HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:27:28 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Clinton and the media?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Over the weekend, the Clinton team announced Clinton's intention to
do at least one call-in show before his inauguration.  This, of
course, immediately kicked up a stink among "watchdogs" who figure
that this would be a baaaaaad thing that would leave Clinton
smelling like a rose because there would be no reporters to make
sure that "hard questions" were asked.

Obviously, the "hard news" value of a call-in show is somewhat
limited.  There is no way Clinton can take more than a few calls.
But I fail to understand what is so dangerous about it.  It's not
as if the precious mainstream media is not going to be able to howl
and whine and criticize public officials if they decide to have a
TV show once in a while.  For God's sake, get a grip, Sam Donaldson.

It all sounds a bit like jealousy to me.  Do they honestly think
that elected officials are going to grab total control of the media
just because they decide to do shows from time to time?

I'm one of those idiots who thinks that the relationship between
the media, the president and the people is a three-way street.  It is
a relationship that can, for the most part, WORK!  Look at C-SPAN.
They have not given up any of their editorial control over material;
they have merely sacrificed some of self-indulgent trappings that
the mainstream networks are not willing to sacrifice.  C-SPAN still
controls what is seen, what events are covered, who is interviewed,
and so on -- despite the fact that they do it without as much
editorial commentary as the mainstream networks do.

Clinton at least seems willing to make sacrifices of his own to
make the media-leader-people relationship work.  He is willing to
sacrifice his time, and also some of his presidential "stature" and
isolation.  He is going to risk criticism for making these efforts.

And the people have to make sacrifices too.  They have to learn to
sit down and watch TV critically, and actually >participate< in an
intelligent manner instead of sitting there like couch potatoes
and whining that the media controls everything.

The mainstream media has to learn to make more sacrifices, and so
do we.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:57:43 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Senate Runoff Rules

Apparently no one got the 50% majority in Georgia's Senate
election.  So tomorrow there would be a runoff election.

What I like to know is whether this necessary 50% vote is
particular to Georgia, or all states have a similar provision.

--KAT
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, 18 Nov 1992 09:15:44 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      oops
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

The first point from the NPR report should read "1500 persons discharged *
each year*".  That's kinda important.

Sorry!
Kerry
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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:08:10 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: sexual harassment and other goodies
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Because when Congress wrote anti-discrimination and harassment law, they
exempted themselves from such provisions. Law-writers get away with a lot
unless a militant citizenry keeps the rascals on their toes. VMS
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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:49:44 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gays in the military

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

>I am not gonna reiterate what I said before.  Rather, let me ask
>you this: according to what you said above we could also have
>common showers, bathrooms, and sleeping quarters for men and
>women in the military and nothing would happen.  Are you saying
>that?

What's going on here?!  Did KAT just complete Common Sense 101?  I know I for
one will have a hard time sleeping tonite knowing that KAT and I agree on
something. :)

Seriously though, I was under the impression that such interaction between men
and women *did* actually occur occasionally during the Gulf War.  Specifically,
I thought that in some areas men and women had to share quarters, so you would
have a woman standig around topless, trying to get dressed, while men were
less that 5 feet away.  As I understood it, such close quarters contributed to
several pregnancies during the war as well.  Correct me if I'm wrong on any of
this info, but it seems like this would also exclude women from the armed
services, or at least make it logistically difficult.

(I for one oppose having women on the front lines, but I'm sure KAT doesn't
agree with me on *that*)

>--KAT

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:56:44 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

My point is that you voted for Bill and not Hillary and it appears that both
should have been on the ballot.  I can understand her giving her opinion to her
husband but as far as being involved directly in meetings and decisions it is
not right.

-Rich
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:49:33 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning

>| Our flag is not just a
>|"piece of cloth," it is indeed a symbol of our country, one of if not the
>most
>|powerful of symbols.  What exactly do you find wrong about pledging
>allegience to a "piece of cloth"

Would it not make more sense to pledge allegience to the country or its
Constitution? The US is the only nation on earth whose citizens pledge
allegience to a flag.
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:54:53 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      test probe
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

test message - soz folks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:46:19 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

Well, KAT:
You did not get it, did U? In four years we will know who is right.
Clinton is gonna lose the elections; that's what I meant. Perot
scared voters away from Bush. In 1998, the Republican candidate
will have the same advantage Clinton enjoyed as a result of Perot's
running for presidency. TIME will show us; we just have to sit and
wait. BOZO and MORON will not be in my vocabulary. Remember that:
**BUSH WAS JUST NERVOUS**
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:56:39 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      sexual harassment and other goodies
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

jenna, there is this deal called 'separation of powers.' Y'see,
if the Executive branch had power over Congress, that power could
be used to control Congress. Unfortunately, this makes Capital
Hill a game preserve for sexual harrassment, but this is beginning
to become a serious issue for the ethics committees, from what I
hear.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
 Beardless Harry - what a waste
 couldn't get a small-town taste
 went down town, to west 57
 trying to buy his way to heaven
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:02:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: "22 November, A Day's Remembrance"

VMS:

Lest you believe that *all* of us want to give you heat about JFK:


"We, in this country, in this generation, are - by destiny rather than choice -
the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.  We ask, therefore, that we may be w
worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with
wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the
ancient vision of 'peace on earth, goodwill toward men.'  That must always be
our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength.
For as was written long ago, 'except the Lord keep the city, the watchman
waketh but in vain.' "

                        John F. Kennedy
                        from remarks prepared for delivery at
                        Dallas Trade Mart Luncheon (undelivered)
                        November 22, 1963


-T.
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Words
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:03:10 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

> >Boxer, I guess, has been in the news and her opponent was a neo-facist!
>
> "Fascist" = "a person some liberal doesn't like".
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
>

Certainly I exaggerate.  In fact, aside from homosexuality there has never
really been a hint of facism in Herschenson.  However, the points of views
that he espouses are more than simply something that a "liberal doesn't like".
Here are some of Herscheson's beliefs:
1)      Increase military spending
2)      Abolish Social Security
3)      Abolish just about every government office
4)      Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion
5)      Off-shore oil drilling.
6)      Guns into everyone's hands (if people in LA had easier access to guns,
        the riots wouldn't have happened)

Damm, it's only been a couple of weeks since the election and I have forgotten
some of the more outrageous beliefs of Herschenson!  Oh, well.  From what I
have remembered you can see that it's not the sort of person who represents
a lot of majority viewpoints.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:24:20 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: The new vice presidency?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Or is it the fact that Gore is more intelligent than Clinton and was necessary
for Clinton to be elected.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:37:56 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Fisher" at Nov 17, 92 12:03 pm

While under delusions of grandeur, Jonathan Fisher spewed:

[Early discussion of Bruce H. = facist deleted]

| Certainly I exaggerate.  In fact, aside from homosexuality there has never
| really been a hint of facism in Herschenson.

        Could you tell me his positions on homosexuals?

| Here are some of Herscheson's beliefs:
| 1)      Increase military spending
| 2)      Abolish Social Security
| 3)      Abolish just about every government office
| 4)      Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion
| 5)      Off-shore oil drilling.
| 6)     Guns into everyone's hands (if people in LA had easier access to guns,
|         the riots wouldn't have happened)

        Not being a Californian, I certainly don't know all his
positions, but these seems like misinterpratation. Having heard Bruce
on various programs (Nightline, C-Span, PBS, etc), I see him as a
Reagan Liberterian. One sounds like a Reagan like statement. The rest
sound vaguely liberterian. I will explain. 2) should be part of 3.
Bruce does not feel that the Federal Gov't should be interfering with
the States. Actually, he isn't a liberterian, he's a strict
Constitutionalist. Anyway, I digress.

        4 is a misrepresentation. Bruce does not feel that Abortion
should be made legal on a federal level, and that states should be
able to make decisions as to whether or not it should be legal without
interference. Thus, He (as far as I know) has never advocated a
Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, although he personally does
not like abortion. (And would probably be a leader to make it illegal
in California).

        I'm not sure where 5 fits in. I have little problem with off
shore drilling if it is done safely. (Although we really should be
using alternate forms of energy).

        As for 6, I figure (not having heard him expouse any opinions
on it) that He does not want any time limits, or guns banned. Whether
or not that equates with Lets put a gun in everyone's hands is up to
each individual person. (Again, I think this fits with a strict
reading of the Constitution).

--
 Cousin It                                          cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
"I can't believe I find a way, to make it thru this hell everyday, slip,
   slipping my reality slips away, sleep, sleeping seems the only way"
                       -Mordred  "Falling Away"-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:33:06 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: partisan idiocy

From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

>>> *but*, i'd be willing to step in as "list mother" and chastise, punish, and
>>> administer wet noodle whippings when appropriate.i mean, what the hell, i'm
>>> already doing the list cooking.

>>   That should also include the cleaning and washing :-)

> carl dear, i applied for list mother not list slave  :)

You know Linda, you shouldn't be surprised.  Some people think of
marriage as changing an old slave with a new one.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:42:42 -0500
From:         "(Jeff Green)" <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: IRA foiled twice
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>Meanwhile commentators here have remarked that rather than sending a
>peace envoy or whatever, the simplest way for America to stop the
>terrorists' activities is to stop funding them ...

Dunstan,

The county Comptroller of Nassau County, New York, one Peter King
has spent many many hours doing nothing but publicly supporting the
activities of the IRA. He is not alone. In the New York
metropolitan area, a part of the United States that has perhaps 2
million people of Irish descent, support of the IRA is almost a
life and death situation. (Can't imagine it to be any less in
Boston!).

You are right. It will stop when the funding from the United
States stops. Those millions of dollars are being sent to Ireland
illegaly and any support of the IRA covertly or overtly is against
the laws of this nation.

Jeff


_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green                              Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                        116 Dean Street Suite B
203.969.1183 Voice                      Stamford, CT 06902-6251
From: CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET (Kevin McDade)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Perot's influence on the election
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:32:26 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Well, it seem that Perot's voters would have voted for Bush had he not
run. Perot campaign did serious damage to Bush's, and made the latter
lose many of his would-be supporters.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:31:29 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance

> This all depends on the business you are running.  If you are organizing
> archealogical expeditions then communal showers may be appropriate and
> the individuals should know the conditions before engaging in the contract.
> If you are running a shoe store then the first question is, "What the
> hell do you need showers for?".

Not if the shoe store is run by Al Bundy.

--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, 16 Nov 1992 13:54:10 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      RE: Ever hear of a Compass?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> When Quayle tried to correct the boy's mistake, he was looking at a note card
>  onwhich potato was misspelled.  He did not have a chance to correct the
 mistake
> of whoever wrote the card.  There were many reporters and cameras there
 circling
> like vultures waiting for Quayle to mess up.  As soon as the letter "e" was
 out
> of his mouth the pens were scribbling, the tape was rolling, and the bulbs
 were
> popping.
>
> -Rich
>

No sorry. That excuse has been tried and it don't cut it.
Rich, if he was confident of his spelling abilities, he would have ignored
the card.  The fact is Quayle needed cards.  His ability to question
anything that is given to him does not exist.  He lived by cards.
Your excuse of the Ex-Vice-President (thank god! thank god! thank god!)
is petty.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:43:05 -0500
From:         Every Man <EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Talking about my generation

         My generation is now represented in one of the most powerful
         political positions on this planet!   I think it is time.`

         Our parents, teachers..... always taught us, (even though it
         is a myth), that if we worked hard, studied hard and applied ourselves
         we would be able to do wonderful things....even be president!

         Now that one of us baby-boomers has realized this goal, why
         do so many of my generation keep talking about it in terms of
         Republicans and Democrats?  It's not the party that is important,
         it is that YOUTH has arrived in the White House once again.

         (by the way, Danny Boy Quale doens't count....he sold out
         to the the old-boy network by supporting Bush)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:09:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military

From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

>> take it for granted that most male heterosexuals are attracted
>> to the body of most females.  Combine this with days and sometimes

>are you saying that you are attracted to every female you see? god, that
>must be incredibly distracting.

No!  First, I didn't say anything about me  :-), and second, I said
*most* (please read above, it's in black and white), not that all male
heterosexuals are attracted to EVERY female.

>i am a heterosexual female, but i am certainly not attracted to every male
i encounter, and even when faced with years of celibacy (in the past thanks for
>small (teehee) favors), i was still attracted only to certain individuals.
>now, unless females are totally different from males this way (which i doubt),
>why would you think homosexuals are attracted to all those of the same sex?
>who...er, i mean, what gives?

OK, let's take your assertion that people are only attracted to
"certain" individuals.  (What is this "certain", 50%, 20%?)  Even
so there is two problems: 1) you don't know if you are among one of
those "certain" individuals of the person taking shower with you,
and 2) why should those certain individuals be forced to take
shower with a person who is lusting for their body.

> -linda
From: 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flag Burning
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:55:53 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

In article <01GR9G3KUMKI000IW3@RHODES.BITNET>, Jason Briggs Cormier
<CORJB@RHODES.BITNET> says:
>
>Dunstan:
>
>The Nazis may have wanted to overtake the world, but the US only declared
>war on Germany after Germany declared war on the US, which was after
>the US delcared war on Japan.  More simply it went this way
>
>Pearl Harbor
>US declares war on Japan
>Japan declares war on US
>Germany declares war on US
>US declares war on Germany
>
>As I said before, Japan had no intention of overtaking the US; our
>government simply wanted into the war.
>
>I do acknowledge that our soldiers were fighting for those already
>killed(-this is called revenge in my book and I don't approve-), but
>they were not defending the country because there was no threat to
>the nation itself.
>
>j.b.

There was a rather viscious piece of satire on the radio here some years ago
which suggested that the real reason the US was so late in joining WWI and WWII
was that they had to wait until they could guess which side would win:)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:14:36 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <01GRAKHW8LJ6006YMK@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>, The Integral Differential
<DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> says:
>
>>In article <POLITICS%92111716085676@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
>>STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>>>
>>>I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not
>lead
>>>protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
>>>
>>>-Rich
>>The main difference is that Clinton did not fight a war he opposed while     n
>Reaga
>>and Quayle did not fight in wars they supported. Participating in a          o
>demonstati
>>is a permissable exercise of free speech. There is no evidence that Clinton
>>"lead" such a demo, when asked, anti-War leaders in Britain couldn't even
>>remember who he was. Even if he had led such demos, so what, it is his
>>democratic right. At least he's not a hypocrite like Reagan and Quayle,
>urging
>>others to fight and die in wars while finding loopholes to escape fighting
>>yourself.
>
>        Reagan is hardly a hypocrite.  The army asked him to make films.
>
>Brett'

Oh, I see "I'm not a soldier, but I play one in films" is it?I thought it was
only Reagan who confused his films with reality (if you were joking, I'm sorry)
Sylvester Stallone dodged the draft during Vietnam (he taught in a convent
school in Switzerland) yet he plays Rambo, a Vietnam war hero, I suppose you
see no hypocricy in that either?
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, 15 Nov 1992 21:29:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: partisan idiocy
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Does the list have a "basic sanity czar" to step in when the arguments
get _really_ silly and whip everyone with a wet noodle?

If not, I propose we nominate one since it is obviously needed.

--Julie, who hopes to bring new meaning to the term "minority whip" (;-))
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU