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 15:25:52 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Another Victim
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Sue Clark:
>I hear Jack Kovorkian has struck again.  He was present in Michigan when
>another patient(?) used a device that put out carbon monoxide, that Jack
>set up, and another life was snuffed out.
>
>You may share the view that these people were suffering and were ready to
>die, but how much more are we going to cheapen life and become so insenitive
>to easy death?  My mother has cancer, but she would like to use one of his
>machines on him.  She is has a tendency to have a hard time breathing some-
>times, and she is in pain constantly, but she is not ready to cash it in!!
>She says that she is not so sick or weak that she wouldn't want to punch
>his lights out!

        A subtle distinction, but Kevorkian only helps those that want to die.
He wouldn't go near your mom :).

...
>I'm sure that there will be opposing views, but IMHO he is aiding in the
>desensitization of people's attitude to death in the country.  That to
>me is a danger signal.

        People should be able to choose to end their life if it's based on
valid reasoning.  If they're terminal and in pain, you'd *make* them suffer?
This is compassion?

>Working to put in conservative Republicans in '94 and '96,

        Just as long as they're economic conservatives :).

>Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know what is 'tort law.'  Some postings
>are referring to it on the BUSH-L and I would like to know some about it.
>Thank you.

        Tort law refers to torts (but you already knew that, right? :) which
basically means a civil wrong (and excludes contracts) for which the victim is
entitled to compensation.  As opposed to a torte, which is a rich cake, subject
to higher taxes.
:D

Brett'
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, 19 Nov 1992 18:36:10 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: -Rich & The Clintons

>My point is that you voted for Bill and not Hillary and it appears that both
>should have been on the ballot.  I can understand her giving her opinion to her
>husband but as far as being involved directly in meetings and decisions it is
>not right.

Do you also object to Clinton's unelected friends being involved directly in
meetings and decisions?  Or Bush's, for that matter?

Most of the closest advisors of *any* president are unelected.  Hillary Clinton
has received more press and public scrutiny than, say, Bruce Lindsey or Robert
Reich.

>-Rich

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:41:54 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Economic Summit?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Sorry about my previous message, it go cut off.
I am a little confused.  According the papers and television, the economy is
slowly improving.  In fact an NBC news correspondent reported after the election
that "Clinton appears to have inherited an improving economy."  It's a miracle.
Things turned around overnight.  So why, may I ask, is Clinton still saying that
things are getting worse.  Is he going to say that things are even worse than
he thought and therefore he can go back on some of his campaign promises such
as no middle class taxes.  The latest is that such a promise was not a promise
at all but simply a suggestion.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:53:06 -0500
From:         LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afraid to use it!
              <JULIEWS@IDS.NET>
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Kat:

I more or less had assumed that Hillary Clinton would have a very active
stance in Clinton's administration.  I thought that was really clear, but
maybe that was just me.  That actually helped win my vote over.  The people
around Clinton told me a lot about him and what sort of person he was.

--Julie
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:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:10:16 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>In article <POLITICS%92111716085676@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
>STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>>
>>I think the difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan did not lead
>>protests against the war, which Clinton did in England.
>>
>>-Rich
>The main difference is that Clinton did not fight a war he opposed while Reagan
>and Quayle did not fight in wars they supported. Participating in a demonstatio
>is a permissable exercise of free speech. There is no evidence that Clinton
>"lead" such a demo, when asked, anti-War leaders in Britain couldn't even
>remember who he was. Even if he had led such demos, so what, it is his
>democratic right. At least he's not a hypocrite like Reagan and Quayle, urging
>others to fight and die in wars while finding loopholes to escape fighting
>yourself.

        Reagan is hardly a hypocrite.  The army asked him to make films.

Brett'
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.politics:18680 alt.politics.correct:5875 alt.sex:37419 talk.politics.misc:61468 sci.skeptic:20146
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:33:00 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

  !  Pretty funny virtual election post mortem.  :-)

                                   -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:24:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

What kind of financial or in-kind aid are not counted in the stats that
supposedly "overstate" the amount of poverty?

I'm not sure who posted this - but I'd really like to know what they mean.


-T.
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Weapons designed for human destruction?
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:53:10 GMT
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

When I was thinking of weapons designed for human destruction, I was
thinking of things like machine guns and the like.  Unless I am totally
mistaken, these guns can't be used to hunt.

As for the other guns, which I realize make up the majority of the guns
on the market and consequently the majority of the guns which are used
to kill other people, I say hands off.

After more consideration, I think that a limit on the number of guns
per capita or per square kilometer could be an acceptable means of
regulating guns in an area.

Of course I haven't the foggiest idea on how to implement or establish
such guidelines, but I am not a congressman nor a congressional aide.

(-How's that for backing out of a discussion in advance :) !!-)

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:31 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: right v left

>        The rhetoric Robert has dumped upon us reveals the fact that when it
>fits into the grand scheme of things as seen by people of his ilk, then it
>must be a conservative stance.  If it does not, then it must be liberal(i.e.,
>evil).

With this, Clark reveals that s\he is attempting to be the
anti-Robert, that everything that fits into his/her scheme is
"liberal/good" and otherwise "conservative/bad".  That's interesting
usage.

That was a notable message from Clark because it is the first in
recent memory that doesn't contain at least one factual error.  Of
course, since it didn't contain any facts, some may think that's not
much of an achievement.

-andy was thinking about pointing out the mistakes in Clark's message
      about lethal force, trying to decide if it was worthwhile to reopen
      that discussion, when said message expired, giving Andy an excuse to
      ignore it.  Then again, maybe Andy really spent his weekend making
      pseudo stained-glass Christmas ornaments and didn't think about
      Clark's message at all.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:42:36 -0500
From:         "(Jeff Green)" <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: Weapons designed for human destruction?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>I do think that it is the responsibility of elected representatives
>to make these kinds of decisions(-about the numbers and other
>sundry things-).  They are the ones with congressional staffs(?) and
>have a much better chance of getting information on the issues than
>I am.
>

Perhaps, but without your input they have nothing to go on...

>My responsibility with regards to government, is to vote for the candidate
>who most closely represents my views and interests and then to tell
>that elected official the broad values and goals I support.  It is his/her
>responsibility to take these broad outlines and come up with detailed
>legislation that works to the best for the state/nation/whatever.

But I will assume that the specifics should meet your needs. What
if they do not? Is it the fault of the representative for not
knowing enough about your needs? Or is it because you did not
inform them enough.

The people that represent us are never overinformed by their
constituencies, rather grossly underinformed. You can certainly
elect those that most closely represent your views, we all do but,
sometimes you've just gotta give 'em a little bit more to go on.

Jeff
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green                              Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                        116 Dean Street Suite B
203.969.1183 Voice                      Stamford, CT 06902-6251
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:25:45 EST
From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

You guessed right KAT. "MORON" is not a word you should use when
engaging in political discussion. Four years from now, you'll discover
that I'm right about Clinton.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:15:13 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

For the last time, the point I made about Clinton admitting to have led
protests in England in the interview was that he originally doing having done
 so.  Then he used the lame excuse of not knowing what was meant by the word led
or something.   That's the point.  He lied.

=Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:20:27 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words

>His anti-gay bias shows a hint of facism, yes.

Hmm.  Is that because bias is fascist or is there something different
about anti-gay bias?  (I not that our favorite example of Fascists
were both pro and anti-gay.)

It is nice to see more and more support for my "fascist" = "something
a liberal doesn't like" theory.  I have run into people who use it
"correctly" - they rarely use it.

-andy
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: amazing!
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:52:47 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

Evelyn:
>Pardon me for asking, but who is Duane Gish?  The only Gishes I know are
>Lillian and Dorothy.

He's the second-in-command and primo debater for the Institute for Creation
Research in San Diego.  The ICR is a key player (if not the actual
instigator) of the current "scientific creationist" movement.  Gish was
here in WV a year or two ago, speaking at a big convention on creationism.
I'm not sure why he's coming back.  And, for all I know, he's related to
Lillian and Dorothy :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:17:50 EST
From:         ST201568@BROWNVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: skin in america

Fred,

I may have some stats about the connection between pornography and sexual
violence...I'll check into it.  I'm very curious about the CBS special.
Were the women supporting the industry doing so purely from an economic
viewpoint or were there anti-censorship feminists represented as well?
Feminists of the Dworkin/MacKinnon school get much more press generally than
those who argue that a woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases and
reject the false-consciousness ideas.  Both the pro- and anti-censorship
arguments are aimed at freeing women from traditions of patriarchy, but
the anti-censorship feminists are concerned with the idea that women will have
morality legislated for them and have men (the majority of judges) "protecting"
them from making "bad" choices with their bodies. Obviously there's much more
to this debate, but I didn't mean to go on like this...I just wanted to know
more about what exactly happened on the special. =)   I'd love to hear more,
and I'll check my info for stats. Thanks!
                                              -Rachel
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, 17 Nov 1992 22:08:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Johnathan:  Homosexaulity is a hint of facism in Herschenson?

I'm confused.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:35:27 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Words

>> >Boxer, I guess, has been in the news and her opponent was a neo-facist!
>>
>> "Fascist" = "a person some liberal doesn't like".
>
>Certainly I exaggerate.  In fact, aside from homosexuality there has never
>really been a hint of facism in Herschenson.  However, the points of views
>that he espouses are more than simply something that a "liberal doesn't like".

Let's see what they have to do with fascism.

>Here are some of Herscheson's beliefs:
>1)      Increase military spending

Actually, he said "no cuts".  Not only isn't that a fascist view, it
isn't obviously wrong.  While the nuke threat may have gone down some
(has the USSR taken aimed at the US missles off-line yet?), other
threats still exist and some are increasing.  A move away from the
really big war toys (ICBMS, nuke subs) does not necessarily translate
into a decrease in costs as the little toys (tanks, planes, etc) and
their support crews are quite expensive so any transfer won't save
much, if any money.

>2)      Abolish Social Security

Try again.  Herschensohn said that people in the system should be paid
off, that promises made should be kept, but that SS should be
discontinued for new people.  Herschensohn is right because SS is a
bad mix of income transfer and retirement.  Private retirement funding
works better and we should do income transfer up front and honestly.

>3)      Abolish just about every government office

Not close.

>4)      Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion

Wrong.

>5)      Off-shore oil drilling.

If you think your view is worth a few hundred million, go for it.

>6)      Guns into everyone's hands (if people in LA had easier access to guns,
>        the riots wouldn't have happened)

Wrong.  He said that people should be allowed to have guns.  I realize
that some people find it hard to distinguish "individuals get to
choose" from "individuals must".  He also takes the position that
controls on gun-ownership by non-criminals are wasteful.  (He hasn't
figured out that that applies to drugs as well, but neither have
Feinstein or Boxer.  That is an ideological contradiction for him, but
not them.)

Interestingly enough, Korean merchants who did had stores after the
riots.  Those who didn't had ashes.

Since Fisher is such an expert, perhaps he'll tell us what's so evil
about the "Uzis" Herschensohn supposedly talked about.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:33:03 CST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         "Sue Ann Clark --UNMCVM(SACLARK)" <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Gays, alcoholism, activist letters

*** Resending note of 11/17/92 15:50
Received: from MIZZOU1 by unmcvm.unmc.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5659;
 Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:50:55 CST
Received: from MIZZOU1.BITNET by MIZZOU1 (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5725;
 Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:51:11 CST
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:44:13 CST
Reply-To:     "Discussion of campaigning for President by George H. W. Bush"
              <BUSH@MARIST.BITNET>
              <BUSH@MARIST.BITNET>
From:         John Vasse <jvasse@STL-07SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
X-To:         bush%marist.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
To:           Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

Re: Gays, alcoholism, activist letters

Regarding the situation of homosexuals in the military Martha,
among other things, writes:
>It wasn't that gays wouldn't or couldn't fight as well as non-gays,
>or that they couldn't do their jobs.... It seems to me that this
>whole debate has more to do with heterosexual men and their
>insecurities than it does with women and gays. So, unless they can
>come up with better reasons than the ones I've heard, I feel the
>rule [ban] is discriminatory, un-American and should be thrown out.

There is another reason, Martha.

Having been in the military, and some pretty unpleasant places,
during the years 1968-1972, I can say from first hand experience
that both battle, and training, are bloody business. In any fight
at all, most everyone ends up covered with gore ---- corpsmen more
than most.

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

I can see no good reason for exposing soldiers to enemy fire plus
the increased threat of infection from HIV. 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.

To go even farther, how many of you would dive into bloody wound
to patch it up, while knowing, or thinking, that the wounded stands
a good chance of being HIV positive ??  Or, how about transfusions ?

Absent the AIDS epidemic, I'd listen a lot more closely to those who
argue for the acceptance of homosexuals in the military --

However, we don't enjoy the luxury of considering our decision
absent HIV.

So, while the ban may be "discriminatory, un-American" and
insensitive, it had damn well better stay in place -- we're not
talking band-aids on boo-boos in some sterile operating room
protected by procedures, equipment, planning and thought --
we're not even talking emergency room environment --
we are talking bloody messes.


John V
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:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:36:56 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Wages and productivity

T:
>        I don't know what you're talking about with the hand shake thing.
My apologies.  My interpretation of the exchanges between you and j.b. was
clearly incorrect -- I thought y'all were in the midst of a simple
misunderstanding over what j.b. meant by his comments on Steve R's
"position."

That's the job of an aunt, you know -- trying to mediate conflict and
getting in trouble for it :)

Kerry
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:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:28:17 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      questions for Brett' et al.:
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Howdy:
I've been following Brett' and o'Andy on economics (with interest if not
with full understanding!).  Couple questions for youse guys.

First, in light of Brett's postings, where did Clinton get his "real wages
have fallen while taxes have risen" rhetoric?  Seriously -- did he massage
the data, did that really happen, or what?

Second, I've been thinking about some statements made wrt workers, wages,
productivity, etc.  The gist of the comments seems to be that, in both
manufacturing and agriculture, we have more workers than we need to produce
the goods that can be consumed (here and/or abroad).  The question then
arises:  why should we pay an assembly-line worker $17/hr when someone else
will do the work for $7/hr (or why should we subsidize small farmers when
we don't need their food)?  *My* question is, what should be done about
this situation?

Should we allow workers to compete for jobs, allowing small farms to shut
down and jobs to "sell" for low wages?  If so, what do we do with
unemployed farmers and manufacturing workers whose wages don't provide much
economic security (like the ability to buy a house, send kids to college,
etc.)?  Will standards of living decline as wages fall?  Or will there be
some kind of adjustment such that someone making $7/hr can get ahead, save
for retirement, educate kids, etc.?  I guess I'm asking whether there would
be a sort of long-term social cost to allowing free competition for jobs.

I'm not arguing *for* maintaining the status quo, understand.  I'm just
trying to figure out what the options are and what their short- and long-
term effects would be.  I'd really appreciate hearing what y'all think.

Thanks!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU