HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:18:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: A Moronic Joke!

Rich Dase (aka stk1236vax003.stockton.edu) says that the "guys" on Iwo Jima
*died* to put up "a piece of cloth".

Rich - the famous photo to which you refer, beside having been a posed shot
(orchestrated by a photog who saw a smaller, less dramatic similar action and
decided to increase its tone) was the not the point of the taking of Iwo Jima.

Without a long lecture on the strategic importance of Iwo's three airfields to
the B-29 offensive, suffice it to say that it was perhaps the Marines' largest
single offensive to date.  Iwo was defended by more than 20 thousand Japanese
under Lt Gen Kuribayashi; it took three days of combat for the marines to
hoist the flag for the AP's Joe Rosenthal.  The total American cost to secure
the island was 20,965 casualties, including 6,821 dead. Those lives were lost so
that 24,761 B-29 crewmen could use its airfields for emergency landings (total
by the war's end).  If you told the family of one of those 6,821 dead that their
son or father or brother died to raise a damn piece of cloth for a newspaper
photo, you'd have your head handed to you.  They know their loved one, like
most all of the WWII dead, died in the small pieces that make up the puzzle
of Allied Victory against the Axis Powers.

Enough with Old Glory.  The hundreds of thousands of American war dead don't
need the reactionary cries of false patriots to honor their service.  There is
only on way to do that: the continued assurance of Freedom - in the many
ways that true patriots have struggled for hundreds of years to effect.
Protesting the government is simple one of those ways.  Death is not necessary
to insure freedom - having a voice in where America goes is.  Please understand
the difference between un-American activities and pro-American activities.  The
war dead know the difference.


-T.

PS For an understanding of a Vietnam Vet's point of view in protest and symbols,
I suggest "Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry (now Sen.
John Kerry of Massachusetts)to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations",
April 23, 1971.  Would be happy to post if requested.
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Time for "Change"
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:11:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

"Change will be all that is left in your pockets after Clinton and the
Domocrats are through"   (THAT will be in 1996)
                            Jayce
P.S.  Can Clinton or Gore make a 5 minute speech WITHOUT utilizing the word
"change?"  I sincerely doubt it.  By the way 49% of Clinton's vote came from
people who thought "change" was the deciding factor in the race.  Kind of
makes you wonder doesn't it.  The Democrats can finally stop whining because
they finally get ANOTHER change to play ball.  Just don't blow this one, guys,
like you did the last 2.                 Jayce
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:34:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Steve:

        I refer you to my post entitled Robert's Religious Fervor.

        End of transmission.

-T

"Pagans are the people who do not quarrle about religion."

                        -DeMello.
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:22:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQR9P5D19U9X4F9P@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU write
s:
>ertelsta, or whatever your name is:
>
>>Gores daughters offer a better chance of getting a date...I heard the comment
>>recently that the Clintons, unlike many of the recent past presidents, do not
>>have a family dog. Another friend stated that perhaps Chelsea could fill
>>that role...(laughter).

(more laughter)

>Would you kindly refrain from this kind of nonsense?

OK MOMMY!
>Although some may
>find sexist jokes (or jokes about personal appearances) funny, some of us
>find them downright offensive.

WELL, I FIND THE TERM PRESIDENT ASSOCIATED WITH BILL CLINTON OFFENSIVE, BUT
THERE'S NOTHING THAT I CAN DO, SO YOU'LL ALSO HAVE TO LIVE WITH OFFENSIVE
THINGS

>In either case, their appropriateness to
>this list is doubtful (at least to me).

IF I WANT YOUR OPINION, I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU

>
>Nuff said.
>Later,
>Kerry
>
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Authority
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:50:20 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

>(I think this is kind of humorous, because a couple of years
>ago Jimbo offered the following form of argument on the
>list, against rent control: I looked up 49 articles about
>rent control, and the majority of them were against it,
>so I conclude that rent control is bad.
>At the time, I said I thought this was a rather poor form
>of argument. I guess Jimbo now understands why I thought so.)

Hey! Hey!  Invalid use of history!  Somebody call the Czar!
Actually, I think that my conclusion wasn't so _obviously_ a
non sequitur.  I concluded that most economists agree that
rent control is bad.  At least I hope so...

I now officially disavow any posting I made before today, and furthermore
I hereby grant amnesty to everyone on the list for any argument given
or fallacy committed that is more than a year old.  I also forgive all
library fines, and am willing to listen to confessions, provided they
contain graphic depictions of sexual behaviors.

--Jimbo, list president
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:12:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 1996

>Rush Limbaugh sound to all you liberals?  Frightening thought, eh? Or are you
>just scared that he can let the truth be told......
>                                               Jayce


TRUTH BE TOLD, Rush Limbaugh is a small, petty, ignorant little man, out to get
as much money as he can before America regains its pride and personal value
systems.  Sorry for this stoop, folks, but people who watch and listen to that
sneering, hateful little man should be ashamed of themselves - and they will be,
 if they ever wake up and smell the coffee.  He deals in hate, mocking, half-
truths, deceit and outright lies - and the worst is that he's not doing it for
"truth" - he's doing it for the money.

Isn't it ironic that the same people who listen and watch day in and day out
pick themselves out of bed on Sunday and roll into Church, praying to an
"all-loving" and "ever-forgiving" God?  No one sees the hypocrisy and contra-
diction of loving Rush AND loving Jesus?  I'm sure He sees it (and I don't mean
Rush)!


-T.


"It is no credit to your guru that you sit at his feet forever."

                                -DeMello, _Taking Flight_
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:24:00 EST
From:         "(rf35)" <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

Steve writes:

>>1. Someone who is "homophobic" has a fear of homosexuals. I know of
>>NOONE who fits that description -- certainly not Pat Buchanan or myself
>>to the term deviant as not following the social "norm" (notice the quotes) of
>>heterosexuality. Thus Pat could also have meant that homosexuals are not
>>following a previously recognized social "norm" (heterosexuality). Julie, you
>>need to understand that homosexuality DOES have many social, mental and
>>psychological implecations. Then, perhaps, you might understand WHY people
>>such as Pat make statements like this...
>>--Steve

        Actually, homophobia is a fear of homosexuality.  It applies
not only to people who may run away in terror when they discover that
they are in the company of a homosexual (granted, a rather rare
version of the disorder) but to people who seek to remove themselves
or those they care about from homosexuals due to an (irrational) fear
that their children, for example, will catch it that exposure to it
will result in long-turn destructive side effects such as bringing an
end to culture and civilization.  There are a lot of people who show
these symptoms.

        There is a great deal of evidence, from the thriving of cultures
in which homosexuality was not only practiced but encouraged, to
physical and psychological data concerning the origins and nature of
homosexual tendencies, to show that these fears are irrational.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:06:35 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I'm just poking fun at the people. It's fokls like you who most likely do
not appreciate the comedy of Saterday Night Live. Lighten up!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:04:20 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan
              8 Nov 1992 19:18:13 CST from <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU>

From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU

> While I run the risk of being labelled like Pat Buchanan, Julie let me
> try to explain Pat's position. "Perverse." Homosexuality perverses the role
> that the parents usually play. Any psychologist can tell you that both the
> mother and the father play a distinctly different and important role in
> rearing their children.Now I admit that a child raised in a homosexual family
> is NOT going to grow up to be some murderer or robber or something. But the
> fact remains that children brought up in homes where either the mother role
> model or the male role model miss out on much of the psychological shaping
> that "normally" raised kids would recieve. (Studies on children raised in
> single parent homes reveal much of the same evidence).

I see, so a raped woman who decides to go through the pregnancy and
becomes a single mother is "perversing" her child's life and therefore
is a pervert?  Or maybe I misunderstood you.

> --Steve
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: The cost of excluding lesbians and gay men from the military
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:20:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Julie:

        The perecentage of the general population who are gay and lesbian

is quite a bit less than 10% - though I agree with what you said.  Also, we

can't make the assumption that the percentage for the gen. pop. is the same

for the military.

        Didn't want what is a good argument shot down by someone just on a

small technicality.

-T.
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:16:58 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Small business and Clinton's mandate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Can someone tell me how the president-elect iqs going to prevent small business
in America from flipping over dead. His taxes proposals and busines mandate.
will reduce business profits by 54%. Small business is the foundation of the
american economy. Now that they will lose this sum what will prevent them from
moving to mexico as can be seen in Canadian companies?  Without the income that
will not be coming in after these companies go belly up or elsewhere the new
government will be hard pressed to reduce the deficiet and pay for it's
spending promises. Don't forget that this is a compounding occurence as small
business loses money, lay offs and bancruptcies follow. Thus social spending
also increases forcing no taxes to pay for them and so on and so on.
If Clinton's plan is inacted he has pushed the plunger and we can watch the
american economy spiral down.

Taxes kill

Kemp '96

--mike...
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:30:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Jayce:

>if you don't know what you're saying, don't say anything at all.
>
>                                                               Jayce
>


Does this mean we on the list can look forward to some silence your way

for a while?


                                %-)


-T.
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: transition -- the lighter side
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:54:35 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GQSY9EQPW29X4SKM@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU writes:
 > I got this vision of the Gores and Quayles, the Bushes and Clintons,
 > getting together over drinks before doing "walk-throughs" of the veep
 > mansion and white house.  The Clintons need to ask about room dimensions,
 > window coverings, which pieces of furniture stay and which go (hey -- after
 > living in furnished government housing, do any of these people actually *
 > own* furniture?)

This is not too far off the truth.  According to the papers (now that the
election is over, all those reporters are really digging to come up with
a story) the Clintons are in a bind as to where to live until January.  It
seems that they have to move out of the governor's mansion in Arkansas
as soon as he resigns (which will be any day) and they don't own a house.
The incoming governor has offered them the use of the mansion, but a judge
has ruled that as an unjust perk.  Maybe there is room at the Red Roof Inn?

						Andrew MacRae
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:40:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <9211052234.AA01786@wizard.netx.com>, jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan
 Fisher)) writes:
>> >pat Buchanan--He'll do for America what he did for George Bush
>>
>> >Bill Clinton--He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.
>>
>> >with the various improvements he made like in education,lets hope so.
>>
>> Like I've said before when you at the bottom you can only go up. It's not
>> hard to improve on the worst.
>>
>> Kemp/Bennett '96
>>
>> ------mike.....
>>
>Like someone responded to this comment before I say, it's pretty idiotic to
>toss away all of his improvements just because the state started at the
>bottom. Obviously his predecessors weren't able to improve the situation.
>On the other hand I'll bet you say that when you have a great country and
>you're number 1 in a lot of different stats and the end of your rein comes
>and the same great country is way down the list in the same stats, it's
>pretty easy to ruin the best.
>Not that you're biased or anything!
>
>Jonathan
>
EXCELLENT POST JONATHAN,
        I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF.
                                -SHAWN-
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 18:23:00 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:  An Addendum.

In order for Perot supporters to have turned the election against
Clinton, it must be the case that the Perot election consisted of

        > 63% Bush Supporters (12,000,000 votes)
        < 37% Clinton Supporters (7,000,000 votes).

This distribution (assuming that none would have voted for Perot
anyway) would have brought the election to a virtual tie.

The question is: Is there any reason to believe that the Perot
voters had this sort of distribution?  I believe it is unlikely
that Bush would have won by a 2-1 margin among Perot voters.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.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:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:24:40 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: ==> YES!!!!!

Hi.  First we have a chain of responses:
>> >|   May we now help "Put People First For A Change!"
>>
>> To which people are you referring?
>>
>> I somehow doubt it is any of those too young to vote.
>>
>       Or anyone who isn't a member of one of the speical interest
>groups who are considered likely Democratic voters...

And now a question: to which special interest groups does this refer?
Women?  Blacks and Hispanics?  Blue-collar workers?  The 18-24 year olds?
(let's see -- am I leaving anyone out?  Oh -- secular humanists, maybe?
and the liberal elite? :))

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:17:04 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: re: T's libelous rantings

> .....   What's the deal,
>    Robert Moss?  I thought that you were supposed to be one of the rational
> religious fanatics?

Now that was a perfect oxymoron.

Look, Robert, we put "holes" in other people's positions with logic
and arguments.  Your use of a gun implies putting holes in one's
position with a method other than logic.  It looked threatening to me.

It is interesting that the other time a threatening message was issued
was when Carl put my name in middle of a box and pointed the phrase
"search and destroy" to the box.  (Note that Carl is also a religious
fanatic, a coincidence?)  I however didn't take Carl seriously and
rather doubt that Carl intended to threaten me.  However the *appearance*
of a threat was, IMO, in both Carl's and Robert's posts.

It in interesting that Robert first played dumb and tried to present
his post  being  in   fun.  Then he gets serious and starts attacking
"T." for taking   him  seriously.  I don't know Robert, maybe this
is your style but most us would resort to a simple apology in a
similar situation.

E-mail is an amazing privilege -- let's keep it that way.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:58:11 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      On income taxes ...

I quote to you the following, which says to me income taxes are
"legal" -

Amendment XVI (also called Article XVI)-
(Sent to the states by the 61st Congress 12 July, 1909, ratified 3
February, 1913.)

"[Taxes on income; Congress given power to lay and collect.] The
Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As far as I know, this amendment has never been declared
unconstitutional. VMS
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Saber rattling in the Middle East
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:35:58 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

>>The US can always kick butt again if Iran/Iraq/etc get out of line.
>
>That is if president Hilliary lets Slick.

	I think either Iraq or Iran (maybe even Syria) will do some saber
rattling to test the new president.  Iran has already started issuing "thou
shalt not's" to us.

	Insightful advisors will tell Mr. Clinton to see it as barganing
between competing powers, and use the big stick while walking softly approach.

Brett'
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Poor losers!
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:18:37 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GR29SZHVH4002TJ8@drew.drew.edu>,         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
 >         Are you comparing Abe Lincoln with Bill Clinton.  The reason
 > Lincoln received only 39.8% of the vote in 1860 is for various
 > reasons.


No, I was pointing out that all your talk about 'minority' presidents
is just rather silly.  There have been many, many, many presidents
elected to office with less than 50%, and most have performed quite well.

At least I am confident that Clinton will end his presidency on a better
note than another recent president who received only ~43% of the 
vote, dear old Tricky Dick.

							Andrew MacRae
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:00:00 GMT
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-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Robert V Head wrote that if 50% of the population thought homosexuality was
wrong, then the gay-rights people should be respectful of their opinion.  (Due
to the fact that my PC sucks at the moment, I can't include the direct quote).

This is absurd.  The whole point of limited government is that a majority
CANNOT strip a minority of thier rights as human beings.  Even if 99% of the
electorate wanted to deprive gays of some of their rights, they would still be
unable to do so since no government can take away the rights of an individual
(barring the commission of some crime).

Of course, I think that gay rights should be limited to gays receiving the same
rights as everyone else and no more.  I essentially support Colorado's anti-gay
rights measure as a way of ensuring that gays receive their rights as humans
but don't get any special rights that the rest of us don't get.  The old-timers
on the list have heard this time and time again, but I figure I ought to fill
Robert Jr in on where I stand.

And as far as ACT-UP goes, I have a hard time believing that they were just
sitting around peacefully outside of Buchanan's HQ, or wherever Julie was
talking about.  ACT-UP's childish antics have probably done more to set back
the gay rights movement than David Duke and the Klan ever could.

Jason
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan Fisher))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:58:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Pat Buchanan-- He'll do for America what he did for George Bush
>
> Bill Clinton--  He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.
>
> --mike...
>
I sure hope so!

Jonathan
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 09:47:07 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Amen to that! Way to go Jayce.

--Steve