HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:17:58 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Jim Baker

**************
Has everyone heard about Jim Baker leaving the State Department?  He's taking
Skinner's place as Chief of Staff, I think.  How do you think this will change
the campaign?  I don't really think that Baker will be able to work the magic
that he worked in 1988; Clinton's farther ahead and is a stronger candidate
than Dukakis.

Gayla
**************

   well, first off, his "leaving" might be in name only. the mideast
peace talks are going to be in washington, and i can see baker "keeping
his hand in", plus eagleburger doesn't like to travel and has a bad
arm (bandaged up, in a photo i saw) as well. he'll go back in jan. if
george wins. skinner was a flop as chief of staff, so that'll go better.
and as for the campaign, well, george really hasn' opened up yet. he's
had danny testing out some themes, though, and i think you'll see a
nasty negative campaign real soon now. and this election is nowhere
near over, it's only august and clinton's lead has dropped almost ten
points in the most recent poll i've seen . . . plus he's vulnerable
on a lot of things. people vote their fears rather than their hopes on
most occasions, and george will do his best (worst?) to make people
scared of "slick willie".

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:51:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: direct mail from jail

>Steve, the second most moral man alive.

        who's the first?

>*Vote Yse Guys*   1-800-4NO-GOVT

        nah.
-linda suE saboE   E, your tickEt to ridE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:37:00 EST
From:         Gary Parsons <PARSONS@FAUVAX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: a conventional final night...

       The "...free Cuba" remark:
       I gues that George just won Florida!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:31:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: direct mail from jail
              12 Aug 1992 12:55:08 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

I'm sorry if there was some confusion, KAT, but my "Direct mail from
jail"  posting wasn't meant to be a response to your book contract
question.  I don't have an answer to that.  Contrary to popular opinion,
I *don't* have *all* the answers, I just know the One who does :-) .

And, yes, I guess I do think that, once you are in prison, and your
needs are being taken care of by the taxpayers, I think you *do*
more or less forfeit your opportunity for gainful employment.  Somebody
said that government workers aren't allowed to work more than 40 hours
a week.  Fine.  Seems to me that being in prison is more or less a
full-time room-and-board arrangement by which the inmates "pay" (as
they say) their "debt" to society.  Whatever assets might be generated
by that should be returned to that society.

Thinking about the book contract thing again, here's a tentative
opinion:  if you write a book *while* in prison, whatever the
subject, you are doing so using the good offices of the state, and
without the time (in prison) to do so, you would have been unable to
generate the income.  Therefore, the state should have ownership of the
proceeds.

I don't know how we could handle the situation of writing a book *after*
leaving prison, if it draws on that experience.  But while one is in
prison, "normal life" is and ought to be suspended for that time.  Therefore,
the normal rules of production and consumption do not apply.  In my
opinion.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:13:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: kerry, have you been inhaling?

                       Since you asked:

Missy president wish-to-be says:"the republicans are the party of
civilized debate on every issue".

If this is true, why did George Bush refuse to answer questions on his
policies at a recent news conference and tell the questioners to shut
up and listen? Shut up and listen does not equal debate.

                        Apparently you are misinformed.  Bush was
                        making a speech, not giving a news conference
                        in the incident you mention.  He told them to
                        shut up and listen because they were in the
                        *audience* and this was not a *debate*.
                        Civility dictates that an audience allow
                        the speaker to speak and to confine their
                        comments and responses to those commonly
                        accepted in such settings.  They're lucky
                        Bush is a civil person.  Axl Rose would have
                        jumped into the audience and beaten the
                        stuffing out of them.

Why wasn't the abortion debate conducted during the convention if the
party is so eager to encourage debate? I'm sure that the pro-choice
republican faction would have welcomed an open forum for debate.

                        Where have you been?  The abortion plank
                        *was* debated (ironically, in a very
                        democratic--not Democrat--fashion), as
                        was the full platform.  NO minority planks
                        were filed under the rules of the house,
                        apparently because prochoice delegates were
                        satisfied with the opportunity for debate and
                        with the platform as a whole.  Apparently,
                        prochoice Republicans (unlike prochoice
                        Democrats, from what we could tell from the
                        DNC convention) aren't single-issue voters.
                        If there's going to be a fight, it will
                        be extralegal under the rules of the
                        convention, and prochoice Republicans,
                        if they choose such an option, will hurt
                        the party and themselves more than
                        help their cause.

                        --Missy P 2 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:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:06:00 EDT
From:         more noise please <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the gipper saves the night from a loose buchanan...

Kerry mistakes me for a Democrat:
>You say "the Democrats were paragons of smoothness compared to this."
>Yes, and isn't that the point?  The Democrats ran a highly *undemocratic*
>convention.  The full platform committee at the DNC only voted up/down
>on the whole thing.  At *this* convention, each subcommittee met, argued
>over every word of their plank, submitted it to the committee, and *then*
>the platform committee voted on *every* *single* *word* of the final
>product.

My comment was on the effectiveness of the orchestration, not upon its
presence or nonpresence in the conventions.  The Dems had their own buzz-
phrases, such as "unity" and "potatoe", but for the most part, they managed
to avoid sounding like open mike night at the improv (I kept waiting for
one of the Republican speakers to accidently say "pause for laughter" out
loud, but it didn't happen...:)).

>If you can defend the check-bouncing, high-living, undemocratic Democrat
>Congress, go right ahead and try.  The fact is that the *Congress* has
>the responsibility to pass legislation, and they haven't done it.  Took
>'em less than 24 hours to raise their own pay, though.  Now that's
>efficiency.

I must admit, I'm puzzled as to why you think I'm a democrat.  I do think
that Clinton would make a marginally better president than Bush, but I don't
expect that he'll abolish the CIA or anything else I'd really like to see.
As for my opinion of Congress, I assume you missed the post where I referred
to it as a "slimy cesspool of corruption" (or something equally picturesque).
But then, maybe you still believe that there's only two possible political
opinions a body can have, and that if one is not loyal to the presidency, one
is loyal to congress.  Feh.

>--Missy P 2 B

Convention note: at 9:00, Michigan's resident elected Bonehead, Gov. John
Engler, will be speaking, for about five minutes.  In case you're wondering
why I'm always making snotty comments about him...:)

Gary W. Olson                 "The great and direct end of government is
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   liberty.  Secure our liberties and privileges,
77 days and counting down...   and the end of government is answered.  If this
                               be not effectively done, government is an evil."
           - Patrick Henry, Speech against the U.S. Constitution, June 25, 1788
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:44:34 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      fellating the great god mammon

  liese,

    it's a variant of LSD. it turns a person into a republican if
you weren't one already. and if you take it while you are one, you
become a government bureaucrat. i fear for dave's soul . . .

  ANDY!!!!!! THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!!! **YOU** DID THIS TO HIM!!!

rtf, worried sick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:37:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC
              20 Aug 1992 13:02:00 -0400 from
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE>

Julie:

I'm not real well informed about Lawrence Welk.  I take it from your
post that a) he is dead and b) he died of AIDS-related complications.
Am I reading that right?

Also, I think it is ridiculous to expect the President (or anyone
else, for that matter) to "really care" (except in the most
formulaic, insincere way) when someone he does not know happens
to die.

Are you saying that you "really care" that Lawrence Welk is dead?

Just wondering.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:10:59 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: logic czar
              20 Aug 1992 20:33:58 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Oops!  I could not differentiate between Robert's
usual posts and his last post which was intentionally
ad hominem.  :-)

I guess I have to apologize to Robert for saying
the right things for the wrong reason.  :-)

Sorry!

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:50:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

rtf:

This isn't really politics, but it's starting to bug me.  Wasn't
"Rufus T. Firefly" a fictional character (a persona of either
WC Fields or Groucho Marx?)?  If so, in what?

I really hate it when I can't remember something that I know I
already know.  Grrrr.

--Missy Prez 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:15:31 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
              18 Aug 1992 08:01:22 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

I decline your invitation to explain the rape/incest exception, because
I reject the position about which you inquire.  As I do not and have
never held such a position, I am in no position to explain the
thinking of those who do (or, at least, I cannot do so with the
experience and eloquence such people would bring to the debate.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:38:24 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: say three hail marys and six our fathers

"insufficient reverence at use of name 'larry stimely'"
JUST the stimely back catalog?  Wait until fall semester starts here, and
I'll see if he's still here.

Evelyn
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:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:34:00 EDT
From:         more noise please <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: a view of the GOP convention from across the pond.

Dunstan says:
>1) On a radio sound bite this morning, I heard Bush saying about
>"family values" (God I hate these cliches) "We want American families
>to be more like the Waltons, and less like the Simpsons".

This is at least the second time Bush has used this phrase.  Dennis
Miller had the perfect reply the first time Bush said it:

"Let's see, the Waltons...broke and unemployed.  Hey, at least Homer
Simpson has a job and owns his own home!"

>Dunstan.

Gary W. Olson, who *is*       "Here's a piece of paper,
  watching the convention on   you're officially free!
  CSPAN, and providing his     Here's a list of instructions,
  own biased commentary        for you to obey!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   - Chumbawamba, "Ah-men"
77 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:33:13 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Some REALLY interesting numbers

FYI:

Houston Chronicle poll of 2000 voters nationwide, just published
this morning:

Clinton          48%
Bush             43%

margin of error +/- 3.1%

Among *definite*
voters:

Preconvention:

Clinton             35
Bush                23

After Monday night:

Clinton             34
Bush                27

This morning:

Clinton             33
Bush                31


Independents:  Clinton-44%            Bush-33%

   According to the pollsters at their news conference, there hasn't
been much movement within independent voters (maybe they're waiting
to see what Ross does.)

   I would add here that, from the press conference I saw (in which
they explained their methodology, which I have never seen a
"regular" pollster do before--ABC, NYT, etc), this poll is very
carefully done.  The pollsters were polling from before the
convention until last night (Wednesday), which is very different
from the way most polls are done.

  PS:  I don't know what it looks like over on CNN tonight, but
on CSPAN after it was all over, I counted 13 calls in the first 15
from Democrats switching parties.  Y'know, a horse race might be
kinda fun.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:28:58 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Elections

>Imagine:
>  What if Clinton and Bush were not running for President.  Which
>Democrat or Republican would you vote for for President?

Democrat -- Bill Bradley, Al Gore, Pat Schroeder (but that'll never happen).
Republican -- Well, not that I'd want him as president, but Bob Dole would
   certainly make things interesting, wouldn't he?

>Evelyn Duncan

-----Gayla
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: ^!
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:16:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>   does ^ have anything to do with frop?

>rtf

man, i don't understand all these f-words....what the f is frop?

and i thought ^^^ was just a cute way to underline stuff.
and then they say its not.
then they say its not not.
ok....so what is ****
is there anything else i should know?
what is the meaning of life maybe? (nah, forget that, i'd rather be surprised)

linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:24:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Reading List

>I was just wondering where everyone obtains their
>information?  What magazines are read?  What
>newspapers?  What news programs are watched or
>heard?

well, i get info from these guys on the list. i try reading newspapers, but
i get emotionally upset and have to quit. the only part i can get through is
the food section. oh, yeah and the horoscopes. usually, mine stinks, but i just
pick the one i like best and use that. :)
also, my boss reads the wall street news to me at lunch time. and my friend jeff
recaps stuff for me w/out too many gross details.

seriously, i find news magazines the best source. the regular weekly ones, then
some of the other ones like mother jones are good (radical). rolling stone has
some cool stuff. tv news mags aren't great but what the hell i watch em anyway.
can't sit thru the local stuff, too upsetting (i'm not kidding, i cry).

also, since i work in a library, i come across lots of sources and people who
know stuff, so i listen alot.

i've heard cnn is good, but being cableless, i can't partake.

linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Reading List
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:25:59 GMT


>>I was just wondering where everyone obtains their
>>information?  What magazines are read?  What
>>newspapers?  What news programs are watched or
>>heard?
>

Sadly enough, I get most my news from right here on the POLITICS list.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:50:04 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CLINTON STATE OFFICE UPDATE (8/20/92)
              21 Aug 1992 14:48:01 BST from <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

Hey!

Could people wishing to comment on the Clinton list please delete
most of it when reposting?

Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B

PS:  George Bush's address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington,
DC (and if you address it wrong, it still gets there; that's what
being the leader of the Free World is all about.)
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:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:39:00 EDT
From:         more noise please <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bush and Banks

Sue says:
>Outside of this list, I have had several conversations with people concern-
>ing Bush and the Congress, and one suggested that he should use comparisons
>in his speech.
>1) Bush should do away with the 'kindler and gentler' attitude toward Congress,
>and in his speech compare what he had planned to what Congress actually did.
>2) Compare his ideas and plans with Clinton's plans, and their intended results
>3) How and should Bush open up the money supply by allowing easier access to
>business loans to establish new small businesses and stimulate more employment
>and the economy.
>4) Explain why the banks are so tight with money today.

According to Morning Edition on NPR, this is exactly what Bush won't do
tonight.  The early word is that he will eschew specifics and focus on general
themes, with lots of emphasis on how he and his won the Cold War.  Also, it
appears that Bush won't introduce any tax cut in his speech, or take Andy's
advice on what to say.  So far, I've seen nothing to indicate Bush will be
able to pull another "thousand points o' light" (I meant Bud Lite, dammit! :))
speech out of his hat.

>Sue Clark

Gary W. Olson                 "The great and direct end of government is
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   liberty.  Secure our liberties and privileges,
75 days and counting down...   and the end of government is answered.  If this
                               be not effectively done, government is an evil."
           - Patrick Henry, Speech against the U.S. Constitution, June 25, 1788
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:20:04 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Somewhat Unusual "Family Values"
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              20 Aug 1992 13:55:58 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:55:58 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:
>MacPhil:
>>>working, but whose low skills level confines them to low-paying jobs.
>>
>>And I'm sure now they wish they had worked harder while in school instead
>>of doodling little hearts in their notebooks and figuring ways to copy
>>someone's homework.
>
>Huh?????????

Were they born with those low skill levels or did they just decide not
to take advantage of a free education and better themselves?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: CLINTON BIRTHDAY THANKS TO YOU
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug22.014019.6081@panix.com>, jbm@panix.com (John Mignault) writes...
>In article <BtCr26.HE2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> 
>>
>>	Great Bill! I'll be looking forward to seeing you on Sunday, 
>>when your bus capade cruises through Buffalo. I'll be wearing the red 
>>shirt with the big black "X" on it.
> 
>Bobby, baby, like get hip, dude! You're supposed to be wearing a *baseball 
>cap* with an X on it.



Oh Nooooo!
	
There goes my whole fall wardrobe!!!

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:00:46 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Carl's post

>Do you feel that _all_ people have the right to free speech in intimidation
>cases such as this one?

I'd say that everyone has the same right to "intimidation".  Who wants
to argue that certain people have different "speech as intimidation"
rights than other people?

>In many cases, my right to swing my arm ends at
>your nose. There are limits to the right to free speech.

Are they cause-specific?  Should they be?

>What limits do
>you think should be placed on the speech of the radical anti-abortionists?

Personally, I think they should have the same limits as
Clinton/Bush/Perot supporters.  The same limits as feminists, communists,
Birchers, Moonies, etc.

>Where did the guy get the alleged fetus he was allegedly trying to show
>Clinton?

Why is that interesting?  What answers are interesting?  Maybe he
stole it.  Should Clinton have acted to return it to its rightful
owner?  Maybe the anti-abortionists grew their own prop; is that any
more interesting than similar activities by animal rights folk?

-andy

ps - Both party chairmen acknowledge that they're the only people in
America "bound" by their respective party platforms.  Writing them
appears to be an effective means of distracting trouble-makers and
giving the excessively well-intentioned a safe way to express
themselves.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU