HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:33:26 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics (yes, this is a _politics_ list)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

[oops, nuked one too many lines, something like:] How do you feel about
libertarianism
>>Julie:
>> to see implemented?  Do you think it is practical?  Do you think it is
>> a bad idea?
>Jonathan:
>Yep, I think that it's a bad idea.  I think that we need government.
>If the Libertarians really believe that it's a good idea, I'd like to
>see an entire city run in with an ideal Libertarian philosophy and see
>what happens.

        Libertarianism is not anarchy.  There are anarchists in the LP, but the
stated position of the LP is for a smaller federal government, not no federal
government.
        The target of the LP is a federal government analogous in size to the
one of the early 1800s.

...
>> What are your own political leanings?  How do you identify yourself
>> politically, if you choose to do so?
>I used to think that I was right-wing.  I voted for Reagan TWICE (of course
>his opposition was nothing to write home about!).  My wife teased me
>constantly about it.  But as I've aged, I've gone more left.  However, while I
>feel that I am left socially, I think that I am more to the right when
>it comes to economically and more left when it comes to internationally.

        In other words, just like the average Libertarian. :)

>I guess I am saying that I am confused. :-)
>I just changed party back to Democrat and plan to stay that way for
>some time. Especially with the in-fighting of the religious right.  In
>fact, I think that I could say that it was the predominance of the
>religious right that scared me enough to move back to being a Democrat.
>I, also, firmly believe that no one will win the Republican Party
>nomination without, at least, the tacit approval of the religious right.

        Which is why many of us former Republicans became Libertarians.

Brett'
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Phobophobia in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:57:12 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

(In case anyone actually took Robert SprGOO's scree seriously,
you should know that "phobo" can mean "hatred" as well as "fear.")

(While we're on the subject of words, maybe Andy could tell us
which dictionary lists "potatoe" as an alternate spelling?)

Sue, why are you posting for this Vasse guy? Whatever. The
included quotations are from John Vasse.

>No, I don't believe that the increase in dangers is "marginal".

What do you think the increase in dangers is?

>Besides, how many young people would volunteer(no more draft,
>remember) to fight in an army that thinks so little of their lives
>that they're willing to expose them to additional risks beyond those
>presented by the enemy ?? Would you volunteer your life to that
>army ???

Huh?
You're worried that potential enlisters might decide that
the army doesn't care sufficiently about their lives?

That's a bit much, isn't it?

Remind me again what the army does, exactly. For some reason I
thought it put people into combat.

>Like to admit it or not, recognize it not, the homosexual is far
>more likely than the heterosexual to have blood contaminated with
>HIV.

This seems like a red herring, though.
White people are more likely to suffer from a jumping
disability than black people are. But if you want to
avoid having an altitudinally handicapped man on your
basketball team, you don't automatically exclude all
white applicants.
There are screening tests for HIV. If you're REALLY
worried about putting soldiers at risk for HIV, then
test your soldiers.

>And as insensitive as it
>may sound, I don't consider the sensibilities of the homosexual
>community to be a sufficiently good reason to heap threat upon
>threat.

You think the issue is the "sensibilities of the homosexual
community"? Interesting. I suppose you also think that
the problem with Whites Only drinking fountains is that they
offend the sensibilities of the nonwhite community.

But some of us think it has more to do with equal rights.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:46:07 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Quayle is a dolt.
              19 Nov 1992 18:32:20 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

The mere fact that Quayle misspelled "potato' means nothing.
(The identical incident could have happened to Mario Cuomo or
Clarence Thomas and no one would have questioned their
intelligence.)

It's a whole *pattern* of incidents that led people to believe
that Quayle was not a particularly bright person.  (Arsenio,
Johnny, and Jay were not of much help either.  :-)

--KAT
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:46:37 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Marge Schott
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Marge is...unique....  She inherited a couple of car dealships from her
husband, and along with two other people bought the Reds in the mid-80s.

        She has displayed a remarkable ignorance for the game, and pretty much
treats the team like a business.  (The organization needs to make a profit, but
you can't treat players like you would car salespeople.)

        It would not be out of character for her to say those things, however,
as this is America (for a little while longer), unless/until it's proven let's
not refer to her as a "racist".

        (I wouldn't take her not knowing what MLK day is as proof of anything,
she knows very little about the world outside of her businesses.)

Brett'
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: amazing!
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:49:48 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

Linda:
>why did you turn him down?

Because everything I've read by him and footage of his "debates" suggests
that he's not interested in a rational discussion of real facts and
theories.  He's astonishingly good at using misrepresentation, false
analogy, taking points out of context, and so forth -- and generally making
rational folks look like idiots.  I do that well enough, myself :)

I'm glad about the drinks.  Thanks, mom :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:46:00 EST
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

> ..............I do not want to serve in peacetime, much less
> during wartime, with homosexuals.  I don't think that any of
> my fellow Marines would want to either.  Hell, I'd probably
> shoot the queer bastard if I were in a combat situation with
> him/her/it.
>
>                                      Christopher K. Gilbert
>                                      pasc1961@altair.selu.edu

        It's amazing how a person who would make an open boast
about his willingness to murder another man would consider him-
self morally supperior to somebody who would love another man.

                                       Richard A. Fyfe
                                       rf35@umail.umd.edu
From: EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET (Ellen.Edgerton)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays and lesbians in the mil
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:46:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

<Idealism check here...>

Anybody read the comments about Clinton that some "patriotic American" officer
was quoted as saying in NEWSWEEK this week?  "If he sets foot on this base,
he's dead..."

I just have to wonder...what does this officer think men and women died for?
Only the right to have this officer strut around arrogantly in his
uniform?  Those people gave their lives (and made other sacrifices) so
that there could be dissent, so that homosexuals could live in freedom
along with everyone else (and perhaps serve in the military), and so that
a so-called "draft dodger" could be elected President of the United States
if the people so chose.

I guess only the dead know what they really died for, huh?  If people like
this officer are patriotic red-blooded Americans, I don't know if I want to
be one.  Nevertheless, I'm staying right here.

That said, I think there are legitimate concerns about homosexuals in the
military; and I am relieved that Clinton has stressed "conduct" in his
concerns about the issue.  At last we have a chance to make changes in
good faith, slowly, and hopefully avoiding the liberal excesses of
the 1960's and the conservative excesses of the 1980's.  There is a
chance now for that.

Someday there are going to be homosexuals in the military in this
country.  Get used to the idea.
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.politics:18254 soc.culture.usa:8568
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:11:26 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Reagan dodged the draft!

   There has been talk of whether Clinton is compotent to lead the Armed Forces
 as he is a "draft dodger". Clinton used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in
a war he opposed. Dan Quayle used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in a war
he supported. Ronald Reagan used a legal loophole (acting in war movies, an
"essential service") to avoid the draft in World War II yet the people
 complaining about Clinton had no objection to Reagan's fitness to lead the
military or send people into battle. How odd.
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: right v left
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:29:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

andy from stanford apparently has a different definition of "fact" than I do.
If I post a *fact* that is incorrect, please point it out and tell me the
correct one (whatever - number, date, etc.).  If I present an opinion with which
you disagree, please refute it.  Where I think he's lost is the difference
between, say, "The Vietnam War was fought in the 1930's" ( a clear factual
mistake) and "The Vietnam War was simply a moneymaker for the defense industry
(an opinion with which many could disagree and refute).

If I say something you don't like, that doesn't automatically make it a
*factual* error.  Sorry to offend you - just try to learn the difference so
you don't embarrass yourself.

Thanks!


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:11:42 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Influence and the presidency

Dear Jamie,
  I'm sorry to say that it's all too clear what the "objection" to
Hillary Clinton is. You are having a hard time seeing it, because you
are an honourable and rational person.. with what may be a bit more
experience in the trenches with the, uh, ladies and gentlemen of the
right on this list, I may be able to enlighten you. Said worthies are,
whether in their Christian or Randian incarnations, Hobbesians at base.
They believe that people are vicous brutes and "therefore" draw the con-
clusion that there's nothing for it save the general recipe that might
makes right. Reagonomics in theory and practice boiled down to the more
bread you got, the more right you are; this little nostrum was at once
a moral philosophy, a theology, an economic policy, and a crusade. From
it further followed the profoundly misanthropic corollary that life is a
ceaseless darwinian struggle between US--those who understand reality--
and them--humanists, thinkers, humorists, negroes, women, academics,
homosexuals, artists, humanitarians, and other scum. Since the principle
of all struggle is take no prisoners, be the meanest son of a bitch in the
jungle, etc etc, it follows that whatever is done by US is okay by definition,
and whatever is done by them is evil and vile. Hence Oliver North's patent
high treason is just fine, because he's a HEE-ro; Nancy Reagan's dictation
of schdeule and policy to her senile husband based on the sickening flummery
of a hollywood astrology is okay too, as is Reagan's handpicked series of
counsellors from the ranks of crooked car-salesmen. All THESE, you see, are
us, and having fucked up their first birth (which left them in a permanent
state of rage against decency and compassion), have all had the shrewd
budiness-sense to do it over again, thus becoming part of the ranks of US.
Still with me? It's weird, it's horrible, I know, but it's not entirely
inexplicable, for the strong of stomach. Okay: what Nancy and Ron and Ollie
do, no matter how despicable and debauched, is fine, because they're US;
whatEVER Hillary Clinton does, no matter how admirable and decent, is not,
because she's THEM.
  In short, the whole thing is a staggering piece of right wing hypocrisy,
and the very fact that we are even discussing it seriously in the first
place is a testimony to the formidable success of criminal lunatics in
capturing the public discourse in the United States since 1980. My friend,
let me say to you in all candour and respect: if we're ever to have a
sane and decent nation again, we must stop listening to these clowns,
and reclaim the right to talk sense in American politics.
Regards,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:27:16 CST
From:         Kip Shaw <KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Security Clearance

It is somewhat ironic that Presidential Candidates need no formal
security clearance whereas military people and other federal agency people
need security clearances as they climb the ladder.
The media and the political opponents are the only main watchdogs
for the candidates who
raise questions (did you inhale? you voted against this-that..) whereas
the federal agency people have to fill out forms I suppose where they are
required to answer all kinds of
of questions in writing, and sometimes get turned down for the higher
post because of the answers they write in.



  ( I received (what was essentially) a hate-mail from someone from
    this group concerning formatting (of all the things) of an email
    some days back.  (if not hate-mail then at least abusive)
    It was rather amusing    since I am relatively new to this discussion
    group and to networking in general.
    Some of the subscribers to Help-Net, and local people told me to ignore all
    hate-mailers, that they frequent about every discussion group.
    It is regretful that some people occasionally take to abusive emailing. )

    Nevertheless, about majority of the people of this discussion group,
    the count-counterpoint discussions and debates conducted here in
    this discussion group are often much better and educative than what those
    crazy talking-heads on TV put out.

Offbeat comment: It is said sometimes that musical talent, mathematical
                 talent, chess talent are related.
                 But there is no concrete evidence yet about this matter.

Question: what about political talent?
From: nichols@spss.com (David Nichols)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Perot's influence on the election
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:10:54 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <19NOV92.13154697.0074.MUSIC@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET> writes:
>Well Jonathan,
>In the eyes of everyone. Your opinion is just a speculation.
>Most of Perot's voters were protesting against Bush. This protest
>vote helped Clinton, whether you get or not. Exit polls do not tell
>the whole truth. People like me will be always convinced that Clinton
>would not have won the elections had Perot not run.

Well, now that you've announced your refusal to consider anyone's evidence,
why bother to debate the question?

--
 David Nichols        Senior Statistical Support Specialist         SPSS, Inc.
 Phone: (312) 329-3684     Internet:  nichols@spss.com     Fax: (312) 329-3657
*******************************************************************************
 Any correlation between my views and those of SPSS is strictly due to chance.
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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:37:25 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Politics (yes, this is a _politics_ list)

Hi y'all:
>> What about the new stories about the State Department having ordered
>> investigations into Clinton's passport files?

I kind of like Jack Germond's (sp?) answer to this on the MacLaughlin group
last night.  He said the problem with government investigations of
government improprieties is that you never quite get to the bottom *or* the
top.  He said it's laughable to think that folks in the White House and in
the campaign didn't know what was going on, but we'll probably never know
exactly what happened.  And this is one reason why people get so cynical
about government generally.

>> What do you all think about the transition team.  Is it working?  How
>> smooth a transition do you expect from Clinton?

I've never "observed" a transition before, so I don't know how this one
stacks up.  But I don't see any obvious problems.

>> How do you feel about Libertarianism?  Is it something you would like
>> to see implemented?  Do you think it is practical?  Do you think it is
>> a bad idea?

One thing that troubles me about Libertarianism is the emphasis on
individual liberty within the economic sphere.  Does this mean a return to
pure laissez-faire economics (a la Industrial Revolution, e.g.)?  I guess I
just don't trust most people to take more than a short-term view of their
actions, especially when it comes to short-term gains that result in long-
term resource depletion.  Maybe some of the Libertarians on the list can
clear this up.  What would be the consequences of Libertarian gov't for
things like environmental protection?  Note: I'm not arguing that the
government currently does a good job in this area.  But we've got problems
on local, regional, national, and international scales, and I don't know
how a real Libertarian government would address those problems.

>> What do you think of Feminism?  Is it a positive force on our nation?

Overall, I'd say yes.  But I'd qualify that by pointing out that Feminism
means different things to different people, so we need to narrow our
definitions.  The more women move toward equality of opportunity the better
we'll all be.

>> What are your own political leanings?  How do you identify yourself
>> politically, if you choose to do so?

Well, I'm registered Democrat after years of being "decline to state."
That's mostly because it gives me better access/voice in local politics.
Overall, I agree more with the Democratic party platform than the
Republican, but I'm not a straight party voter by any stretch.  I'm
socially liberal but economically confused :)

Kerry
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:28:55 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gays in the military: last chance

In article <01GRAN3LL8V6000V1E@WABASH.BITNET>, ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET says:
>
>Thank you all for your brilliantly insightful remarks.  Particular honors go
>to
>Julie, who unleashed the blistering intellectual parry "you, sir, are a
>dweeb."  Move over Aristotle...
>
>Anyway, it seems to me that my point is still pretty much untouched.  IF you
>would argue that private employees have the right to a "nonthreatening" work
>environment, then it makes no sense to claim that government employees do not

Isn't that the same argument racists and anti-Semites use to rationalise
excluding Blacks and Jews from employment. Wasn't a similar argument used
when truman integrated the army?

>have that right.  Granted, much of the military hinges upon "threats" such as
>boot camp, playing with live explosives, and the like.  These are threats
>intrinsic to the military, so they're no big deal.  However, living in close
>quarters with members of the opposite sex (for all practical purposes) is
>clearly not intrinsic to the military.  In fact, the whole reason gays and
>women have been excluded is because such living arrangements damage morale.  I

It was also argued that integration would damage morale, is that a reason
to segregate the army?

>haven't seen anyone refute this (although I've been sorting through a lot of
>uncharacteristically emotional posts -- I might have missed it, as I have no
>intention of wading through the opinions of people who resort to ad hominems).
>
>Maybe Jamie or Kerry or somebody who is willing to discuss this rationally can
>explain to me why I'm wrong here.  So far, the people who have responded have
>only reinforced my intitial beliefs.

You sir, are a dweeb!

>
>JasonZ
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:43:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

>So j.b. was not addressing Steve's post with that remark; he was offering
>sympathy.  Now why don't you two shake hands.

>(How's that, linda?)
>Kerry
>can I be list aunt?

we are building an extended family.
hey, this is going to work out well. i can be list mother.
julie can be asst. list cook.
kerry can be list aunt (mother's need all the help they can get, plus i do want
another sister).
...anybody want to be my brother? i don't have a brother (sniff).
...and what about a list father ;).

-linda
list mother
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:32:54 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Clinton's Cat
Comments: To: Jimbo Wales <JWALES@IUBVM.BITNET>

>From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

>Bill's little girl was watching, too!  Do you have any idea how
>it feels for a little girl to see her cat so abused?
>
>Somebody needs to put a stop to such press antics.  America is
>getting sick and tired of them.  First, they wouldn't lay off poor
>old George Bush when his mother was about to die, and now this.
>
>I SAY: the media should leave our leaders alone.  They are obviously
>trying to do a good job and be patriotic.

You know, you animal rights activists make me sick.

You have obviously never had any experience with disease.

You never complained about all the bad press that Millie, the
Bush dog gets, you're just a hippocrit (sp?). Why can't you
liberaltarians just let our presidents have whatever pets
they want?

I just don't agree with you, that's all. I know you have a right
to say it but it is wrong and unnatural.

Please do not give me any more evidence, it is all irrelevant,
because all you have is your opinion, and I am impervious to facts.

Frothing, and proud of it,
Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU