HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R3).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:55:46 PST
From:         ABE@CIS.SANTAROSA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Politics (yes, this is a _politics_ list)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

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

I would say I know as much as the average American knows about the
war going on in Bosnia(basically nothing).  All I know is that there
is a lot of hate, pain and death going on there.  And I think I heard
that this war is a clash between two religions.  Am I correct so far?
This war seems to only involve the hatred of men between men.  And I
see the women and children as innocent victims. If what I have
said is correct so far, then I would suggest this:

-Innocent women and children should be at the focus of any
 efforts/political actions taken. In my view this would involve
 evacuating them to safe ground.

-Once innocent families have been evacuated from war zones then the
 conflicts should be left to rage on until all the religous crusaders
 and war mongerers kill each other off.

Abe
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:19:51 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Flag Burning and Malcolm X

So what do flag burn banners think of the opening to "Malcolm X" where the
perimiters of an American flag burn away until an X shape is formed? Should
the opening be banned even though it is clearly an artistic and political
statement?
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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:26:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: partisan idiocy
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Linda has a good point.  I nominate Linda as 'Supreme High Matron of
the List' (well _I_ like the title :-)) and if she gets too swamped
I'll be glad to fill in for her job as 'Culinary Creationist' (or is
that a bad term?) though it will all be vegitarian.

--Julie "in the beginning, there was nothing, and then G*d created food..." W.
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, 16 Nov 1992 13:08:39 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Weapons designed for human destruction?

Jeff:

It seems that our approaches to representative government differ.

I do think that it is the responsibility of elected representatives
to make these kinds of decisions(-about the numbers and other
sundry things-).  They are the ones with congressional staffs(?) and
have a much better chance of getting information on the issues than
I am.

My responsibility with regards to government, is to vote for the candidate
who most closely represents my views and interests and then to tell
that elected official the broad values and goals I support.  It is his/her
responsibility to take these broad outlines and come up with detailed
legislation that works to the best for the state/nation/whatever.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:38:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

Julie:

        You wrote that Clinton's opposition to the war was not a "noble"
thing to do.  Do you have any idea what it was like for people back then to
oppose the American government?  Nowadays, we only have to deal with harmless
crackpots like Robert who bite off a whole lot more than they can chew.

        In May 1970, right after the Kent State tragedy, the White House encoura
ged New York construction workers to mount counter-demonstrations against anti-
war protesters.  On May 8 hardhats attacked a group of protesters near City Hall
while the police just looked on.  A few days later, Nixon met with 22 union
workers - who presented him with his own hardhat that had the inscription,
"Commander in Chief".  Nixon made sure to be taped and photographed with the
hardhat, among his loyal construction workers.

        This is hardly sufficient to describe the physical and emotional peril
one placed themselves in when protesting the war.  To stand up to a nation of
blind patriots and lead them through the din towards peace *was* a noble
effort, one that your fence-sitting argument cannot take away.  You can't have
it both ways: either it bothers you that Clinton dodged and protested or you
admire him for it.  If it's the third alternative - you really don't care, the
then cease posting on the subject.  Your Henry Clay impersonation adds not
a thing to our debate.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:39:20 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A notice ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET" at Nov 13, 92 11:46 pm

While under delusions of grandeur, MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET spewed:

| I have been a university and college teacher for 12 years now, and
| have had to fight the appalling wreckage of the television culture:
| gnat-sized attention spans, total passivity ("let you entertain me!"),
| no courageof convictions, but limitless faith in (groundless) opinion,
| stunted curiosity, and anaesthetic illiteracy.

	Hey!!1111 Whaat is you talking about, d00d??? I'm aint ill,
HEy, look it that chik. [For the humored impaired, I'm kidding]

|   But in all my experience, I have never seen the like of "Jayce".
| Perhaps it is the apparent anonymity of the screen which fuels his
| barbarian arrogance and impertinence towards his betters--by which
| I mean those who can think as well as spell, and do not view political
| discourse as a forum to work out the homicidal posturings of heavy
| metal CDs. Though I hope, against hope, that the staff of Lehigh will
| not shirk their responsibilities where this insolent pup is concerned,
| their Augean task should not fall to this list, nor to any public
| forum. Could someone kindly repost the procedures for establishing a
| "kill-file," which will automatically delete mail from undesirables?

	1) I hate to say it, but I have no idea what you are trying to
say with regards to heavy Metal CDs. Care to explain?

	2) a) Do you read this via mail, or via news (ie
bit.listserv.politics)?
	   b) If by news, which newsreader?
	   c) If by mail, which mailer do you use?

	If by news, Most newsreaders have killfile utilities. I can
help you with setting up one for most newsreaders. If by mail, the
only mailer that I know that can "kill-file" someone is elm. I can
help you with this as well. If it is some other mailer that you use,
however, I can not. Please get back to me on this.

[Posted to the list in case anyone else would like this info]

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
		       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:19:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Wages and productivity

J.B. says:

> Wages have fallen even though productivity has risen.  The surplus
> has gone into benefits which very often the government is requiring
> such as Social Security, retirement plans, medical insurance, etc.

I think there are other factors as well. 1) The overhead on
collecting and distributing these "benefits" is very high, i.e.,
the government is not very efficient. 2) The costs of complying
with increasing government regulations is higher. Today's
Washington Times has an column by economist Paul Craig Roberts
which cites a new study conducted for the Joint Economic
Committee of the Congress. It concludes that just between 1989 and '92
tax and regulatory costs per worker went from $4,000 to $5,300 while
profits per worker went from $3,000 to $600. 3) Health care and legal
costs have increased significantly. 4) Inflation.

-- David

David Clem      BITNET: $GET@PCCJES2
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:39:29 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: CE and BC

In article <01GR1HLQ8FJ0003TWH@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET says:
>
>Let me clear up this B.C. and C.E. situation.
>
>I don't understand why people are switching to the use of C.E.  It is
>useless.  You cannot tell me no other reason why C.E. is usedin place

I dont understand why people are complaining about it.

>of B.C. and A.D. because the latter represent Christianity.  There is no other
>reason.

Why should religious or Christian terms be used in a non-religious context

>
>Besides, what the heck is the Common Era (please explain this to me)

You're living in it

>and what is the difference betweem the Common Era and the Year of our
>Lord (A.D.)?

Obviously the calender is dated around the approximate bithdate of Christ
even so they were off by a few years, Christ was not born on December 25,
Year 1 (there was no year 0) so it can be argued that the BC and AD terms
should be thrown out for reasons of historical accuracy if nothing else.

In any case, the difference is one term has a religious and Christian
connotation while the other has neither.
    --andy

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:10:59 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?
 <92321.1846112893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

I would add that given Clinton's record of opposing stupid wars that cannot be
one, if Clinton were to as President lead the Armed Forces into battle, I would
, if I were a young american have more confidence in his judgement that the
conflict is a just one with an achievable goal than I would if the war were
declared by a President who had a record of supporting unjust, unwinnable
wars (Vietnam).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 02:21:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 1996

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

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

        Whose fault *is* the deficit?

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

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:26:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Opinion and fact

I know I might get scolded by an aunt or two for posting something they
feel doesn't have a *direct* relation to POLITICS - but I've had enough of
the bs from self-righteous bashers (however subtle and opaque they may
try to appear) about opinions and facts.

First, some definitions from the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
(only one at hand in this lab right now)


fact \'fakt\ *n* : a piece of information presented as having an objective
reality; an actual occurrence.

opin-ion \o-'pin-yon\ *n* : a view, judgement, or appraisal formed in the mind
about a particular matter; belief stronger than impression and less strong than
positive knowledge; OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to
dispute.


According to these definitions, I'd say my earlier example of the Vietnam War
was pretty accurate - and that was in response to (I don't know..was it -andy?
Some one who's always criticizing but never offering original arguments...yeah
andy sounds right but that fits so many on this list!) whoever it was that
said it was the first post from me they read that didn't contain *factual*
errors.  Of course, whoever wrote that really has never pointed out any
factual errors - maybe opinions with which they disagree, but no factual
errors.

When someone can't really come up with something interesting or original to
say - and when their beliefs really can't stand up to any sort of real
scrutiny - they must rely on tearing down someone else for their self-esteem.
Sad, really.


-T.

"A good way to believe in the gods we have created is to convince others of
 their existence."

        -DeMello.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:52:48 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: response to JasonZ's prime comments

This is just a little nibble out of a long ongoing debate between
JasonZ and O'Andy.

(By "that" JasonZ refers to Social Security.)
        \
         \
>Yes, but that usually isn't the main source of income for retirees.  Many of
>them live off interest on CDs or coupon bonds, which are definately NOT
>indexed and for whom inflation is a serious threat.

This may not even be particularly relevant to the debate, I didn't
exactly follow it. But, unanticipated inflation would be a threat
to those who derive their income from coupon bonds or CD's. Anticipated
inflation would not be. If inflation is anticipated, then bond interest
will reflect it. (Otherwise those who anticipate it will REALLY clean up.)

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:07:16 -0500
From:         LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afraid to use it!
              <JULIEWS@IDS.NET>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

One thing I've always said to people who wanted to outlaw flag burning
was "what if I wanted to make a documentary which was designed to show
the evils of flag-burning and had to burn a flag as an example of how
hideous a thing it is to do?"

Funny thing is, no one has ever responded... They just give me a dirty
look and change the subject.

Ah well...

--Julie
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:01:54 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <01GRAX9L8GYW008E3A@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>, DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The
Integral Differential) says:
>
>>>        Reagan is hardly a hypocrite.  The army asked him to make films.
>>>
>>>Brett'
>>
>>Oh, I see "I'm not a soldier, but I play one in films" is it?I thought it was
>>only Reagan who confused his films with reality (if you were joking, I'm     )
>sorry
>>Sylvester Stallone dodged the draft during Vietnam (he taught in a convent
>>school in Switzerland) yet he plays Rambo, a Vietnam war hero, I suppose you
>>see no hypocricy in that either?
>
>        I fail to see how you can equate serving your country as the army asks
>you with "dodging".  And who cares about Rambo?

Well it was you who equated acting in films with combat. There were many
actors during WWII who could have taken Reagan's route, instead many served
and some died. Reagan had a choice, he chose to take the dodge and stay in
Holywood.   Reagan as Clinton took a legal alternative to the draft, by
the definition we seem to be using, that is a dodge. If you want to be
strict in your usage than the people who dodged are those who fled to
Canada or tore up or ignored their draft notices, by THAT definition neither
Clinton nor Quayle is a draft dodger in the strict sense. I suggest you cant
take one definiton and apply it to Clinton and then use another definition
and use it to excuse Reagan, that is intellectually dishonest. If Clinton
dodged the draft, so did Reagan.
--andy

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:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:24:00 EST
From:         Happy Holidays from the Military-Industrial Complex
              <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: two quick points
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Robert:

I don't expect you to give any aspect of my lifestyle approval.  I
never have and never will.  However, if you make a blanket statement
about gayfolk which is blatantly false (such as your statement that
AIDS is a "gay disease") then I will challenge you on it.  It is
perfectly within your rights to think of me as a filthy, disgusting
pervert.  Just as I don't expect you to endorse me, however, I refuse
to give your views tacit approval by remaining silent.

I am by no means trying to ram anything down your throat.  I think
that is useless.  However, I refuse to have enforced heterosexuality
rammed down _my_ throat.  My decisions about my life are mine and
the way our legal system i sstructured I am punished by being who I
am.  (examples: heterosexual marraiges are recognized while same
sex ones are not, it is much more difficult for a lesbian couple to
adopt children).

We are not, as you claimed once, trying to attain "minority status"
in the eyes of the US gov't.  We're trying to stop the government
from treating us differently than everyone else because of who we
are.

Now the other thing is that whether or not you are willing to ack-
nowledge it, your words are hateful.  If I post something attacking
Christianity and all sorts of acts that Christians do and calling
the practice of Christianity something evil and henious and filthy
and immoral and deviant I am pretty much attacking Christians.
You do the same thing when you call homosexuality "filthy," a term
which is nothing more than an editorialization.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:56:53 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Michael says that "some poor kid from Indiana may very well have lost his life
in place of Danny boy."  Quayle served in the National Guard.  There was a
possibility that the Guard could be sent to Vietnam.  They were used in the
 GulfWar.  Clinton did not serve in anything,.
Secondly,  those of you who don't like the idea of Reagan making films for the
military must have forgetten what Al Gore did during Vietnam.  He was a
 journalist.  That was his service.

-Rich
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Wages and productivity
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:18:43 GMT
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

T., responding to Jason B., wrote:
>        The *problem* with your post was that I couldn't give a good god
>damn *what* you "thought" of his post - I want to see you blow his argument
>away!  It's irrelevant *what* you feel about his position - what's relevant
>is how you refute it!

Let me try to clear this up.  J.B., correct me if I get this wrong.  When J
.B. wrote that Steve R's "position sucked", he was referring to Steve's
*situation* (no raise, increased workload, strange bennies, etc.).  I know,
I had to read it twice, myself.

So j.b. was not addressing Steve's post with that remark; he was offering
sympathy.  Now why don't you two shake hands.

(How's that, linda?)
Kerry
can I be list aunt?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:37:56 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: question for the far right

>               I am thinking primarily of religious leaders who use thier
>position to force sex on minors, either of the same sex or different, or
>take advantage of people in crisis situations and engage in sexual
>contact during counseling. It seems to me that most people who are
>eventually prosecuted for crimes of this nature have a long history of
>this behavior prior to prosecution with the usual course of action
>being to send the person to another community in the same position of
>trust. Why doesn't the religious right prosecute these people with
>the same level of enthusiasm used to go after "pornographers" and
>abortionists?

Why do they have any obligation to go after an evil that Fred wants
them to go after instead of one they want to go after?  If Fred is
paying them and they're not doing the job he wants them to do, he can
fire them.  If they're on their own, why should they sacrifice their
political interests to satisfy Fred's concerns?

Someone else might point out that going after people who break
existing laws is just as much Fred's responsibility as anyone else's.
(Unless Fred wants to claim that child molesting is okay, then he's
being just as inconsistent as others who go after a pet evil and don't
play junior detective.)  The fact that some people think that there
are "evils" not addressed by law doesn't change that, especially since
they're pushing to have said law changed and aren't acting as
prosecutors.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU