HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pats & Libertarians
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:10:30 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>

> things.  (The Libertarian Party, god bless 'em, doesn't accept federal
> matching funds, since the government shouldn't be in the business of
> financing elections and this program wouldn't exist under a Libertarian
> administration.  For all their talk of reducing the size of government,
> the Republicans will ignore this principle and accept the funds.)
>     toddddddddddd
>
> --------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----

	At the risk of opening up an argument which is already going on
in Libernet, let me say that I do not believe that it would be against
the Libertarian beliefs to accept the federal matching funds.  The
argument made by Libertarians who are more concerned with ideological
purity than with achieving results is that no one should be coerced into
having his or her money spent in a way which they do not approve of.
But when we pay taxes to support the Federal Election Commission (or
whoever it is that gives out the money), our money is going to be used
for political campaigns anyway, so the money would only be "stolen" if
it were given to a candidate that we do not approve of.  So why not let
the Libertarians "liberate" our tax dollars by spending them in a way
that us Libertarians would like to have them spent, i.e. getting
Libertarian candidates elected.  I believe that accepting federal
matching funds is not only consistant with the Libertarian philosophy,
it is necessary if the Libertarians are ever going to accomplish
anything other than sitting around discussing whether we should return
to the gold standard  or not...
						Robert Head
						rhead@s850.mwc.edu
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 16:23:45 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: C.E. not B.C.

Paul:
>When I claimed the B.C. was one of the more extreme examples of
>political correctness, I meant C.E. (Common Era).  I mis-typed.

I'd be very interested in hearing just how you equate dating usage with
political correctness (I'd be interested even if I didn't think PC doesn't
exist).  As a biologist, I've been using b.p. ("before present") and b.p.e.
(before present era) for years -- certainly well before D'Souza started
working on his book.  For me, this dating method is somewhat analogous to
latinized scientific names -- it provides a common "language" permitting
accurate communication across cultural/religious lines.

I don't see the problem in that.

BTW, just to pick nits with y'all:  I was taught that the correct usage
for A.D. (anno Domini) is to put it *before* the date, not after (my
dictionary does allow as how common usage differs from formal usage).

Kerry
feeling grumpy after a long day
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 16:58:45 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>       And who is it that pays the salaries of House members?
>>       Oops.
>>       So, in effect, taxpayers gave House members interest free loans.  No
>> *additional* money went to the House members, but when the local paper showed
>what ordinary folks like you and I would have had to pay in overdraft fines and
>> bad check fees, it came to almost $52,000 for the worst offenders.
>
>And who is it that pays the liquor bills of the family of the House members?
>Well, the members themselves, who else?
>And who is it that pays the salaries of the House members?
>Oops.

	Not at all.  If you want to say "tax dollars are going to buy liquor"
you have a case :).
	But the point was that they are indeed tax dollars.  How many should go
to pay for someone who abuses the house bank?  Do parents reward their kids for
spending their entire allowance on bubble gum?
	I hold my reps to financial accountability.  If I'm going to pay for
their time, I expect them to be honest.

>So, in effect, taxpayers gave House members free liquor.

	"Free" never came into it.  If they set up a private liquor store
immune from federal, state and local taxes it would be similar.

>>       And *that's* what pissed people off.
>
>Now, I am really pissed off.

	Why?

>--KAT  who knew when you take the derivative of a large number
>       you end up with zero, but never thought the same principle
>       holds for names too.    :-)

	Eventually they always turn to name games.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:11:00 EST
From:         mostly harmless <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      veeeeeeerrry interesting...but stoopid...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

This post collects replies to liese, fred, jayce, and t, and is not
close captioned for the sarcasm impaired.  Read on, MacDuff.

liese phrases in the form of a question:
>where the hell is gary olson, anyhow?

Right here, hacking away with a persistant cough in my throat and a
song in my heart...  I've not been too vocal this weekend as that is
my usual response to large clots of mail - i just sort of enter read
and delete mode, my eyes glazing over as the 300th two line post from
--steve comes by, and i try to figure out if he's a hip guy or something
because, by golly, he watches saturday night live.

(to be fair, his posts have gotten meatier, but still - SNL, --steve?
is this really the best 'name drop' you can come up with?  next you'll
be telling us about the cutting edge comedy of lewis grizzard.  sheesh.)

fred:
>I think that sarcasm is becoming a lost art form, an endangered species
>if you will.

Some on here have a good grasp on how to use sarcasm effectively.  Others
could use a round or two at sarcasm finishing school.

jayce:
>P.S.  Anyone watch the movie "Red Dawn?"  Tell me it didn't make you think at
>least a little bit...........

It made me think I had just wasted two hours on a lame, badly-acted, poorly
directed bit of drivel.  I mean, it makes 'Rocket Attack USA' look like an
Oscar contender.  (i was a republican then, too - and it was *still* bad).
All I remember from it was these kids got together to fight the invading
russians, called themselves the 'wolverines', until they got mowed down.
Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica fit in there somewhere, too.

T:
>You seem to be real right wing.  But your idols belie a different "you":
>Teddy - lost to Carter in the 1980 primaries, right?
>Jack - lost his life to a fellow God & Countryman's bullet, right?
>Eddy?  Eddy?  Who - Haskell?  Munster?  The Courtship of___'s Father?

Of course, one of the dangers of sarcasm is that, once in a while, the user
will blow it.  Robert explained the "Teddy Jack Eddy" thing a while ago, T.
Has nothing to do with los hombres Kennedy.  I can't remember exactly where
he said he got it, though.  Some obscure comedy troupe, I think.  Can't
remember what it means, either.  Can't say as I really care, either.  Go
figure.

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:18:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject: re: T's libelous rantings

Robert Moss:

        When one deals with someone or a group of people for some time, even

the best of us begin to sift words and deeds through an kind of experiential

filter.   I do not advocate it, but unfortunately, it happens.

        When you deal with rabid reactionaries - given to childish baitings

and rantings, you may develop a filter with which to view their actions.

        The childish art you're so fond of recalling could have done a better
"humorous" bit with "my arguments".  I'm not condoning this - I'm admitting it -
when I see your name, a smoking gun, and a caption about how that's "your
reply" to me - that unfortunate filter kicks in.  I saw an implied threat.
Especially after I declined to continue a thread with you - a thread you had
repeatedly continued through PERSONAL mail, not the list.  I said I wanted to
drop it.  Apparently you did not.  Again, I drop it.  Have some decency and
at least respect that wish.

        Enough - and enough with telling me to get off the list.  What's the dea
l, Robert Moss?  I thought that you were supposed to be one of the rational
religious fanatics?

-T.


"If I stuck to preaching what I practiced, I'd be less of a phony."

                                -DeMello, and me
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:34:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: love grows where my rosemary goes and nobody knows like me

>McCarthy the position of history czar, and Linda Saboe is welcome as the
>virtual white house cook.

i graciously accept the position of virtual white house cook.
i will be posting the weekly menu as soon as our virtual transition period
is completed.

please submit a list of food allergies so that i may prepare alternative
menus for those who swell up (most unbecoming at the table dontchaknow).

this will be a meatless whitehouse for the most part. i will, however,
prepare special-request birthday meals, and those meals will not be held
to a vegetarian ethic. please keep in mind though, that the white house cook
will not, under any circumstances, prepare for consumption the flesh of any
species on the endangered list.

other exceptions to the vegetarian table will be traditional meals served on
special holidays, and chicken soup when someone is ill and that someone has
an aversion to strong garlic broth (which is really better than chicken soup
but try telling that to jewish or italian mothers...).

bon apetite

-le chez linda
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: president hillary
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:50:10 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Fred
>I've seen several articles about Iraq buying nuclear weapons... note that this
is happening on Mr. Bush's watch, and that the Clinton presidency doesn't begin
until 1993.
Well first of all it's still president Bush not Mr Bush. If Iraq is buying
military and nuclear hardware from the soviet union it is in anticipation
of 1993. Remember it is going to take time to train. He probably won't even
take delivery until President-Elect Billiary get in the whitehouse.  I don't
know if you heard or read Clinton's speach. He threatened possible hostile
nation not to try and take advantage of this transition period. What he meant
was don't try it because Bush is still president and he'll thump you again.

 A question: What do you want President Bush to do about it?

-----mike...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:50:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The legality of the income tax (was RE: Churches and Tax
              Exempt Status)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

'nother topic:

Several people are suing the Catholic Church becuase of their inaction
in the Father Porter cases.  The Church says it can't be sued because
it's non-profit.  Does that seem as spurious to everyone else as it does
to me?

--Julie
From: rhead@S850.MWC.EDU (robert v head jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: ==> YES!!!!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:51:59 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>

>
> >       Or anyone who isn't a member of one of the speical interest
> >groups who are considered likely Democratic voters...
>
> Just as a lubricant to the debate process here; Mr. Head could you
> please post a list of those people/groups that vote or seek political
> influence that are not "special interest groups" or members thereof.
>
>
> >                                              Robert Head
>
> -other Andy
>
	Obviously there are no "groups" that I can name that aren't
"special-interest groups", but what I was refering to when I made that
statement is that I feel that in trying to please the political
activists, the Democratic party tends to ignore the concerns of the
average voter.  In this election Bill Clinton obviously received the
support of many "average Americans", and I hope that in office he will
not forget his pledge to make life better for everyone, not just the
more vocal interest groups.  Of course, the same thing could have been
said if Bush had been elected, since I agree with whoever it was on the
list that was saying that religious fanatics and pro-lifers are
among the most extreme of the "special interests".
						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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:54:20 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: Reaonable vs. inflammatory ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Never have I NOT been reasonable in my posts or have I been inflammatory in
my responses. If you could care to point out some occasions perhaps we can deal
 with t
with them. Next, you cannot hold me responsible for the actions and words of
other writers on this post. Now, if you would care to comment on my post rather
than attack my attitudes, perhaps we could get somewhere and make this list an
enjoyable one to read....the ball is in your court.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:14:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      monday morning....

well, it's happened yet again. monday has once again followed on the heels of
sunday. what regularity. what consistency. something you can really depend on.
UNLIKE the damn mailer here. yesterday i went to see my sister who has her pc
hooked up. i checked my acct. there were 240+ messages from friday and saturday.
nothing had come through sunday. nothing today. i tried guys i really tried to
look at them all, but lori wanted to go to bed and she kicked me out of her
room. so i deleted a hundred messages unread. sorry.

i did read enough to notice that the friday beer countdown floundered w/out me.
appears i have a niche. i've always wanted a nice cozy niche all of my own.
cool.

i read my personal stuff, so don't worry, if the mail ever gets through, recipes
and other answers are "in the mail".

well, time to go get a bagel and some hot coffee, because its 30 some degrees
out and the library has the air conditioner on instd. of the heat.

seems to be a normal villanova monday *sigh*.

-linda (typing w/gloves and ski jacket on and considering keeping long
underwear in my desk drawer....i'll call it my drawer drawer....get it...
drawers???)
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:07:34 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

>Lee:
>In article <1992Nov5.143502.5432@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
>(Stupendous Man) writes:
>|> 	Rumor has it that Mr. & Mrs. Reagan voted for Ross Perot.
>|>
>|> 	Given the way President Bush trashed Reagan's economic expansion, I
>|> wouldn't blame them :).
>|>
>|> Brett
>
>  Interesting Rumor. However, according to the 11/5 New York Times Election
>Special, Reagan was upset and angry that Bush didn't use Reagan as a
>campaigner until late october. Reagan was also upset that Buchanan's speech
>went overtime and pushed Reagan's more moderate speech out of the prime
>time.
>  I personally don't think Reagan would secretly turn his back on the
>republican party in the privacy of the voting booth. That's not his style.

	The rumor I read was the other way around: Bush wanted Reagan from the
start, but Reagan wouldn't do it because Bush wouldn't own up to trashing the
economy by dropping Reagan's economic programs.
	There is precedent.  Reagan used to be a Democrat :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:16:11 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Things

Brett':

Where do you live?  I may have missed it, but it must be a pretty
incredibly place.

I am currently living in Memphis, which I should point is supposed to
be the least expensive urban center in the country.

I'd like to compare the prices you offered:

>Milk is $1/gal (so is gas), hamburger is $1.79/lb (the better stuff, not the 7%
>fat stuff), bread is $0.70/loaf, etc.

Milk is about $1.29/gal. and gas ranges between $1.30-$1.50/gal.  Bread is
$1.19/loaf and I believe that hamburger is $1.89/pound.

I don't think that any of this is exhorbitant, but I know that there are
still a large number of people in Memphis who can't afford to eat.

If I'm not mistaken, housing costs and prices are pretty good here, compared
to the rest of the country and yet Memphis has an awful lot of homeless people
or people living in sub-standard housing.

I am not blaming this on the Republicans, because I don't believe that it is
a partisan issue.  I think that America hasn't got a real sense of concern
for those around us.

There may be starving people in Somalia, but there are starving people
just down the street from most people in the US.  Why is it that the
Somalians deserve more sympathy and help than do our own neighbours?

Sorry for going off on a totally different subject.  It is Friday and I've
been taking a lot of bashing from friends and non-friends for a review
I wrote of a musical that was performed on campus.  It is a wonder I haven't
been stoned yet.  The result is that the littlest things are causing major
emotional swings, which lead to verbosity on subjects that were never even
originally brought up(-sorry about the preposition, but I don't feel like
editing-).

J.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:20:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Flat Tax Now!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

                    GIVE US A FLAT TAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        What is so horrible about a flat tax?  Republicans and
conservatives have been begging for it for years.
        Bruce Herschensohn ran in California with a flat tax of taxing
all income that exceeds $16,000 by 19%, but he lost to Barbara Boxer (
a corrupt insider with hundreds of Bounced Checks)
        When Jerry Brown spoke of a flat tax, the people laughed at
him.  Of course that was the only thing that he said that made any
sense.

        A flat tax will prevent people from finding loopholes, and
would greatly downsize the IRS.  Furthermore, people could do their
taxes in minutes on a post card.  Here is a fair proposal for a flat
tax:

All income up to $12,000 -             not taxed
income from $12,000 to $20,000         5%
income from $20,000 to $50,000         8%
income from $50,000 to $75,000        12%
income from $75,000 to $200,000       14%
income over $200,000                  17%

        It's progressive and extremely fair, for example a person
earniung $13,000 would only pay $50 in federal income tax ($1,000
taxable), and a person earning $1,000,000 would pay $159,300.  This is
fair, and it only takes a few minutes.

        And, if the government does not earn enough in revenue, which
I doubt, then cut things we do not need, and there is plenty of that.

-Paul
 Conservatives for real tax fairness! Not wealth redistribution
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:53:14 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: We have a winner...
              4 Nov 1992 08:49:16 -0600 from <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 08:49:16 -0600 VALENTINE M. SMITH said:
>
>I, too, wish the Tall Guys the best, and thank James McBride for his sterling

Let me add my congrats to the Guys on their win, and again thank everybody who
took part, either by contesting the race, or just voting.  I think the days
campaigning provided some of the best laughs on the list for a long time.
Thanks also to all the kind words said about me today, I appreciate it.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the Irish electoral situation is getting ever
more uncertain.  I tried to give a brief rundown yesterday, and things have
moved on since then.  The main left-wing party, Labour, has called for a
confidence motion to be debated next week in the Irish parliament, known as the
Dail (pronounced Dahl).  There is a fairly high chance of the government
falling on this issue, as the leader of the junior coalition partners has
indicated that he feels the current administration has run out of steam.
More on this, no doubt, as the week goes on.

>service in counting the ballots and keeping us all on our toes. I would also
>thank Evelyn for having me on her ticket. Good luck to all! VMS

james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:28:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul:

Read my response to Kat, because it basically outlines what the issue
is with Churches and Taxes.  Churches are NOT tax-exempt by default
because they are Churches.  They are tax-exempt because they are non
profit.  For a non-profit organization to be tax-exempt it must not
engage in LOBBYING and it can not work as a political action com-
mittee.  Churches do both.

--Julie