HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:49:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      up from the depths of vax

well, something went kaplooey at temple node and i've received almost nothing
from the list since thurs. night. that is until today when i got caught in a
virtual deluge. i mean we're talking instant overdraft. not only that, but
none of it came in order. i got tues. rebuttals to sundays arguments back and
forth and over and under. i got jenna's questionairre a hundred posts after
someone filled it in. weird time warp. noticed a lot of really silly stuff
going on from the lehigh littles. seems the ert is hangin in there altho i tend
to delete these guys w/out too much thought. i cringe to think what these guys
are going to request for their birthday dinners.
also noticed the friday beer countdown fizzled w/out me.
well, i gotta go.
oh yeah, someone, i forget who it was in my frenzy to drain my account, asked
that since tomorrow is a holiday  (i had to look this up, i couldn't remember
what month it is let alone what day) if we have a beer countdown.

YES OF COURSE. any holiday is like a friday even if you have to work the day
after. this holds true for canadian holidays and diwali also. so tomorrow i'll
start the countdown .... your place or mine ;).

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!

"In his autobiography, Mahatma Gandhi tells how in his student days in South
Africa he became deeply interested in the Bible, especially the Sermon on the
Mount.
 He became convinced that Christianity was the answer to the caste system that
had plagued India for centuries, and he seriously considered becoming a
Christian.
 One day he went to Church to attend a service abd get instructions. He was
stopped at the entrance and gently told that if he desired to attend services,
he was welcome to do soin a church reserved for blacks.
 He left and never returned."

                                -Anthony DeMello, _Taking Flight_

Sort of reminds you of a certain speech given this year at the Rep Natl Conven-
tion, doesn't it?


-T.
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:27:58 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110422152226@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, CMORRISO@SNYESC
VA.BITNET writes:
>
>        Go easy, the Bush supporters don't have much to say right now, so I
>guess Chelsea jokes are all they can come up with.
>
>                                                Chris Morrison
>
NO CHRIS, I JUST THOUGHT OF ONE MORE JOKE.  IT WILL BEGIN ON JANUARY 21.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:11:08 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities

Julie,
  I know that Jennifer Grey is for Clinton because she came here to
Akron U. to introduce Hillary to the students.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:43:04 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      IRS bye bye

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

>However, about the Fed printing more money, I am somewhat
>apprhensive, this could lead to horrible inflation.

It would lead to inflation, that's right. Inflation would,
in effect, be the "tax" we all pay.
I don't think inflation is *per se* a bad thing, though.
Remember, you won't have to pay any income tax. You'll
have more money, things will cost more money. No net
gain to consumers, EXCEPT that we don't have to pay the
costs of collection. And, of course, those of us who
actually pay our taxes would no longer have to shoulder
the additional burden of those who don't.

> Albeit, programs
>should be cut drastically to make up for this tax revenue loss, or the
>gov't. can impose a consumption tax (I have heard some economists
>talking of only consumption taxes).

Huh, yeah. Well, the only problem is that we won't agree on which
programs should be cut. But I'll leave that for another day.

Consumption taxes might be a good idea. Problems:

They are very regressive when set up as sales taxes;
When set up as income taxes, they have the same problems
that current income taxes have;
They would be bad for the economy in the short run, and we
may not be able to afford heavy short-run costs.

Those are substantial difficulties. Aside from them, I like
the idea of a consumption tax.

Jamie

Oh yeah, one more thing. "Albeit" doesn't mean "instead." It means "although."
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 12:43:38 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: A Referendum
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Aside from your personal opinion what problem do you have with the
Religious Right? More exactly, what has the Religious Right done that goes
against any laws, against any people, or against any part of our Constitution?
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:52:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan

Richard Fyfe:

        Psychologists agree that a major cause of homophobia is a person's
attempt to rid themselves of perceived homosexual feelings and/or tendencies.


-T.
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:16:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      1996
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30380

>From: Tom <SSTSTJB@VCUVM1.BITNET>
>Subject:1996
>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:49:32 -0500
>Message-ID:<tfilt378908@drew.edu>

>          If the conservatives on this list (ie...Republicans) are
>          so convinced that a terrible mistake has been mand, AND
>          that Bush/Quale are the best possible choice for America,
>          Why are you not promoting Bush/Quale in 1996?  I hope this
>          does not come as a surprise to you, but both of them can
>          run again in 1996.  I personally believe that Republicans
>          have unknowingly admitted that Bush/Quale are not who
>          they really support at all.....but instead extreme right-wing
>          values that the American public has voted-out-of-office.

        First of all, George Bush is not a conservative.  Bush comes
from the moderate wing of the Republican Party.  Maybe Democrats
should learn the make up of the Republican Party before crticizing it.
There are conservatives who would like to see Quayle run in 1996, but
not Bush, because BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!!!!  Furthermore, the
American public has not voted the conservatives out of office.  Again,
you should pay more attention to the Republican party if you wish to
make such statements.  Only two Republican senators lost, Seymour
(Californaia) and Kasten (Wisconsin).  Both Seymour and Kasten are
MODERATES.  The Conservative Senators, Dole, D'Amato, McCain, Coats,
and Grassley won.  Moreover, other Conservative candidates triumphed:
Kempthorne, Faircloth, and Bennett.  Herschensohn in California, a
conservative, received more votes than the moderate, Seymour.
Conservatism is not out of the mainstream, it is the mainstream and
Clinton's move to the right proves it.

-From the Reagan truth Squad!
>
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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:56:00 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was CONWAY_OWEN@BENTLEY
From:         CONWAY_O@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

Federalism is more important than democracy? In any case, your teacher is
wrong the principle of federalism is preserved a) by the requirement that
2/3 of the states approve constitutional amendments and b) the Senate

I would suggest that both these features are more important to federalism
than an undemocratic Electoral College.


        If were going to make the country democratic, why don't we let them
vote on every matter. Just like a real democracy. The Senete is not democratic
either. America was not founded to be a democracy but a a republic
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:18:00 EST
From:         "(rf35)" <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Minority President?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

> I believe the point Brent was trying to make when he said that if
> Bush got all of Perot's votes he would have won, is that 53% of
> those who voted did not vote for Clinton for one reason or another.
> That means that if there were a better candidate than Bush, Perot,
> and Clinton, he or she would gotten more votes than Clinton.

        Read: "If there were a candidate which could get more votes
than Bush, Perot, [or] Clinton, the or she would have gotten more
votes than Clinton."  Unless you believe that a better candidate could
have gotten less votes than Clinton, in which case the claim is false.
It's either trivially true or false.  No content.

> If Perot were not in the race, most of the Perot supporters
> would have voted for President Bush.

        A substantive claim, but I would like to know if there is
any evidence for this.  When Perot pulled out of the race in early
July, Clinton was gaining in the polls by leaps and bounds, while
Bush was dropping through the entire period.  This suggests that
either a vast number of Bush supporters were going to Clinton just
as Perot supporters were going to Bush, or Perot supporters were
going to Clinton.  The second option is the most likely.

        Still, this claim could be true if only those Perot supporters
who went to Bush switched back to Perot when he got back into the
race, while Perot supporters who backed Clinton by and large stayed
with Clinton even after Perot's return.  Possible, but doubtful.

        A good poll telling how Perot supporters would have voted
if Perot had not run would be useful in answering this question.
I know of no such research.  Anybody have data?


>--Rich

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
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:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:51:55 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: buffing out the primer... pt.2
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        [I nuked all of part two]

        A couple of questions to other Andy to clear things up:

        Are you arguing for the labor theory of value?

        And

        Do you think that the economy is a zero sum entity?

Brett'
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:38:00 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

Robert Head writes that "if... over 50% of the people opposed homosexuals,
I think the best policy... would be to try to eliminate these people's
fears... rather than just completely dismissing their opinions."

Well for years we have been doing an immense amount of work to demythify
homosexuality and bisexuality and to try to present people with basic
facts about such conditions.  However, this was not my point.  The
Bill of Rights exists in order to avoid the tyrrany of the many over the
few.  Civil Rights are supposedly insured so that "unpopular" members
of society are not going to be subjugated to the will of the majority.
From a strictly legal / constitutional standpoint I do not feel that
the NUMBER of people who opposed homosexuality is relevant to civil
rights for lesbians and gay men.  From a sociological and practical
standpoint of course it is relevant to _all_ of us, not just gayfolk.
(Homophobia harms heterosexuals and bisexuals as well as homosexuals,
since it forces straightfolk to alter their own behavior in order to
avoid being _perceived_ as gay and I think this is harmful as well).

Racism has _always_ been racism, even when a vast majority of the
people in the United States thought it was acceptable to be openly
racist.  It's always been wrong.  I feel the same way about homophobia.
If a predominately white state were placing a measure on the ballot
to classify marraiges between caucasions and afro-americans as vile
and unnatural and required that teachers in schools promote that
idea I think most of us would find that to be utterly reprehensible.
I think it's just as bad to say the same thing about someone's sexual
orientation and even worse when homophobia becomes more ingrained into
law than it already is.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: "President Clinton"

What's the deal, Jayce?  Personally, I could do without your little temper
tantrums and rude comments on this list.  It's not my place to tell you to
get off the list, but it's my place to tell you to give it a rest.  That
stuff has no place here.  Enough.

-T.


"A society that domesticates it rebels has gained its peace.
 But it has lost its future."

                                -Anthony DeMello, _Taking Flight_
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:32:29 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
              11 Nov 1992 09:40:11 -0500 from <STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU>

From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU

Clinton cheated on his wife(Flowers), he cheated on his state (his promise to
serve the full term as governor), and he cheated on his country (by illegally
dodging the draft)  ..........................................................

       Well, Bush cheated on the whole U.S.A. by claiming that
       Thomas was the most qualified person for the job and that
       his race had nothing to do with his selection.  Not to mention
       that Bush negated on his read my lips promise and that
       he claims that he was out of the loop when we swapped weapons
       for hostages.

       And I guess Dan Quayle is OK because he LEGALLY dodged the
       draft.

       And maybe you can cite the exact law that Clinton broke when
       he "illegally" dodged the draft.  BTW: don't let the little
       fact that Clinton actually drew a draft number (is that what
       is called?) stop you from your accusations.

> -Rich

--KAT
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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:31:00 EST
From:         ASTMOLLI@STETSON.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!

I agree that Clinton will run the country, but we are whining because we
know that he will run it into the ground.  If you don't like our complaints
just ignore it, that's what you tell us about obscene art or music.
marshall
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:34:00 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was CONWAY_OWEN@BENTLEY
From:         CONWAY_O@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old

>
>        If were going to make the country democratic, why don't we let them
>vote on every matter. Just like a real democracy. The Senete is not democratic
>either. America was not founded to be a democracy but a a republic

It's a question of degree. Obviously replacing the Electoral College with
a Popular Vote with runoff system would be more democratic. It would
be consistent with other countries that have elected Presidents


        Okay I kinda like this only because it will help third party candidates
because it will get rid of that winner-take-all system. But I still don't see
what good it would do. Only a couple of presidents have been elected without a
plurality of votes.
        O.C.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject: Re: Firearms; a rational viewpoint

Dear -andy:

        Just curious - you said in your last post that you have "significantly
more training than most cops."  What kind of training, etc?

        Just sort of wondering on a slow night when I'm too tired to argue
about anything but would be sort of interested to know -  %-)

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:34:06 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: new tariffs
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Kerry:

>My (limited) understanding is that the U.S. has problems with French
>farming subsidies (and negotiations have been going on for 5 years, if what
>I heard on NPR this morning is correct).  The U.S. response, then, is
>targetted only at the French.  Is that about right?

They are tariffs on certain goods coming from the EC. As the goods
come predominantly from France (e.g. wine, soft cheese), the French
will be hurt most, but other countries (including the UK) will suffer.

>Now, if the French retaliate by proposing EC tariffs, does that mean France
>imposes tariffs on goods coming into France, or do they apply to U.S. goods
>imported by other countries?  (See, I don't really understand the EC thing
>*at all*)  Can France imose its own tariffs?  Or does it have to be an all-
>or-none kind of deal?

I don't really know. They will certainly attempt to get US imports
into the whole of the EC tariffed (if there is such a verb), but I
doubt that some countries would support this. I don't think they could
apply sanctions themselves because of the free movement of goods
within the EC. Then again, that has never stopped them from preventing
British Lamb from being sold in France, but I digress.

>
>>I gravely fear the outcome. To my US readers, make sure your wine
>>cellars are well stocked. I wouldn't try to stockpile Camambert,
>>though.
>
>Could you expand on this?  I gather you fear something more than a limited
>"trade war" between the U.S. and France.  What are the potential
>consequences?  And remember, keep explanations simple for us simple-minded
>folks :)

The danger is that IF the EC retaliates with its own tariffs on goods
from the USA, THEN the US will impose tariffs on further goods, and
that the whole thing would snowball. So my company, which sells
automation systems for steel mills among other things, would be unable
to compete in the USA, thus losing us about a third of our worldwide
market.

Ultimately we will all end up trading exclusively within our blocs,
thus partially reversing the division of labour with consequences
which readers of Adam Smith will appreciate. For example, we all use
US computers because they're better than the others (mostly). We would
end up having to use inferior computers, with adverse effects on our
economies.

A final question about the North American free trade zone. If there is
free movement of goods, could the EC export to Canada or Mexico, and
then sell goods in the USA ? Or does the agreement allow the USA to
impose tariffs on the borders (in which case it's not a FTZ, of
course) ?

>
>Thanks!
>Kerry


Hope this helps. We will watch developments with interest.

Dunstan.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: IQ (ha!)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:15:18 GMT


>1.  New York and Indiana do not have the same local time, but I
>    would assume that the two train start leaving at the same time.

Right this minute, it is precisely the same time
here as in New York.  And I am in Indiana.
Indiana is on EST, same as New York.  Except that we don't do that
silly daylight savings stuff.

>Gotta be careful.  Sometimes IQ test determine the IQ of the
>test-giver more than it does of the test-taker.      :-)

Mmm-hhmmm... Sarcasm sometimes backfires, eh?

>--KAT

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:13:13 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Pats & Libertarians
              5 Nov 1992 19:14:01 CST from <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU>

>How can you say that the Pats solicited more votes for Marrou? Libertarians are
>liberal socially and the Pats are ultra-conservative.
>--Steve

Libertarians hold the rights of the individual above all else, so are
socially liberal but economically conservative (even ultra-conservative.)
Of my friends who vote Republican, most are libertarian at heart.  They
want less government, less regulation on business, etc., but don't care
what individuals do in the privacy of their homes.  The assertion to
which you replied was that the Pats emphasis on division, self-
rightiousness, discrimination were enough to turn many in the direction
of the LP.  The assertion that the Pats garnered as much support for the
LP as the presidential candidate, Marrou, may not be far off the mark,
and would make an interesting poll if the LP had any money to do such
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

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Sacred cows can be mighty
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   tastey if they are properly
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    cooked!" -REV. B. C. WIRTZ
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110519190892@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, CMORRISO@SNYESC
VA.BITNET writes:
>
>        Why is it that every few months we get a fresh crop of junior-nazis
>on this list?  Jayce and Steve are just the newest.  Carl and Robert have
>shown that you can be on the right and also be rational.
>
>                                                Chris Morrison
>
"Hail Hitler" then if that's the way you see it.
                                Jayce