HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:52:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is sn

Hey Tim,
Could you fill me in on the E-mail ticket. Who is running? On what issues are
you basing your campaign? Explain the email election.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: post-debate reaction
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:13:13 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

MacPhil:
>Saturday's NYTimes had a cover story (at least the Nat'l edition did)
>about Clinton refusing to hand over his health reports.  The physicians
>will confirm he is healthy, as will his staff, but details will be made
>public only after he is elected.  The article went on to point out the
>timing of this attitude just after the physicians conducting the
>JFK autopsy revealed the fact JFK's adrenal glands were nearly gone.
>Not that this is important, per se, but the JFK et al denied there were
>any problems (at all).

For what it's worth (?), I saw a blurb of Clinton explaining that the
problem with the NYT was an information glitch -- the campaign had been
preparing the material the Times requested, but somehow it never got there.
He said he was working on it . . .

Kerry
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is sn
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:51:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>he's a short guy.  Never trust a short guy.  The
>JohnsoN/OlsoN ticket, I'll remind you, controls the
>height thing.  And, despite what the E ticket claims,
>the Beer Thing.  And the Shoe Thing.  And the N Thing.
>Really, there is no other choice.  JohnsoN/OlsoN.)


excuse me, tim, but you just proved to the virtual voting public that your
administration would represent only those with their heads in the clouds.
your platform ignores the real down-to-earth people in this country. you
are fostering and propogating a movement intended to deny people representation
on the basis of height (or lack thereof).

the E ticket, on the other hand, will represent all the people regardless of
height. my running mate is a tall woman, and i am a petite 5'4". we know first
hand the problems facing those on both the high and low end of the height issue.

and we are solid on the bEEr thing (note not one N, but two E's), and the shoE
thing (what is your stance on that? do we all need platform shoEs to get your
attention, or do we short people have a right to the comfort of low hEEls?).
the N thing is the height of folly.

you're right. there is no other choice....E for all thE pEoplE.

>                                   -Tim

- linda suE saboE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:07:48 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> The word "stacked" was typed with doubt and suspicion to the Commission.  I
> became angry because of the change back to a single monitor.  If the Commis-
> sion was in the process of changing it years ago, then this should have been
> widely and more openly stated before the election year campaign.  This would
> have not have been questioned to much.  How many years ago was this decided
> upon to change the format?

This is a continuing commission.  The same commission that arranged/
sponsored the debates the last time around.  Now, at what specific
point the decided to change I don't know.  But I hears somewhere that
the decision to change was announced a few months ago.  Bush did not
say anything then.  But when the dates where announced and Clinton
accepted them, Bush objected to the format.

>> that the single moderator format would serve the people better.

> I guess that is where we disagree.  ............................

Who is we?  Actually I am not sure which format I like better.  My
biggest objection is with limited followups (I think only one was
allowed last time.)  I think if a person is ducking a question, it
should be asked several times until either it is answered or it
becomes obvious that the candidate is ducking.

We can agree to disagree on that.  It was the accusation that the
*bipartisan* Commission was biased and stacked that bothered me.

>> but one should not accuse them of being biased or that they did not offer
>> an explanation.

> I only suspected when President Bush refused to debate as quickly as Clinton
> accepted, and mentioned his doubts on Rush's radio talk show.  They should
> put out written documentation for all to read as to why the change, it makes
>people think there is bias,especially right in the middle of an election year.

Why not simply suspect that the format is more favorable to Clinton
than Bush, as Bush has repeated say that?  Why go the extra mile and
accuse a bipartisan comission of bias and being stacked.

(One point regarding Rush Limbaugh and Larry King.  I admit King
is on the left but he is much closer to the center than Limbaugh
is.  Limbaugh might have many attributes, but being objective
is not one of them.  King also asks softball questions.  When he
was on Meet the Press he said, "if I interview President Bush I
will ask him if the fetus is a person, then why would you allow
for exception in cases of rape and incest."  So then he gets to
interview President Bush.  And do you think he did ask that
question?  No, he didn't.)

>> Bush is NOT an honorary member.

> I was assuming that ex-presidents became honorary members of the Commission.

This is a really intriguing answer by you.  Was that a Freudian slip.
Do you think Bush is a soon to be ex-president?

> Sue Clark

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:05:00 CST
From:         HIGHLANDER <940253JT@GBVAXA.UWGB.EDU>
Subject:      Sorry...
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

	It would seem to me, John, that the Jews provide an excellant example
of just what you said doesn't exist in humanity...peace and being nice.
Instead of picking up weapons and sinking to the level of their oppressors, the
 Jews valued their own self-respect over life itself.  While that may mean
they're dead..it should command our respect.
	Without actions such as those of the Jews.. humanity will never be
anything more than it is now... a squabbling species with a self-destructive
psychosis.  If we are ever to rise above this, someone has to lead the way out.
It will likely result in their death.  But eventually those examples may cause
us to look beyond violent solutions.
	If you disagree, and say that humanity will never overcome these, the
future seems rather gloomy, doesn't it?  An endless future of self-elimination.
I'd like to think we've got another option.

	"In wars.. fools kill other fools, for foolish causes"
					-Robert Jordan

							    J.T.
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, 12 Oct 1992 13:53:18 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      voting record -- for Carl
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, Carl.
I voted for "none of the above" in '76 (my first presidential election; I
now wish I'd understood Carter better) and Anderson in '80.  And I don't
need to bash Columbus today, 'cause we took care of that last semester (and
actually, we bashed Kirkpatric Sale's book more than we did Cristobal).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:07:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject: Re: post-debate reaction: yes, my spirit is snoring!

        Listen Peter, I am not saying it was a mistake.  I organized in my
high school for the first march on Washington in 1964 by the SDS, and I kept
on marching and organizing until the end of the decade when I thought that
the anti-war movement was getting downright silly.  I went a lot farther than
any of those people, I supported the Committee to Aid the National Liberation
Front.  I was a Maoist until the Cultural Revolution, when I became a yippie.
If Clinton ever did anything to be ashamed of, I should be boiled in oil.
Looking back I believe some of the things I did were stupid, but when I did
them I thought I had good reasons for doing what I did, so I'm not really
ashamed of myself.  I will second someone else on one of these lists -- I think
Clinton should be more forthright, but then again I could never be elected for
anything.  Of course I happen to think power centers are like dumps, they just
draw flies and I try to stay as far away from them as I can.  On the other
hand I'm glad there are other people who like to run for political office and
I am quite happy to support Clinton for President because I think he will take
this country in the direction it's going anyway, but he will take it there
with less pain for its people and all the other people in this world.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: parole/debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:38:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet


    Debate.  That is the purpose of this group besides putting forth
your views, calling other views idiotic, or talking past people.  KAT,
Robert, and I have rather different views on the death penalty, victim
impact statements, and parole, but when we set down our positions, we
saw we had some common ground.  That is the key thing these days.  We
have to find our common ground and stop just talking and blaming
people, and get things done with certain things as givens or resolved.
Like Resolved: Families are important and a major problem in our times
is helping them or Resolved: Crime is a terrible problem but how we're
dealing with it now is not working very well.  Perot is annoying with
his "there's plenty of plans out there", but I need not pick one
philosopy, but he's right that we have to do something.

   On a more narrow note, if prisoners' actions in jail are bad enough
are in fact guilty of additional crimes while in prison.

                -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:21:37 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Aztecs
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

One cannot judge Aztecs by our standards. THEY believed that human sacrifice
propitiated their gods, much as many of us believe believe that attending
services propitiates ours - they weren't alone. The Hittites, the Zorastrians,
the Persians and the Mongols, not to mention the crucifying Romans, were
"barbaric" in their sacrificing large numbers of humans. (Also the Micronesians
used human sacrifice). This was a process of earlier times, it does not appear
to occur now save on the altar of war - and is that not the MOST barbaric? VMS
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: WWF (AKA the veep debate)
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:45:27 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:40:00 EST <YONI@BROWNCOG> said:
>I've got a question: Why didn't Gore bring up IraqGate and Iran Contra when
>Quayle started jiving about an untrustworthy Clinton? Those two examples of
>the Bush administration/Bush represent corruption at its peak.

Because Clinton/Gore are in the lead.  Anyone who is not in the lead will
try to get the frontrunners to stop and argue rather than keep running
in the race.  The Bush strategy appears to be one of taking potshots to
see if they (the campaign staff) can get a rise out of either Clinton/Gore
or the American voters.  As has been said before many times, the race
is Clinton's to lose.  Why should he look over his shoulder and trip?

This is also why Clinton won't/can't admit some of the shortcomings/details
of his plan(s) in plain simple English.


Remember:  gore Clinton in '92!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:28:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Another noble savage story from Active-l (can't delete
              header). Chris.

chris,
thanks for sharing that. i had a a prof. years ago (eng. lit and amer.indian
studies) in albuquerque who was part cherokee and part irish. brought back
memories of possibly the nicest person i've ever met. his class on indian
removal made a great impact on my way of thinking. nice to know people are
still thinking once in awhile.
-linda
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: michelle e. olson
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:39:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        Well, I can't help it there was a Michelle in there somewhere.
I guess I must have turned off my hearing aid.

                                                Chris Morrison
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The VP Debates
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:14:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        Maybe the campaigns still are trying to keep on Perot's good side.

                                                Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:21:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

>>ginny, so how old are you?
>>
>>-linda (please oh please let her be older than me :))
>>
>Does age matter as much as the ability to put forth intelligent ideas? Is this
>bickering over status levels? Gee, what could be wrong with fighting over
>unnecessary points, when in the big picture, the ideas matter? Oh, I get it.
>This is Bush vrs. Clinton, isn't it!


nonono, it's a joke. i joke abt. my age all the time - 40+.
did you see the :) ?
i agree, age and/or status mean diddlysquat, except when talking to
people to whom you gave birth. then its all ya got to maintain control.
oh yeah, and it should be considered when looking for sexual partner. i'm
considering all those under 25 at this time. ;).

- linda
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: more on veep debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:55:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"


        I guess you all saw the TNR cover with Gore hugging the tree and
Quayle hugging the chain saw.  I loved the expressions on their faces.

                                        Chris Morrison
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:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:06:52 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perotdiction for the election

>>Just when you think you've honed your level of tolerance to the max,
>>---Robert

>  Well, Robert, since we can't make you any smarter, we can
>at least try to make you tolerant.

Tim, what happened, before I got busy and had to set nomail for a
while, you said that you were going to work on getting Robert a
brain transplant to make him much smarter. I see that this has failed;
did the chicken refuse to sign the organ donor card or what?

>                       -Tim

-other Andy
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, 15 Oct 1992 21:22:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: victim impact for parole
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt355272@drew.edu>, K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
> From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
>>> However, in parole hearings such
>>> statements can be considered.
>
>> whoa.  what relevance do they have here?  parole hearings deal with
>> the criminal's activity in jail on the most part, not if he
>> inadvertedly killed a family man over a bachelor.
>
> Now, part of that "society" are the victims or relatives
> of the victims.  In fact the victims are affected *more* by
> the early release than any other member of the society.
> That is why I think victim impact statements are relevant to
> parole hearing.
>
>
>>  -Joe
>
> --KAT

the net result would still be that the impact of the victims would
effect the punishment of the crime.  Instead of giving the criminal a
longer jail time or a greater chance to be found guilty at the trial,
the same happens at the parole hearing, which is worse because of the
rights absent in parole hearings that are there at trials.  Unless the
criminal knew about the effect of the crime on a victim, it shouldn't
be part of their punishment.  Punishment is for crimes one knows
about, not for crimes that they do unknowingly.

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:13:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Bloody Nose

   I cannot believe that nobody is bashing Columbus today.  I thought there
would be a few "angry" people that would have felt the need to "fight back."

Carl------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:08:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      To Those Who Voted For Carter

   If you are complaining about the economy and how we need a change
and should vote Bush out, then why did you vote for Carter *twice* after
he ruined the economy?  Carter did not improve things, but you voted for
him again, so obviously you are a hypocrite.  You don't care about the
economy, just democracts in the White House.

Carl------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:30:51 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      History of POLITICS ...

I can only say that the "listowners" today are two, Jim Ennis at UCF1VM and
a fellow at Ohio State. This has been the case since at least January, 1990,
when Lois Buwalda went off to grad school at Bryn Mawr. She had owned the list,
I believe, at least two years prior to that. I think the oldest archives would
be at UCF1VM, but confess that I do not know how far back they go. Wading
through all that would be interesting, but difficult. We generate a GREAT DEAL
of mail, always have, probably now always will. I've been here for three years
plus now, and have seen a lot of faces come and go. A person named Bill Sklar
would probably know the most, but as this individual was in the process of
changing his entire life, including name and other things, I am not sure if
this person is still around to answer questions. Tim Johnson, Gary Olson,
Peter Schledorn, the two Andys and myself are among the "older" (in terms of
duration) list subscribers, and Gary was gone for awhile. I am curious as to
whatever is discovered on this question of the list's history, please keep
me posted as to what you discover. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:36:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      "Profiles In Courage"

I've just picked up a copy of John F. Kennedy's "Profiles_in_Courage." It's
an interesting read. For those of you who aren't familiar with the work, it's
about U.S senators who sacrficed their constituencys' interests while relying
on their intuition and instict. Right now I'm on the chapter about Thomas Hart
Benton. Well, the question I had for those of you who are familiar with the
work is: Is this book a "pot-boiler" operation? Is it similar to one of those
books Ollie North puts out or some other guy puts out about Ollie North that
always end up in the trash section of the grocery store? Is this a respected
political work? I, for one find
the book educational. What are your opinions on the book?
Thanks
Lance
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, 12 Oct 1992 08:18:32 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      my debate reaction
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Like most of you, I found little or nothing particularly exciting about the
debate.  The four things that made something of an impression were:
(1) Maybe this was because of camera angles, but it seemed to me that the
three candidates were playing to different audiences -- Bush looked at the
reporters and at his podium; Perot looked at the live audience; and Clinton
played straight to the TV camera.  (2) When asked what each would do to
enact his agenda after the election, Perot talked task forces, Clinton
talked about meeting with legislative leaders and new congresscritters, and
Bush said he'd turn the mess over to Jim Baker (a rather telling point, I
thought).  (3) Bush, when discussing those aspects of his domestic record
that are pretty good (increasing AIDS funding, passing the Americans with
Disabilities Act, passing the Civil Rights Act), sounded apologetic -- at
least to me.  Maybe apologetic isn't quite the right word -- what I heard
was a sort of subtext that read "I did something good and I just don't
understand why nobody gives me credit, golly gosh darn it."  I guess he
sounded a lot like my 9-year-old when she starts with the "but Mommy . . ."
stuff.

Finally, the little telephone tracking gig was kind of interesting -- and,
as I kind of expected, the voter responses were often quite different from
my own!

Do y'all think we'll see more fireworks (some fireworks?  a few sparklers?)
during the VP debates?

Kerry