HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:21:19 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Minority President?

In article <01GQVAT6R8OM9OEM6D@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>, MIKE
<8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA> says:
>
>>A possible solution to this problem is to a)scrap the electoral college
>b) institute a system where the candidate who gets 50% of the votes plus one
>wins, in no candidate does that on the first ballot, have a run of two weeks
>later between the top two candidates.
>
>It's a good idea considering the fact that it will keep more republicans
>in the whitehouse. The democrates have a had enough time getting their
>people to the polling booths for one election. You could almost go and say
>that a democrate victory depends on the weather.
>
>Sounds kind of costly too.
>
>--mike.....
>
>p.s. could you put a name to you comments?   thanks

it's andy. Democracy costs money. Dictatorships are cheaper but more people
get shot.

Anyway, if you don't want to go to the expense of a second vote you could
introduce a transferable ballot system where (for President and Veep anyway)
people list there first and second choices (possibly more) If no one wins on
the first count all but the top two candidates are dropped and the second
choices of those who voted for the dropped candidates are counted and applied
to the count. The problem is the people whose second choice is not one of the
top candidate loses out (unless you want to count third choices etc) but
at least it insures that the winner has some sort of majority support.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mit2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Poor losers!
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:12:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <0096333C.501F95E0.20896@alpha.hendrix.edu>, erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.E
DU writes:
>America will be in WORSE shape when Clinton enters office. I'm not whining
>about his victory. I'm terrified of how his plans will utterly destroy the
>economic fabric of our coutnry. Yes, Clinton WILL "run the country the best
>way he knows how" . . . he'll run it into the ground. Pride? No, no pride here.
>I didn't like Bush as much as others. But I know that our country would have
>fared far better under his guidence than under the depraved policies of Clinton
.
>We'll see what you have to say come '96...
>--Steve
>
Steve,

You don't know shit!  Unless you can forsee the future, you don't know whether
or not America will be in better or worse shape with Bill Clinton.  You may
think America will be in worse shape, but you can't be sure.  If you don't
give him a chance, Clinton will have a tough time running the country.  It is
time to face reality.  George is gone!  Live in the present.  It doesn't do any
good to degrade Clinton now.

                                        Mike

                                        
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:36:26 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Father Time
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

When someone taking a survey wants to know my SAT scores, I know I must be
getting old (I guess I am, actually).  As I read on one of the nets in the
past few days:  "My hairline is in recession, my waistline is in inflation,
and as a whole I'm in a depression."
                                              ---roger

Maybe I'm not actually that old, just older than most on this list.
By the way -linda....since tomorrow is a holiday, are virtual beers on
tap for tonight?
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:34:04 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: right v. left

>From: Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

>Jayce says that "they are 'opposite' us" reffering to the former Soviet
>Union and right vs. left wing.

>Simply put, that is an extreme oversimplification.

Maybe.  If you're one of those people who thinks that the "right" denotes the
status quo while the "left" denotes change, then indeed it was the "right"
which attempted Gorbachev's ouster.  Of course, this is not what American's
generally mean by "right" and "left," but I *think* that's the reasoning of
journalists who apply those terms to the various factions in the USSR.

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).

Of course, no intelligent person's ideology is really accurately described by
one of two one-word terms.  So yes, "right" and "left" are simplifications.
However, they're still usefull in giving less-informed readers a rough idea of
where these people fall on the political map.

>I posted something
>a couple days ago about how the terms "right" and "left" are losing
>meaning on a world scale.

I missed this post, but it seems to be a somewhat accurate observation.

>To simply say that the Soviet Union is
>"opposite" from us seems quite foolish to me, and I question the common
>sense (or the honesty-- I am not sure which is the problem) of any
>individual who would make such a statement

Geeze!  The guy was just asking a question.  His basic claim never hinged on
the exact word "opposite."  He was simplifying to make his point more
clearly, as I think everyone else probably realized.  Even though your
simplification point is accurate, it shows weakness on your part that you feel
you have to attack the guy personally to "win" an argument.  Personal attacks
might persuade someone like T, but most of the rest of us find this
distasteful.

>--Julie

Jason
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:34:12 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan

>From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>Steve:

>        homophobia is not something one recognizes about themselves - in
>fact, denial is a major symptom in one who's already shown tendencies towards
>it.  I'd watch out if I were you.

What a great argument!  I can't believe someone hasn't come up with this
before!  Oh.  Wait a minute.  I think I found one....

Joe Liberal: "No, Senator McCarthy, I'm not a member of the Communist Party."

Joe McCarthy: "Aha!  You're denying it!  This proves that you're a commie rat
               who's lying to save his own butt!"

You really should have given McCarthy credit for this line of argument.  I'd
hate to have to call you intellectually dishonest *and* a plagarist.

>-T.

Jason
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, 4 Nov 1992 12:06:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Gag Rule Overtunred (was: Back in the real world)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Regarding the gag rule:

The court struck it down because it required "discussion" or something
bizarre like that.  I was kinda surprised because I'd never heard of that
being the basis for a rejection before.  Anyone else make sense out of it?

--Julie, who is glad RI's Bruce Sundlun is fighting the gag rule, even if
         she didn't vote for him.  (If I'd thought his opponent had a chance
         I would've voted for him.  I went independent instead).
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, 13 Nov 1992 11:44:06 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: American Medical Assoc.
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Recently the Catholic church found itself arguing for abortion.

        A women was declared brain dead, but she was 12 weeks pregnant.
Doctors are keeping her on machines because the fetus is still doing ok.

        But the church is arguing that "dead is dead" and that god must want
the fetus, too.

        Very strange.

Brett'
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"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"pkassover@ccnode.colorado.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:08:00 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
Comments: cc: pkassover@ccnode.colorado.edu

>
>I have obviously subscribed to this list in error.  As a college administrator
>with degrees in political science and sociology who vastly enjoys the lists
>associated with my current profession, I thought it might be intellectually
>stimulating to join a list of my former discipline.  I was wrong.  After just
>one day and 40 or so messages I realize that I have stumbled onto some
>private discussion between individuals who do not have a serious interest
>in politics but just desire to blow off what sounds like very youthful steam
>....I'll leave you to it.  Disappointedly yours, Phillippa Kassover
>							Colorado College

	The list is what we make it.  Please post something meaty!  Mailing
lists tend to lend themselves to short statements, but I'd like to see some
longer analysis and discussions.

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:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:39:46 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

ertelsta, or whatever your name is:

>Gores daughters offer a better chance of getting a date...I heard the comment
>recently that the Clintons, unlike many of the recent past presidents, do not
>have a family dog. Another friend stated that perhaps Chelsea could fill
>that role...(laughter).

Would you kindly refrain from this kind of nonsense?  Although some may
find sexist jokes (or jokes about personal appearances) funny, some of us
find them downright offensive.  In either case, their appropriateness to
this list is doubtful (at least to me).

Nuff said.
Later,
Kerry
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: re: Robert's religious fervor
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:13:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

> Anyone get a good look at this crap from our resident religious loony?  Sorry,
> folks, but when someone comes up with this shit, they can't be "a more
 rational
> example of the religious right."  Robert apparently feels intellectually
> threatened, and so has to pull out something to prove his is bigger.
>
> Nobody sends messages implying violence to me or anyone else - understand,
> my Bible-toting, "Oh my God, Jesus is my Personal Lord and Savior - now I
> want a new gun to shoot people with in His Name" "friend".  A copy of this
> and Robert's 'artwork' is hereby forwarded to the postmaster in charge of
 Robert
> 's
> t's system.  As your favorite defeated pol says, "this agression will not
 stand"
>
> Can anyone believe this shit?
>
> -T.
>
	No, I can't believe this shit, but you didn't have to report
this to his postmaster.  I often refer to "the insane rantings of
hypocritical religious fanatics", and it helps make the point to have a
live one right here among us...

					Robert Head
					rhead@s850.mwc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:11:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!

>(stuff deleted)
> will eventually cause welfar to shoot through the roof.
> --Steve


You keep saying this "shoot through the roof" business.  Where does that come
from?  Do you mean that more people will go on the welfare rolls, or that
the $$ they receive will increase, or both - or what?

It's great to run around throwing pit-bull sound-bites here and there - but
you must, on occassion, back them up.

Here's an interesting dillemma for you:  Conservatives have pointed to the
State of New York over and over again as a prime example of the evils of
welfare.  Would you like some reality?

Average length of time a person in NY state remains on welfare:
        LESS THAN 2 YEARS

Race of majority of welfar recipients:
        WHITE

Location of majority of welfare recipients:
        RURAL

Just thought you'd like to know.

BTW, get back to us on the above question, --Steve.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:06:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate

Paul:

        Get off the "$60 million" Spent on Iran-Contra investigation.  That's
not even close.  However, if you care to offer proof of such an outrageous
claim.......

-T.
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 18:03:00 EST
From:         "(rf35)" <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

        Concerning the meaning of flag burning (and similar acts)
I'm afraid that no act or symbol has any particular inherent
meaning.  Rather, its meaning is determined by the context in
which the symbol appears.  This context is quite broad, including
far reaching social and linguistic conventions.  The words that
you see before you are, in one sense, merely dots on a computer
screen.  The flag that you see burning is so many grams of carbon
compound changing into H2O and CO2.  What does this particular
chemical transformation mean?  One has to go outside the mere
fact that a chemical reaction is taking place to discover its
meaning.

        There are a number of different things which may be meant
by burning the flag.  A person who believes that one who burns the
flag must mean by this that the person hates freedom and hates the
things which those who have, at certain times, fought under the
flag, may be jumping to conclusions.  Now, after one has taken
the time to attempt to determine what an individual who burns the
flag really is trying to communicate, one may discover that the
he/she does not like the ideas and that something which he/she
values is being condemned by the flag burner.  Should such criticism
be made illegal?

        I can give a quick and easy scenario in which one can at
the same time burn a flag and communicate a great deal of respect
for those who have fought under it.  Imagine a veteran on the
Supreme Court steps declaring that he himself has fought proudly
under the flag, but that present governmental actions--a new
change of policy--has given away those things for which he fought
and for which his friends have died.  He may then burn the flag,
symbolizing the destruction which the government has brought to
those traditional values.  Take, for example, those people who
burned the flag to protest the law against flag burning.  Did
these people, by their act, express condemnation for all those who
have fought under the flag gave their life for?

        One might not like the message which many people attempt
to communicate in burning the flag, but outlawing flag burning
is a modern version of executing the messenger.  Its the message,
not the messenger, that is offensive, and flag burning is merely
the messenger.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:30:07 EST
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan

>
>1. Someone who is "homophobic" has a fear of homosexuals. I know of
>NOONE who fits that description -- certainly not Pat Buchanan or myself
>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

i find it kinda scary that --steve knows Buchanan on a first name
basis.

jenna cole-steelE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:20:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 1996

-andy:

        I'm confused.  Did you say Feinstein would take on Wilson in '94
'cause that's when her Senate term would be up?  Sounded like that.
Senate's for six; House's for two.  It's late. Don't worry.

-T.
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:20:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt377610@drew.edu>, MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA> writes:
>>Pat Buchanan-- He'll do for America what he did for George Bush
>
> Bill Clinton--  He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.
>
> --mike...
>
with the various improvements he made like in education, let's hope
so.

  -Joe
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: I'm going to regret this, I just know it
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:21:54 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

Rich:
> What is the point of burning the flag.  If someone doesn't like the
>country, they are free to leave

Others have given good responses to this.  Here's mine.  Patriotism means,
essentially, loving and supporting my country.  To me, supporting my
country means identifying those things that violate its important precepts
and working to change them.  Believe me, it's a lot tougher to work for
positive change than it is either to leave or to accept blindly.  The
willingness to work for positive change is the highest mark of patriotism,
in my lexicon.

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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:33:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Modest Request
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Jamie:

What if one of the morons screws up and sends something intelligent?
Better to suggest that everyone send something intelligent, so that
the morons will demonstrate their ability to do so intentionally.

Or am I being picky?

--Julie, who is afraid that she has just "marked" herself.
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 09:46:21 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: ==> President-Elect Clinton Statement
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

My, this speech sure sounds alot like the content of various speeches made
by various Republicans (mostly Bush) throughout the elction process. I don't
find it surprising at all that Bill Clinton would say that he plans on working
with Bush until January. Why? Because at that time he will be on his onn in
dealing with foreign policy. Therefore, he must learn all he can from Bush
NOW so he can try to do a better job in the future. Re: "Thank you and God
bless America"....haven't we heard this line before?

--Steve
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:21:09 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

In article <1992Nov9.024758.20548@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(SHAWN BRENDON CREWS) says:
>
>To all of the people who responded to my anti-Clinton message:
>
>    I am sorry that I offended you.  I was just very upset and meant nothing
>    by my comment.  It was the first election in which I got to vote, and I
>    wanted "my" candidates to win so much, that I became very upset when they
>    didn't.  I am a right-wing republican, but agree that we (Republicans,
>    Democrats, and others) must all work together.  I am willing to support
>    President-elect (that was hard to say) Bill Clinton if it is for the good
>    of our country, no matter how I feel about his as a person.  I actually
>    don't think he is going to be as bad as we (Republicans) say he is.  I
>    hope you accept my sincere apology.
>                                        -Shawn-
>

It's precisely this upset at "my" cadidate not winning that has led to
coups, military takeovers and other attempts to undermine democracy throughout
the world. At least now you know how Democrats felt the last 12 years, however
why is it the right that often seems more prone to undermine democracy to get
their way?
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:33:28 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Natural Law Party
Distribution: world
 <92313.1622072893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

In article <92313.1622072893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, andy
<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
>The Natural Law Party has run in recent elections in the UK and Israel, they
>are backed by Doug Henning and the Maharishi (something) Yogi. While they
>seemed not to make it evident in their US run, their politics is based on the
>philosophy of Trancendental Meditation. They were seen as essentially a joke
>party (at least by those outside the party).
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:10:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110613350250@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY
.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
>From:         "(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)" <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>
>
>> I'm wondering something here.  Who did you support in the PA senate race,
>> Arlan Specter or Lynn "I have no political experience and am proud of it"
>> Yeakel?  By the way if you said Yeakel, she started running for the sole
>> purpose of how Specter did his job in the Hill-Thomas hearings.
>
>> Jayce
>
>Which is much more than many other complainers do.  Don't you
>respect THAT?
>
>--KAT
>
NO, NOT AT ALL.