HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:15:02 EST
From:         Christian Gillstrap <cgillstr@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Good Day Everyone :)

Here's a point for you to ponder.  This morning on CNN Headline news I was
 awoken to the fact that President Clinton was going to rely on Hilary to draw
 up a plan to revitalize the nations health care.  The report made specific that
 since she is a relative that she could not be paid (Nepotisim law passed after
 the JFK administration I suppose) So in a few words, she is doing this as a
 charitable cause.  Suspecting that President Clinton relys on the first lady to
 produce an implemantable report, how will she be held liable.  What if the
 report is not up to standards, what will the President's options be.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:37:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

Quick question to Kerry Stephenson:

Who was John Hanson?

(no - can't look it up...it's OK if you don't know off the bat -
that's what I'm trying to determine!)


Thanks


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:14:07 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: A renewal of my argument about "rightism" ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 22, 93 11:13 pm

Titivillus pisze:
>>
>> > This is for: Caius
>>
>> Mind if I step in, too?

You are welcome.
>>
>> > The Nazi's were fascist:
>> >    They were a dictatorship of the extreme right with a belligerent
>> >    nationalism, with a merging of state and business leadership.

proof attempt rejected.

>>
>> I think I disagree: Not with the statement, but with the proof.
>> Fascism, as a political movement, not only relied on nationalsm
>> (add the "i," as my modem program sucks), but on a charasmatic
>> leader, capable of inspiring the population into doing otherwise
>> unthinkable acts.

I basically agree with the role of the leader in both fascist and nazi
movements, and the unthinkable acts.


Fascism is its essence some sort of corporatism (some fixed structure of the
society; all affairs of the individuals are to be conducted by the 'guilds'
they belong to).
I don't like the idea because I like freedom very much, but fascism is not so
VICIOUS as National-Socialism of Hitler.


I think German National-Socialism and Italian Fascism are separate political
movements and should be discussed separately, although they were getting closer
and closer during WWII.

>> Dave

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:14:41 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush

Toby:

I can tell you exactly what they think of the melting pot concept.  See,
it used to be that the idea of socialization in America was to help
people to become *Americans*--people with the same goals, desires,
and values, despite their ethnic and cultural differences.  (See
early immigration.)

However, Rush and others like him are dismayed that the popular notion
in America today is that America is a terrible evil place, saved only
by the wisdom and diversity contributed to it by sub-cultures within
it.  The aim is no longer to share the ideals of a democratic republic,
but to break into hundreds, perhaps thousands of factions of ethnicity,
race, gender, etc., each convinced that theirs is better than any other
and is suppressed by shared ideals.

There is an unhealthy racism in the assumption that each group, however
defined, deserves its own representation.  "Out of Many, one" has become
"Out of one, millions and millions of competing cultures, each of which
should have its own Congressman" (see Congressional redistricting).

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:57:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

Kerry says:

>-T:
>
>Are you *seriously* suggesting that MADONNA is not influential?
>
>Have you been to a junior high school lately?

If you had read my post carefully, you would have noted that I
parodied your post.  You said that since Rush has many readers and
listeners (of his _entertainment_), he is influential on political
matters.

Since that does not follow, I attempted to demonstrate that:
Simply because many people follow Madonna's example in matters of
style, that does not mean that her _music_ is influential.

I drew a clear dinstinction between Rush's apparent mob popularity
and your (incorrect, I believe) assumption that this meant he is
influential on political matters.


And yes, being a substitute teacher for grades 6 - 12, I am
frequently in junior (and senior) high schools.  Thanks for asking.

Madonna's influence among teens is clearly waning (although since I
teach in an urban school district, and she never really has had
much success among rap fans and heavy metal fanatics, my observations
may be too parochial for such an assessment).


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:00:50 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
              28 Jan 1993 09:54:31 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:54:31 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>     Except that show where Hillary said she had forgiven him....
>>Which show was that?  What did she say that she had forgiven him for?
>
>     Barbara Walters, I believe.

and somewhere else...

>     Bill & Hillary appear on a news show.  Hillary claims to have forgiven
>Bill for alleged actions to  which Bill has never admitte, but has apologized
>for.

>     Clearly, nothing happened and Bill & Hillary were just doing a lawyer
> joke.

I have not seen or ever heard of the Barbara Walters
interview with Hillary and Bill Clinton.  I only know
of the 60 Minutes show which ran after a major sport
event.  *IF* indeed there was a Barbara Walters
interview, then I take my objections back, maybe Brett'
has a point.  On the other hand, if Brett' is wrong and
he means the same 60 Minutes show, then I must say
Brett' is hopelessly mistaken.  Bill did not answer the
specific question regarding infidelity with Ms.
Flowers.  However he admitted that they have had
difficulties in their marriage and for that Hillary
said she has forgiven him.  Brett' is simply wrong is
his interpretation.

This topic is becoming very boring very quickly.  The
next logical step would be to get exact transcripts of
the interviews.  Now that might help some others but I
doubt it would change Brett''s mind.  For, he has the
transcript of the doctored tape and he still claims
that Bill Clinton admited (on the tape) that he had an
affair with Ms. Flowers.  I saw no such thing even if
the tape was not doctored and I believed to be
authentic.

> Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:13:21 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      A bit more on Zoe Baird
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

    The fact that William Buckeley had a column that would support my
views on Zoe Baird alone might make me feel I'm wrong about this
topic, but my "whining" on the topic [or the whining of those who
suppport my views, Chris] is justified.  And I think Kerrey's tounge
in cheek (?) list of other potential nominees using Baird defenders
standards is of the "if everyone else jumped
off a building, would you" variety that we all knew since being a
child was overblown -- all things are not equal, they often are not.
This selective scapegoating must stop -- Kerrey says if I'm right
about Brown, well the way to go is to disqualify them both.  If the
process wasn't so selective and haphazard, I would be less upset, but
this is not the case.  Unless we end this selective penalizing of
people, I fail to see the justice of disqualifying Baird for the
present infraction.  The "infraction" was not taken that seriously as
one and the effect on such an essential thing as day care and
employment of immigrants make this a major mitigating factor.  I would
also like the all the citizens who wrote letters of protest to start
having so much concern on more insidious things than having affairs,
smoking pot or resisting the draft when we are college students, or
hiring illegal babysitters following questionable but still gray area
procedures.  This is what I'm most annoyed about, and this farce has
got to stop.

      -Joe
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 18:26:26 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: women seeking abortions

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>I'm just wondering....
>
>In determining "protected class" when faced with offensive behavior,
>is there any relevance to whether or not persons in the
>protected class are *engaged in* the offensive behavior?  (i.e.,
>is it necessary that the oppressive agency be comprised exclusively
>of people not included in the "noun" aspect of the protected class?)

Uh.
Come again?

I thought I understood until I read the parenthetical.

>If so, "women-seeking-abortions" can no more be a protected class
>than "women-members-of-the-press," "women-attempting-to-pray"
>[which of course, in this case, would set up a fascinating protected
>class versus protected class situation] or "women-petitioning-
>the-government-for-redress-of-grievances."

None of these is a class in the relevant sense.

Stevens and O'Connor both argued that when the action is directed
against a kind of behavior that only members of some genuinely
protected class can be expected to engage in, then it is reasonable
to infer that it is directed against that class.

I disagree with that claim.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:42:30 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: The rantings of the right-wing.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >> Let me give one example.  Clinton criticized Bush's policy
> >> of repatriating Haitians without a hearing.  He said said
> >> that he would not do the same thing.  Now he is promising
> >> that he would do exactly that.
> >There is an example.  Clinton did say early on that he would allow
> >the Haitians to stay temporarily in the US until the situation in
> >Haiti was resolved.  But, one could argue (as I am doing now), that
> >the situation in Haiti has changed.  There is a significant portion
>         Anyone with foresight could see what his statements would cause.  Now
> he has been forced to backpeddle.  Not because the "situation has changed" but
> because he changed the situation.
I disagree.  I think that it was reasonable to assume that people would make
way for our shores upon Clinton's election.  However, the stampede that
was being foretold far exceeded anything that had been imagined.

>
> >of the population who planned to leave the country in very rickety
> >boats, (yes more significant than when Bush was in office).  Since
> >these numbers have increased dramatically, it is in Clinton's best
> >interest to halt the flow.  On the other hand, he (Clinton) has engaged
>
>         In other words, to turn back the boats.
>
>         A policy he did not agree with.  Well, guess what?  That's why the US
> has been doing it for years.
For years?  Really?
>
> >in a massive diplomatic effort to restore the legitimate government
> >of President Aristide, which would halt the flow.  This is more than
> >Bush has accomplished. The lastest word shows that his diplomatic effort
>
>         Clinton has yet to accomplish it also :).
At least he is trying a diplomatic effort.  Bush just sat and watched.

> Brett'
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:SWEDE@DRYCAS>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:49:00 EST
From:         league for fighting chartered accountancy <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: bang your head
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Jimbo:
>Does anyone know Gary's phone number?  It looks like someone
>broke into his account and posted the following obvious forgery:
>>>WALES, Jimbo/LORSON, Anneliese       4 years of intermittent scandal     9
>>>AAAAAAAAAAAND, the winners, weighing in at 11 votes, in the Beer, Shoes,
>Logic,
>>>Restraint corner, are:
>>>           ****    JOHNSON, Tim/OLSON, Gary W    ****

I know his phone number - I'll call him up and tell him that someone gave
the Wales/Lorson ticket nine votes.  A preposterously high number, I agree.

Dan ATB:
>Come on.  We all know the job's not worth a bucket of warm virtual spit.

Heh...well, you get what you pay for...:)

Gary W. Olson
chair of the Council on Economic Coquettishness
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:36:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott

On Fri, 15 Jan 1993 11:53:24 -0500 KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU said:
> Hi, y'all:
> Travis wrote:
> >Actually, I believe the state has a compelling interest in stopping
> >the breakdown of the family, and with this sexual promiscuity and
> >deviance.  The state, therefore, IMO, can outlaw homosexual acts.
>
> What timing!  In this morning's paper, an article from the NYT service
> explains the Census Bureau's recent findings that poverty is a major factor
> contributing to the breakup of American families.
>
> So I suppose we ought to outlaw poverty, yes?
Perhaps.  Of course, whom would we prosecute?

> Kerry
 -Travis
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Re:Monday musings
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:16 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9301261008.AA23818@cuthbert.bashstreet>,     
    Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK> writes...
>To pass legislation in the United Kingdom
>requires the assent of all three estates of parliament (House of
>Commons, House of Lords and the Sovereign). In the early part of this
>century the elected House of commons got wee'd off with the unelected
>House of Lords blocking legislation, and presented legislation
>requiring that when any item had been presented to the House of Lords
>three times, it would be deemed approved whether the Lords had passed
>it or not. Needless to say, the Lords wouldn't approve it so, on the
>third presentation it was deemed passed and went to the soverign and
>became law (The Parliament act of 19XX). Now, how did a piece of
>legislation to take away the veto of the Lords become law when the
>Lords had vetoed it ? . . . 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the king
threatened to appoint enough peers to pass the act if the Lords wouldn't back
down, and this kind of threat became an acknowledged convention?

>Aside from that slightly self indulgent example, I have another
>question for the list. Should the United Kingdom and France pass their
>permanent membership of the security council on to, say, Japan and
>Germany ? There are those within the UK who suggest that our seat on
>the security council is an anachronistic relic of an imperial past,
>and part of the emotional baggage which encourages us to see ourselves
>as more important than we really are.                     

I think that perhaps expansion of the permanent seats, to some extent, may be a
useful short term solution, with a later decision on whether some permanents
may wish to disqualify themselves.

							Dan, ad nauseum
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 09:46:57 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The P.T. Barnum Theory
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>checker on his word processor. Maybe Brett' will provide a review for
>those of us who would rather not purchase the book.

        I finished all the (then available) Hardy Boys a long time ago. :)

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 18:41:37 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: and another thing

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>May be I missed something, but...
>
>Somebody noted that there are protected classes, which that person
>listed as race, gender, and religion.

That was me.

>Where did that come from?
>
>As I understand it, laws are (generally) held to a "reasonable
>basis" test, unless the classification in question is "suspect,"
>in which case the state must provide "compelling state interest"
>under "strict scrutiny."  These "suspect classifications" have
>been limited to race and national origin.  Gender is not among
>them, nor is religion.

Women compose a class that is protected in this sense: that
laws designed to disadvantage its members are subject to
constitutional challenge. Reed v Reed, and Mississippi
University for Women v Hogan.

I have no citation for religious belief counting similarly.
Now, come to think of it, I can't think of any relevant
case at all. So I will withdraw that one, esp. if someone
knows of a counterinstance.

Jamie
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 07:36:48 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Musical Presidents
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >2. It depends how you look at Richard Nixon...  Unlike Clinton, he
> >HAD some clue about foreign policy.  Unlike Clinton, he had the media
> >against him.  Unlike "Slick Willy" Clinton, he did not have a good
> >public image.  I honestly believe that in ability alone, Richard
> >Nixon was a great President that Bill Clinton can never compare to. . . .
>
> Read Jerry Voorhis' _The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon_ (1972).  And
> remember, this was written before Watergate.
>
>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum

   and after nixon had beaten voorhis in an election for the senate (or
was it the house of reps? i can never remember) by using some negative
advertising, all but calling voorhis a communist and suchlike. not
exactly an unbiased viewpoint . . .

rtf
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 10:43:34 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>...
>Here is my central point.  As long as public attitudes toward
>homosexuality remain what they are today, those attitudes will
>ensure a catastrophic failure of any attempt to formally introduce
>homosexuals.  When homosexuals openly enter a unit, the existing
>prejudices of the members of the unit will prevail, resulting in
>violence or a wide range of reactions, all of which will prevent the
>unit from performing its very specialized function.

        I'd have to disagree.  The same objections were raised first about
blacks, then about women.
        There is no *logical* reason to exclude gays.  They are already there,
which certainly proves that units will not implode because of any fault of the
gays.
        What does need to change, though, is the prejudices of those in the
military against homosexuals.  They only problems I see are the ones caused by
those unwilling to accept gays as equals, just like the problems with
integration and women have come from those unwilling to accept them as equals.
        If we are to accept a group of N+1 people rejecting some smaller group
because "they aren't like us" then we're back to majority suppression of
minorities.

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:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:11:45 -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

>
>> On what grounds is the War Powers Act unconstitutional? Without a ruling
>> saying such from the SC, what do you base your assertion upon? VMS
>
>What he said! (I don't really mean to piggyback on Val's post, but
>I've already deleted the original Brett' post.)

        In that it interferes with the president's CinC role.  How long would a
law that said the prez could place arbitrary limits on laws passed by congress
last?

>Besides, I thought that, for all intents and purposes, a president's
>political life is over after he runs for his second term (either way).

        Like the party would stand for him ruining it for his successor?  It's
not just his political life but each and every president after that that will
be hamstrung by a bad result.

        That's why the current compromise is being done.  Congres pretends the
WPA has real consequences and the president pretends to observe the guidelines.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:55:53 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe

> the Tower confermation [sic and sic]

  Ooh, another good example.  Steve, are you listening?
Is *this* what you meant?

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