HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:50:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: FREE-ENERGY technologies
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>The Masons!  The Masons!  You forgot the Masons!
>Hmm.  Could it be a deliberate omission?
>Very well, then, Gary:  Are you now or have you ever been a member of
>any Masonic order?

No, they wouldn't let me in.  They didn't like the block of flats I
had designed.  It had rotating knives and everything...

>--Missy P 2 B (dusting off the Lyndon Larouche library, just for fun.)

Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
36 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:43:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      How's this for a constitutional amendment?

1.  Any state with a bicameral legislature may apportion one of its
    legislative houses with respect to the state's largest political
    subdivision, provided that the state has at least twenty such
    subdivisions.
2.  Any state that apportions one of its houses in such manner may not
    alter the boundaries of such subdivisions unless it shall have the
    approval of Congress, or such agency as the Congress may by law
    provide for this purpose.
3.  No acts of any state legislative house that is apportioned in such
    manner which have the force of law shall be enforced unless such
    acts are approved by the popularly elected legislative house in the
    state, or by the chief executive thereof.



                                -Travis
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:         Sat, 3 Oct 1992 13:41:15 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jefferson's Party

Todddd......:> Guess again.  [Jefferson] would be a Libertarian.

Okay, yeah, probably.  Although I admire Jefferson a lot, and consider him
a really great leader and visionary for the Demo. party, his views are closer
to Libertarian as they are defined now.
The point is, though, that Ideologies have to change with the times.  Liberal
ideas progress.  Owning slaves (despite some qualms about them, if I remember
correctly) would have placed Jefferson as horribly conservative today.  Only
people who follow David Duke might approve. (Not to mention that owning slaves
ain't particuarlly consistent with LIbertarianism)
  Society will, despite conservative reactions, grow more and more liberal in
the long run.  This is because society, although it travels back and forth
between left and right, has had a general progression towards the left.  People
will eventually choose Liberialism over conservatism, and the definition
of what a Liberal is also moves leftward.
  In my mind, this is a positive thing.  Others may disagree with me.

Be Seeing You,
   Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:54:21 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush

>Derrick pointed out the dishonesty in the content of that article
>(which was not strictly speaking an "editorial," it was an op ed
>piece). The author was indeed a Bush campaign staffer, namely,
>Fred Malek. Malek is quite a frightening character. He was thrown
>off Bush's staff in '88 after questions about his history of
>virulent anti-semitism in his role in the Nixon administration
>were raised. Apparently, once the dust cleared, Bush was happy
>to have him back.
>
>Jamie


For the Democrats's response, see today's New York Times Op-Ed page,
where Clinton/Gore campaign director Mickey Kantor alleges 178 Bush
tax hikes during the last three and a half years using the Bush method
for arriving at the Clinton 128.

And now maybe they'll stop printing lists in the New York Times where
the letters are fractions of millimeters in height.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:50:41 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Health Care (III)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              28 Sep 1992 13:07:31 MST from <CARROLL%SCC.BITNET@
              OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:07:31 MST Roger said:
>>Socialized Medicine won't work..... To many people have too many things
>>wrong with them ... or so they say... Americans are to neurotic, they
>>find a specialist for problems that anywhere else we would be told to tough it
>On the other side of the coin, John, are those unable to get and/or pay for
>health care because they are MARRIED and EARNING A LIVING!  Especially
>affected are the children, whose parents must split up to get medical care
>and expenses taken care of, or just wait until the child dies and file for
>bankruptcy.  (I'm speaking specifically about the hemophiliac children who
>have contracted aids from transfusions.)  What kind of family values message
>does this send?

Now we know Roger watches _60 Minutes_.

?:  Is there enough health care for everyone? i.e. does the potential
exist for everyone to get all of the care they need and not make
any unnecessary sacrifices on the part of the nation?  If so, how
is this justified/proven?

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

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 22:23:40 EDT
From: Corinne R. Hillard <32GVSR2@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 'Election Notes - 9/23-24/92'

Family leave is a nice idea but The Family Leave bill was poorly conceived.  Th
e method of funding this pompous sounding thing was questionable and the hard
ships it would have imposed on small businesses were unacceptable.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:51:01 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ho-hum Perot

So Perot's back in the race. *YAWN*  I can't imagine that there are too
many people who don't see him for what he is....a sophmoric windbag. His
on-again-off-again, tantrumesque campaign is a joke. People are hurting
out there and Perot has added to that hurt by betraying, and toying with,
the confidence of his biggest supporters: the elderly and the unemployed,
who, I might add, are suffering the most from the present hard times.
He's thorougly discredited now as a filthy rich, moronic Texas peckerwood.
He doesn't care who's suffering. He's having a hell of a good time at the
Presidential Rodeo! I hope the press roasts him alive.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:09:31 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush
              29 Sep 1992 13:50:16 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

You say that Arkansas has made "real progress" in education.  Could you
elaborate on this?  All I have heard is that he has spent more money
on schools.  I have heard nothing about test scores, teacher
competency, retention rates, or anything else.

Do you know something you could share?

Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B
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:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:37:40 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: New Tax Structure

Jamie:
>The new structure would tax consumption rather than earnings, but in an
>allegedly progressive way, unlike VAT. In effect, you'd only be taxed on
>what you spend, not on what you save. You would deduct all savings from
>taxable income.
>
>What do youse think of this scheme?

I think it would be interesting to hear more about it.  Like -- I assume
this is to replace federal income tax, right?  Also, how on earth do we
keep track of spending?  Do I keep all my receipts for everything
throughout the year?  Or do all my local stores send me little forms (like
my W2) at the end of the year?  Sounds like a nightmare.  Finally, I
thought the general idea with taxes was something like: whatever you want
people to do, don't tax it; what you *don't* want folks to do, tax it.  If
we are to tax consumption but not savings, then we'd be encouraging saving
over spending.  Now, that may not be a bad idea, but won't that have a
pretty nasty effect on the economy?  If folks cut consumption down to food,
clothing, and shelter, then even more people will be out of work, no?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 21:52:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Education and money

Michael:

No, I'm sorry.  I read the exam in a newspaper which I did not keep.
It was not germane to my research, and, as much as I would like to,
I can no longer keep every article that interests me.  (My apartment
would become a fire hazard.  This wasn't a problem when I had an
on-campus office.  It was definitionally a fire hazard.)

--Missy P 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:42:43 GMT

In <POLITICS%92092923035525@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Kerry writes:

# Will Stockdale?
# 
# Chris, you know that such a reference dates you.
# 
# Me, too.  Sigh.
# 
# I wonder how many will get it?
# 
# --Missy P 2 B

	I don't get it and I doubt that any of you are older
	than me...

	It is a generational thing?  

	Now I have to know:  Who is Will Stockdale?

Ginny


===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:29:28 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A long precis

Shorter and shorter.

>From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>>>>Well, how about this. I am perfectly willing to let some other
>>>>student of economics on this list adjudicate.
>>>
>>>Fine by me.  The question is "does discrimination impose opportunity costs up
>   n
>>>firms?"  My answer is yes, it does.  Responses, anyone?
>
>>No, the question is not whether it imposes opportunity costs. The
>>question is whether the opportunity costs it imposes are ever
>>outweighed by advantages of discriminating.
>>Nice try, though.
>
>Way to pull my sentence (the one about how I was certain "beyond any doubt"
>that I was right on this point) out of context to twist my meaning.  This is
>why I believe your debating skills are slipping -- over the summer, you never
>had to resort to such dishonest tactics.

This is really ludicrous.

I quoted the entire paragraph. There WAS no context in which Jason
said anything beyond any doubt. Perhaps he said it in some earlier
posting? Probably we should wait for the mysterious Third Party
(see below) to find it for him. Not holding my breath.

I have, several times now, pointed out the following:
It is obvious that there is some opportunity cost to discrimination,
in my example. Jason falsely said that game theory tells us that
conventions fall apart if there is any incentive to defect. The truth
is that game theory tells us that conventions fall apart when
the incentive to defect outweighs the incentive to cooperate.

I can find several mailings in which I said that.

It is almost incredible that Jason, even now, insists that the
relevant question is whether there is ANY incentive to defect.

>Anyway, if you want to solicit opinions on this broader question, that's fine
>too.

Since it is the only relevant question, yes, I think it would be
more illuminating to ask it.

>Actually, I was asking some third party to do this.  I have absolutely no idea
>how to get into the archives.  Until somebody can report back on this, I stand
>by my assertion that you made the statements question.

I see.
So, you claim that I said something in an earlier posting, but you
are not going to show where I said it. And now you say you will wait
for some unspecified third party to find a non-existent quotation
from me. Ok. So, we will wait. If no one comes up with your fictitious
quotation, then you are going to think that shows you are right.
I get it.

>Jimbo wrote me a private letter earlier today (yesterday?) that said this, and
>since I have already purged the file, you'll have to consult him personally.

Ah.
Ok. Let's see what Mr. Wales has to say.

Jamie
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, 28 Sep 1992 22:23:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: U.S Military Intervention

>Well, I, for one am an isolationist, so I don't think we should be involved
>with other countries' internal affairs, especially not with troops, unless
>our own national security is clearly at risk
Isn't it true that the intent of much US intervention is because our national
security is threatened? Don't we intervene to save our national security? While
the ends of the intervention may differ from what we intended to do, our
intentions are for the best. Therefore can't we say that U.S intervention
in the internal affairs of other countries is justified.
ANother point:

U.S intervention could be justified in the way that we should not trust anyone
in the globe because realistically this is never a wise policy. The U.S is never
able to completely trust a nation. Therefore the US must do everything possible
to beef up national security and defense and be prepared to do whatever possible
to look out for the U.S's own interests. Who else bu the US looks out for the
U.S's interests?
One problem I see with isolationism is that every single thing which goes on
in the world directly affects our everyday life somehow.  But this is seen
primarily through the economy. We are entering a global economy, therefore
every thing which occurs in this world can affect the economy and therefore
afgfect our economy. That is just one example of how something in the outside
world affects the U.S. Now, I am not saying that we should invade in a country
which is having economic problems. All this proves is that all actions in a
country can affect the U.S. Therefore, isn't it justified that if the US sees
harm brewing against the U.S in a certain country, the U.S may militarily
intervne?

ANother aspect is humanitarianism. Is it justified fot the U.S to intervene in
a country because the government or some party violates human rights on a mass
scale without control? Who else but the U.S can stop such atrocities?Isn't
it justified for the U.S to intervene then? The U.S might have an obligatory
role as being military superpower of the world--it carries the duty to be
an international police force. Is the U.N a valid police squad
for the world militarily? I believe not--they have seen many failures.
The U.S is a country most suitable to keep law and order in this world.

All this leads up to the Gulf War. Was it justified? Quite frankly, I'd rather
not jump into that mess. But I'd be more than happy to hear the lists opinion
on the matter.

So, political listers, what do you have to say on this whole matter?
Is U.S Intervention in the Internal Affairs of other Countries Justified?
thanks
Lance
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, 5 Oct 1992 20:47:12 -0400
From:         "Dr. Fielengrope... Not just a Name.. A Lifestyle"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "On American Intervention into ...," (#776)

howabout this idea then..  the U.S. is looking to keep and maintain
current markets as well as create new ones.. It capitalism in it's best
form... we create markets for our own profit! Adam Smith would be proud!
 I suppose we could look at Machiavellian theory in that "that the end
justifies the means".


            John Stith
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, 4 Oct 1992 23:07:44 -0400
From:         "If I Were A President,
              There Would Be 2 States: Sanity and California!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jefferson's Party

nope... he wouldn't... he would not be a part of any of the modern political
parties... he would call for an entire restructuring of the current
system!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:55:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: U.S Military Intervention

We should not intervene in other nations, even for humanitarian reasons.
Who are we to tell other countries how to run their business??
How would the US like it if other countries tried to invade IT?
We need to stop being world bullies.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:29:50 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Robert McElwaine:
>                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
>
>               For decades, the various energy companie$ have been
>          COLLUDING with each other, [and probably also with the
>          national and international banker$, governments, news media,
>          "scientific" establishment, and "education" systems], to
>          successfully ignore or even SUPPRESS several kinds of "FREE-
>          Energy" technology.  Government intervention is needed to
>          stimulate research, development, and mass production of these
>          technologies.
[etc]

Does anybody else get the impresion that the author of this is
completely hatstand ?

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:02:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Will Stockdale?

Chris, you know that such a reference dates you.

Me, too.  Sigh.

I wonder how many will get it?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:55:52 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Speaking (again) of Perot:

Apparently, what has ticked off Perot so bad about Ed Rollins is that
he told MacNeil/Lehrer last night that Perot offered him $500,000
to not talk to anyone about the campaign.

Obviously, he refused the money.  In fact, of everybody in this mess,
I think Rollins is the one I feel the most sorry for.  Here he goes
and misses the chance to make a *pile* of money this election season
to run this stupid campaign, ends up getting paid for one month, leaves
the campaign because The Boss won't listen to any of his advisors' advice---
and now the guy goes on national tv and practically denies knowing old
Ed.  Not a great election season, I'm afraid.  Better luck next time, Ed.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:45:59 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jefferson's new party affiliation

>If Jefferson were alive today he would be a Republican.

  Good lord, do you know *nothing* about Jefferson or
American History?  Jefferson was a Virginian.  No
Virginian who was alive in the 1860's would *ever*
be a Republican.

                          -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:43:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Well, boys and girls, here's the Perot address. Christopher.

From:   BITNET%"CLINTON@MARIST.BITNET"      "Discussion of campaigning for Presi
dent by Bill Clinton" 30-SEP-1992 19:33:56.36
To:     Christopher Hobe Morrison <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
CC:
Subj:   perot address

Received: From UBVM(MAILER_L) by SNYESCVA with Jnet id 4164
          for CMORRISO@SNYESCVA; Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:33 EDT
Received: by UBVM (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 0922; Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:36:22 EDT
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:33:00 -05
Reply-To:     Discussion of campaigning for President by Bill Clinton
              <CLINTON@MARIST.BITNET>
              <CLINTON@MARIST.BITNET>
From:         "C. Diane Bradley" <BRADLCD@AUDUCADM.DUC.AUBURN.EDU>
Subject:      perot address
X-To:         CLINTON%MARIST.BITNET@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU
To:           Christopher Hobe Morrison <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET>

If any of you *would* like to write Mr. Perot at his place of business
the address is:
   Perot Group
   12377 Merit Dr.
   Suite 1700
   Dallas, TX 75251

***********************************************************************
* INTERNET                                  * Diane Bradley           *
* bradlcd@auducadm.auburn.edu               * RBD Library, Soc. Sci.  *
* BITNET                                    * Auburn University       *
* bradlcd%auducadm.auburn.edu@auducvax      * Auburn Univ., AL 36849  *
*                                           * (phone 205-844-1742)    *
***********************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU