HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:44:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Dear ZIMMER@WABASH:

There's a clear difference between an overdraft and a bounce. If you write a
check for which you do not have sufficient funds, have no way of making up the
difference, and do not inform the person to whom the check was made - it bounces
!  THAT'S a bounced check.  It is illegal to knowingly bounce checks and not
repay the difference.

Nothing remotely close to this occurred with the House bank "Scandal".

It's NOT a question of "differing terms".  That's the argument of a person
who sees they have clearly lost.


-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, 9 Nov 1992 14:08:03 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

1. Someone who is "homophobic" has a fear of homosexuals. I know of
NOONE who fits that description -- certainly not Pat Buchanan or myself
either. 2. I have given some sources of research in another post. But let me add
that Freud himself supports the notion that states that children raised in
single family or homosexual homes do not achieve psychological completeness. If
you have a problem with that, I suggest you attack the neo_freudians and not me.

3. I used the word "normal" in quotes because the word is revelent to the
person interpreting it. Therefore, if you understood English usage, you would
understand that I put "normal in quotes to show that it is NOT a statement of
supreme fact but simply an postulate. 4. Give me any quote made by Buchanan
(provided that you show some documentation and a paaragraph it was in to use
for contextual purposes) and I will attempt, to the best of my abilities, to
defend and/or explain his statement. 5. Yes, Pat more than likely also refered










to the term deviant as not following the social "norm" (notice the quotes) of
heterosexuality. Thus Pat could also have meant that homosexuals are not
following a previously recognized social "norm" (heterosexuality). Julie, you
need to understand that homosexuality DOES have many social, mental and
psychological implecations. Then, perhaps, you might understand WHY people
such as Pat make statements like this...
--Steve
From: FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:02:47 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

>If you thought that quayle "sucked", wait until Clinton and Gore start
f**king up big time.  -Jayson (I think).

Re-read my message.  I didn't say that Quayle "sucked" -- I remarked that I
thought it was amusing to see people at his rally say that he did.  I'll
keep my opinions on whether he "sucked" to myself rather than taking up
people's time on POLITICS with endless name-calling and baiting based on
my personal ideology, as a number of people seem to be doing.

-Martin
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:39:00 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

For anyone who is interested, I _do_ know of a few cases of people getting
out on "unfit to serve" classifications  _earlier_ in the war, but after too
many people tried they started to take some things less seriously.  THings
that _did_ get several people exempt were:

(a) Sleeping in a vat of green jello overnight before the physical and
    then when asked why his skin was green and wrinkled saying "I slept in
    a vat of green jello last night."
(b) Urinating on the psychiatrist's desk.
(c) One man stuffed his shorts with peanut butter.  During his phsyical he
    was inquired as to the nature of the brown substance in his shorts.  He
    scooped up a fingerful, tasted it, and proclaimed "It sure tastes like
    shit to me!"

Now I am not advocating such techniques, especially since peanut butter
will probably chafe, but I thought it was in your best interest to know.

;)

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:41:43 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

>>Why is it the right that often seems more prone to undermine democracy to
>>get their way?

>Is this just in America that we are taking or is it a more world wide view?
>If it is world wide. I'm sure we could pick out one or two cases were the left
   a
>   re equally if not more guilty. The soviet union maybe and it was the America
   n
>right that brought democracy there.
>--mike..

But if I'm not mistaken (and I certainly could be) more revolutions/coups/
takeovers/governments of the right have existed/taken place than
government/revolutions/etc of the left, exercising a strong/severe
control over democratic notions.

J.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:34:29 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"
              4 Nov 1992 10:25:12 CST from <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU>

> If Hiallary becomes President, I expect mass numbers of Americans flocking
> to Canada or other countries. Also, neither Hillary nor Chelsea even look
> very pretty.

On the other hand Jennifer is a knock out.

--KAT :-)
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:09:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: I'm going to regret this, I just know it
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Rich: We are also free to change things in this county.  Dissent should
never be silenced.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:30:11 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1996
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Feinstein was elected to the last two years of Wilson/Seymour's seat, and
will have to run again against whomever in 2 years, maybe Wilson again. VMS
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: is there anybody out there?
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:18:16 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

>i have been sending all sorts of stuff to all sorts of people with no
>reply forthcoming.  maybe you all just don't like me, or read what i write,
>but...is anything getting through?  on the off-chance that this gets anyplace,
>i will reiterate todddddddd's point to shawn that all-caps is not
>really necessary, and is basically kinda annoying.
>
>happy motoring.
>anneliese.

	I got some email note saying you were this week's victim of the random
list boycott, to show all of us what censorship is like firsthand.

	Oops, cat's out of the bag now.

Brett'
Tongue planted firmly in cheek.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Von Neumann's IQ
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:03:35 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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Kip's (was that the right name?) IQ test is similar to one posited in a
possibly apocryphal story about John Von Neumann.  He was posed the
question at a very young age.  He immediately danced up and down and gave
the right answer.  When asked how he had arrived at it, he said "Oh, it was
easy.  I simply summed up the infinite series."

Kerry
From: KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET (Kip Shaw)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: IQ (ha!)
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:23:50 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

A liberal train leaves New York at 2pm.
A conservative train leaves Indiana at 2pm.
Assume they are on a single track and moving a constant speed of 60 mph
toward each other (ie on a collision course).
Assume that the distance between NY and IN is 300 miles (for simplicity).
A media fly starts hopping from one train to the other at a greater unknown
speed, starting 2pm.
How many miles journey does the media fly undergo before joining in the
inevitable train wreck?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:19:00 EST
From:         ACLLAB <E3354012@APOLLO.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jason Euculano and Judicial History
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jayce,
    Anita Hill might not be qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but
 neitherwas Judge Thomas.  I guess that you are more into those candidates that
 are moreeasy to manipulate.
	"I guess the fiber optic cable used in the high-tech lynching was not
         strong enough"

	"Did you see any good pornos lately?"

~Stu
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:53:30 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: World View of America

In article <01GQW0TZJIG48WW8KC@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, Song Weaver
<JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> says:
>
>I'm not sure we can say much of anything about how other world
>leaders think of our own presidents.  When Reagan made his
>comments about outlawing Russia ("We begin bombing in five
>minutes") he scared the hell out of a lot of Europeans.  Bush,
>during the 1980 primaries suggested that a "limited" nuclear
>war was "winnable."  Carter, from what I have heard, was really
>liked in the mideast.  African nations absolutely hated Bush
>and Reagan, primarily because they were opposed to sanctions
>against South Africa.  Of course, the South African gov't has
>been fond of both of them.
>
>Israel, I believe, is scared of Clinton because of
>one of the members of his transition team (I forget his name)
>who, as a Carter Aide, wanted Israel to make more concessions
>than they wanted to.

Actually Israel sees Clinton as more favourable than Bush who with Baker was
becoming highly despised in Israel

>
>
>I'm interested to see more about world view of the U.S. in
>the coming months.  I think we are approaching world gov't
>on many levels, though it is hard to see what form it would
>take in the long run.  I'm sure Europe is rather pissed with
>us right now with this supposed "trade war," which I hope
>will be really short lived.  We'll see what happens.
>
>--Julie
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:37:22 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

article <1992Nov4.162213.13651@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JA
SON STEVEN EUCULANO) writes:
                                         JAYCE
>
>"CLINTON MAY HAVE WON, BUT AMERICA LOST"
>
Don't be too disouraged. The administration is not in place, and your playing
taps? Isn't this a little early for a death march? Not every moderate is a
republican...if your so worried, bury your head in the sand. REMEMBER, if your
not part of the solution, your part of the problem. Clinton is not the only
one in the country, and he won't rule your life, will he?
From: PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Allow me to explain the political correctness of A.D.

A.D. implies Christianity, which of course, as everyone knows is
politically incorrect.  It would be politically incorrect to use B.C.
and A.D. because of our non-Christian residents.

The date changing is really pathetic, and I'm sure that it is a
politically correct change.  My professor still says B.C. instead of
B.C.E., and A.D. instead of C.E., but she always writes B.C.E. and
C.E. on worksheets.  Why, I cannot say?

Besides, what the heck is the Common Era?
Why must we change the wording?

-Paul
 Politically Incorrect and proud.

P.S. Every text I have ever read placed A.D. after the year.
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: sexual harrassment
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:41:00 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

Thomas was accused of repeatedly harraing Hill not just by making
comments, but by pressuring her to go out on a date.  I think the comments
are problematic, but the pressure for a date was the really serious
thing.

--Julie
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 12:47:17 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: C.E. not B.C.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> 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
>

I really don't want to get into a discussion on religion (why am I here then?),
and I can't speak for most Jews or since I'm not an historian, Judaism.  But,
for me, a Jew, the correct terms are B.C.E. and C.E.  You can call them
whatever you like.  But I don't feel that this falls into the inclusive
category of political correctness.  I simply don't feel that Jesus should
mark the politically correct calendar that everyone uses in America Today.
You don't know when the dude was born.  Let alone the correct month, you
can't even say for certain the year within 2 or 3.  But this is a moot
argument, as everyone uses B.C. and A.D.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:43:25 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Minority President
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Greetings:  An Addendum.
>
> In order for Perot supporters to have turned the election against
> Clinton, it must be the case that the Perot election consisted of
>
>         > 63% Bush Supporters (12,000,000 votes)
>         < 37% Clinton Supporters (7,000,000 votes).
>
> This distribution (assuming that none would have voted for Perot
> anyway) would have brought the election to a virtual tie.
>
> The question is: Is there any reason to believe that the Perot
> voters had this sort of distribution?  I believe it is unlikely
> that Bush would have won by a 2-1 margin among Perot voters.
>
>                                         Richard A. Fyfe
>                                         rf35@umail.umd.edu
>
God, you guys are going on and on with this.  Exit polling clearly showed that
an EQUAL number of people who voted for Perot would have voted for Clinton and
for Bush if Perot were not running.  The end result would not have been
different.  Except for one small thing.  In Ohio, exit polling showed that
more people would have supported Bush.  That difference in a state that Clinton
barely won, would have given the state to Bush, theoretically (after all
this is still just a poll and there is a margin of err).  Even so, Clinton
still would have won dramatically, electorally.

Can we put this idiotic question to bed now?

Jonathan
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:13:05 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

>clinton may have won but america lost.

Let's extend that, the world lost because when you sleep next to an elephant
you feel every twitch.

--mike..
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:49:46 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: new tariffs

Dunstan:
I've been meaning to ask you about this stuff :)  I'd appreciate some more
detailed info, mostly because I'm abyssmally ignorant on this whole gig.

>The stakes are very high, and to my mind it is clear that the main
>culprits are the French. It is not clear whether the EC could conclude
>deal on majority voting or whether the French have a power of veto.
>The French approach to the US action is to propose EC tariffs on US
>imports - the worst possible response.

My (limited) understanding is that the U.S. has problems with French
farming subsidies (and negotiations have been going on for 5 years, if what
I heard on NPR this morning is correct).  The U.S. response, then, is
targetted only at the French.  Is that about right?

Now, if the French retaliate by proposing EC tariffs, does that mean France
imposes tariffs on goods coming into France, or do they apply to U.S. goods
imported by other countries?  (See, I don't really understand the EC thing
*at all*)  Can France imose its own tariffs?  Or does it have to be an all-
or-none kind of deal?

>I gravely fear the outcome. To my US readers, make sure your wine
>cellars are well stocked. I wouldn't try to stockpile Camambert,
>though.

Could you expand on this?  I gather you fear something more than a limited
"trade war" between the U.S. and France.  What are the potential
consequences?  And remember, keep explanations simple for us simple-minded
folks :)

Thanks!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:48:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Ever hear of a Compass?

Jayce:

        The operative point in the "Potatoe" fiasco was that Quayle was
attempting to CORRECT a young boy's already correct spelling.  That's a far
cry from misspelling something in the privacy of your own idiocy.

-T.
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:10:42 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan and ACT-UP/RI

From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>Let me first say what I think about tax-exempt status of churches:
>actually I don't tthink much about it but it seems to me that by
>accepting this handout from the government, the church will be
>influenced.

Oh yeah.  The state refrains from confiscating the church's income.  What a
"handout!"

(please note the sarcasm).

>Legally speaking, the separation of church and state (OK, Robert,
>for you it is "The Congress shall pass no law .........")
>only applies to the state and not to the church.  That is, the state
>cannot interfere with the church but the church can interfere with
>the state as much as it wants.

I'm pretty sure KAT is right on this.  If I remember right, tax exemption has
been upheld by the Supreme Court under the first amendment and the
not-for-profit argument didn't have anything to do with it.  Of course, I'll
defer this one to the Jamie, logic-and-legal czar, since I have no idea what
the name of the case was.

>--KAT

Jason
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:42:10 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

In article <01GQXFROH9N400030H@BENTLEY.BITNET>, CONWAY_O@BENTLEY.BITNET says:
>
>It's a question of degree. Obviously replacing the Electoral College with
>a Popular Vote with runoff system would be more democratic. It would
>be consistent with other countries that have elected Presidents
>
>        Okay I kinda like this only because it will help third party
>candidates
>because it will get rid of that winner-take-all system. But I still don't see
>what good it would do. Only a couple of presidents have been elected without a
>plurality of votes.

Two have been elected without a plurality (two too many, can you imagine
the outcry if that would happen today, how could Clinton govern if Bush
actually had gotten more votes) but 16 in all have been elected without a
majority. A runoff (as in France) assures that a President has majority
support of the nation, if not first preference, and makes it more difficult
for an unwanted candidate to squeak in in a three way race. Also, it would
end the argument that voting for a third or fourth party candidate is
"throwing away your vote"  since all your doing is positioning candidates
for a possible runoff, thus people would be more inclined to vote for third
and fourth party candidates, thus the system would be more inclusive.
From: UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET (Peter J. Schledorn)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: We have a winner...
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:29:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Let me be the last to congratulate the virtual administration, and
the first to blame them for the network problems that have kept me
off the list since Tuesday (thought I didn't know about that dirty
tricks team, didn't you?  Problem was, they were too tall to hide
effectively :-).

Or perhaps, since everybody else is opting for graciousness in
defeat, I should simply quote Dick Tuck: "The people have spoken,
the bastards!"

Looking forward to those menus, Linda.

Best,
Peter