HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:29:58 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Organization: York University
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM

Yeah, Nixon created OPEC. He was so busy playing Metternich-Toy-Soldiers
with Kissinger & indulging his tin-witted anti-communist paranoia that
he completely missed the significance of the ambitions of his supposed
ally the Shah, and of Gadaffy. Asleep at the wheel doesn't even begin to
describe his negligence. Nixon is somewhat clever in a vicious bowling
league way but is, after all, not a rocket scientist.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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, 25 Jan 1993 14:08:22 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      broader question
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi again.
Joe brought up a good point, I think, about the kinds of standards to which
we should hold appointees.  I was wondering -- do y'all have any
suggestions for a set of standards against which we can judge appointees?
That is, what kinds of activities should be dismissed, what kinds should
serve as grounds for immediate disqualification, etc.?  Are some positions
more "sensitive" than others, so those standards should be more stringent?
What do y'all think?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:48:43 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I'm confused.
>
> Back when I was a gullible liberal taking PC history, I was told
> that America was an evil place because 50-something of the
> Founding fathers were lawyers.
>
> So now, with the new PC president elected to "change" everything
> and make America a wonderful multicultural place to live,
> where everyone is equal, we have an administration full of.....
>
> LAWYERS??
>
> Shouldn't we be just a wee bit annoyed about that?
>
> --NINAR Kerry

   not at all, kerry. yes, they're lawyers, but they *care*. they're
pure of heart. they do pro bono for smelly homeless people, utterly
ignoring the fact that most belong in asylums or jail. they *feel*
instead of using cold heartless rationalizations and reasons. they
understand your pain.

   besides, hardly any of them have been indicted yet. give them a
chance . . .

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:57:01 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: the right
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              93 3:45 pm

Titivillus pisze:
>>
>> > I see no contradiction between monarchism and capitalism.
>> > There are two separate aguments: political and economic.
>>
>> Capitalism assumes the consumer is in control of himself and
>> is able to decide what goods and services are necessary for
>> him. (I use the male form because English has no neuter personal
>> pronoun)
>>
>> Monarchism, esp. absolute monarchism assumes people need 'sheparding'
>> by one greater than others. Monarchism is often propped up with
>> "divine right" arguments: God(tm) gave this person the ability
>> to lead, so he can control the goods and services I provide and
>> receive.

I agree with your description of the absolute monarchy. But the same can be
said about absolute democracy. Under both governments people have similar
possibilities of influencing their individual and common affairs.

Under both regimes capitalism or socialism is possible.

>> Dave

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:50:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:43:43 -0500
From: Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
>
>I might add that I use the term "massive" because of the amount of
>defense spending our country has.  Given the geopolitical world since
>the end of the Cold War, I find that it is unwarranted.

        I just want to add this as an informational aside.  One of the methods
that the military is using to try to remain effective in the context of a
shrinking defense budget is to cut its inventory of supplies and spare parts.
In order to do this safely while at the same time be able to meet any emergency
demand, the military is attempting to foster its plan called CALS, an acronym
for Computer Aided Logistics Support.  CALS will support electronic contracting
between the DoD and its suppliers (and their suppliers), which will not only
allow for smoother and more efficient acquisition, but will allow smaller
contractors greater access to the catalog of contracts available.  CALS Shared
Resource Centers will provide entry point access to contractors who might be
too small to afford their own electronic connection to the DoD.  From the other
direction, CALS will also include Regional Small Manufacturing Networks, which,
in a crisis, will be able to provide the DoD with surge capacity in the
production of supplies or parts.

        The idea seems impressive, and currently (when I'm not posting to
POLITICS) I am involved with Marshall University's effort to become a Shared
Resource Center and develop this Small Manuf. Network.  The bad news is that
the DoD has been trying to implement CALS for something like 15 years, and no
standard solution has been created.

Mike McCarthy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:04:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care

Kerry says:

>Brett':
>
>Watch it.
>
>Offering evidence of pre-natal cognition is a theological argument
>and, therefore, unacceptable in this forum.

No - it's unacceptable in this forum since such evidence doesn't
exist.  :)

(although I recognize that this, among many other conservative
fairy tales, possibly exists in your mind.)  :)

>--NINAR Kerry
>   (Just trying to obey the rules)



-T.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      12:01 PM
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:04 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <20JAN93.14561701.0094.MUSIC@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>,   
      KEVIN MCDADE <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET> writes...
>Ifyou're one of those dreamers, keep dreaming. Sooner or later you'll
>discover how much Bush will be missed...

As Gil Scott-Heron said to Gerald Ford, "I beg your pardon?"  :-)

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:54:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the Military

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:26:57 PDT
From: Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
>
>Whether or not you think gays should serve in the military, I think
>that right now, the objection is far too strong.  Given a few more
>years and the general left-ward progression of things, I'm sure that
>such a move would be less opposed.

        While I would like to agree with this optimism, I must refer you to
Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail."  King addresses this issue
of patience and explains that, for groups who have been denied their rights,
"wait" almost always means "never."  I wish I could quote the text directly (as
a good historian would), but I don't have it hear at the office right now.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   LADY ASTOR: Winston, if you were my husband, I
Marshall Univ. History Dept.      should flavour your coffee with poison.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       CHURCHILL: Madam, if I were your husband, I
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU         should drink it.
YEA003@MARSHALL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:15:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
              26 Jan 1993 12:20:54 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:20:54 -0800 Andy Freeman said:

>>I think the IMPORTANT point here is that second and smoking
>>kills.
>
>Really?  It doesn't matter who it kills?  It doesn't matter if it only
>kills people who get some benefit from said second-hand smoke?  It
>doesn't matter that second hand smoke kills people who CHOOSE it?

Well, let's see.  I don't want strychnine in my coffee
because it kills.  Now, do I care who it kills: No!
Does it matter.......: No!

>>And, for example, when in a public library, government
>>offices, and other indoor public places, I should have the right
>>not to be exposed to second hand smoking.
>
>Based on what?  What is it that justifies jailing people?  Is KAT
>willing to swing the club himself?

I am a bit unclear here as to what you mean.  Second
hand smoke kills and I expect to be able to use
government/public facilities without being exposed to
it.

--KAT

>-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:52:20 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Saint Richard
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 25, 93 12:23 pm

>
> > >      Nixon's crime was not Watergate (Break-in, etc.) but his
> attempt to > >cover it up and prevent prosecution(s).
>
> Two points on this issue:
>     1. Normally, when a person does something acting upon the advice
> of all of his advisors/attorneys, that fact is taken into
> consideration.  It was not in Nixon's case.
>     2. From the Republican Party's point of view, what else could be
> done?  The break-in was NOT authorized by them, but if it ever came
> out, the media would definitely attribute it to them-- thus ruining
> the President in public opinion.  Frankly, they took the gamble
> between definitely ruining the President and probably ruining the
> President--- and lost.
>
>
> >         While I didn't say anything about this (after all, it's no crime to
> > bug yourself) it is true FDR and Kennedy did it, though nothing's
> > ever come out about Truman, Eisenhower, or Johnson...  Anyway,
>
> Wrong.  LBJ had the most extensive bugging system of any President.
> (Talk about paranoid?)  He had bugging systems underneath the beds in
> the family living quarters, and could had the waiting room rigged so
> he could hear what people were saying just before they came in to see
> him.  In fact, when moving out of the White House, much of this
> equipment was left there-- to be found by Richard Nixon.
>
Got to hand it to RMN though, genius he isn't. If your going to discuss illegal
cover ups its usually best not to do it in front of listening devices whose
tapes just MIGHT be used as evidence if word leaked out....

- Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:34:10 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Middlebury College" at Jan 26, 93 10:50 am

>
> Brett!
>
>         Yes! Let's appoint some qualified people to the Supreme Court.... the
> best 9 jurists in the nation... Like the Governor of New York, for example.
> How can you sack an SC justice?
>
> Tpby
>

You've hit the problem right on the head! Reagan & Bush appointed relatively
young and relatively conservative (for the most part)  justices. Unfortunately,
we'll have to wait until they retire or keel over before new ones can get
appointed. That was my point. What can we expect Clinton to do in four years
(even federal Judgeships don't turn over that quickly)? These judges and
justices are entrenched conservatives that will leave their positions only when
they're damn ready to do so. As the recent ruling in favor of the pro choice
demonstrators points out, the President can set any agenda he wants, but the
courts can fight him all the way.

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:20:50 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
              28 Jan 1993 13:07:36 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:07:36 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>>>........  Why is capital gains such a scared cow?  Why?
>>
>>>        Because you've already been taxed for the money once.
>>
>>I *think* you mean that the money invested has already
>>been taxed once.  Correct.  However, the "gain" part of
>>it has NOT been taxed before.
>>
>>So according to you if I buy item A for $10 (a money
>>that I have already paid taxes on) and item B for
>>another $10 (again, I have already paid taxes on the
>>money) and sell it for $25 (say there are no other
>>expenses involved), then the extra $5 would be a scared
>>cow too?
>>--KAT
>
>        For tax purposes, yes.  You should be encourage to put $10 and $10
>together and come away with $25.
>
>:)

Wait a second.  You cannot kid your way out of this.  Would you
then recommend that the said $5 be taxed a lower rate than say
the income of a simple wage earner?

>Brett'

--KAT
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:38 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93012423435717@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,  
       Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes...
>Hoping Rush has the tenacity of Morton Downey?
> 
>Too late, my friend.  Rush has already outlived MD's tenure, dwarfed
>his audience, and gone far beyond his scope.

Maybe, but he hasn't physically attacked anybody on stage yet.  :-)

							Dan, ad naiseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:46:49 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: That hat
              22 Jan 1993 11:00:09 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

So, Brett:

About this hat thing.  Are you trying to say that Hillary is no Jackie
Kennedy?

--The New, Improved, and Not at All Rehabilitated Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:36:48 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Ronald Reagan lives on
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> It's interesting that people talk of such great change in government when one
> of the most important branches still lies in the hands of the right wing
> (definition anyone?). Between Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the composition
 of
> both the Supreme Court and the Federal Judgeships are extremely conservative.
> Any new Clinton policies, program etc. are someday going to see the inside of
 a
> courtroom and then we'll really see where the power is. Clinton can only undue
> so much (by appointing new liberal judges) in four years. Will it be enough?
>
This is true.  However a couple of addendums need to be added.  First, even
though Reagan/Bush filled (I believe) over 80% of the current slots in the
federal court systems, there are an unprecedented number of replacements
that need to be named.  These were being held up by the congress until
PRESIDENT CLINTON (God, I love the sound of that) got into office.  I believe
200 seats need to be filled immediately (or relatively immediately).  That
number could be wrong, but it's a lot.  Second, the people on the Supreme
Court are getting old.  SC watchers say that as many as _5_ could retire
in the next 4 years.  That would change the court!  The consensus seems
to be 3, but even that would be a substantial change.  Considering that
Carter didn't get to nominate anyone.
> -Dan
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:17:37 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On what grounds is the War Powers Act unconstitutional? Without a ruling
> saying such from the SC, what do you base your assertion upon? VMS
>

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it violates the
separation of powers stated in the Constitution between the branches
of government.  The Constitution specifically authorizes the
President to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  In that
capacity, he reports to no one.  The War Powers act requires the
President to report to Congress, thus reducing him to Commander,
still, but not Commander-in-Chief.  No President has tried to dispute
it because of the risk that they might lose if the Court favors a
very loose interpretation of the Constitution.

--Stan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:55:23 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >It has yet
> >to be tested.  However, since there is no power by which the Congress
> >can enforce it against the President, it is unlikely to ever be
> >fully accepted by a US President as constitutional.

> There sure is a power by which Congress can enforce it. It's called
> "impeachment."

No offense, Czar, but there is a problem here.

Now think about it: The soldiers of the realm are poised in battle,
if not already IN battle. Hot words are being translated on the
floor of the United Nations building. Telephone lines between State,
Defense and the White House are being melted from constant use.
People all across America are watching the television, hoping that
their friends and family will come home safe.

And you expect Congress, an elected body, to cut the "head" off the
government when a consistant and focused head is (at least considered)
necessary?

You ask too much from them.

>>NINAR Kerry, I believe
> Jamie

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:23:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 7-11,Commandments

PS & Joe:

Is it okay to have public school kids do Yoga?  How about magic
circles?  Is it religious or not religious to include visualization,
spirit guides, and hypnosis in classroom exercises?

Where do you draw the line between an opinion and a *religious* opinion?
The SC ruled that "secular humanism" is a religion (and thus,
protectable under the first amendment).  However, most modern teaching
strategies operate under the assumptions of that religion.

So now what?

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:29:57 -0500
From:         Ude Eko <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shortest Presidency
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
Comments: cc: cug@catfish.BITNET

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993, 09:38:04 PDT, Stan Jacobs said:

...."this guy (I think, Speaker of the House) was the President-for-a-day..."

Yes!  Though I've forgotten his name, I'm afraid!  I believe he relieved
Ole Zach Taylor (1849-50).  I believe Reagan would remember, after all it
was such a long time ago...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Ronald Reagan lives on

Brett' says:

>        A lot of Reagan's picks were done on the basis of a single issue (like
>abortion), which is (IMO) a bad thing.  Clinton doing the same thing will only
>politicize (further) the process.  Let's get back to picking qualified
>individuals.

Two things I find interesting: One, Clinton won't have to appoint based
on the abortion issue, since the Freedom Of Choice Act will make the
argument (at least legally) moot.

The second is something that, while I don't accuse Brett' of perpetrating
:), he brings up:  Now that Democrats are in power (careful - not
"Liberals", "Democrats"...BIG distincton for us who are NOT Democrats!)
we see an awful lot of Conservatives and Republicans clamoring about how
the Reagan/Bush Litmus Test For the SC was _wrong_, and that Clinton
shouldn't do the same for _his_ views!

exsqueeze me?           baking powder?


Next they'll tell us that the President shouldn't use his power
to help bring religious fringe groups to prominence...or that the White
House shouldn't be a training ground for amoral lobbyists...or that
even members of the Executive Branch, while they may have thought their
deeds right and patriotic, should answer for crimes such as treason,
perjury, etc...


Get ready for the:

We'reConservativeAndNowThatWe'reOutOfPowerWe'veSuddenlyFoundMorality Movement!


-T.