HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:57:22 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
              5 Nov 1992 13:10:23 -0600 from <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>

Thanks, Val, for being a voice of reason on this list.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

Dear Marshall (ASTMOLLI@STETSON.BITNET):

Unless you are a fan - and I mean a BIG fan - of Owen Meany, please refrain
from using all caps in your messages.  We are in general agreement that it is
equivalent to screaming.

BTW, in case you have a "great comeback" for that one, a great writing instructo
r of mine once told us that you can't do with punctuation what you've failed to
do with prose.

(All Owen Meany fans are welcome to e-mail me personally; for those of you who
don't understand but feel you are missing out on something great - and you are -
yoo

 (oops) you can e-mail me too!)


-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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:26:21 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      it's around the back, just a half-a-mile from the railroad track

arlo guthrie?  really?  maybe george thought he was giving the award to woody.
or maybe he wanted to "get in touch with the mtv generation."

well, it is nice to see that the professional and intellectual calibre of this
list is maintaining its entertainingly lowbrow level.  glad to have
you with us, jayce.  you may address me as "that bitch" when you feel like you
have a gripe with me.  (nota bene:  the "c" word is not an acceptable choice.
remember what my mother always told me:  a person who will use filthy
language will smoke, a person who will smoke will drink, and a person who
sill drink will tolerate just about *anything* in his/her mouth.  words to
live by.)

i'm actually more upset about this than i think i am letting on. no excuse for
that, son.  you can operate a computer terminal?  will wonders never cease.

and this whole chelsea clinton thing is uncalled-for, too.  poor kid.  let him
who is without a godawful picture from junior high amongst you cast the
first stone.  selah, selah.

the election is past, my parents are very upset, and corporate america is,
even as we speak, preparing to slash company-sponsored health benefits in
order to offset the mammoth payroll taxes that are to come.  god's in his
heaven, all's right with the world.

what's going on with john major?  he avoided a no-confidence vote a couple
days ago, right?  but i think i heard someone say that there was some deal
that they maybe voted again?  to boost his self-esteem or something?  can
this be true?  this blessed realm:  this england.

for a more pleasant read than that of camille paglia, i will hereby
recommend celeste olalquiaga's _megalopolis:  cultural sensibilities_.
or the new harold brodkey book.

final question:  why is hillary clinton so popular in germany?

this is the way this post ends
this is the way this post ends
this is the way this post ends
not with a flame, but a whimper

anneliese.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:45:46 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"

In article <01GQR3KIDW8W00044F@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,
JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver) says:
>
>>If Hiallary becomes President, I expect mass numbers of Americans flocking
>>to Canada or other countries. Also, neither Hillary nor Chelsea even look
>>very pretty.

I always thought the description of elections as "beauty contests" was only
an expression, little did I know some take the term literally.
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:58:08 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
> Paul also asserts that 50% of the population thinks that homosxuality
> is abnormal (is that what you said, Paul?  I don't have the original
> message any longer) and I really don't know how to respond to that
> because I really think it's (a) irrelevant and (b) false.  Care to
> explain to me the point behind bringing that up Paul and where you get
> your figures?
>
> --Julie
>
	Well, I agree that the assertion is false, but if it were true,
I don't think that it would be irrelevant.  I certainly feel that
homosexuals should be given the same rights as everyone else, but I
don't believe that it's right to dismiss the opinions of a large number
of people just because I don't agree with them (as these danged special
interest groups that I like to complain about have a habit of doing ;-)
)  If it were true that over 50% of the people opposed homosexuals, I
think the best policy for the gay-righters to take would be to try to
eliminate these people's fear (or whatever reason they dislike
homosexuals) rather than just completely dismissing their opinions.

					Robert Head
					rhead@s850.mwc.edu
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 09:55:01 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

T., you obviously did not reread my original post or you would understand the
facts I have ALREADY posted. Please. do yourself and this list a favor by
doing your homework BEFORE you post. I've already cited how Clinton's labor
tax would be the cause of increased welfare (NOT my "knee-jerk reactionary"
attitudes). For the sake of redundancy I will not repost that information
unless requested.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:06:33 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>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

	I agree with you.

Brett'
(Uh oh, once you start building a mutual interest base... :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:59:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      just wanna ride on my motor cicle

wow, arlo guthrie won a 1000 pts of light thing?
i used to have the whole entire alice's restaurant album memorized.

even the talking parts.

an i don't wanna die, just wanna ride on my motor-cie

-linda
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Justice
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:54:03 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>> With names such as Governor Mario Cuomo and J. Kilpatrick being invoked
>> in the media, one wonders.

> Who is J. Kilpatrick? Just wondering.

He is a newspaper columnist, somewhat on the conservative side.

> Is Cuomo a serious candidate, or is it just a rumor made up by someone
> in the press? I don't personally think Cuomo is at all qualified.

In an answer to the question of who would be appropriate for
the Supreme Court, Clinton, I believe appearing on MTV, said
that he thinks Cuomo would make an excellent Supreme Court
justice.

> There are no "formal" qualifications, though.

You mean not even an age limit?  I am pretty sure U.S. citizenship
is a requirement, though.

> Jamie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:00:08 -0600
From:         PHARRIS@UMKCVAX1.BITNET
Subject:      Announcement

 *************ANNOUNCEMENT******************************************************
   *

 RMUSIC-L is on the air...Join us for exciting and intelligent discussions on
 the music industry...Concert and Album Reviews...Trivia...
 Lyrics and Artists from 1935 to the present ( Later if the discussion
 warrants it)... All types of Music for all types of People. It is ouRMUSIC-L.

 To join us, send this command: SUB RMUSIC-L Your Name
         to: LISTSERV@GITVM1

 Hope to hear from you soon!

                            Paul Harris
 *******************************************************************************
   *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:10:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

I am no great expert on the Soviet Union, but wasn't it the RIGHT who led
the coup against Gorbachev?  Hasn't it been the RIGHT that has sponsored
Communism all these years?  Wasn't it the LEFT who successfully put down the
coup and are now leading the people towards democracy?

All corrections welcome, as I plead ignorance on the issue.

Thanks!


-T.
From: CARROLL@SCC.BITNET ((Roger))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Acceptable Behavior
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:25:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>>In article<01GQR3J5Z8WI000KA3@RHODES.BITNET>, FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
>>writes:
>>
>>  Forgive my chortling, but:
>>
>>We've got Democrats in the White House.
>>We've got Democrats in the Congress.
>>We'll take care of the Supreme Court later.

>And "(SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)" <sbc3@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU> replies:
>
>Hopefuly, someone will "take care" of Clinton and Gore soon.
>(i.e. the Mafia or the CIA)

Am I totally out of touch here, or is this starting to get out of hand?
When does the killing of our president become acceptable discussion on
this list?
                                    ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:13:03 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: sarcasm
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Why should we have to use %-) for something that should be evident in our
>prose?  Of course, one of the advantages of a really good jibe is when others
>notice it and the person to whom it was directed does not.
>-T.

	We don't *have* to do anything, it's just easier for me to include a
smiley than suffer the dozen or so questions like "are you serious?".  People
who read regularly come to know the nuances of each poster but there are always
a half-dozen newbies lurking about.

Brett'
(Newbie == new member, it's a Usenet term)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:18:13 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

While I run the risk of being labelled like Pat Buchanan, Julie let me
try to explain Pat's position. "Perverse." Homosexuality perverses the role
that the parents usually play. Any psychologist can tell you that both the
mother and the father play a distinctly different and important role in
rearing their children. Now I admit that a child raised in a homosexual family
is NOT going to grow up to be some murderer or robber or something. But the
fact remains that children brought up in homes where either the mother role
model or the male role model miss out on much of the psychological shaping
that "normally" raised kids would recieve. (Studies on children raised in
single parent homes reveal much of the same evidence).

"Deviant." Homosexuality deviates from the "normal" relationship between a
man and a woman. Homosexuality misses out on the chance for those in the
man and a woman. Now while there may be love beetween the mebers of the
homosexual couple, they mis out on something heterosexual couples can enjoy:
the ability to produce someone to love (offspring).

Thus, you may not agree with Pat's views on homosexuality, but he does make
some very valid points. In addition, I do NOT think that he is trying to
foster and homophobic beliefs in anyone. Pat is far from being homophobic. He
does NOT fear homosexuals but rather does not support their lifestyle.

I hope I cleared some things up for you...
--Steve
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: bounced checks
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:18:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

...
>meant to put Boxer in a larger category of bouncers than she was.  I posted
>the actual number of bounced checks that she bounced (143).  I don't personally
>believe that she is corrupt, like a lot of other congress-people.  Yes it
>looks bad and yes she has a lot of explaining to do, which she won't do.
>But I don't believe that she is corrupt.
>Jonathan

	When asked about it on a California radio interview, here response was:
"well, I bet Hitler could balance a checkbook".  Or something close to that.

	Mmm.  Dan Quayle, the sequel.

Brett'
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:55:25 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

Hi, Jason:
>That is, unless you think that the house bank was set up FOR THE PURPOSE OF
>allowing members to write themselves interest free loans.  In that case,
>Boxer&Co. used the "bank" as it was intended and my dishonesty argument would
>fall.  Of course, I could then argue that the reps in question were sleazy by
>giving themselves perks that the rest of us don't get, but it would, I admit,
>be a weaker claim.

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.  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 :)

Kerry
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 12:33:34 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.....

-o'Andy:
>I was just wondering if somebody might have some stats on how much the
>government subsidizes farmers and to whom the money goes; in particular
>I am wondering if Bush's activism on this issue has more to do with
>Archer Daniels Midland than your average small farmer.

Let me muddy the waters a bit :)  I watched a brief bit on this issue on
CNN a few days ago.  Some reporter in a business suit was walking through a
southern (Georgian, maybe) soybean field with a small farmer.  The reporter
looked pretty stupid.  Anyway, the farmer stated that he received *no*
federal subsidies for growing soybeans -- and implied, at least, that
"small" farmers of soybeans aren't subsidized generally and consequently
can't keep prices low enough to compete internationally.

Now, I don't know about ADM.   I do know that farm subsidies can
potentially take a number of forms (like water, e.g.), so I'd bet it's
tough to track down.

Hope that helps :)
Kerry
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flowers and Hill
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:18:01 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.  I couldn't resist.  Maybe because I don't feel like writing study
guides.

Julie said:
>>Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and that's
>not something I take lightly.

and --mike (not to be confused with our History Czar) responded:
>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.

I was going to write something silly about perjury vs. pergatory, but I
won't.  Instead, let me give one possible answer to the first question: why
didn't she go through the judicial system?

The simple answer is that the cost may have outweighed the benefit.  After
all, if my legal beagles are correct, the personal actually committing
sexual harrassment is generally not the target of a harrassment suit --
the institution for which that person works is (e.g., I could've filed suit
against the University of New Mexico for harrassment perpetrated by my
department chair, but I couldn't bring charges against him personally).
So the benefit of bringing charges is limited.

The costs, of course, can be quite extensive and harsh.  A woman in a male-
dominated profession, especially a profession that is relatively small (and
therefore often "controlled" by relatively few highly-placed individuals)
runs the risk of professional suicide as a consequence of bringing charges
of discrimination and/or harrassment.

Ms. Hill's actions vis-a-vis Clarence Thomas (staying in contact, etc.),
used as "evidence" against her claims, are perfectly understandable.  At
least they are to me, because that's how I continue to treat with
individuals who harrassed and discriminated against me.  Would I make past
actions known in the future?  I guess it would depend.  If I were
professionally secure, and if the individuals in question were being
considered for important, prestigious positions, maybe I would.

In sum -- Ms. Hill's actions and testimony were, as far as I could tell,
perfectly consistent with her allegations.  That alone doesn't mean she was
telling the truth, or course.  But it does mean that many of the notions
used to refute her claims were groundless.

At least to me :)
Kerry
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:02:08 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

That really shows intolerance on your part. Simply because a portion of the
party believe a certain way does not mean that you have to succomb to any
pressure to not hold your own belief WITHIN the party.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:15:41 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett:
>
>First off, whites are the minority in South Africa.

	As are men here in the US.  But politically things are opposite.

>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.

	I support voluntary divestment, but not state-mandated divestment.

Brett'
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: sexual harrassment
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:00:32 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

**********

What a nice, neutral subject for calm and reasoned debate :)

Thanks, Joe, for your comments.  Let me just add a couple points in
response to JasonZ.  Sexual harrassment is not "a few ribald remarks" (or
whatever the precise wording was), although such remarks may constitute
harrassment.  It *is* a crime.  Is it serious?  I don't know what all the
potential penalties are, so I can't judge based on punishment.  Based on
the act itself, I guess the assessment of seriousness depends on subjective
things like experience.  That is, if you've never experienced sexual
harrassment or its equivalent, you might not think it serious.  If, like
myself, you have encountered it in the workplace off and on for 18 years,
you might think it is quite serious.

(stuff deleted)

It really doesn't feel very nice.

Kerry

************

  is there some sort of objective standard by which we could look at
an action and determine whether or not it is sexual harrassment? or
is it determined solely by the subjective experience of someone who
claims to have gone through it?

(calm and reasoned enough, kerry? :))
rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU