HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:14:45 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: BUSH MUST REMAIN PRESIDENT....NOT!
              3 Nov 1992 03:16:25 GMT from <sbc3@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

From:         "(SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)" <sbc3@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>

>>> I'm just curious, where do you get your info as to how our "economy" is
>>> faring?  The media?  Tell you what, if you don't like the state of our
>>> economy,MOVE YOUR A__ to another country and see how much better off you'll
>>> be.  Now you'll probably tell me that Clinton is "OUR SAVIOR" or some other
>>> Democratic mind-altering, "INHALEABLE," crap.  Let me guess, your degree
will
>>> be or is a B.S. in Liberaology? Right?
>
>> Well, we used to have the Soviet Union to send all those complaining
>> liberals and lefties to.  That option no longer exists.  However, for
>> the religious extremists and ultra right conservatives, we still have
>> a choice.
>
>> If you like a country in which economical news is not given by the
>> press, but revealed by the president, a country where liberals are
>> dealt with in a way they "deserve," I can make a suggestion: Iran.
>
>> As always I can arrange for a passport.
>
> I suggest YOU take Jason's advice and move your ass to another country.  Then
> you will see how "bad" off we are.  Write to me when you come back.  You will
> be back, because  we are not as bad off as the rest of the world.

Considering that I think USA is the "best" country in the world, I have
no idea why the poster is asking me to move to another country.

What I HAVE been doing on this list is to spot those people who tell
others to leave this country AND AT THE SAME TIME complaining about
certain issues here, call then my "asses" (the animal that is), and invite
them to go to a country that upholds their ideals.

It seems that I have found a new ASS.  Should I arrange for a passport?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 11:10:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"

Actually what I find attractive about Hillary is her strong and forceful
persona and her intelligence.  I think she would make a great president.
I agree on the "looks" question.  She is a relatively attractive person and I
suppose physical attributes play a certain role in any political campaign.
But I think one will find that the political wastelands are littered with the
bodies of "pretty faces."  As a matter of fact there will be a few additional
types of this sort added to the ash heap of history starting this week.
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:25:43 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>--Julie, who wants Clarence Thomas impeached and Anita Hill appointed...

	On what grounds?  I think Anita is just as unqualified as Clarence.

Brett
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:06:17 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Super post!
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:24:24 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: sexual harrassment

Hi Kerry.

>Thanks, Joe, for your comments.  Let me just add a couple points in
>response to JasonZ.  Sexual harrassment is not "a few ribald remarks" (or
>whatever the precise wording was), although such remarks may constitute
>harrassment.

In my original post, I was talking specifically about Thomas.  Maybe I've
forgotten the hearings (it HAS been a while....), but I was under the
impression that all Thomas was accused of was ribald remarks (the "pubic hair
in my Coke" and "Long Dong Silver" comments being the most memorable).

I'll hapily grant that these comments are in poor taste.  And one could
reasonably argue that they disqualify Thomas for a court seat (although I
wouldn't).  Do they constitute a serious crime?  Of course not.

BTW, I know that these ribald comments are currently illegal.  That doesn't
necessarily mean that they should be.

Let me add at this point that the stereotypical case of sexual harrassment (the
boss chasing his secretary around the desk) IS serious.  However, its still not
a crime since it involves no actual force (unless the boss *does* physically
force himself upon her, in which case it is rape and already illegal).  Again,
I'll grant that threatening someone with unemployment is a grossly immoral
thing to do, but that's something that the firm itself should deal with -- not
the state.  As long as the action does not involve direct force or fraud,
the government has no business regulating it.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:41:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Calooh! Callay!

MARTIN!
now now, i know you're excited....i'm excited too. after all, the guy i voted
for actually won. unbelievable. i may start playing the lottery...
BUT ....
NO JUMPING ON THE FURNITURE! THIS IS NOT A PLAYGROUND!

:D

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:58:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: question from my 9-yr-old

Kerry:

        On December (10th, I think - not sure this year) the Electors of the
Electoral College of the United States will, after having been flown in,
accomodated, wined and dined at taxpayers' expense, march into the Senate
chamber.  There they will place their ballots in a huge, fancy mahogany box.
In short order, the ballots will be read and Bill Clinton will then OFFICIALLY
become "President-elect" Clinton (that term is incorrect prior to the vote of
the College).

        Other than that, they get a chance to see D.C., have some fun, and go
home.  They are under no legal obligation to vote the results of the popular
vote - but unless Perot comes up with a few million apiece (pocket change?!?),
Clinton will be elected.  That's about it.  Hope this clears it up for you
and your 9 year old.  (By the way - the number of electors equals the number of
members of Congress.)

-T.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:30:55 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Sanders re-elected!

And now, the important news from last Tuesday's elections. Barney Sanders,
Vermont's Representative-at-large and the only Socialist sitting in Congress
was re-elected by a significant margin!  Hopefully the U.S. will join the
rest of the world and have a significant social democratic party one day,
until then it's just Barney and his Sanderistas.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:05:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Banking, Schmanking, Wanking

Steve R.:

        Finally!  Someone on this list who knows how to spell *perq* !


-T.

ps - If you've reached the point where you go for the jugular, you really don't
ps - care how right you are.  It happens to us humans, sometimes.  %-)
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:08:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Reagan and Facts
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

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

I have no idea.  However, I do know that Larry Speakes said that if
you repeat fiction long enough it becomes fact.  (And yes I _do_ have
a source for that and if anyone desires I will post the exact quote
and reference tomorrow from home, where I have the book located).

--Julie
From: mit2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:25:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQTW2S2P9S001S63@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
>X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30347
>
>>From: "(MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)" <mit2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>
>>Subject:Poor losers!
>>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:33:07 GMT
>>Message-ID:<tfilt378672@drew.edu>
>
>>This is to all you Republican's who are crying about the ass wipping that
>>George Bush took on Nov. 3, from "Slick Willie."  I'm sick to death of your
>>whining and complaining.
>
>  What about all the whining and complaining that occurred in America
>in 1988.  I can still remmber all the complaints by the liberals.
>
>  Why don't you just let Clinton take office and do
>>his job.  Give him a chance!  If you don't, America will be in bad shape.  We
>>need unity now, and the only way to get it, is to support Clinton.
>
>  Now, I find this absolutely amazing.  Why should the Republicans
>stand behind Clinton.  The Democrats in Congress were determined to
>destory Bush in 1988 and at the same time undermine the Reagan record.
> Unless you forgot, the leader of the Democratic Party in 1988 said
>that the American people made a mistake by electing Bush, but that it
>will be okay because the Democratic Congress will take care of that
>mistake.  Furthermore, to prove the Dems disgust over Bush's victory
>in 1988, they destroyed his crime bill and refused to accept several
>other bills that Bush proposed.  So, before you start lecturing us
>Republicans, look at what your own party did 4 years ago!
>
>
>  Why can't
>>you just give it up.  Clinton will run the country the best way that he knows
>>how.  We might as well help him with it.  Whether that means that you will
>>have to swallow your pride or not.  Maybe you should follow your fearless
>>leader George Bush's example and accept defeat with dignity.
>
>  Republicans are accepting defeat with dignity, but we also realize
>the mistake that has been made.  We have no choice but to accept
>President Clinton, but we should not compromise our principles and
>beliefs just because Democrats and liberals want us to.  At this time,
>conservative and moderate Repulicans should not lose their conviction.
>
>P.S.   KEMP/BENNETT in '96
>
Let's try to live in the present!  There is no need to bring up the wrongs of
the past.  I wanted George Bush to do a good job in office, but he didn't!
That is why he only will serve for four years.  Now you should hope that
Clinton helps run the country well.   Furthermore, I personally know many
Republicans who are accepting defeat with anything but dignity.  Many
Republicans are responding to Cliton's victory with insults that are truely
not needed.  No one is asking you to compromise you principles or beliefs.
I just would like to see some unity in our country.  The only way to
accomplish this is through listening to each others ideas.  That is all that I
am asking for.

                                         Mike
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:05:08 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

>andy says:
>In article <POLITICS%92110414191503@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
>U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET (Carl A. Lahetta) says:
>>
>>   Slick Willie has won, what a blow to the Republicans!  Of course to many
>>it was no surprise, but to actually witness the event unfold on television
>>was astonishing.  In the electoral college it was a landslide, in the popular
>>vote it was damn close.  Most of all I think that the majority of people were
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Often is, Bush only won by 6% in '88, Reagan's 1980 'landslide' was a
>percentile lead of only 9%

	Most pundits consider 10% difference and at least 400 electoral votes a
"landslide".  In that vein 1980 certainly comes close, but 1992 does not.
	5% difference against a sitting president indicates dissatifaction with
the current president rather than a ringing endorsement of the challanger.
Clinton won by less than 3% in Ohio, NJ, and some other states, and actually
came in third in Utah.  (Almost third in Idaho.)

>>glad that Perot kept the race focused on issues, especially the deficit.  He
>
>not to mention his daughter's wedding. Both Clinton and Tsongas ran on highly
>comprehensive programmes in the primaries, it was Bush who relied on smears

	Don't forget Clinton's last minute smear of Tsongas in Florida that
knocked Tsongas out of the race.  (And killed any chance of Tsongas being
Clinton's running mate.)

>>was able to capture an astonishing percentage of the popular vote, a result
>>of people's dissatisfaction with both the Republicans and the Democrats.
>>   The issue of trust, character, and forthrightness did not seem to matter to
>>most voters.  As one tv commentor said "Clinton is the first draft dodger
>>elected to the high office."  A person can, and often does, have indiscretions
>
>Actually, the first draft-dodger elected to high office is J. Danforth Quayle,
>Ronald Reagan, despite being of age did not join the forces in WW2 but whether
>this is a 'dodge' can be debated

	Many post-civil war presidents were draft dodgers.  It was legal back
then to pay someone else to go in your place.

Brett'
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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:12:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      What a flat tax isn't
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30617

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>Subject:What a flat tax isn't
>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:25:42 EST
>Message-ID:<tfilt380591@drew.edu>

>From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
>
>                    GIVE US A FLAT TAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>           [stuff deleted]
>
>>Here is a fair proposal for a flat tax:
>
>>  All income up to $12,000 -             not taxed
>>  income from $12,000 to $20,000         5%
>>  income from $20,000 to $50,000         8%
>>  income from $50,000 to $75,000        12%
>>  income from $75,000 to $200,000       14%
>>  income over $200,000                  17%
>
>What exactly does Paul think the words "flat tax" mean?
>
>It is logically impossible to have a flat tax with 6 brackets.
>
>Jamie

I was implying a progressive flat tax, without any loopholes, flat tax
may not have been the proper term but you understood the point.

Paul>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:50:57 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I never stated the President must look pretty (or in this case handsome).
This comment is merely an aside to state my own opinion that Hillary and
>Chelsea are not very good-looking. In addition, Bill looks much older than
his age...perhaps it is the grey hair...
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:56:06 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!

Jamie, how's that list of yours going? :)
Rich from Stockton (CA?) wrote:
>Clinton cheated on his wife(Flowers), he cheated on his state (his promise to
>serve the full term as governor), and he cheated on his country (by illegally
>dodging the draft)  How can people of  the U.S. feel he will not cheat on them
>as well.  If people listened to the issues, which were so very important, I
> don't see how anyone could vote for Clinton.  As for him raising taxes, he is
> going to have to raise them to support his plans.  And if he doesn't get enoug
   h
> money
>for his plans, he said he would not put them into affect.  So then he will do
>nothing about those important issues.

Rich, I know Clinton ain't perfect.  But we have no evidence that he
cheated on his wife.  He claims that he sought "permission" from Arkansans
to run for president (of course, he could've been lying).  He did nothing
illegal vis-a-vis the draft.

I listened to the issues that I think are important, and Clinton/Gore are
addressing them in a far more rational manner than Bush.  As for the taxes/
programs thing -- at least Clinton has explained how he intends to operate.
I don't recall hearing much from Bush about how he'd find the money for
*his* programs.  He said "spending cuts", but never proposed much of
anything (the budgets he submitted were a little bit larger than the ones
Congress actually passed, don't forget).  And he said "tax cuts", but not
how much or for whom.

This is just my perspective, of course.  I'd be happy to discuss any of
this further :)

Kerry
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Socialism in the White House
Date: 6 Nov 1992 05:25:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:

>If anyone cares to, examine the similarities between Mr. Clinton and Francois
>Mitterand the French Socialistic leader.  It didn't work in France, Britain,
>or the ex-Soviet Union.  What makes Americans think it'll work here? 

If we had weighted suffrage, this never would have happened.







-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:34:36 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: America Has Spoken
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >That's the spirit.  Trying to bring people together huh Jayce?  Just like
> >Bush!  And the word is conscience, something you obviously don't have.
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> This is exactly what I've been talking about.  Since Jonathan has NEVER
> utilized a wrong word or spelled something incorrectly, I can accept his
> criticism.  It must be difficult to be as perfect as he is and I feel badly
> that he must put up with us imbiciles.
>                                             Jayce
>

It is difficult and you don't have to feel too badly! :-)

Jonathan

P.S. the word is imbeciles! :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:49:02 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: right v. left

JasonZ:
>By our own American use of the terms, though, Jayce was correct.  Those who
>led the coup were generally hard-core communists, which clearly corresponds to
>our left.  Yelstin is then to the right of these guys even though he's still
>left of center in an absolute sense (I saw him describe himself as a social
>democrat on Evans and Novack last year -- maybe he's changed).

I'd be interested in your comparison of hard-core communist and our "left".
I'm not suggesting you're wrong -- I'd just like some clarification.  Maybe
Val can do the same (please, Val?) from his perspective.  I've heard a
little bit about how other countries' "right/left" correspond to ours, and
I'd like to learn more.

Thanks!
Kerry
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:07:14 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.


In article <01GQZOGF64JK002YVN@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET says:
>
>I erred, please forgive me.
>
>When I claimed the B.C. was one of the more extreme examples of
>political correctness, I meant C.E. (Common Era).  I mis-typed.
>
>-Paul
Actually you meant B.C.E. (before common era). B.C.E. and C.E. have been used
by Jewish writers long before the PC fad, would you really expect Jews to refer
to a year as Anno Domini (AD) which means "in the year of our Lord" referring
of course to Jesus Christ?
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:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:01:02 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      question from my 9-yr-old
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Her first question was "what does the electoral college do when it's not an
election?"  But we rephrased it to "what do electors actually do once the
elections have been held?"

Honest -- I have no idea what these folks do.  Do they fly, on taxpayers
money, to a ritzy hotel somewhere in the middle of the country, there to
eat, drink, and cast their votes?  Do they mail ballots in?  Do they really
do *anything*?

Genuinely curious about this anachronistic event,
Kerry
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:33:25 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Steve
>Do us a favor - let us know to which posts you are replying.

I agree especially if it's one of my comments. I'd like to read it so that
I can read a comment that's right for a change instead of all these non
right comments I'm force to read. I'm sure that nobody else will mind reading
my comments again. They may even learn something from them.

---mike...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:28:01 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: veeeeeeerrry interesting...but stoopid...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

gary:
>This post collects replies to liese, fred, jayce, and t, and is not
>close captioned for the sarcasm impaired.  Read on, MacDuff.

Don't you mean differently sarcastically abled ?

Dunstan
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Majority
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:19:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Just one note:

Clinton idn't get a majority, but merely a plurality-- 43% of the vote.
50%+ would have been a majority.

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