HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:24:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gender and Sex
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

>
>Julie:
>
>Thanks for you reply - and I agree.
>
>        The institution for which I work is a leader in [sex] [gender] re-
>
>assignment surgery - it's the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, VA.
>
>Wasn't sure if you knew; would be glad to pass on any info you might want.
>
>Take care -
>
>-T.

Info?  Yeah, tell me if there is any insurance that covers SRS, or
even the medication!

Even if I could afford health insurance (which I can not, being
unemployed and independent) almost all expressly forbid use of
insurance to pursue Sex Reassignment Surgery, even regarding hormonal
treatments.  It's not considered a legitimate disorder.

Argh.

--Julie, who hopes Clinton can do something about health care since
she hasn't seen a doctor or a dentist in over two years
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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:57:01 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Small business and Clinton's mandate

--mike:
>Can someone tell me how the president-elect iqs going to prevent small business
>in America from flipping over dead. His taxes proposals and busines mandate.
>will reduce business profits by 54%. Small business is the foundation of the
>american economy.  (stuff deleted)

I'd be interested in knowing where you found the 54% figure.  I seem to
recall, from various documents, speeches, debates, etc., that Clinton is
fairly cognizant of the importance of small business.  If I remember
correctly, small businesses will, under his plans, be exempt from some of
the policies that will affect larger businesses (I'll see if I can find
which -- I'm thinking of the retraining "tax" and health insurance; they
were also exempt from the failed family and medical leave act).  Moreover,
he offers a combination of capital gains exemptions and investment tax
credits to stimulate investment, and also tax credits for business
expansion.  These would certainly help small businesses.

Of course, I'm no economist.  So fire away :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:34:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject: re: T's libelous rantings

Robert:


        KAT was referring to YOU when she mentioned that most would have
apologized.


        We still haven't seen it.



-T.
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:28:10 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

Jayce:

I do agree with you that firearms shouldn't be outlawed, though probably
not for the same reasons that you do.

I do think that we should have the right to have weapons of defense and
sport(hunting), but I think that it is perfectly reasonable to see
firearms banned from non-military-types if they are primarily weapons
designed for human destruction.

j.b.
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Potatoe
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:17:56 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

Jayce this is a perfect example of the double-mindedness of many who attack
the Republicans. Bravo!
--Steve
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 12:28:56 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: right v left

JasonZ:
>Sure.  The way I was taught, the left-right spectrum runs like this:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|           |            |          |                              |
>Communism  Socialism   Democrats  Republicans                    Nazism
>
>Using this traditional spectrum, the hard core communists wind up on the far
>left.  Of course, that is not to imply that all those who are left of center
>are communists!

OK for starters.  Now, what characteristics determine placement along that
spectrum?  That's what I'm really trying to figure out.  Clearly we can
identify (at a minimum) social, economic, and political characteristics
that differ among the structures above.  Which dominate placement?

For example: communism as practiced in both the XUSSR and China seems (to
this ignoramus here) to involve totalitarianism (no dissent allowed and so
forth) and government control of the economy.  Democrats are surely not
more totalitarian than Republicans; I don't know what the relationship
would be in theory (does either party stand for greater individual freedom
than the other?).  On the other hand, I can see that Democrats seem to
advocate more government involvement with the economy than the Republicans
do.  So in that sense, maybe the placement above is correct.

I hope that makes my question more coherent :)  And thanks!
Kerry
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Robert's Religious Fervor
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:56:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"

Sorry, folks - the stuff we have been going 'round with does NOT belong on this
list - you're right.  It started out about abortion, and how religious beliefs
govern legislation - but it has detriorated into a petty argument over faith.

That's not something I care to argue - nor try to shoot down.  I feel sorry for
people who have these heavy blinders on, these words and laws and Dos & Don'ts
- but I won't attempt to "convince" or offer my own beliefs as FACTS.  That's
the main reason I left organized religion - I won't do it and won't have it
done to me.

Sorry, Robert, try to convince someone else of your pos
                                                        ition.  Not me, pal.


-T

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

                -DeMello.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: sexual harrassment - response to JasonZ
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:48:22 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:
I probably should've sent this private, but I lost Jason's address :(.
Jason, thanks for the response.  If I'm reading you correctly, we hold very
similar views about the "wrongness" of sexual harrassment.  We disagree
about how those wrongs should be addressed (I want legal and gov't
involvement; you think the gov't shouldn't be involved).  Is that about
right?

Some of our new members may wish to take note of the fact that JasonZ and I
disagree on a lot of things, and neither is likely to convince the other to
change his/her mind.  We do take the time to explain our views, rather than
calling each other names.

End of homily for the day :)

When does the virtual beer countdown begin?
Kerry
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:32:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I see no reason for anyone's termns
I see no reason for anyone's term to be limited except through the power of the
 vote.  However, if it is limited for the President I think it should be limited
 for COngress as well.

--Julie
From: CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU (VALENTINE M. SMITH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: term limits
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:54:51 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

It is my understanding that all 14 term limit proposals voted on passed. VMS
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:49:38 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 1996

I can respect conservatives like William F Buckley or even Evans and Novack,
 but Limbaugh is nothing but a right wind Gonzo journalist, he has no respect
and no journalistic standards. He's a sensationalist thug who abuses his
"victims" and has no respect or capability for reasoned argument.

Seeing him as some sort of rightwing leader is like preferring the
New York Post over the National Review.
From: ACCNEWS@HOFSTRA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: MEDIA WON
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:40:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Original-To:  POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET

From: accgat@hofstra.bitnet (Garen Tchopourian)
Subject: MEDIA WON

Hey guys,
   may be you can answer this. How come suddenly the economy is getting better
in the past few dates (according to the media). And the Unemployment lines
,too ?  Let me tell you this : MEDIA BEAT BUSH NOT CLINTON.

                                                            - GAREN
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, 9 Nov 1992 09:34:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Churches and Tax Exempt Status
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Rick-- Please DO post the tax laws.  I'm very interested.

Another thing-- I actually may look this up today when I get to
campus if I have a chance between schoolwork-- but I am curious
about something:  Is federal income tax legal?  I was listening
to a talk show a few months ago which talked about the taxax code
and questioned the Federal Government's right to levy taxes on
personal income-- the idea was that PROFITS are taxable, but not
income.  This is a relatively new area for me, so I am wondering
if people have studied this issue before.  I should explain that
my primary areas of "expertise" in politics are ativism, AIDS and
abortion, so if you're going to post something really technical
I might grill you on definitions, not because I am attempting to
challenge you (though I am not going to rule that possibility
out ;-)) but more so because I am trying to understand.

Thanks,

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:10:31 EST
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      lets see a show of hands...

anyone who thinks that "Jayce" and "steve" are the same
person, wave your hand so i can count you.

jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 10:01:28 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Arizona Election Central Reporting
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

News from Arizona:

Last word I have is Clinton 38%, Bush 37%, Perot 32%.  I'm not sure
they've offically called it yet.

A number of ballot propositions out here and thought you might be interested.

        Martin Luther King Holiday                 -  PASSED

        Term Limits on elected officials           -  PASSED

        Abortion ban (except for rape,
         incest, or to save woman's life)          -  FAILED (by wide margin)

        Ban on steel traps to catch animals        -  FAILED

        Pay raise for elected state officials      -  FAILED

Incumbent congressman Jay Rhodes (son of former long-time congressman
John Rhodes) was defeated.  Jay had 32 overdrafts at the house bank.

Doug Wead, running for a new Arizona congressional seat, was defeated.  Wead
had appeared 85 times on the PTL club with Jim Bakker, but during the campaign
said he didn't really know him that well.

Arizona is kind of in a state of shock this morning, since it has always been
pictured as a highly conservative and Republican state.  Clinton might take
the state, Rhodes and Wead (both Republicans) defeated, and the abortion ban
losing by a wide margin.

A beautiful day today in Arizona!!!

                                             ---roger
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:16:07 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      You're no fun anymore.

Uggh!  After wading through 400+ messages, few of which really interested
me, I've confirmed what I'd thought I'd do.  I'm going to go Nomail for
a week or so, and then check back.
  This seems kind of strange, as a thread I started seems to be finally picking
up A LOT of messages.  However, my simple message of joy and happiness seems
to have been perverted by the new addition of the rabid right, which is making
even Robert look kind of rational.
   Well -- maybe things will cool down in a few weeks and I'll be back again.
In the time I'm off, you can write me at IN%"FOXML@RHODES.BITNET", should you
want to.

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:57:59 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Proposed policies from the new History Czar
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Mike:
[flipping loads deleted]
>        Second, some particular policies.  For 'Liese's benefit, all list
>members ought to be restricted to a limit of one historical reference to the
>Civil War (War Between the States, War for Southern Independence, War of
>Northern Aggression, etc.) per year.  In addition, anyone who attempts to argu

Erm, that's not the only Civil war the World has seen. We had ours a
couple of hundred years earlier.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:50:08 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Please, this stuff is old. Spare us! Gennifer and Anita need to remain in
the history books and go down as media embarrassments.
--Steve
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:54:32 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Saddam Hussein & his little PARTY
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Just remember who built Iran's arsenal enough that it could get to
>this point in the first place.  Before you blame Clinton for the problem
>look at the source.
>--Julie

	The principle armorers of Iraq (I assume that was a typo above) were:
The Soviet Union (most of their air force, almost all of their armored
vehicles, all of their small arms, scuds), France (the rest of their air
force, their nuclear power plants), and China (armored vehicles, scuds).

	Bush's mistake was continuing to give them the carrot (easy loans) even
though the evidence pointed to Iraq's growing threat in the region.  But then
Bush has always had a myopic view where religion is concerned.

Brett'
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:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:12:54 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Deleted Emails

KAT:
>Say the trains are 300mi apart and they travel at 50 mi/hour.  Say
>the fly travels at 100 mi/hr.  It takes 3 hours for the trains to
>collide during which the fly is travelling at 100 mi/hr.  That
>gives us 300 mile traveling distance for the fly.  See, it didn't
>take von-KAT or an infinite series to solve this problem.

I think that was the point of the Von Neumann story.  A reasonably
competent individual can figure the problem out as you did (I had to be
given hints first :)).  In theory, Von Neumann was so brilliant, even as a
child, that he could do it the hard way faster than the rest of us can do
it the easy way.

But I still like my "never" answer best :)

Kerry
From: sme3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT MATTHEW ESTRIN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:02:28 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
>>nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>>
>>THAT was entirely inappropriate, Jayce, and illustrates your total intolerance
>>and immaturity.  This list is not for flaming -- it's for the exchange of
>>ideas.
>>
> THANK YOU FOR TELLING JAYCE HOW HE MAY EXPRESS HIS OPINION, DADDY
>
WHAT somebody says is perfectly legitimate.  HOW it is said is not.  There are
standards in this country of what is morally acceptable and what isn't.  Maybe
you think, since the country elected Clinton (who doesn't exactly have a
clean record for morality), that morality no longer exists, and that "Anything
Goes".

I know that I'm not in charge of this message system, but there are some
things which are generally considered inappropriate to say in public.  And the
message which originated this whole thing is generally considered
inappropriate to say in public.

Obligatory Political Statement: Now thathere's going to be a president that
agrees with Congress, and vice versa, maybe we'll get something done in this
country.  We won't have this Republican-Democratic gridlock ("gridlock"... you
like that word, don't you Stockdale?)

                -- Scott

                
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:30:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: sexual harrassment
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Jayce writes (about Clarence Thomas):

>Can you imagine the nerve of that guy?  He asked her out for a date a couple
>of times.  I vote for castration, how about the rest of you?

Jayce:

You don't seem to understand the issue at hand.  As an EMPLOYER,
Thomas had no right to use his power over Hill in order to obtain
dates from her.  That is a form of abuse, and one which should not be
tolerated by our legal system.

When I am at work, I make a specific effort to keep my personal life
out of my job.  What I do outside of work is seperate and I find it
very intrusive when someone decides that they have a right to use the
workplace environment as an excuse for hitting on me.  It is one thing
if someone feeels I am attractive, because that can not be controlled,
but for someone to utilize a position of power in order to treat me as
if they have a right to some sort of sexual gratification from me then
there is something immensely wrong with that action.

--Julie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:39:19 GMT


Jonathan Fisher writes:
>> As a Bush supporter I have something to say...BNill Clinton will ultimately
>> ruin our country's economy.
>>
>> --Steve
>>
>I guess that you are more of an expert on the economy than the 550 economists
>and 10 nobel prize winners who endorsed Clinton's plan.

This is little more than ad hominem, from either side.  Simply _saying_
that Bill Clinton will ruin the economy is insufficient; one must give
reasons.

Similarly, simply _saying_ that 550 economists and 10 Nobel Prize winners
'endorsed' Clinton's plan is insufficient; one must explain what reasons
we have (a) to trust those economists or (b) why we should agree with
their conclusions.  

Wouldn't it be more productive in this forum to actually get into the
_reasons_, the _arguments_ that both sides can give?  WHY and HOW will
Clinton wreck the economy?  WHY and HOW will Clinton *not* wreck the
economy.

No one is persuaded by bald assertions; many may be persuaded by
calm reasoning.

--Jimbo, list president
 

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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:01:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      RE:Catholic Tradition
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Mike:

        Have you been paying attention.  The topic was about the
Catholic Church and it's involvement in politics.  The conversation
has been going on for the past week.

        Furthermore, it was my point from the beginning that people
should stay out the Church's business.  I was the one who was saying
that the Catholic Church has it right to believe whatever it wishes,
and not change because of political pressure.

-Paul

P.S.  Catholics were not suppose to eat meat on Friday's years ago,
but the Church permits it today.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU