HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 14:39:47 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: right v left

From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>>Sure.  The way I was taught, the left-right spectrum runs like this:
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>|           |            |          |                              |
>>Communism  Socialism   Democrats  Republicans                    Nazism
>>

>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?

First, let me say that I disagree with the use of the above spectrum.  As I
said before, there's really not much substantive difference between communism,
nazism, or any other kind of totalitarianism, so I myself don't understand why
one would want to portray nazism and communism as polar opposites.

Anyway, if you would, for the moment, put Nazism on the same spot as communism
and stick libertarianism where nazism currently lies, you would get a much more
accurate spectrum (in my view).  Then, the characteristics that dominate
placement would be the size and power of government.  Under totalitarian
regimes (conglomerated in the far left) the gov't is extremely powerful and
penetrates virtually every facet of its citizens' lives.  Then, as you move
toward "mere" socialism, the role of gov't steadily declines.

As for the major US political parties, I would still keep Dems to the left of
Reps.  The religious right aside, the Republicans still advocate smaller
government and more individual freedom than the Democrats, although I would
most definately NOT apply the label "totalitarian" to the Democrats.  Finally,
at the far right, you would wind up with libertarians, who believe in minimal
gov't (actually, you could go a little further and put anarchy at the
far-far-right, but won't touch that one).

In any case, the communists of the USSR would still correspond to our own
far-left.  Also, it should be noted that the left lables *itself* this way.  As
an avid reader of Mother Jones and the Progressive, I can safely say that those
who place themselves on the left tend to place a high priority on using gov't
redistribute income to the lower classes, much as the communists tried to do in
the USSR.  For fairness' sake, let me note that these people DO NOT (mostly)
advocate the kind of outright tyranny that typified the USSR, so they would
still be somewhat to the right of Pugo or whoever.

I hope this came closer to answering your question that my last post.

Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: This "12 years" thing
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:29:06 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92110415525781@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> writes:
>>Brett
>>(I noticed there is another Brett on this list, should I differentiate?)
>
>yes, you can be dubbed "other brett". or, the other brett could be 
>other brett.

I suggest the more eloquent and elegant 'Brettbo'.  The moniker
'Jimbo', initially acquired for similar purposes, has served me well.

--Jimbo
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.BITNET (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Politics and Celebrities
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:10:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"bifem-L@brownvm.brown.edu",JULIE
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
Comments: cc: bifem-L@brownvm.brown.edu

I tried sending a note about this earlier but my system crashed so
I will try again.

I've know that Costner, Schwarzenegger and Selleck are long time right-
wingers and that Redford, Sarandon and Goldberg are quite left-leaning and
all have been politically active from time to time.  I'm wondering if any
of you know of any others who are out there.  I know BB King played at
the Republican Convention and I'd heard Whitnet Houston was really right
wing as well, and that Madonna supported Bush (But I have trouble believing
this!) but these are more hints at things than anything concrete.  I was
wondering if people have any real knowledge of various celebrities
political affiliations and viewpoints.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:19:45 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Days of the Week
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

julie:
>The English days of the week are, I believe, derived from what we commonly
>refer to nowadays as "Mythology."  From what I _recall_, the names are
>derived as follows:
>
>Sunday: Named for the Sun
>Monday: Named for the Moon
>Tuesday: I forget this one
>Wednesday: Named for Odin, King of the Norse Gods, who was also
>           known as "Wodin."
>Thursday:  Named for Thor, the Norse God of Thunder
>Friday:    I _think_ this is Wodin's wife's day, but I forget her full name.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Saturday:  Named for Saturn (?)

Wasn't it Fricka ? May well be wrong, but that bubbles up from the
quagmire of my memory.

Dunstan
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:42:26 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92111208561455@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
 > Thanks for yet the most complete account of how people are drafted.
 > And welcome back, again.  (Maybe you can tell Rich that I disagreed
 > with you many times but never questioned your IQ.   :-)

Rich,
	Believe me, I can *strongly* attest to the fact that KAT and
	I have disagreed quite often on many subjects over the past
	year or so.  At the same time, I would never question KAT's
	ability to think, usually it is all I can do to keep up (if that).
	One of the reasons I enjoy this newsgroup as compared to the
	other politcal newsgroups is the high content to noise ratio.


 > I have a question.  Since, the military has a rule against
 > homosexuals, what would happen if you claim you are a homosexual
 > when drafted?  Is there a test to verify that or do they take
 > your word for it.

There were a lot of stories back then about guys going in for their
physical holding hands and trying to act as gay as possible.  (All based on
what we would think of now as very silly sterotypes.  This was in the sixties,
after all.)  The stories usually ended with them being drafted anyway with
a mysterious checkmark next to their name indicating they were to be singled
out for particularily nasty treatment.  This was before the gay rights
movement began when staying in the closet was the only choice.

I do remember one poor fellow.  He was in line right ahead of me as we
carried our urine specimen in little paper cups over to a fat sergeant
sitting behind a card table.  We were supposed to place the cup on the table
and give our name to the sergeant to be checked off.  There were several dozen
cups of urine on the table when the kid ahead of me tripped and knocked the
table over on top of the sergeant.  I think they drafted him then and there.f

						Andrew MacRae
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: IQ (ha!)
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:11:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Kip Shaw <KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET>

> 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?

1.  New York and Indiana do not have the same local time, but I
    would assume that the two train start leaving at the same time.

2.  Had you given the speed at which the media fly travels, this
    would have made a good high school level IQ test.  The fact
    is that without that info your problem is under-posed and cannot
    be solved.

    Take the fly speed to be infinitely large.  Then, *relatively*
    speaking, the trains are standing still while the fly is
    traveling.  Therefore the fly would travel infinite number
    of miles.  On the pother hand assume that the fly's speed is
    zero.  In that case the fly would not travel any miles.

Gotta be careful.  Sometimes IQ test determine the IQ of the
test-giver more than it does of the test-taker.      :-)

--KAT
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: re: Robert's religious fervor
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:19:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>To:     <CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET>
>Subj:  re: Robert's religious fervor
>From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
>                                               ( )  )
>In response to -T.                             ) ( )
>                                               (  (
>                                             +/ \     _________________
>Next......                                  /   /    |                 |
>                                          /   /      |                 |
>                                        /   /        |        *  *     |
>---Robert                             /   /          |       * *       |
>                                    /  \/            |      *  *       |
>                                  /      \           |                 |
>                               +/        /           |_________________|
>                               |       /
>                               /\    /.            this target represents
>                             /    \ \  )           a simplistic worldly
>                            |      \...            view.
>                             \      \
>                              \       \
>                                \   /
>                                    \/
>
>"Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"

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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:54:01 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: Arizona Election Central Reporting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Could you please give the figures on the % voting for and against the
various measures you described? Thanks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:43:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: "Bob Roberts"

Dear Andrew:
        Tim Robbins's father was a semi-famous folk singer (although the other
side of the spectrum from Bob Roberts).

        What have I won?


Always grateful to mention someone from the Village of my youth,

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:50:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Taxes and the Depression

        Paul (PSICLIA@DREW) suggests that Clinton's proposed tax increase
will harm America's economy.  For part of his evidence, he points to Herbert
Hoover's 1931 tax increase.  He cites 1932 as the "wors[t] year of the Great
Depression" and claims that "the economy went down the tubes because of the
tax increase. . . ."  I wish to point out some flaws in this contention.

        First, Song Weaver responded, "What is the difference between 1931
and 1993 and what are the similarities[?]  How does how Hoover raised taxes
relate specifically to the possible tax consequences of Clinton. . . ?"  This
reply correctly points out that Paul has drawn a "reckless historical
analogy."  It looks as if we may have a usurper to the title of History Czar,
but an astute observation nonetheless.

        Second, Paul's causal link between the tax increase and the deepening
of the Depression is drawn a bit too tightly.  My library is thin on
Depression/New Deal books, but Arthur M. Schlesinger suggests in Volume I of
_The Age of Roosevelt_ that Hoover's waning support for public works played a
major role in the continued decline.  Now I realize that Schlesinger's work is
a dated (1957), so I will welcome dissenting opinions from more recent studies.

        Third, and as Song Weaver again suggests, Hoover's tax increase
and Clinton's proposal are not substantively analogous.  Although I cannot
answer Song Weaver's question, "Were Hoover's taxes across the board, or
limited to specific income groups?"  I can again cite Schlesigner, who claims
that in actual practice, the 1931 tax increase had little effect on the
wealthiest Americans, who in many cases simply chose not to pay.  J.P. Morgan
himself failed to pay any federal income tax in 1930, 1931 or 1932.
Therefore, Hoover's tax increase, which appears to have affected many wealthy
Americans to only a small degree, and Clinton's proposed increase on those
earning over $200,000 per year cannot be compared directly.

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
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, 10 Nov 1992 15:57:23 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      morons, imbeciles, idiots, and the stanford-binet memorial cup

i'm a moron, i admit it freely.  check it out.

anneliese's top ten confirmations that she is a few bricks short the load

10.  acquired fake i.d. in order to vote in 1980
 9.  works the morning shift alternate days in public radio
 8.  when friend once informed her of her intention to highlight hair, thought
     she  meant with one of those neon marker things for at least a week
 7.  actually bought one of those dancing coke cans
 6.  likes tuna noodle casserole
 5.  turned herself in to police at bar raid, c. 1986
 4.  really, really digs abba
 3.  watches all of the herry lewis labor day telethon, year after
     excruciating year
 2.  when told that clinton was running for president, assumed they meant
     george clinton of parliament fame

and the number one confirmation that anneliese is a few bricks short the
load....
 1.  chose the university of minnesota over cal/berkeley...'cause of the
     weather

****************************************************************************
thank you, thank you, no applause please.
chapaquita?  don't they sell bananas?  kennedy & kopechne did the thrill-ride
thing, with unfortunate results, at chappaquiddick.  but, as they say....
that's all water under the bridge now.

you all don't need to know the answers to jenna questionnaire publicly.
actually, most of them are a matter of public record, like the sat thing, blah
blah blah.

going off for a walk along the delightful shores of the mississippi with my
sweetie now.  y'all have a nice night, and keep thinking up grotesque
examples of man's inhumanity to man.

where the hell is gary olson, anyhow?

anneliese.
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:38:06 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQSE0ZTUWY000OY3@RHODES.BITNET>, FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
writes:
>>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.
>>                                        Jayce
>
>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.  If you intend to make insults, do it on another list.  Although
>some witty exchange is a welcome amusement, to call someone a "DICK" is
>utterly unacceptable.  Telling someone to "shut up" is equally unacceptable
>on this list.  If you want to spread your ideas, you must do so without
>insults such as these.  Otherwise, you have no place on POLITICS.
>
>-Martin
>
OK, I can see your point, but is it not equally as disturbing to criticize
someone for their spelling, typing, and grammar?  That is equally as rude if
not more so.  By the way, I'd probably not make popular politician as I say
what I think, not (ie "Slick"  Willie) tell people something simply to get a
few votes.  Say what you will about Vice President Quayle, he sticks up for
that in which he believes.  And THAT is something that I can respect.

                                        Jayce
                    KEMP/BAKER '96!!!!!!!
                        Rush Limbaugh  Rules!!!!!
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Politics and Celebrities
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:35:37 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>

>
> >I've know that Costner, Schwarzenegger and Selleck are long time right-
> >wingers and that Redford, Sarandon and Goldberg are quite left-leaning and
> >all have been politically active from time to time.  I'm wondering if any
> >of you know of any others who are out there.  I know BB King played at
> >--Julie
>
> 	Clint Eastwood: libertarian (small l because I don't think he is a
> registered member of the party).
>
> Brett'
>
	Really?  Isn't Eastwood the mayor of a town in California also?
Or is that one of the other movie stars that I always get mixed up?
Perhaps the party should contact Eastwood about doing some promotional
appearances...
						Robert Head
						rhead@s850.mwc.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Churches and Tax Exempt Status
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:03:56 GMT

>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.  

I heard this theory a couple of years ago.  I'm opposed to the
income tax, so I was interested.  I looked into it.  It is a
pretty dumb theory.  The income tax is constitutional.

(I know that this isn't really informative.  But maybe you could
take my word for it?)

--Jimbo


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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:14:47 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!

> > I agree that Clinton will run the country, but we are whining because we
> > know that he will run it into the ground.

>And from where did you aquire this omnipotent knowledge?  What else do
>you *know* about the future?  How does one come to be so powerfull?  You
>must make a killing on the stock market and at the horse races.

They must be using Nancy Reagan's astrologer. B)

>                                               Andrew MacRae

Good to see you back again Andrew !

-other Andy
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, 13 Nov 1992 09:01:33 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court Justice

>What are the minimum formal qualifications required to be in the running
>for the Supreme Court Justice nomination?
>(is a Law degree a formal requirement or just certainly desirable,
> for instance)
>
>With names such as Governor Mario Cuomo and J. Kilpatrick being invoked
>in the media, one wonders.


As has been noted, Mario Cuomo does have a law degree (St. John's) and
has a background that probably "qualifies" him to be on the Supreme
Court as much as anyone else.  He also played minor-league baseball
(note that there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court and nine
members of a baseball team).

We have a fun governor to watch and try to figure out what he's thinking,
and I'm of two minds when it comes to Cuomo wanting to leave Albany for
the Supreme Court.

Arguments for Mario not going to the Supreme Court:  In spite of sagging
popularity in the state, it appears at this date that he's got a lock on
reelection in 1994.  With the lightening fast fall of Sol Wachtler a
few days ago, there isn't a Republican name that strikes fear in Mario's
heart:  The GOP is tossing about such prominent names as Richard
Rosenbaum (former head of the state GOP, from my hometown, and has that
disease where you have absolutely no hair--anywhere--on your body) and
Evan Galbraith (former Ambassador to France, has some hair).  Jack Kemp
would have been a good one, but I'm pretty sure he gave up his residence
in Buffalo a few years ago.  People talk about Al D'Amato maybe taking
on Mario, but I don't think that's too likely:  Al just went through
a tough campaign with Bobby Abrams and I doubt he wants to wade into
another slugfest with someone who is, in my opinion, tougher than
Abrams.

Arguments for Mario going to the Supreme Court:  He'd love it.  His
popularity is waning in New York (and will decrease even further next
year I think--he's already saying that the state's 1993 budget will
be the most painful one since the Great Depression).  The chance for
a lifetime appointment where he gets to wrestle with all kinds of
legal complexities has got to be very appealing to him.

We'll just have to watch the Gov and see.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU