>         Nah, they hated him since after the "Checkers" speech.
> :)

> Brett'

Yeah, he sent the dog to some cubans in trade for some plumbing
work . . .  B)

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:54:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]

I won't reply to Kerry's post except to say this:

        When the topic comes around to something Val doesn't
        know anything about, he is gracious enough to either
        sit it out or admit it.  Kerry, learn something from
        Val.  Your post displays an absolute ignorance regarding
        gays and lesbians.  Fix it, or sit out.

                                :)


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