HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: campaign commercials
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:55:24 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> Since I live in a state of no importance under the electoral college
> system, there aren't many commercials airing here for either candidate.
> Does anybody have a favorite/least favorite commercial that they have
> seen so far. The only bush commercial I have seen was really lame,
> hear him talking as someone is typing on a computer screen.

Let me give you two data points on the Bush commercial.
My 15 year old daughter is a big fan of Clinton and does
not care much for Bush.  She tells me she really likes that
commercial.  I also think the commercial is made well artistically,
but has no substance.  But I sometimes wonder which part of
a commercial is more important: the artistic part or the
substance part?

> fred

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just as carl has quieted down
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:30:25 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

JasonZ.

It is JAMIE, not JAIME.  It rhymes with 'pay me'.
It does not rhyme with 'lame'.

I'm sure she would appreciate it if you could spell it right.

--Jimbo *wink to the crowd*
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:24:07 EDT
From: corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Question for Canadians

Nothing. There was a white paper issued a few years ago stating that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military should
be banned but the dinosaurs in the Tory caucus have prevented the
recommendations from being implemented. I believe there is a wrongful dismissal
case wending its way through the courts and conventional wisdom is that when
the Supreme Court rules, it'll decide that discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation violates the Charter of Rights. Parliament (or rather the
Tory government) is sitting on its hands waiting for the ruling.  In Ontario
meanwhile, the social-democratic NDP government wants to extend spousal benefit
s to gay partners and they are also busy deleting heterosexist definitions of
spouse from various pieces of existing legislation.  While they are under
pressure to change the Marriages Act so that same-sex marriages will be
recognised by the province, it is unlikely they will go that far. It is
possible that gays will be able to be covered by the concept of common-law marr
iages in ontario anyway
ns
tion


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:29:22 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bob Roberts

Derrick:

I would love to see Bob Roberts, since I love political movies.  Even
though I have heard that it is not as good as it might have been,
I still want to see it.

However, since I am a graduate student, I will have to wait until it
comes to the video store or the networks.

$6 for a movie is way too much for me.  Particularly when going to a movie
these days is very aggravating, since people seem to feel free to talk
loudly during the film.  I'm not paying $6 to miss a movie.

I'll let you know what I think when I see it.

--Missy P 2 B
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, 5 Oct 1992 00:35:37 -0400
From:         "If I Were A President,
              There Would Be 2 States: Sanity and California!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Will Stockdale is a character from a play and a movie called "No Time For
Sergeants" for those of you who do not know! It starred Andy Griffth
as a hick country bumpkin who joined the Army! It is hilarious and this
list is starting to sound like a review so perhaps i should stop now


   John Stith@ and I'm only 21!!!
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:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:53:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Correction
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt345005@drew.edu>, JCOCURUL@drew.drew.edu writes:
> In article <tfilt344780@drew.edu>, macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:53:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
>>>Well, I read in the paper that the Congress is considering a
>>>Violence Against Women act, which will basically make rape and
>>>spouse-beating a federal crime.  The justification: if it can
>>>be proven the victim was chosen because of gender, it is a hate
>>>crime, and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.
>>>I DON'T GET IT!!!!

I got a letter from macphil upset I didn't erase his name from the
reply to this posting -- so any idea that my reply was in reference to
him is WRONG.  Now, since it says above that Travis "said" the stuff
about the hate crime material that I talked about, there seems to be
little reason for confusion, but if there is any, sorry.  That is,
when I said "what don't you get" etc., I was talking to Travis.

     -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:07:05 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual elections
              25 Sep 1992 13:03:45 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

You get election day off?  How come?

--Missy [Virtual] President To Be (for Chris Morrison, who asked.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:06:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 'air' baker and the debate debate

> Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:36:00 EDT
> From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
> Subject:      'air' baker and the debate debate
>
> >   Actually it will be an advantage.  On the Charlie Rose show on PBS one
> >   commentator mentioned that this will effectively keep Clinton from being
> >   able to do alot of campaigning.  Clinton will be too busy preparing for
> >   the debates.  If Clinton refuses to debate, then people will wonder why
> >   when he pressed the debate issue.  In a sense Clinton was am"Bushed."
>
> Just a quick question on this.  Won't Bush be busy preparing for the debates,
> too?  I mean, it's not much of an ambush if you get your own guy tied down,
> is it?

    You have to remember that Bush has had four years in the presidency and
    eight years as a V.P.  Just from the years of experience he already has
    an intimate knowledge of Washington D.C. and the branches of gov't.
    Clinton lacks this exposure and knowledge.

> As far as debates go, it looks like there will be four, one a'Sunday from
> Oct 11th to Nov 1st.  Clinton has been publically insisting that the
> debates begin this Sunday, the 4th, as the last of the original debates
> was schedule for then, but he has his people negotiating with Bush's people
> on striking a debate deal.  Guess he's prepared.

    As mentioned before, even if he isn't prepared he *had* to accept the
    challenge because of pushing the debate issue.  If Clinton backed down
    after being so anxious to debate, then he would seem weak and people
    would wonder why he didn't accept.  Maybe Clinton thinks that they will
    ask him some question that relates to past mistakes in one's life and
    what would they change.

    This would give him a chance to clear his name in a dramatic manner over
    the pot and draft issue.  It seems as if the media, and a number of
    people, will forgive Clinton if he gives a straight answer.  What a place
    and time to clear his name.  It would make headlines!  If he didn't I'd
    be astonished.

> Also, is Perot going to be included in this new schedule of debates?  What
> of the vice presidential debate that so many of us slaver for?
>
> Whatever transpires, it should be interesting to watch.  I hope they add a
> canned laugh track, as it would be entirely appropriate for the atmosphere
> of this election.
>
> >Carl-----------+
>
> Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous
,
> SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
> 33 days and counting down...

Carl------------+
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:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:18:47 -0400
From:         "People Are Like Zits,
              You Squeeze Too Hard andthe Head Comes Out!!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Serious question--honest

Well... I figure that we need a new way of decreasing the population...
the problem is we as humans haven't developed the ability to manage
ourselves in such a large amount.. nothing that is practical anyway.
We have a million problems with the government.. ours... thought by
many to be the best on the earth... Yet we have many problems. That
idea was drastic yes... however perhaps we can look at a more
viable solution, such as the grouping together of various areas
according to population... putting states into blocks.. and allowing
them to do many of the things the federal government now does. When
the Constitution was written, the population was managable, now there are
more peopl in California than their were in the whole United States. We
perhaps could gear the government back towards more state power because
if no other reason than management purposes.. it would be a good idea.
States Rights should become an issue once again... it's not a matter
of principle, its a matter of necessity!!!

                          John Stith
                               Stustith@ekuu
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:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:41:39 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Debates! Debates!

The Presidential (and more importantly, the V.P.) debates have finnally
been scheduled and agreed to, despite Bush's stalling.

They are scheduled on
         Oct 11, 6 PM CDT
         Oct 13, 6 PM CDT (V.P. Debates)
         Oct 15, 8 PM CDT
         Oct 19, 6 PM CDT

Perot was also invited to debate, and has indicated that he will.  One of the
debates is Panaled, one is with a single moderator, and one is half panel,
half moderator (I'm not sure what *that* means....)  I think the V.P. debate
(which will be much more fun) is with a single moderator.  Perot's pick for
V.P, James Stockdale, doesn't seem to want to debate....

Incidently, anyone know anything about Stockdale?  I know he was a Vietname
(Vietnam, rather) "War" hero, and seems like an ultra-nationalist, which may
be kind o' scary.  I'm willing to take bets as to whether over 50% of Americans
have heard of him by election day (Including Perot supporters, of course, who
don't seem to listen very closely.)  Info on this Stockdale character would
be appreciated, though.

I have a feeling that Perot should duck the debates, as he wio

(will, rather -- the computer's doing strange things, and this is a primitave
word processor, so I can't go back a line....) be eaten alive by both Bush
and Clinton.  Clinton will prob. come out ahead in the debates, and I know
that Gore will.

Be Seeing You,
Martin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Perot's address
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:57:23 GMT


The address that I was given when I was going to write a letter to
Perot (which I certainly wish now I had written)...

	P.O. Box 517010
	Dallas, TX 75251-7010

I cannot vouch for this, not having actually followed through 
and used it.

Ginny



===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 17:26:04 MST
From: <AGRGB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject:    ACCOUNTANTS only (no political content)

Greetings,

sorry for the lack of political content but I am desperately seeking
assistance with my dissertation and need to find fellow net users who
are involved in internal auditing. if you (or someone you know) have any
internal auditing knowledge, I would greatly appreciate a response to this
message. I am working on a nationally approved project and need to make my
own contacts with internal auditors.  thank you for reading this posting.

Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:11:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: HR 1674

        OK.  Call me KA2UGB.

                                        Chris Morrison
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just as Carl has Quieted Down
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:00:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:37:00 EST <ZIMMERJ@WABASH> said:

>I'm not sure about this, but I don't think I ever said that Jamie NEVER
>adressed my points.  He did.  The problem was that his responses were merely
>variations upon the same arguments I had already answered.  For example (its

This probably means you didn't answer his points and he was merely rephrasing
them to give you a better perspective /s losing sight of the original thought.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:34:28 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Serious question--honest
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              29 Sep 1992 08:17:30 EDT from <GE777009%BROWNVM.BI
              TNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:17:30 EDT jcs said:
>>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>>I am not trying to be funny or snippy here, but:
>>why don't they just advocate suicide and then practice what they
>>preach?

>Well, then we would have that damn landfill problem again.
>unless, like that movie who's name escapes me, we make them
>into wafers. but what would that do to the environement?

Soylent Green.  It's on TNT next Monday @ 12:45am (Central).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:17:30 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Serious question--honest

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>I am not trying to be funny or snippy here, but:
>
>why don't they just advocate suicide and then practice what they
>preach?

Well, then we would have that damn landfill problem again.
unless, like that movie who's name escapes me, we make them
into wafers. but what would that do to the environement?

>Why do they want to *lessen* the population by merely *preventing*
>its increase, if the problem is more urgent?  It would be much simpler
>to take care of the problem we have now by mass voluntary suicide of
>those convinced there are too many people in the world.

I think those people who thing there are too many people in the
world are just trying to be nice. what they really mean is that
there are too many STUPID people in the world.  Those are the
ones who should be retired.   What we need to do is wipe out
all those recessive genes...all the low iq's.  all the gap-toothed
lobeless eared pale-eyed inbred abominations.

its kinda too late to do much about the stupid generation now,
but we could very easily require men and women who's iq's aren't
"this high to ride this ride" to be sterilized.  THen, as
the smart people have children, we test the kids, and if they
fall below USRDA (or an appropriate agency) standards, they
get sterilized and shipped off to some sweatshop somewhere
where they can make leather gucci wallets a la The Simpsons.
>

This plan should make the lifers happy because stupid babies that
no one wants will still have a place in this world. Unlike now.

And, with my plan, we can get rid of those pesky race problems.
because the bottom line will be 'smarts' not color. I mean, so
what if we find that only blonde europeans measure up in the
iq department.  The other races can just study more.

>Problem is, those who advocate such philosophies always seem to think
>that the world would be better off with *other* people not here; they,
>apparently, are individually indispensable.

Actually, the problem is that you don't understand what the activists are
saying. Do you think that instead of saying "the world would be a better
place without "those" people" that maybe they say "the world would
be a better place with fewer people" (meaning "not so many")

Just a guess.

back to the dusting. And shoot, i'd better start studying.

jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:23:48 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ho-hum Perot

Best line I heard yesterday on Perot's reentering the race came
from ABC's Jeff Greenfield, who called Perot the Rosie Ruiz of
the Presidential race.  Ruiz, you will remember, was the woman who
started the New York City marathon, stopped at a coffee shop for
a bagel, hopped on the subway, got off at Central Park, and then
ran to the finish line and was declared the winner (until they
figured out what she had done).

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:39:41 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674

On Fri, 25 Sep 1992 20:18:00 EDT <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA> said:
>        Usually it's been the cellular phone industry lately.
>
They're the ones responsible for the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act that was passed a couple of years ago.  This act states that it is
illegal to listen to cellular phone calls.  It's one of the most
unenforceable acts ever passed.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:53:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:18:47 -0400 "People Are Like Zits, You Squeeze Too Hard a
ndthe Head Comes Out!!" said:
>               <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: Serious question--honest
> To:           "Travis D. Kidd" <TKIDD>
>
> if no other reason than management purposes.. it would be a good idea.
> States Rights should become an issue once again... it's not a matter
> of principle, its a matter of necessity!!!
>
>                           John Stith
>                                Stustith@ekuu

*eyes suddenly light up* Did somebody say States' Rights???
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:26:27 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re:Playing Poker

From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> Anyway, if a panel was good for Bush/Dukakis in 1988, why not 1992?  Why
> would the Debate Commission change to a single moderator format?

Yeah, WHY?  Please do tell.

>> Maybe Clinton is right.  They should all go on the Larry King show.

> .............  Come now, since when had the obviously liberal Larry King show
> become part of the Presidential Debate Commission schedule?  Is it any wonder
> Clinton suggested Larry King at the last minute?  But, King would be a bad
> choice also, he is still too enraptured with the man he brought to us in
> February, Ross Perot.

OK, let think this over very slowly.  You say, Larry King is
"obviously liberal."  Ok, then how come Bush is going on his
show AND avoiding questions from callers?  Does Bush think that
the liberal King will ask easier questions and actually be nicer
to Bush than the average Joe Q. Public?

> Clinton wanted to debate on national TV right after the RNC, Bush is no fool,
> he would not debate a stacked deck, Baker knew that also.

Which "deck" was that?

> Clinton, on the defense now, is not showing the 'presidental' look he seemed
> to have before, plainly because Baker shook-up his plans.

I agree with you.  Clinton was in the defensive, but only for
one day.  Indeed a good move on Baker's part.

> But, remember, Bush did offer 2 debates with a single moderator, and 2 with
> a panel.  That is fair now, isn't it?

Remember, this is politics.  No candidate would try and be fair.
The *bipartisan* Debate Commission, however, has the appearance
of being impartial and fair.

> Sue Clark

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