HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:06:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

Tell, me Rich - what "other ways of voicing your disapproval than by
protesting" do you mean?

Are you opposed to *every* type of anti-government protest - even those that
created America in the first place?

There is absolutely no *honor* in being what Nixon called his "great silent
majority of Americans."  Many of our problems as a nation are due to the fact
that too many people are willing to shut up and watch America crumble.

Silent opposition is indefensible - because the maxim of the law is:
Silence gives consent.

And please don't say that letter-writing is "better"; it's a great way to
let your representative know how you feel.  People want to believe it's
"better" than protesting because they feel that somehow picketing or civil
disobedience is "unseemly" and/or "improper."  The American Revolution was
an extreme example of civil disobedience - and it won you your country.


-T.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:17:47 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: -Rich & The Clintons

In article <POLITICS%92111815074098@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>Sorry, but I forgot to add something to my last post.
>The point I made before about Hillary being at the meeting with the Democratic
>leaders is that who is the brains in the Clinton household?  Hillary is a
>smart
>woman and that doesn't scare me.  The fact that her husband and not she is
>president I believe is the issue.

Huh? What the hell is your point. I suspect you confuse the Clinton's for the
Quayle's just because Marilyn Quayle is married to a dolt doesnt mean Hillary
Clinton is.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:15:43 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS

>What I do have problems with, is the way Clinton went about it and comments
>attributed to him regarding his abhorrence of the military.  By failing to
>serve, he has no practical experience with the military environment.  That's
>okay for the ordinary citizen, but not for the "commander-in-chief."  Like it
>or not, the United States remains the world's super power and when a President
>has to call on the military to carry out the national interest (and don't think
>Clinton won't have to at least look at that possibility in the next four years)
>it's nice to know the guy making the call has at least walked the proverbial
>mile.

Well, don't forget about Abraham Lincoln--he never served in the military.
Neither did Franklin Roosevelt (I think).  Yet they both led the country in
major wars, and they both won those wars.
Ulysses S. Grant, on the other hand, was a great general but a terrible
president.  Military experience isn't a very reliable indicator of who would
make the best president.

>Incidentally, for those of you "Quayle-bashers,"  I'd ask which one of you has
>the ambition, intelligence and perseverance to rise to the second most importan
>t job in this country?  He may not be the smartest bear in the woods, but those
>of you who criticize from the cozy "ivory tower" can't even say you've tried.

Maybe I haven't tried, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of the way
Quayle behaved in office.  I've never been in a movie, either, but I can still
critique a film.

>Some food for thought - Uncle Ernie

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:57:30 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      question for the far right

Some members of this list have well known views on abortion and the
rights of children. If abortion is a criminal act, what is the abuse
of office to inflict psycological damage on children or others in need
of counseling? I am thinking primarily of religious leaders who use thier
position to force sex on minors, either of the same sex or different, or
take advantage of people in crisis situations and engage in sexual
contact during counseling. It seems to me that most people who are
eventually prosecuted for crimes of this nature have a long history of
this behavior prior to prosecution with the usual course of action
being to send the person to another community in the same position of
trust. Why doesn't the religious right prosecute these people with
the same level of enthusiasm used to go after "pornographers" and
abortionists?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:10:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject: Re: The Purpose of Government

linda and kerry--
i wonder if your affliction is related to mine.  i was an field artillery office
r in our late great war (vietnam) and was responsible for always knowing
where i was at.  and believe me working off of old french maps, 30 years old,
and totally out of date was very exciting.  yet the entire time i was in
country i never lost my way and even in the most isolated places i was
always within 50 meters of where i was supposed to be.
to make a long story short, and i'm not known for being short storied, ever
since i left the army and returned to the "civilized world," i've been
totally unable to find my way around even the easiest cities.  you can give
me precise directions, the best maps, and a guide and i'll still get lost.
this holds true even for the neighborhoods i knew well before i left for the
service.
anyway, when i saw your notes i thought i would share my affliction with you
both.  maybe we can form a continuously lost persons support group, research
center, or not for profit foundation.  any thoughts?
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:46:11 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Draft Dodging Illegal?

Ronald Reagan "dodged" the draft legally too you know. He was exempted because
his war films were considered good for moral. Why aren't you folks complaining
about a draft-dodger like Reagan being unfit to be Commander in Chief? Could
it be the same reason why those who complain about Clinton legally dodging the
draft are silent about Qualye legally dodging the draft? Hmmmm...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 01:06:43 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Apology ...

THE LAST WORD! No, I apparently did not send a note to Shawn as I did to
Jayce, though I had sent two notes that day, the other was to the "new
Mike" in Canada. So, I was in error about having written them both prior
to going to the postmaster. Beyond that, I take under advisement the
criticisms from other than the "aggrieved parties," and defer to the
"list president" and other wise listfolk as to further actions, if any are
necessary. But, preferably, I'd like to see us get back to POLITICS, eh? VMS
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 21:06:46 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Another Victim
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Euthanasia  such a sensitive issue that I don't believe anyone can have a
strong opinion one way or the other until they are in a situation that requires
such a decision.  I pray that I will never be in that kind of situation.
At first I would like to say it is wrong, but after thinking about how I would
feel or someone close to me would feel in such a situation (which I don't
 suggest doing often) I change my mind.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:46:26 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      advice and consent

T, I still don't get it.

The cabinet is not elected, but, you point out, it must be approved by
an elected body, the Senate. True.

But, if being approved by elected officials is a sufficient stand-in for
being elected, then Hillary was "virtually" elected because she was
chosen to be an advisor by her husband, who WAS elected.

If being appointed by an elected official is not enough, then
how could being approved by more elected officials help?

Ok, ok, I know this is a pretty stupid topic, but maybe it's
better than Jimbo's moronic posting about cats, which STILL
has me steamed.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:46:59 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      it's not over til it's over

Using T's job description for vice-president as quoted by Robert in his
posting today I would have voted for Robert as virtual vice-president
if I had been aware of the job requirements.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:30:59 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words

>Believe what you want.  I have heard him say that he is in favor of
>an amendment.
>>

Lots of people are in favor of "an amendment".  For example, Major
Owens, Rep of NY, introduced an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment.
What the amendment says is important.

>>         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).
>
>He said that he wants to drive his car to the coast to see the oil-drilling
>platforms.

What part of that is offensive?  That he wants to see where the oil is
coming from so it would be okay if he didn't want to see the oil rigs?

>A lot of constitutional authorities will disagree with you.

Not any who have considered the historical evidence.  Those who think
that the 2nd amendment isn't an individual RKBA get their arguments
from other sources.  There's nothing wrong with those sources, they
just don't have much to do with the constitution.  If we want to use
them, we can.  All it takes is an amendment....  That's how we decide
what constitution we'll have.

>I wouldn't
>be surprised to find that Herschenson hasn't read the constitution.

Then present evidence.

>As for his pro-gun position, let's just say that I find it scary.

Why?  Does Fisher like govt control or does he think that gun control
"works"?  (If the latter, what does it do and how much should we pay
for those benefits?)

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:14:43 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: -Rich & The Clintons

In article <POLITICS%92111815052632@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>T:
>I believe the problem people had with Clinton was that he lied about dodging
>the draft.  That is the difference between him and Reagan.  His protesting

Reagan meanwhile probably just FORGOT he was never a soldier.
The difference, which you have never had the nerve or intellectual honesty
to address is that Clinton dodged a war he opposed while Reagan and Quayle
dodged wars they supported. Why do you keep missing that point, do your
biases so blind you that you cannot think or are you just so intellectually
dishonest that you cannot admit fault with Reagan and Quayle, ie that they are
hypocrites
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:06:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

>This whole little dialogue is giving me headache.  It is all a result of
>my speaking just as easily in vernacular as in the English of the elite.

take 2 aspirin dear, and put a cool compress on your forhead.

>Or at least someone's little brother.

are you volunteering to be the brother i never had???
kerry? julie? what do you think?

-linda
list mother

>j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 11:57:22 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: partisan idiocy

>By the way, Tim, I was thinking something - you said in your post that
>"Actually, I wasn't making categories at all.......But you liberals...."

>*Not* making categories?  YOU LIBERALS?  Boy, you're right.  Nothing I can
>say sums it up more clearly.  (What's the sign for excessive head shaking?)
>Nice job.

  Thanks.  What's the sign for sarcasm again?  I keep forgetting
that my audience is barely literate.
  I'll be more cautious in the future, and I'll see if I can't use
words with only one or two syllables, too.

                                   -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:33:23 EST
From:         Julie Waters <Julie%Drycas@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject:      Text of GOP speeches
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Hey people-- I now have copies of the text of all the major speeches
from the Republican convention.  If you are interested in recieving a
copy (It's one file-- I'm not going to break it up), send me private
mail at JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU or JULIE@DRYCAS.BITNET and I will
make sure you get a copy.
Some people have already expressed interest in getting copies-- if you
are one of them, please send me another note so I can deal with it all
in one piece.  Let me know if you are interested.
(I can post to lists if people are interested as well, but don't want
to without permission).
--Julie
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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:45:56 -0500
From:         "(Jeff Green)" <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: Weapons designed for human destruction?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>After more consideration, I think that a limit on the number of guns
>per capita or per square kilometer could be an acceptable means of
>regulating guns in an area.
>
>Of course I haven't the foggiest idea on how to implement or establish
>such guidelines, but I am not a congressman nor a congressional aide.

J.B.,

It isn't the job of your congreeperson tomake those decisions. It
is yours and ours. We are the ones who should tell our reps what we
want them to do. If we just say to them, "Hey, we like the idea of
recycling, do something about it!", chances are you will not be
happy with the outcome.

When I ran for the school board in my community several years ago,
people would say, "What are you going to do about it?" to which I
would reply, "What do you want me to do about it?" (they hated
that!)

As for the governance of a certain number of guns per whatever,
think it through carefully and make a proposition. You've got
nothing to lose!

.jmg.

_________________________________________________________________________
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
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:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:56:52 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Proposed policies from the new History Czar
Comments: To: "(Tim Johnson)" <ST402711@BROWNVM.brown.edu>
Comments: cc: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Nov 15, 92 11:52 am

This was private email, but I realize I need to explain myself to the
list. I really hope you don't mind Tim.

While under delusions of grandeur, Tim Johnson spewed:
|
| >While under delusions of grandeur, Michael J. McCarthy spewed:
|
|   Nice attitude guy.  I'll bet you are always the
| life of the party, eh?  Gosh, I'm sure glad to have
| you on the list.

	I fear both our (virtual) President and his (virtual) History
Czar has misconstrued my Attribution line. I apologize for any
misunderstandings, but I will try to explain. The "While under ..."
piece is an attribution line that is automatically tacked on by my
mailer. I try to keep the attribution somewhat lighthearted, our at
least I mean it to be. But, since two of our esteemed collegues have
made comments about the attribution, I will think about changing it,
or making it less obnoxious. However, I do apologize for any hurt
feelings or misunderstanding, no harm was meant.

--
 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
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: questions for Brett' et al.:
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:09:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brett':

My concern is not with the decline that those of us who have to give up
our extra cars and televisions will face, but more with the decline that
those of us who are just barely subsisting will face.  The problem as I
see it is that we've been living on excessive luxury for too long and now
we're being forced to pay the price for it.  However, you suggest that
the "smart" businesses will know what to do and to rehire people and take
an initial sting for long term benifit.

My fear is that most businesses are just not that smart.  In fact,
everything I have seen has led me to believe that most American
businesses are geared vurtually entirely on short-term gains that
may be in fact quite detrimental in the long run.

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with "Quality" concepts
in modern business, but this is a very serious issue.  Only in the
last few years have businesses started to embrace the concepts which
companies such as the Florida Power and Light Company are now famous
for.

The main principle of such concepts is that there has to be universal
feedback between customers and suppliers.  What happens so often is
that suppliers simply think they -know- what their customers want
without really checking, which is how the American car industry has
been pounded so often.  won't spend my time doing a lecture on
business in America.  I simply wanted to address the issue of Quality
and self-improvement and note that we're not a country into fixing
or replacing things as much as one to defend old processes with
which we are a lot more comfortable instead.  I'd be glad to discuss
this further, but I'm not sure this is the place for it.  What do
you all think?

--Julie
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

Two things to Brent Irvine:

        One - you don't have to put a disclaimer in your messages.  People who
need to label everything in their lives (people, opinions, right and left shoes)
will tell you what you are no matter what.  There's some guy on here that not
only labels me (liberal!) but also attributes things to me that I never said.

These people have short attention spans, probably do very poorly on standardized
tests, and have average to below-average intelligence quotients.  Either be
patient with their slowness or ignore them outright.  No matter what you say
they'll label it whatever they want and generally misquote what you write.

        Two - many people feel that protesting a war you feel is unjust,
illegal and/or wrong is *damn* patriotic.  In fact, if we "label" the two ideas,
we see that the "protest patriot" is *much* closer to those who founded this
country than the *status-quo* patriots, known as Tories back then.  So while
Reagan may be patriotic, Clinton is no less so for protesting and dodging.

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:13:16 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: two quick points

Linda, you could think of this as a boarding school and you're our
housemother. :)

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:33:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The new vice presidency?

I seem to recall an idea a number of years ago to make the Vice-President
the President's Chief of Staff...not mandate it, but someone just suggested
it to whomever was Prez at the time.  Seemed like a good idea until you look
at who has been VP.  If we elected someone with intelligence, competence,
a hard-working attitude and a record of successful elective office - hey, wait
a minute....maybe Gore should be C O S !

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:33:11 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: andy misses the boat

Fred writes:
>For the sake of disk space, I will summarize Andy's response to my post
>on the religious right. He said, more or less, that it is "my (fred)
>pet project to go after child molesters" and that the law enforcement
>wasn't being strong enough in their pursuit, in my opinion.

No, that wasn't my response.  I asked why Fred thinks they're
obligated to play his game.

>My complaint is with the people in power in organized religion who
>sweep incidents of child molestation and unwanted sexual advances
>among their own ranks under the rug while strongly pursuing locking up
>the guy who wants to buy a playboy off the rack at the 7-11.

The complaint is changing.  There aren't that many people who satisfy
the new constraints.  The old constraints were satisfied by people who
don't go after the targets Fred picks.  Since Fred's interest is to
get them out of the political activity they want to participate in,
his interest is understandable....

I didn't claim that Fred approved of child molestors.  I claimed that
if we apply his standards to him, that's the conclusion we get.  If he
wants to point out that it is a bogus conclusion because the argument
doesn't make any sense, I'll agree and point out that that result
generalizes.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU