HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: bounced checks
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:39:49 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

>Hi, Brett':
>>       But the point was that they are indeed tax dollars.  How many should go
>>to pay for someone who abuses the house bank?  Do parents reward their kids
 for
>>spending their entire allowance on bubble gum?
>>       I hold my reps to financial accountability.  If I'm going to pay for
>>their time, I expect them to be honest.
>
>Following Steve R's recommendation, I'm not going to ask about legality :)
>But I would like some clarification on what you've written above.  You
>elect your reps, and you pay their salaries.  Of course you expect them to
>be honest.  No problem.  But do you hold them accountable for how they
>spend their money -- assuming they've earned it, and that they're not doing
>anything illegal with it?  That seems to be the implication of what you've
>written, and I have trouble believing that's what you meant.

	Yes and no.  It's certainly their money to spend.  I'm not going to
follow them around making sure they go to Wal-Mart instead of Saks :).
	But...if they're gamblers (as in full-time), or go bankrupt, or make
foolish investments, or (drum roll) use the float on the house bank...then that
indicates (to me) that these are not the kind of people I want representing me.
Pretty much if they can't manage their own money, why on Earth should I let
them manage the country's?
	How many people would pay a bankrupt financial service firm to manage
their money?  (Ok, my number is 1-800... :)

	I don't see why some people are having a hard time understanding that.
Some people get up in arms when their Rep has an affair, some people get up in
arms when their Rep closes down pork in their district...I get up in arms
when/if my Rep proves they can't handle money.  (Almost as much as when they
prove they're walking, talking, life-sized dildos.)

>The example of parents and bubble gum doesn't quite apply, I don't think.
>First, although a parent won't reward a kid for blowing his/her allowance
>on gum, that parent won't *punish* the kid, either.  The money's there for
>the kid to spend.  If the kid blows it, tough -- but I don't cut off my
>daughter's allowance when she spends her money foolishly (I just rub her
>nose in it, so to speak).  Second, the role of parent to child seems to me
>quite a bit different from the role of constituent to representative.  But
>I could be wrong.

	Ok, bad analogy.  I'll perform a penance.

	Hail Laffer, full of Grace.  Forgive my unoptimal solution.
;)

>Thanks!
>Kerry
>p.s.:  so *that's* what ;) means!  I always thought that was used by folks
>too lazy to bother with the shift key!

	Those look like ;0
Brett'
Now ask me what :~) means.
From: E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Steve Rafferty)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Poor losers!
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:38:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>        Lincoln won by a majority in the states where his name did
>appear.  So you attempt a better example than Lincoln in 1860 when
>searching for another minority president.

OK - here goes,

1968  Nixon         43.42%
1960  Kennedy       49.72%
1948  Truman        49.51%
1916  Wilson        49.24%
1912  Wilson        41.84%
1892  Cleveland     46.05%
1888  Cleveland     48.62%
1884  Cleveland     48.50%
1880  Garfield      48.28%
1876  Hayes         47.95%  (though Tilden got 50.97%)
1860  Lincoln       39.82%
1856  Buchanan      45.28%   (Boy, Pat must really be old!  ;-)   )
1848  Taylor        47.28%
1844  Polk          49.54%

Is this sufficient to indicate that this is not a particularly uncommon
phenomenon?  BTW, the percentages are reflective of _popular_ vote.

Source: _Guide to US Elections_, Congressional Quarterly.  1985.

Another btw,  that Reagan MANDATE in 1980 was ushered in on
drum roll . . .    50.1%  of the popular vote!  Hey you know
what if just .2% of those who voted had voted against Reagan,
*Reagan* would have been elected!!  Mirabile Dictu!

Steve R.
-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:06:27 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "11 November"

>Now, let me take to an aside here, about that grand and glorious
>institution called "hatred." My friend Liese, over there on that list
>POLITICS, asked an eloquent question at the end of her overwhelmingly
>intellectual post today (and she's always one of my heroes, that
>woman can write!), which was directed at the POLITICS rightists,
>"What does it feel like to hate so much?"

I don't know what "it feels like to hate so much", but as a politics
rightist, I know why some politics rightists do hate.

They hate because hate is one of the most effective tools for
leftists.  They hate because they think that it might work for
rightists too.

In some sense, they're wrong.  Hate isn't as effective for rightist
goals as it is for leftist goals.  That's why it's so obvious when a
rightist tries to use it.  In another sense, they're correct.  Even
ineffective hate is useful to rightists; while relatively ineffective
hind-brain appeals do lose to more effective hind-brain appeals, they
always beat fore-brain arguments.

One of the reasons I'm a rightist is that I don't like hate or to
hate.  As a rightist, I can hate, but I don't have to; leftists don't
have that choice.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Rudman/Tsongas Concord Coalition
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:50:00 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

>BTW, Rudman guaranteed that if Clinton doesn't get the deficit trend line to
>reverse, or at least flatten out, there would absolutely be a very powerful
>third party in '96 (and neither he nor Tsongas would be the candidate).  His
>view on Perot was "Absolutely the right message, Absolutely the wrong
>messenger".
>Cheers - Tim G.


	Interesting!  I would have voted for Tsongas.  Perhaps the remnents of
Perot's campaign will become the third party with either Tsongas or Rudman as
top gun.
	Hmmm.  It would certainly be the death of the Libertarians.

Brett'
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:50:18 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: abortion (was Calooh! Callay!)

In article <009635C1.7F89DCA0.23158@alpha.hendrix.edu>,
erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU says:
>
>NO, women are JUST AS LIKELY TO DIE FROM ILLEGAL ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE FROM
>LEGAL ONE. This is documented proof. When abortion was legalized in 1973,
>there
>was ONLY A DECREASE OF 15 DEATHS from illegal abortions to legal abortions.
> Thus,
>legal abortions do NOT iundicate safer abortions. In additions, thousands of
>women have suffered from the ill physical and psychological effects of        .
>abortion
>--Steve

C.Evrett. Koop, Reagan's surgeon-general and a pro-lifer dismissed post
abortion syndrome as hogwash.
Please give us some statistics concerning the mortality rates of women
undergoing legal and illegal abortions. I am unaware of one woman ever dying
at a legal abortion clinic in Canada while it is quite common for women to
die of botched illegal abortions whether self-induced or performed by a back
street operator.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:22:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: family values -- debunking

Kerry says:

> -quote from Coontz- "...and no traditional arrangement
> that provides a workable model for how we might organize family
> relations in the modern world."

Does Coontz suggest such a model? If so, please explain.

--David

David Clem      BITNET: $GET@PCCJES2
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:24:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!

No, Steve, you have drawn an ignorant and assumptive connection between the
proposed labor tax and welfare.  You have NOT successfully shown a cause-
effect relationship.  Simply stating "Clinton's labor tax will cause more
welfare" does not prove a thing.

Your job is to prove it - not state it.


-T.

"You cease to be an exile or a patriot when you realize that creation
 is your home."

                        -DeMello.
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:58:33 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

Well, since you do not seem to be able to back up your argument, perhaps
some attacks of it will get you thinking. First of all, Christianity has become
very inclusive. For starters, the very fact that Christian missionaries are at
their greatest height ever shows a willingness on the part of Christians to
share their faith with various cultures and peoples around the world. Perhaps
a change that most closely relates to the initial spark of our duscussion,
Christians of different races and backgrounds are showing an increased
willingness to congregate together. While you may never have seen blacks and
whites in the same church 200, 100 or even 20 years ago, you can now find
rqacially balanced churches. Three example for you...1. I attended a church for
the greater part of the summer in Mexico. There, blacks, Mexicans and white
Ameicans all took part in worship. In a church I used to attand in Houston,
people of all nationalities worshipped together -- whites, blacks, hispanics,
Asians, and even native Americans. Now, at the church I attend near my college,
we have blacks, hispanics and even some people from various countries in Africa
sitting right next to us and feeling just as involved and included as the white
parishiners. I think that these exaples serve as only the tip of the iceberg
when it comes to seeing a new cultural and racial inclusiveness within the
ranks of Christianity. Care to refute any of this?
--Steve
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flowers and Hill
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:29:46 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

>>>KAT:
>>> Oh really?  I think people who say they don't care if Clinton served or
>>> not, or whether Clinton slept or not but they care whether or he lied are
>>> not truthful to themselves.  Look, it is obvious that George Bush lied
>>> when he said Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person for the
>>> job and lied when he said that Thomas' race was not a factor in his
>>> decision.  So how come we are not up and arms about those lies?  Let's
>
>>         They're quite immaterial given the other factors: Thomas'
>> unqualifications and the sexual harassment controversy.
>
>I don't quite follow.  The fact that Thomas was "unqualified" is
>essential to the claim that Bush was lying.  So please understand
>if I don't follow your "They're quite immaterial given......"
>statement.

	I know, I'm saying that Bush lying isn't a major issue vis a vis the
confimation hearings given the other factors.
	Not that Bush's lying is immaterial on it's own.
	That's why no one is "up in arms" over it.
>
>It *seems* (from above and the rest of your post) that you are
>claiming that the consequence of lying is more important than the
>lying itself.  Well, that is kinda what I said.  The lying itself
>is not important, it is what they lied about.  In Clinton's case
>is it his alleged draft dodging and martial infidelity.  All I say
>is let's be honest about it and not hide our outrage behind
>claims that we are upset that he lied.  Anybody who thinks the majority
>of politicians don't lie is a bit naive.

	True, and at the risk of sounding like Rush, it's the pattern of deceit
that is the problem.  (NOT that Bush isn't/hasn't/wouldn't.)

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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:02:43 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      I can't help it . . .
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

. . . and I'm going to indulge myself in one little tiny gloat (aside to
our new list administration: do we have a gloating quota?  a gloating limit
?).  For those who don't read _The New Republic_, the magazine features a
cartoonist named Toles.  His work often features a single panel, with a
smaller drawing in the lower corner that generally contains the second part
of the punchline.  This week's cartoon features George Bush sitting at his
desk in the oval office.  The speaker phone buzzes:
          "Bzzzzzzzzt.  Mr. President, President-Elect Bozo, Mr. Ozone man,
and the rest of the spotted owl crowd are here in the lobby to see you."

The lower figure shows the phone continuing "something about jobs vs. your
habitat."

Heeheeheehee.
Well, *I* thought it was funny :)  Jamie, you may place my name in
whichever column you wish.

Later
Kerry
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, 5 Nov 1992 10:13:49 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: This "12 years" thing
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

><SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> writes:
>>>Brett
>>>(I noticed there is another Brett on this list, should I differentiate?)
>>
>>yes, you can be dubbed "other brett". or, the other brett could be
>>other brett.
>
>I suggest the more eloquent and elegant 'Brettbo'.  The moniker
>'Jimbo', initially acquired for similar purposes, has served me well.

	:)  I think I'll stick with Brett' (Brett Prime) after the suggestion
that I either differentiate or integrate.  I like integrating better, but there
isn't an ascii integral sign.

Brett'
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Days of the Week
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:29:29 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92111209044236@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
 > > ..........................................  Is there anywhere on Earth these
 > > days where this method of dating years is not the standard in everyday life?
 > 
 > Yes, Iran.  Should I arrange for a passport?   :-)    :-)

KAT,
	You have raised my curiosity.  What about software packages used
	in Iran?  Which year dating system do they use on reports and
	for accounting, etc?


						Andrew MacRae
						
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 08:55:31 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: 1996
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> -andy:
>
>         I'm confused.  Did you say Feinstein would take on Wilson in '94
> 'cause that's when her Senate term would be up?  Sounded like that.
> Senate's for six; House's for two.  It's late. Don't worry.
>
> -T.
>

No, andy is correct.  Feinstein is filling Wilson's old seat which
was due for a vote in 1994 and still is.
But I disagree that Feinstein will leave the Senate to run for the
Governership, although I think she will make a better Governer than
Senator.  I think Kathleen Brown and the insurance commissioner,(I forget
his name), are the hot choices now, but we'll see in the next couple of
years!

Jonathan
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:23:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Oregon's Ballot No. 9 classfied homsexuality as "abnormal and perverse."

It's illegal for a teacher to enforce a prayer in school, but it is not
illegal for people to PRAY in school, merely to use to power of the
state as a vehicle for religious activities. There is nothing in any
state law which classifies religion as WRONG, but merely something
which could not be enforced through government and vice versa.

Here is something I think is interesting: In order for an organization
to maintain 501C3 status (tax exemption) they must be non-political in
nature.  For example, schools, support groups, prayer groups, etc. are
groups which should be tax-exempt.  However, many churches, which do
maintain tax-exemption, are NOT non-political.  For example, our local
Bishop Gelano made a statement that legislators who were pro-choice
would not be able to receive absolution.  As an officer of the Catholic
Church, Gelano made an active move to affect the body politic, and in
effect, lobbied for his cause via the Catholic Church (most likely
with the support of the Church).

So someone tell me why the Catholic Church is tax exempt when ACT-UP/RI
is not?

--Julie
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Flag Burning
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:56:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

With the recent notions that flag burning is in some way acceptable, I must
stake out my views on this one.  I know several Veterans, Vietnam, WWII and
Desert Storm.  If you want to burn our flag, our symbol of the greatness of
this country, do it ONE TIME in front of them or me.  Hope you can walk away
after.  To burn our flag is to present one of the grossest displays against
our country that is possible.  I know you will say that this is a free country
and some more liberal crap like that, but how do you think it has stayed free?
It has stayed free by honorable MEN and WOMEN giving their lives to preserve
this freedom.  Indeed, the Navy SEALS' motto is "My Life for Freedom."  Can
you imagine if a child of yours died in Vietnam and some "protestor" said you
deserved it, that he was a baby killer, and YOU should be ashamed.  Does this
sound familiar Mr. Clinton?  The honor and respect our country carries today
can be attributed to the people who have sacrificed their lives so we can have
this country.
    Now there is a Liberal push to outlaw firearms.  Do you think this is a
good thing?  I do not.  Look at how our country was formed.  Farmers and the
like could stand up to oppressors because they had the weapons to do so.  Look
at the oppression that ran rampant in the ex-Soviet Union, they could not own
guns because the government knew that would take away some power.  We MUST be
allowed to keep armed.  The crimes that are said would be avoided in actually
would not.  Do you think drug dealers care if they break gun-control
legislation?  People say that children should not be allowed to have handguns
in schools and the like.  Well, they can't NOW, not legally.  If you want to
do something, make anti-crime legislation stronger (Bush), and inforce the
laws that are in effect now, don't create more laws that will only hurt the
law-abideing citizen who is NOT the problem.
    I welcome responces to this one, as I'm sure will come about.....
                                        Jayce
"They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers!"
P.S.  Anyone watch the movie "Red Dawn?"  Tell me it didn't make you think at
least a little bit...........
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:01:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Flowers and Hill
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I don't really _care_ whether or not Gennifer was telling the truth.  That
is something between her and Bill because whatever happened, there seemed
to be no question about consent.  I.e., if Clinton and Flowers had an
affair that was mutually consentual then I am not really going to make
an issue of that because it says nothing about Bill Clinton.  If we were
going to judge all politicians base upon with whom they sleep then we'd
run out of politicians.

Anita Hill, on the other hand, accused Thomas of a serious crime and
that's not something I take lightly.

--Julie
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:04:11 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...

Andy
>this being Canada, burning of the US flag is not only tolerated, it's
>occasionally encouraged:
This act should not be encouraged no matter we you are.

I don't know if you watched the world series but you surely heard of the
incident. How did you feel when the Colour guard carried the Canadian Flag
upside-down. Another point is it not the socialist NDP government of Ontario
that brought forth a bill concerning the desecration of the flag. The only
good thing they ever did.

The flag is a symbol of a country, respected and honoured and loved by millions.
   How would you feel if one of the symbols that you respect were burned.

----mike.....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU