HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:54:10 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>they're damn ready to do so. As the recent ruling in favor of the pro choice
>demonstrators points out, the President can set any agenda he wants, but the
>courts can fight him all the way.
>
>-Dan

        The prez has the edge.  The court can't introduce bills in congress.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:28:56 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Response to Brett's question ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Thanx for responding.  I forgot to say use email if you didn't want to
post it.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:30:10 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>I get it now! Seeing as the republicans ruled over the great realignment of
>wealth in America to a small privileged few, their '96 slogan makes sense!

        Only if you consider the middle class as "a small privileged few".
:)

Brett'
(Do I have to post the numbers again?)
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 11:51:45 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: honest question seeks honest answer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>    they are, my friend. there's a lot of anger at gays out there, and
> i think it's not directed at the folks who don't flaunt it, it's aimed
> at the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" bunch.
>
>    americans are a pretty traditionalist bunch, by and large, and being
> as pushy as some gays are does not help matters. if there's obvious in-
> justice (i.e. blacks in the south during the 50's and 60's) americans
> will usually support a cause, but i don't think america as a whole sees
> obvious injustice in the ban on gays in the military.
>

Not all of the gays that are in the military right now aren't being
asked to leave.  Basically, it is those that want special
classification as being gay that are coming under criticism.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:38:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: estimating

On Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:01:00 EST Travis Kidd said:

>On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:06:03 EST K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
>> Jerry: Sir, 425000 square feet is about 5000 square yards, times
>> 8, that is about $40,000.
>Ummmm....in case nobody else noticed, 425000 sq. ft. Is 50,000 sq. yds.
>How about teaching some estimation....

But you realize that it was "Jerry" who made the mistake
not me.     :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:38:17 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>I think Bill Clinton should learn from his predecessor (GHWB) and
>redefine "unemployment."  For example, if he says that only white
>male could be considered unemployed, I bet you the rate would
>drop.
>
>--KAT

        The changes (valid, IMO) resulted in a change of only 1/10 of 1% in the
numbers.

Brett'
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 17:44:03 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 16:39:25 -0500 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

Actually "forged" is a mighty appropriate word to use regarding
Hillary's creation of concensus.

According to a PBS documentary on the backgrounds of Bush and
Clinton, Bill and Hillary determined *beforehand* what they
wanted done in education, and then Hillary was sent out to
convince everybody that it ought to be done.

She did a deal with the teachers' union to get them to accept
teacher testing by promising them they would all pass.  And
they did.  All evidence indicate that anyone who had gotten past
third grade (even in Arkansas, where it is considered "higher
education") could have passed that test.

Also, I remind you that the US spend MORE on its educational
system than any other industrialized nation, and the JAPANESE
spend the least.

More money isn't necessarily a good thing.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:05:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re:Re:Monday musings

> P.S. As Gary discovered recently, I am involved in a deeply secret
>conspiracy to overthrow Tim's regime and subject him to a biased and
>humiliating political trial. I'll try to make it a bloody and violent coup
>d'etat so that media pundits can have a ball covering it. Any person(s)

eek! how will this affect white house chef (me), wine steward (dunstan),
and asst. cook and bottle washer (kerry *not ninar kerry*)???

um, also, i'm nervous about blood and guts....i mean, i am after all, a
vegetarian and i don't want a mess in my kitchen.

>interested in subverting the phony democratical order of this list can
>apply. High posts and ample rewards will be given to fellow conspirators
>after I regain full dictatorial powers. Long live the dictatorship of the
>electronic proletariat!!!!

does this mean a change in menu? i better go get a puerto rican recipe book.
i already do a few things w/plantains......well, could be worse....could get
taken over by someone from alaska, then i'd have all those blubber dishes to
contend with, and i just don't think i could handle that w/out ample doses of
vodka and librium.

sigh.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:38:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Homosexuals in the Military

Boy - I kinda looked forward to this SJS presence back on the list...

But after glancing at that post, even if I had the endurance and
will of Val I could not begin to answer that...boy, comin close
to breaking some resolutions here..that...post.

I didn't realize you could have a flashback and _still_ mail
a message to the list.  Gotta give him credit for that accomplishment.
That alone, though.

Not to be crushed by sheer volume, I agree with nothing in his post.
And, I think I'll adopt a Jamie in lieu of further correspondence
with SJS.


-T.

The warnings weren't enough....like _Platoon_; I saw it anyway.
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 21:01:56 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        So where does that leave Ollie North, et.al.?
                                        Just Curious...
                                        Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:02:05 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Response to Brett's question ...

Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:31:25 -0400
From: The Integral Differential <DEMON%DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU@MIZZOU1.missouri.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?

I was assaulted because I was 4'10" and weighed 90 pounds, 14 years
of age, AND because I was male and they were gay, and easy prey in an
institutional setting. My attackers were older, and bigger, teens.

>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 these 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".

My age was less important than my vulnerability, size and ability to
resist, and perhaps my race, as four of the five assaulters were
black.

>Brett'

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
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 10:46:06 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Musical Presidents

>This morning's quiz for the list members is a two parter:
>1) Who was the last president of the US who was a proficient musician?

Richard Milhouse Nixon. His weapon...er, instrument of choice was the
piano.

>2) Assuming that such an inclination is not a bogus and irrelevant
>   indicator, how does this bode for the incoming administration?

Well, consider that the last president before Nixxon to be a reasonably
competent musician was Harry Truman (also a pianist); note that earlier
in the campaign both candidates were trying to appear to emulate
Harry.

Could just be pianist envy. B)

One might also note that during his inaugural festivites, George Bush
became the first presidential "air guitarist" as he pretended to play
a guitar along with Lee Atwater and a host of big name blues musicians
including BB King.

Frankly, it seemed to me an appropriate theme for the Bush administration,
as he seemed to just be going through the motions of being president while
everybody else sang the blues. B)


>     todddddddddddd

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:23:41 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Example: Virginia

>gruesome double murder here recently.  In detailing the charges against him,
>they noted "capital murder, robbery with intent to commit murder, breaking
>and entering with intent to commit murder (and here's the good part), sexual
>penetration of an _inanimate object_."

Does this mean that they don't sell inflatable sheep in Virgina?

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:01:27 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
              27 Jan 1993 13:38:45 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:38:45 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>.........  Why
>>not consider capital gains (minus the inflation part)
>>as income and tax it at the same level.  THEN, one can
>>argue for lower taxes across the board.
>
>        No argument here.  I'd be the first to cheer indexing for inflation.
>As far as any other indexing goes, do we index by income (outside of the
>gains), by size of the capital gain, or both?

I am not sure what you are saying.  *I* say that
capital gains (minus the inflation part) should be
treated (at least), and in effect taxed, exactly like
earned income.

>>--KAT
>Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:59:57 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

>>>I think the IMPORTANT point here is that second and smoking
>>>kills.
>>
>>Really?  It doesn't matter who it kills?  It doesn't matter if it only
>>kills people who get some benefit from said second-hand smoke?  It
>>doesn't matter that second hand smoke kills people who CHOOSE it?
>
>Well, let's see.  I don't want strychnine in my coffee
>because it kills.  Now, do I care who it kills: No!
>Does it matter.......: No!

We're talking about the folks who do "do want strychnine in their
coffee".  What should we do about that?  I say nothing.  KAT wants
someone to get clubbed over this.  It's a difference in values.

>>>And, for example, when in a public library, government
>>>offices, and other indoor public places, I should have the right
>>>not to be exposed to second hand smoking.
>>
>>Based on what?  What is it that justifies jailing people?  Is KAT
>>willing to swing the club himself?
>
>I am a bit unclear here as to what you mean.  Second
>hand smoke kills and I expect to be able to use
>government/public facilities without being exposed to
>it.

KAT is assuming that the lethality does not depend on exposure levels.
The 3k is overwhelmingly people who voluntarily live with smokers or
associate with them to make a buck.  Their voluntary risk has little
to do with KAT's risk.

EVERYTHING kills, so only the dead are safe.  However, few things are
dangerous enough for rational people to worry about.  We don't have
the resources to piss-away on every "risk" that gets some fool excited
and we certainly don't need to club someone for that reason.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:39:43 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
              24 Jan 1993 11:31:00 PST from <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

Dan a. n.:

Hoping Rush has the tenacity of Morton Downey?

Too late, my friend.  Rush has already outlived MD's tenure, dwarfed
his audience, and gone far beyond his scope.

Best Seller List, Baby.  NYT.  17 weeks and counting.  3 hours a day,
10 million-plus listeners.

It don't get much bigger than that.

Sorry, charlie.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:07:39 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The old side step soft shoe

Brett' clarifies for me that he is only interested in war crimes that
were committed by the US. I wish you had addressed the point I brought
up (mining the harbors in Nicarauga) when you answered. Is this a war
crime? Why or why not? How about forced internment of americans of
Japanese heritage during world war II? How about bombing runs into
countries neighboring vietnam when we were not at war with these
countries?

fred
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 15:23:06 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: Catholics in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >   it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
> > is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.
It always comes to this misrepresented argument.  My answer is simple.
'it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban
[on christianity, catholism, or any other religion] want is not toleration,
but official approval of [insert unwanted religion here].  no thanks.

> > rtf
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:45:04 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         And Iraq was, right up until the failed coup, a client of the USSR.
>bzzzt.  Sorry Brett'.  The United States 'tilted' toward Iraq virtually
>immediately.  We have been supplying Saddam with money and arms for over
>a decade.  It could also be that they receieved money/arms from the USSR
>as well.
>Jonathan

        I eagerly await the list of arms that we (the US) provided.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:21:04 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: honest question seeks honest answer

>From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>

>As Spock once told us, "Logic dictates that the needs of the many
>outweigh the needs of the few, or the one..."  While such logic may
>not be readily acceptable in American philosophy of individual
>justice...
>
>(i.e. John Rawls, Harvard professor of Philosophy-- A THEORY
>OF JUSTICE, 1971--  "each individual possesses an inviolability
>founded on justice that even the calculs of social interest as a
>whole cannot override")

Uh, I prefer Rawls' logic to Spock's, how about you? (Not that
I'm against the logic of fictional characters, or anything.)

For the sake of accuracy:

"Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice
thta even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override."

(Maybe Stan made the error of asking PS to help him look up
passages?)

>... in the military, utilitarianism is the basis of most decisions.
>We sacrifice an entire unit of men in order to protect the lives of
>the rest of the troops and preserve the MOST life.  Further (and more
>concrete) examples can be provided if one doubts my point.

A nice point.

But, there is a difference between the sorts of decisions made within
the military and the sorts of decisions made about who gets to join.
Entering the military means taking a chance that you will have to
make an enormous sacrifice. Justice (a la Rawls) requires that
decisions about entering be fair. Once entered, the arrangements
can define a peculiar sort of fairness of their own.

Of course, myself I doubt that there is much social cost to
allowing gays to join the military--certainly no one has
documented any. But even if there were, we are generally
committed to bearing such costs where individual rights
are concerned.

>Sorry.  I've never been drafted.  I do know that not registering for
>Selective Service within 30 days of your 18th birthday carries a
>heavy fine and a jail term.

Only if they catch you and then prosecute you....

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:27:18 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]
              28 Jan 1993 08:03:41 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

Only women are sidewalk counselors.  Sidewalk counselors are women
exercising the right of free speech.
Not all women are sidewalk counselors, but they all have the potential
to be [and, by the way, *not* all women have the potential to have
abortions].
Interfering with that right (even by injunction of a Federal Court)
is a restriction of their Constitutional rights under the FIRST
Amendment (more salient than the 14th).
Problem:  women-seeking-abortions versus women-exercising-right-
of-free-speech.  Who wins?

BTW, I suppose a case could be made that "womyn" are, in fact,
a "suspect" (not to say suspicious) class; but then you are arguing
on the basis of radical PC spelling, which has never been ruled upon
at all.

--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:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:30:14 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      The good old days
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Rufus, channeling both Brett' and the legendary Jay Steven Sultan says:
> "In a few months we will find that Bill isn't up to the job and long
> for a return to the good old days". (Sorry, quote isn't exact but close
> enough)
>
   the spirit is there. close enough for my taste. and somebody has
to back up brett.

> It's a good thing we allow ad honim attacks on presidents but not on
> list members. The only things I have seen presented as evidence that
> bill isn't up to the job are that he can't solve all of our problems,
> deficit, middle east, jobs, etc. TOMORROW!! Where was all the whining
> when Bush didn't balance the budget in his first four years as promised?
>
   plenty of people *did* bitch about it. pat buchanan ran on just that
platform. and i don't expect anyone to solve all the nation's problems.
i *do* expect someone who attains the presidency to have at least some
competence in (or at least exposure to) the most important things the
president does - national defense and foreign policy. i know, reagan
hadn't done much of anything in foreign policy either, but california
is pretty much a foreign country anyway, and he was replacing a person
who had demonstrated his incompetence.

> I'm sorry but half a day in office is too soon to start bitchin' about
> what hasn't been accomplished. Also, as stated in the inaugrual address,
> a great deal of what is accomplished will depend on the willingness of
> joe/jane average american to become involved and make a difference. If
> you want change work for it, don't wimper about it.
>
   let's look at what he *has* done. the transition has been slow at
best, 100 appointments out of 4000 or so, policy reversals on stuff
he was thought to feel strongly about (haitians, ethics for instance).
and if becoming "involved" means "paying more taxes" and "making a
difference" means "lowering my standard of living", i respectfully
decline.

  he also called for sacrifice. the best way we can do that is to
cut the heart out of a hell of a lot of government programs.

  if clinton wants people to do things for themselves and get involved
in things, then he should get the government out of the way and let
them do it. we don't need more government, we need less. free the
american worker and the results will astound you. and then we'll hear
the liberals bitching about the immorality of a society that makes
people rich instead of making them poor.

> fred

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU