HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:27:14 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: election fatigue
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

andy:
>
>Hey! How about the Canadian Referendum!

Oops sorry. What will the repurcussions be if Quebec votes for
independence ? Will they leave the Commonwealth ?

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:25:25 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: CENSORED: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

rich:
>No one segment of society should have a monopoly on clean air, clean
>water, or a clean workplace; nor should any one segment be targeted for
>society' s wastes.

Of course, nor should we export our polution to less developed
countries ...

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:42:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brett:

First off, whites are the minority in South Africa.

Secondly, it is the African National Congress along with a great many
more black South Africans who have expressly ENDORSED santions against
South Africa.  I do not feel that it is my right to tell them what is
good for the.  I strongly support divestment because so many South
Africans and people who have visited and studied South Africa have
presented their cases to me and, basically, the case against divest-
ment is virtually non-existent.

--Julie
From: CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET (fred)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: president hillary
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:14:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Mike sez: "If president Hillary will let slick willie" we can go into
iran or iraq again.

Gee mike, I bet you miss the good old days when president nancy asked
the court astrologer how to conduct foreign policy! We wouldn't want
a successful lawyer influencing the president when we could ask the
court jester when the moon and stars will be right for signing a treaty.

I have seen several CNN articles about Iran possible buying nuclear
weapons from the former soviet union. Does this make anybody other
than me nervous. Mike and company please note that this is happening
on Mr. Bush's watch, and the clinton presidency doesn't begin until
1993.

fred
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:24:28 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

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

First, not to pick nits or anything, do you really mean we'll be in worse
shape when Clinton *enters* office, or after he's been in office for a
while?  How, exactly, do you think his economic plans will destroy the
economic fabric etc.?  Which policies do you consider depraved, and why?
Just to even things up, I'd be happy to offer a few examples of why I think
we'd suffer under more of Bush's leadership.

Kerry
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 18:52:49 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: here we go again
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Childish art has often saved us from going insane from listening to
absurd remarks made by others.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:52:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

The fact that the "bounced" checks are merely overdrafts in no way affects my
point that ................[much deleted]

Jason

      (It is interesting that you did not quote me directly.  I guess
      you couldn't rebut any of my points directly.)  Look, Jason,
      you can give us a 1000 line story and in fact I agree with most
      of what you said, but the fact remains that you could not show
      a shred of evidence that those checks were "bounced."  You can
      put the word "bounced" in quotations, you may underline them,
      or put it in parenthesis, it doesn't change the fact that those
      checks were not bounced checks.  There were not bounced over-
      drafts either.

      You have a valid point regarding abuse of privilege.  Don't
      smear the valid point by using unjustified smear.

      --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:17:49 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: The Catholic Church & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Gee, now that we know how the Catholic Chruch has been involved in politics,
perhaps you could care to enlighten us on how such groups as Planned Parenthood,
the National Nazi Party, and the Communist Party of America have also been
involved. Or perhaps you could explain to us what is so dreadfully wrong with
Catholics being involved in politics...
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:39:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The cost of excluding lesbians and gay men from the military

The information I have is from Kinsey's published data, 1948, 1953 - and the
text says the following:

        One of the most surprising findings was the proportion of males and
females with any kind of homosexual experience did not change between 1900 and
1950.  Again, in spite of the sexual permissiveness that characterized the 1960s
and 1970s, there seems to have been little change since the Kinsey studies
(Karlen, 1978).

        Here is what the study reported:

Survey Data on Same-Sex Erotic Experience

                                Percent Reporting
___________________________________________________________________________

Sex of         Exclusive          At least 1 same sex exper.        At least 1
Respondent     Homosexuality      Leading to Orgasm             Same sex exper.
                                                                Erotic Response
________________________________________________________________________________
Male             4%                          37%                      50%
Female          1-3%                         13%                      20%



(Kinsey & others, 1948, 1953)

        Those are the numbers to which I was referring.  As far as I know, the
military expels those individuals that it deems to be homosexual (they may
classify someone who is bi to be homosexual, I don't know).

Take care -

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:20:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      The Rumanian orphanges
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

The Rumanian tyrant had several people killed in his country, that we
are just finding out today.  That was part of the reason why the
people despised the man so much.

I'm sorry if I seemed confused, but how could these children be born
in succommunism is suppose to end the difference
between the have's and have not's.  (note the sarcasm)  Could Reagan
have been right calling the Soviet Union an 'evil empire.'  However,
this is beside the point.  My point is that abortion and contraceptive
use would have prevented these children from living in such horrible
conditions, the assumption is absurd.  Anyway, are not most Rumanians
Catholics or Orthodox and opposed to such policies.  I mean, how many
abortions would have been conducted had it been legal.

This is beside the point, but you called yourself Romanian, now I have
several friends of the same ethnicity who call themselves Rumanian.
Now, I know that the difference is minute, but I am curious as to
which one is most preferable, you know in this age of political
correctness.

-Paul
From: PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Catholic Tradition
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:41:00 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

Andrew:

        Are you paying attention when I speak of the Catholic Church.
Yes, the Catholic Church is made of people, but it is also made up of
heirarchy, and I said that I don't people forcing political pressure
on the Church.  That is not the purpose of the Catholic Church.

        Also, your perception of how the Catholic Church should be,
and my ideas are differing.

-Paul
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 12:40:31 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: Special Interest Groupe
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Aside from your personal opinion, what is wrong with SIG's?
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:27:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Steve and "studies"

Sorry, Steve - not good enough.  "Scarr and Soumi have published research showin
g the ill effects of childreb raised in such..."  doesn't cut the statistical
mustard.

WHICH study?  WHEN?  Give us information about the study - and exactly what uts
(oops) its conclusions were.

If you can't think of the names off-hand, how do we know you remembered the
conclusions correctly?

-T.
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:57:10 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

"if your not a part of the solution, your part of the problem". . . Aside from
the grammatical errors, this is a rash generalization. I, myself, am NOT a part
 of the
of the solution but this does not include me what causes the problem. In
addition, Clinton will not "rule" MY life but he will have a strong bearing
upon it -- to much so!
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:10:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brett':  I -expected- that you would not support state-mandated divestment,
since that goes in line with everything else you've said so far, so I was
trying to keep the argument about whether or not divestment was productive
and worthwhile before I even touched the issue of state-mandates on divest-
ment.

So before we touch that, now that you support voulntary divestment, how
do you feel about state money going into South Africa?  For example, our
new treasurer of RhodeIsland, Nancy Mayer, a republican for whom I voted
(*gasp*, and she's not the only one!) wants to reinvest our state pension
fund in South Africa.  I oppose her on this because this is using state
money to support a totalitarian state.  What do you think?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:15:25 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>      Look, Jason,
>      you can give us a 1000 line story and in fact I agree with most
>      of what you said, but the fact remains that you could not show
>      a shred of evidence that those checks were "bounced."

You're absolutely right.  I haven't.  In fact, when you first brought the point
up, I immediately conceded it.  I don't understand why you (or T for that
matter) keeps bringing it up.

>      You can
>      put the word "bounced" in quotations, you may underline them,
>      or put it in parenthesis, it doesn't change the fact that those
>      checks were not bounced checks.  There were not bounced over-
>      drafts either.

Absolutely true.  I appologize for the ambiguity.  The reason I put "bounced"
in quotes is to indicate popular perception.  I realize that the
Congressmen's checks cleared and did not bounce.

>      You have a valid point regarding abuse of privilege.  Don't
>      smear the valid point by using unjustified smear.

What smear?  Putting "bounced" in quotes?  I assure you that that was *not*
meant as any kind of subliminal persuasive device.  Especially since I conceded
that the checks did not technically bounce a long time ago.

>      --KAT

Jason
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Term Limits
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GQTSVEOF348WW2FP@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> writes:
> I have never quite understood the point behind term limits.  It's like
> we don't trust ourselves to make good decisions so we limit our decisions
> intentionally.  I'd rather see the massive power base which incumbents
> establish limited and reduced through more strict rules on lobbying,
> PAC donations and use of public office for campaigning purposes.


It can be hard to reconcile the 14 to 0 passing of term limitations with
the +95% return of incumbants in those same states.  Some have likened it
to the voters crying "stop me before I vote again".

I am for term limitations for Congress.  We currently have it for the
executive branch and many states have limits on the governorships.  I say
let's try it out for a while and see what happens.  If it is a catastrophy,
as those currently in office say it will be, then let's repeal it.

There is such an *incredible* built-in advantage for the incumbant what
with franking, free usage of tv and radio studios, etc, etc.  Do we *really*
need 'professional' legislators?

						Andrew MacRae
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Saddam Hussein & his little PARTY
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:46:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQTVQLFE7C8WW36F@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>Jayce:
>
>Just remember who built Iran's arsenal enough that it could get to
>this point in the first place.  Before you blame Clinton for the problem
>look at the source.
>
>--Julie
>
I wasn't blaming him for the "problem" I just don't know if he will be able to
handle such a potentially difficult situation.  From what I've seen, Mr.
Clinton doesn't deal with criticism too well, and that is not a good trait in
our President.
                                        Jayce

                                        
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:55:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI

There IS a History Czar in this Administration!!! I was not calling anyone
a name!!! (except for Mike, who IS the History Czar!)

First of all, Paul, you wrote that if you don't agree with a religion, you
should leave it.  To add weight to this argument, you mentioned that Luther
left the Church.  I pointed out that in fact Luther had attempted to reform the
Church from within, and was THROWN out.  That had everything to do with your
argument.  What I was complaining about was that you used the analogy of Luther'
s experience (and wrongly, I might add) to show that people can want reform but
leave the Church to do so.

As far as the love-it-or-leave-it politics go, you wrote that if you don't love
a religion, then LEAVE.  You don't offer an ear, or perhaps even counsel - you
blatantly say :Love-it-or-leave-it!  What more of a connection do you want?  It'
s what the Roman Catholic Church has said for centuries.  Actually, in ancient
times you didn't have the chance to leave - you were burned or excommunicated if
you dissented.


Whew!

-T.
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:09:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      The cost of excluding lesbians and gay men from the military
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

One interesting thing to note is that the military spends a great
deal on training people, 10% of whom are in theory unfit to serve
in the first place.  Seems to me to be a tremendous waste that
we would be willing to just throw away trained officers and
enlisted folks on whom we have spent a great deal of taxpayer's
money for the sole purpose of maintaining bigotry.

--Julie
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:55:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Who is Jennifer Grey?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:14:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder. ..

>I wouldn't go out and try to undermine the principles the flag is supposed
>to represent by amending the constitution. In any case, we have no oath of
>allegiance, we don't put our hands over our hearts during the anthem or
>take our hat off in the presence of the flag. It's just a piece of cloth,
>a country that worships cloth over ideals has problems.

it must be a pleasure to live in a country where people can tell the difference
between symbols and the things they represent. i wonder how people get the
two so mixed up?

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:05:17 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: C.E. not B.C.

Paul wrote:
>Allow me to explain the political correctness of A.D.

O.K.

>A.D. implies Christianity, which of course, as everyone knows is
>politically incorrect.  It would be politically incorrect to use B.C.
>and A.D. because of our non-Christian residents.

Didn't you just say A.D. was politically *correct*?  Never mind.  First,
would you please define "politically correct" and "politically incorrect"?
That would help.

>The date changing is really pathetic, and I'm sure that it is a
>politically correct change.  My professor still says B.C. instead of
>B.C.E., and A.D. instead of C.E., but she always writes B.C.E. and
>C.E. on worksheets.  Why, I cannot say?

What makes you "sure" that date changes are due to PC?
As for the seeming inconsistency in your professor's usage, that might
simply be due to the fact that usage changes are easier to make in written
work than in speech (I'm very gender neutral in writing, less so in
speaking; I'm good at avoiding "there is" in writing, less so in speaking,
etc.).

>Besides, what the heck is the Common Era?
>Why must we change the wording?

I offered one possible reason.  And I'll give you a helpful hint for
investigating the relationship between date changes and PC.  Find the
earliest reference you can to "political correctness".  Then find the
earliest reference you can to the date changes you mention.  If PC comes
first, then you've got a bit of supporting evidence (but not conclusive
proof, of course).  If PC comes later, then your hypothesis is pretty well
falsified.  At least I think it is -- others may want to help me out on
this :)

I'll even help get us started.  My 1975 dictionary defines C.E. as common
era, so that usage dates probably a bit earlier.  D'Souza's book was
published in 1991, so "PC" probably dates a bit earlier (unfortunately,
although D'Souza provides a quote from Donald Kagan, he doesn't date it).
This suggests that the dating usage predates PC, but I'll check further.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:17:52 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Minority President?
              10 Nov 1992 19:00:16 GMT from <irvine@UXH.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

From:         "(Brent Irvine)" <irvine@UXH.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

> If Bush were to get all of Perot's votes, he would have won.

Wow!  I never realized that.  What a fine display of
thinking process!  Let me see if I can come up with one of
my own: "If Clinton were to get all of Perot's votes, he
would have still won," ......no that was too childish, let
me try it again: "If Bush were to get all of Perot's and
Clinton's votes, he would have had a clean sweep, sort of a
landslide."  Yeah, that is the ticket.

> Brent L. Irvine

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:56:42 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      On "alleged," Medicine, and Morons

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

   (on Ollie North)
>Remember, he is an alledged criminal.

No, he is a CONVICTED criminal. (That's right, Andrew Mac,
convicted!)

"Alleged" is reserved for defendants who are not convicted.

Jamie
========================================================================

Linda,
A good barber will have that tooth out in no time. And while
you're at it, get him to remove your tonsils. That will
cure your headache, for sure, and with minimal loss of blood.

T,
So sorry to hear of your bout with the Melancholy.
There are, of course, many treatments available in today's
modern world. I personally recommend that you ingest some
black food. Homeopathy is the only first rate treatment
for bile imbalance.
Blood pudding would be a good start. Or just check into
MacDonald's for a couple of days.

But by all means, do something before the next full moon!


========================================================================

Dear Morons,

Thanks ever so much, I have a very clear picture now.

(Robert, your long post was quite unnecessary. No one had
any doubt about YOU.)

You may all stop posting moronic messages; you have
identified yourselves splendidly.

Jamie