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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:38:56 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Hello again Kerry.

>Actually, I don't know what the original purpose of the bank is/was.  But,
>as T. pointed out, part of the bank included a mechanism for members to
>give each others loans.

The *result* of that provision was that members gave themselves loans.  Now if
the Congressmen had sat down one day and said "okay, if anyone wants to float
themselves an interest-free loan, fine" I would have no problem with the bank,
other than some jealosy :).  However, I seriously doubt that that was the
intent.  Presumably, Congressmen decided that they needed overdraft protection
and therefore set up the provision in question.  However, under one theory, a
few unscrupulous Reps took advantage of the provision to enhance their own
short-term (or long-term, in some cases!) financial status.  No, they didn't
break any laws.  But they did violate an implicit agreement and breached a
pretty reasonable ethical standard.  That's my main complaint.

>This isn't a "perk that the rest of us don't get";
>as far as I know, any one of us could try to organize a similar arrangement
>among our co-workers.  'Course, most of us don't make the kind of money
>House critters do, so we probably wouldn't have as much fun :)

Yeah.  I *wish* I could get some of my less-financially-astute buddies to go
along with a scheme like this.  I'd be a wealthy man right now... :)

>Kerry

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:52:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      drink up

virtual beers are now being served.
a hearty toast to all those celebrating and in celebration of veterans day
and remembrance day on this lovely odin's evening.

take care,
-linda
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 09:40:11 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Clinton cheated on his wife(Flowers), he cheated on his state (his promise to
serve the full term as governor), and he cheated on his country (by illegally
dodging the draft)  How can people of  the U.S. feel he will not cheat on them
as well.  If people listened to the issues, which were so very important, I
 don't see how anyone could vote for Clinton.  As for him raising taxes, he is
 going to have to raise them to support his plans.  And if he doesn't get enough
 money
for his plans, he said he would not put them into affect.  So then he will do
nothing about those important issues.
-Rich
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:03:38 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Kill Bush? *Gasp!* Confessions of an anarchist...

In article <01GQX2SQJWPC001YGS@drew.drew.edu>, JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET says:
>
>In article <tfilt380500@drew.edu>, SWIFT@HARTFORD.BITNET writes:
>> From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>>>       Around 1989 or so, someone on Usenet posted a message with the title I
>"
>>>WILL KILL PRESIDENT BUSH".  He lost his account, got grilled by the SS and
>>>probably will be monitored until the day he dies (or Bush does).
>>>       Yes, he said he was joking, even though the article was
>>>quite...inflamitory.
>>>       You'd be a lot safer joking about bombs in airports.
>>
>>>Brett'
>>
>>
>> About 3 or 4 years ago, on this very list, I too submitted a post entitiled
>> something like "I will Kill President Bush."  Nothing ever happened.  I did o
>n
>   t
>> lose my account, and as far as I know, am not being monitored.  I do not
>have
>> to go to jail when political figures come to town, either.  The post was
>> severely threatening, yet tounge-in-cheek.
>>
>> --STeve McDonald
>>
>A chance for me to inject constitutional first amendment right
>material.  Oh boy.  Relax, this won't be one of my long civil
>libertarian tirades.  I'll just note that this was actually a subject
>of a Supreme Court case.  It seems a low level gov't official
>(clerical) made some comment that she agreed with some one that Reagan
>dying after he was shot wouldn't be that bad of an idea.  Since she
>wasn't in a major policy type job, her first amendment rights kept her
>from being fired.  I don't think she was hounded for life either.
>
>    -Joe

I think there was a comedian who was taken to court about 20 years ago for
suggesting Nixon should meet an unfortunate fate, he won.


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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:00:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul:

I've mentioned this twice, and this post makes three times.  Bishop
Gelano, Rhode Island's Archbishop, acting AS AN OFFICER OF THE CHURCH,
lobbied against Rhode Island legislation which would give greater
access to Abortion.  If someone who happens to be Catholic lobbies
that is one thing, but someone using the power of the Church as part
of lobbying activities is another thing entirely.

The Catholic Church has not directly funded political campaigns, but
they have use Church Facilities for the purpose of endorsing political
candidates, which in effect is a campaign contribution.  Jerry Falwell
has done similar things through his Church, as has Pat Robertson.
Political Action Committess are NOT tax exempt under federal law to
the best of my knowledge.  Do you disagree?

--Julie
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 15:18:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt377609@drew.edu>, MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA> writes:
>>Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and that's
> not something I take lightly.
>
> Well Julie that not something I take lightly either. If it was a crime, why
> didn't she take it through the judicial system?  That is were we deal with
> serious crime. But then again purgury is a serious crime also maybe that's
> the reason. I think that this is something that should be investigated more
> to find out which is lying. I think that maybe you won't like the outcome.
>
> --mike.....
>
The words 'they didn't get it' again come to mind.  It is well known
to me that various people can talk until they are blue in the face,
have candidates and women speak about the issue, and still not get the
message.  Now not to be peevish or sarcastic or anything, the point of
issue and problem of sexual harassment is like rape it is a hidden
crime.  Both are vastly underrepresented because the accuser/victim is
loaded with much abuse, not believed much of the time, and gets little
justice.  The whole problem is that women are afraid to come forward
(Anita Hill didn't want to at first) and take the harassment or even
accept sexual advancements as the only way to get ahead (a Supreme
Court case written by Rehnquist, no liberal crybaby type, noted this
fact). Once it came out and Hill was demonized, she for some strange
reason wanted to make the issue well known.  How horrible!
Ignoring these facts is why so many people are pissed even
without the below discussion of the facts on the accusation itself.

David Savage's book on the Supreme Court (_Turning Right_) has a good
appendix that speaks about the whole accusation affair as did a New
York Times Book Review article a few weeks ago.  Here it was noted
Sen. Simon admitted he didn't want to put a Supreme Court appointee
through the ringer so the Democrats didn't go at him as the
Republicans did to Hill.  We didn't hear (1) supporting testimony (2)
other witnesses on the environment under Thomas (3) that Thomas was
partial to X-rated movies.  The ignorance of Thomas of federal law and
the like lead Souter supporters like Biden to vote against him; saying
Earl Warren didn't know much either (1) misses the fact he was picked
as a Chief Justice (2) that Thomas was in Bush's words the best
qualified.  Most people didn't worry too much about these particulars
for they were more concerned with more popular ideas on the demon
Democrats after the conservative justice or part of a high tech
lynching of a black man who isn't a Marshall clone.  Such facts are
too tiring to worry about it seems.

      -Joe
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: my life with the thrill kill cult
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:16:34 GMT

liese writes:
>someone wanted, in the mass of 400+ messages i just waded through, an
>example of any instance in which mass murder was carried out in the name of
>christianity.  okay.

<liese gives examples>

Actually, the most convenient example of mass murder in the name of
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, is the Bible.  Check out the
old testament.  More death and destruction in the name of God than
you'd see in an Oliver Stone flick.  See, God told these certain
people to go wipe out these other people, and POW.  Blood, ewwww!

But this is theology, so I shan't continue.

(Anyhow, this will just bait our new pyrotechnic pyrrhonic piranhas.)

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:27:11 EST
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Minority President
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@Virginia.EDU>

Besides trying to figure out where Perot's votes would have been split
between Bush and Clinton, there is also the point which I don't think that
anyone has mentioned, about how many of Perot's voters would voted if he was
not on the ballot.  I think one reason for the increased turnout is the Perot
factor.  Many of the Perot voters were so disaffected that they would have
sat out the election.


  Scott W. Fischer
Mr. Jefferson's Resort                  Mary Washington College
University of Virginia                  Fredericksburg, Virginia

                             Home address:
                         717E Mountainwood Road
                    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
              (804) 296-4752
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:32:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>3 presidents were elected who got a minority for the popular vote:
>Harrison, Hayes, and John Quincy Adams. Electoral voting originally
>came in because the founders didn't trust the people plus fears of small
>states (what one was a stronger reason is open to argument).
>Clinton's electoral landslide shows that his popularity was
>countrywide (he only missed Fl and TX by a few percentage points),

        Joe:
          Only to be fair I think one should mention that George Bush
only lost by a couple percentage points in NJ, NH, CO, OH, KT, TN, GA,
LA, and WI.  Bush would have won if he carried every state that he
only lost by 4% or less (a difficult task, I will admit)!
          But it sounds as if you are in favor of the Electoral
College, (I could be wrong, though) which I find amazing because I am
in favor of the electoral college, and I don't know a single person
who agrees with me. (With some exceptions being analysts)  At Drew, I
have yet met a single person who approves of the electoral college
over popular vote.

        -Paul
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:06:56 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: election fatigue

In article <9211091318.AA17780@cuthbert.bashstreet>, dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK
((Dunstan_Vavasour)) says:
>
>James,
>
>You forgot the Danish Referendum, the French Referendum and (although
>not an election as such) the vote on the Maastricht paving bill in the
>UK parliament.
>
>After Ireland, is it France up next ? (assuming the Italian government
>holds together).
>
>Dunstan.

Hey! How about the Canadian Referendum!
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:47:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Flat Tax Now!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Julie:

        I have to tell the truth, as a member of the House of
Representatives, Barbara Boxer had bounced hundreds of checks, and in
my book that makes her corrupt.  Herschensohn closed a 20-point gap
against Boxer by bringing out this fact.

        I also agree about getting rid of tax shelters, and Reagan
removed several in 1981 and again in 1986.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:13:06 CST
From:         Kip Shaw <KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deleted Emails

On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:07:00 EST linda said:
>ummm, just wondering.....where's the fly when the trains collide?
>does he get squished?
>this is upsetting to me, i shoo flies out rather than swat them.
>>But I still like my "never" answer best :)
>me too. i didn't have to worry about the fly with your answer.
>-linda (its friday its friday its friday-countdown begins at noon)
>>Kerry

Yes, the countdown is almost here! TGIF!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:39:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Brett':


        What Boxer said was the


cls
 What Boxer said was the
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:59:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Some thoughts for the day

        Anneliese's closing comments have inspired me.

        Being _AN_ (thank you, Jamie) historian of the First World War, I
thought I would take this opportunity to share some observences on that
conflict, in which lies the origin of our present holiday.  Little of this will
relate directly to modern politics, but this commentary, from Arthur
Schnitzler's _Some Day Peace Will Return:  Notes on War and Peace_, is quite
interesting.  Besides, I just finished preparing an exam and I need to renew my
faith in humanity before I inflict these questions on my students.

        These daily observances were written by Schnitzler while in Vienna
during the Great War.  They were never published during his lifetime and were
found in a folder labeled "Some Day Peace Will Return."  In no particular
order, here are some excerpts:

January 1915:

Which then is the characteristic feature of war?  Death?  Everybody is subject
to that experience, including those who have never been in a war.  Heroism?
For that, human civilization holds innumerable better opportunities.
Suffering?  Poverty?  Brutality?  In all their diverse manifestations?  In this
respect the yield of war exceeds only quantitatively that of peaceful epochs.

The only thing specific to war is the wound, the senseless physical wound, and
hostility, the senseless hostility, i.e., the hostility between human beings
who, as individuals, might be facing each other without hate, perhaps even with
love.



(undated)

They say he died the glorious death of a hero.  Why do they never say he
suffered the magnificent mutilation of a hero?  They say he has given his life
for his country.  Why do they never say he has had both legs amputated for his
country?

(The semantics of those in power)

The terminology of war has been coined by the diplomats, the military, and
those in power.  It should be revised by those who have come back from the war,
by the widows, the orphans, the physicians, and the poets.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "An hungry historian spent a hour and an half
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    hasking an hundred friends habout indefinate
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       harticles.  An history of the event made 'er
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu       an happy camper."
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET                  -- Jamie Drier, An Philosopher
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:35:00 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: 1996

I'm real sorry about that mess being sent. I sure am glad I didn't get it.
I was experimenting with a new terminal but that's scraped now.

What I was trying to get accross is that
Rush Limbaugh is hardly small, but he is looking much better after the diet
but I'm sure he'll appreciate the compliment.
Now you other little comments well I think that they leave something to be
desired. You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about him and the church
too. What's so wrong with making money. You aren't evil just because your
innovative, he has a product that people like. He's made alot of money because
of it. Some of his comments are way out there but he does say what alot of
people feel. Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee, you know the stuff
that makes those large companies rich by exploiting people. Come on it sounds
like you take him more seriously than his audience.
--mike..
Kemp '96
P.S. better yet you could write to him and tell him all this yourself. I'll
post his address if you want?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:18:00 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      re: KAT's fly calculations

I said:
> Unless I am missing something big (which is not out of character :-)
                                ^^^
And then Robert said:
> You forgot to allow for fatigue, wind speed/direction and humidity.  I'm
> embarrassed for you.

I knew I forgot something "big" -- Robert's mouth.     :-)

Robert, you are as funny as you are a moron.  Now that was the
best complement I could ever give you.  Take it and don't look
back.   :-)

--KAT

p.s.  Thanks Kerry for the info.  Are you sure that von Neuman
      added the series and not do it the smart way?  That is
      incredible.  And I agree, I did like your answer the best.
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 09:55:37 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Buchanan would be the greatest thing for this country since the model-T.
"Ideology knows compassion when properly empowered."
--Steve
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:03:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      The Solid South
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

                      THE SOLID SOUTH

        Basically, the South has a history of voting as a block.
After Reconstruction, the South consistently went Democratic, becuase
the Republican Party was the party that ended slavery (whites had
control in the South).

        Beginning in 1948, Southern Democrats began to split with the
party.  Strom Thurmond ran for the presidency in 1948.  After the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many white Southern Democrats
began shifting Republican.  In '64, Goldwater carried five Southern
states (MS, AL, GA, SC, LA).  In '68 another Southern Democrat,
Wallace, split from the party, and carried five deep South states.
The first Republican sweep of the South occured in 1972 with Richard
Nixon, actually Nixon swept the country.
        Carter pulled off the South in '76 because he was a
Southerner, but could only manage a few Southern states in '80.
The South became strongly Republican and Reagan easily carried the
region in '84 (easily carried the nation), and Bush had no problems in
'88.
        '92 becomes an odd year, for a few reasons.  The fact that
Clinton and Gore were both Southerners aided in the tickets carrying
of a few Southern States.  Also, Perot's appeal in the South took away
from Bush.  Besides the point, Bush still did well in the South.  Bush
lost in Georgia by a point, a couple in Louisiana, and three in
Tennessee (Gore's home state).  The only Southern State Bush lost big
in '92 was Arkansas (Clinton's home state).
        I still believe the South is still Republican territory, and
the Republican in '96 should not need a big effort to carry the
region, unless it William Weld.  But, I guess only time will tell.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:15:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Catholic tradition

Paul:

        A few things about your post on Catholic traditions.  The Church HAS
changed its "tradition" on homosexuality;  in the past, the Church had always
proclaimed homsexuality as a s - and the homosexual to be a sinner.  The
stance today ( I believe it was adopted in the past 5 years ) still regards
homosexual ACTIVITY a sin, but welcomes the homosexual into the Church.

You see, the earlier position made no distinction between sexually active
homosexuals and celibate homosexuals.  Either one was a "sinner".  Now the
Church is beginning to recognize modern theories (modern=since 500 AD); they
realize through their policy that homosexuality is NOT a life style choice
but an identity.  They therefore cannot condemn the "inactive" homosexual.

I know this is still behind the curve, but it IS a reform - one that could bring
them even closer to full acceptance.

Also, what the heck do you mean by the BC/PC statement?  You just weren't clear.
-T.