HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 20 Nov 1992 16:34:17 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: -Rich & The Clintons

>It's the 20th century and I think it's sad that there are still so many
>illiterate people.  I never said I had a problem with women out of the kitchen
>and in the boardroom.  I just think that they should be in the boardroom becaus
   e
>they belong.  Not because their husband says it's okay.  Now before you reply
>in a huff, again, I'm not saying that Hillary isn't qualified.  I'm simply
> saying that she shouldn't be sitting in on Cabinet and top secret meetings.

Well, there isn't a Cabinet yet, so you can't very well criticize Hillary for
that.  As for sitting in on transition team meetings, none of those people have
been elected to anything, except for Clinton and Gore.  Do you want the two of
them to make all the decisions on their own?

The fact is, the only difference between Hillary and any of the other people
working on the transition is that Hillary happens to be married to the
president-elect.  If she were just a colleague, you would have no problem with
it.  If you're not saying that Hillary isn't qualified (the implication being
that she *is*, then what is the problem with her role?

>-Rich

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:41:19 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Politics (yes, this is a _politics_ list)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I have a question.  What do you (anyone and everyone) suggest be done in
 Bosnia?Jonathan criticized President Bush for doing nothing.  Do you want him
 to send
in troops or what?  And what will president-elect Clinton do?  I guess that's
more than a question.  Sorry.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:06:03 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1996

>        If the deficit is *not* the President's fault, why did Bush ask for
>more money than Congress intended to spend?

With a dead-on-arrival budget, it didn't matter what the president
proposed.  However, he could use that proposal to score some political
points.

>        Why did Reagan increase the deficit from around $65 billion to what
>was it - $400 billion?

Because he got suckered on a promised spending cap.

>        Whose fault *is* the deficit?

Americans who think that they can vote themselves rich.

>(Must be those *liberals*, right? %-)  I mean, wasn't it the liberals who
>wanted to decrease taxes, decrease social spending, and increase increase
>increase military spending?  %-)  )

I don't know where Reagan/Bush fit on Clark's political spectrum, but
their dead-on-arrival budgets INCREASED, not decreased, social
spending, as did the budgets they signed.  I'll note that decreasing
tax rates don't necessarily decrease tax revenues, and didn't in 1981.
But then, since Clark doesn't care about the factual basis of his/her
arguments, why should anyone else?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:02:48 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Barbara and Hillary walked into the White House holding hands

-Rich
From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:02:48 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

>There were many people against Vietnam that did not protest against it.

So it was better that they just shut up about it, and stayed home? Was
it more patriotic of them?

>Also,
>Clinton's dodging was a "slick" whereas Quayle simply used family influence.

So using your native wit and ability is bad, where as using the stature
bestowed upon you by dumb luck is good, or at least acceptable?

>-Rich

-other Andy
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:57:31 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <POLITICS%92111716085676@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
>protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
>
>-Rich
The main difference is that Clinton did not fight a war he opposed while Reagan
and Quayle did not fight in wars they supported. Participating in a demonstatio
is a permissable exercise of free speech. There is no evidence that Clinton
"lead" such a demo, when asked, anti-War leaders in Britain couldn't even
remember who he was. Even if he had led such demos, so what, it is his
democratic right. At least he's not a hypocrite like Reagan and Quayle, urging
others to fight and die in wars while finding loopholes to escape fighting
yourself.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:11:09 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <92322.1411262893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>    There has been talk of whether Clinton is compotent to lead the Armed Forces
>  as he is a "draft dodger". Clinton used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in
> a war he opposed. Dan Quayle used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in a war
> he supported. Ronald Reagan used a legal loophole (acting in war movies, an
> "essential service") to avoid the draft in World War II yet the people
>  complaining about Clinton had no objection to Reagan's fitness to lead the
> military or send people into battle. How odd.

	The military itself made actors go into the propaganda film effort. 
It's more sensible to use them for what they do for a living (act) than to hand
them a rifle and get killed.
	Similarly people with aptitudes for flying would become pilots, etc.

	Clinton should have joined up, he would have made a great military
intelligence spokesperson.
:)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BASGD@RHODES.BITNET (GAYLA BASSHAM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Malcom X
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:39:14 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

>I saw the movie "Malcom X" this afternoon.  Without going into a "movie
>review" I will just say that I highly reccomend this film.  It provides
>a very good illustration of the life of a man whoose life affected many
>lives for better or for worse.  It's also a very enlightening set of
>commentaries on political movements and power dynamics in America.

>(I also highly reccomend _The Autobiography of Malcom X_, the book upon
>which the film was based.)

I haven't seen the movie, but I really liked the Autobiography.  I ended up
feeling much more sympathetic toward Malcolm X--in Haley's book, he comes
across as less of a hatemonger and more a human being.

I just wrote about this for our school newspaper.  Some white students think
that the whole Malcolm X thing is just about him hating whites.  But the black
students that I talked to don't care at all how he felt about white people.
Neither side understands the other at all.

I wish, though, that everyone (no matter HOW they feel about Malcolm X) would
read the Autobiography or at least do some checking into his life before they
start blasting or praising him.  One thing I noticed is that neither the white
students nor the black students had a very firm grasp on what Malcolm X's views
were (although this could be unique to Rhodes, I doubt it).

>It made me think-- something films don't do enough of these days.

>--Julie

-----Gayla (Yes, I know I haven't written a word since September, but I've been
     so busy!)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:24:59 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Reply to James Sheldon
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

> The bottom line, I think gays will end up being allowed in the military, but
> ly after they make a confidential disclosure of their status.  What they do
> f duty, and off camp will be their business.  However, any efforts to prosle
> e the lifestyle, engage in homosexual activity or recruitment, will be met w
>  punitive action.
>
> Some food for thought - Uncle Ernie

I cannot disagree with this.  However, I do not see where Clinton has
said anything about >not< stressing the issue of conduct.  I'm not sure what
you mean by "engaging in homosexual...recruitment," however.  Could you
explain?

There is a very simple rule, which during the campaign took the form of
an uncatchy slogan, that can be applied to this issue.  The rule is
"opportunity and responsibility."  Clinton seems interested in providing
gays the opportunity to serve -- that much is clear.  However, I have
heard >nothing< in any of his statements that suggests he is
uninterested in the "responsibility" end of the bargain -- i.e.,
the issue of conduct.  Also, the responsibility to know >how< the
military really works, psychologically and organizationally.

I may not be experienced in military matters but I am able to listen
to people who lay our their arguments rationally like you do.  I feel
gays should have the right to serve in the military without fear of
being kicked out if they are discovered.  However, I am also very
concerned about the issue of conduct.  This is not going to be an
easy problem to come to terms with and what I resent most is NOT
invective being hurled by hardened military men who hate gays, or
gay activists who "want what they want when they want it -- NOW" ;
what I resent is the suspicion and disrespect being shown to
Gov. Clinton by parties on both sides -- those who call him a
"waffler" and those who distrust him because he chose not to
serve in the military 20 years ago.

Clinton is showing clear signs that he is interested in coming to
a >fair< solution to this issue and is interested in negotiating
in good faith.  I very much resent the denigrating attitudes
people have shown towards him on both sides of the issue.

Coming back to your post, I find your last paragraph to be
interesting as far as what you thought the nature of the
compromise might be.  I will have to think about it some more,
but it seems a good start.

Ellen BE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:02:38 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Many people killed people in Vietnam even though they felt it was for bad
 reasons.  They felt it was their job as Americans.  When there is a war, the
 countriesare at war, not the people.  I suggest reading "All Quiet on the
 Western Front"
by Erich Maria Remarque.

-Rich
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, 21 Nov 1992 16:31:00 EST
From:         keep the aspidistra flying <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ellen:
>Barbara stood around at the White House door, chatting with reporters
>while she waited for Hillary.  IMHO, she seemed like a woman who just
>wanted to be out of the White House in the worst way.  She was friendly,
>but you could tell she just wanted OUTTA THERE!  (Can you blame her,
>really?)

That reminds me of something she said during the campaign, that it wouldn't
break her heart if George lost his re-election bid, that it might be nice
to move on.  I got the impression that the last four years had been very
wearisome for her.

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:30:10 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      virtual election

Looking back on the logs for this list so far, I came across a request for
someone to run a virtual election along the lines of a similar project on
the POLITICS list.  Well, since it was me who ran the POLITICS v election,
I hereby announce:


              THE  IRL-POL VIRTUAL ELECTION

On November 25th the good people of Ireland will vote in the 27th Dail.  You
are invited to do the same.  Using the party guides which I have already posted
make your choice between the parties.  If anyone out there wishes to canvass
for any party (a list follows), please do so.  Polling will be on the 25th of
November, for the whole day in your time zone.  A ballot paper and rules for
voting will be posted on Monday and Tuesday, a ballot paper at various stages
of Wednesday.

The parties:

Fianna Fail - The Republican Party
Fine Gael
The Labour Party
Progressive Democrats
Democratic Left
The Workers Party
The Green Party
Sinn Fein
The Christian Centrist Party

or maybe you would like to vote for an Independent of your own choice.  The
IRL-POL list will be treated as a single constituency, run on STV (to be
explained on Monday and Tuesday).



james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:39:50 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS

From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>

> There are gays in the military - that's a given.  Just as there
> are child abusers, drug users and alcoholics.  ...

No!  "Just as" women, jews, left handed, bald, etc.

That list by itself could have shown your prejudice.

> ...  As a practical matter, homosexuality is considered to be
> prejudicial to the good order and conduct of the service for a
> number of reasons:

> -  In the modern military, homosexuals have been viewed as a security
> risk, susceptible to blackmail.  The KGB often targeted homosexuals ...

That might be.  But you have to admit homosexuals are more prone
to blackmail if their status is remained illegal in the military.

> -  Another concern, and one I've witnessed first hand, is aggressive
> homosexual seduction.  ...

> That is conduct and most people including Clinton have mentioned
> that certain rules of conduct would be forcefully applied.

So much for your reasons.

> Some food for thought - Uncle Ernie

--KAT
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Wages and productivity
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:38:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Kerry -

        I don't know what you're talking about with the hand shake thing.

From what Julie and Robert and -andy have accused me of being in the past
few days, I rather thought I would have received high marks from the personal
judges on the list for my post to J.B.!

Actually, I have heard from Steve R. about this - he wrote that if I was
chiding J.B. for name-calling, I was wrong; he also said that if I meant
that J.B. should have come up with a more decent refutation, then (and I
quote) carry
 on!

And I was offering encouragement to J.B. to strengthen his posting arguments!

So, IMHO, if there's anyone trapsing down the wrong path on this one, it's
our The-One-Who-Would-Be-List-Aunt!


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:37:38 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Economic Summit?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I am a little confused.  According the papers and television, the economy is
slowly improving.  In fact an NBC news correspondent reported after the election
tht
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:22:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

In November of 1983, Reagan told a delegation of visiting Israelis
(including then Prime Minister Shamir) that he gained his understanding
and sympathy for them because he had witnessed the effects of the
Holocaust first-hand while filming the Allied liberation of the Nazi
concentration camps.  Simon Wiesenthal has reported that Reagan told
him the same story on another occasion.

The only problem with the story is that Reagan never left the US during
World War II.

What greater patriot can there be than one who retroactively volunteers
for combat duty?

Best,
Peter
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:58:16 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Was:Partisan Idiocy/Is:Has the Prez followed suit?

Clark again:
>                       I drew a clear distinction between the
>normal policy rhetoric in which all seem to love to indulge and
>the special kind of justification conservatives gleefully hide
>their motives behind.

Oh, now it's "a special kind of justification".  Too bad the
example given was wrong.

I could ask why "economic self-interest" is so much worse than the "if
you oppose this program, you favor the evil it is supposed to cure"
fallacy that "liberals" love, even when the program doesn't address
the evil, but let's stick with Clark's "[economic self-interest is
wrong]" kick.

I note that Clinton/Gore are pushing environmental issues in terms of
economic self-interest.  In that, they're using a typical "liberal"
slogal, namely "govt program <x> will save millions of dollars".
Perhaps Clark will reconcile his "liberal = good" and "economic
self-interest is bad" positions with this reality.

>I issued a challenge to all: to outline possible *self-serving*
>and/or *subjective* motives which may induce someone to fight to
>enact gun control legislation.  I believe these people are acting
>out of genuine concern for the nation's welfare.  No one has yet
>answered that challenge.  With me, Prez?

Hint: lack of response in that challenge means nothing.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Malcom X
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:48:00 GMT
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"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"bifem-L@brownvm.brown.edu",IN%"courage@vm1.nodak.edu",JULIE
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
Comments: cc: bifem-L@brownvm.brown.edu, courage@vm1.nodak.edu

I saw the movie "Malcom X" this afternoon.  Without going into a "movie
review" I will just say that I highly reccomend this film.  It provides
a very good illustration of the life of a man whoose life affected many
lives for better or for worse.  It's also a very enlightening set of
commentaries on political movements and power dynamics in America.

(I also highly reccomend _The Autobiography of Malcom X_, the book upon
which the film was based.)

It made me think-- something films don't do enough of these days.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:11:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: right v left

Well, andy, the embarassment might come first from misusing phrases - I believe
the correct target is "fish" in a barrel, not ducks; it's OK - you get used to
seeing intellectual climbers make such obvious errors when they attempt to
stretch beyond their meager vocabulary.  Stick to the one-syllables.  It almost
worked for Quayle.  :)


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:28:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

I don't know the origin of this debate or in which directionit is going but
it seems to me that one cannot count government subsidies to the individual
as part of one's income.  This is not wealth generated by labor power but\
is a contribution because one cannot, for whatever reason, fend for themselves.
So that the monetary worth of an individual should be determined on what
that person generated through their own labor power.  This would give
a researcher a more accurate feel for levels of poverty, middle-classness,
and wealthy.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU