HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:47:06 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The_Chipmunk) writes:

}Written in article <73D1TB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>
} by jmarold@netlink.cts.com (Jeff Marold):

}: In light of the Republican Party's Waterloo last Tuesday, I have some 
}: questions:
}:   * Does Pete Wilson stand a chance for reelection?

}He still holds the incumbent advantage.  I'd say his chances are fairly
}good, but we'll see.  He still has time to raise more taxes.

If some of us have our way, he literally won't have a chance for
re-election because we'll have a recall election and throw him out
before that.  Does anyone know that status of the recall petition,
like how many more signatures they need?

--James Preston
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9397 talk.politics.misc:58617
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Historic First for California
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:58:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu


In article <1992Nov6.233201.6385@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
writes:

[information about the California senatorial race results deleted.]

]>	One person I knew wanted to vote for June Genis, on the ground
]>that Boxer was anti-Gulf-War, putting forth resolutions to stop the
]>effort to challenge Saddam early in the game. Feinstein didn't seem to
]>do much to stop Operation Desert Shield/Storm, however. He voted for
]>Boxer anyway because Herschensohn seemed like a mad dog, with his
]>rather vicious negative ads.
]>
]>	When she won, Boxer proclaimed her victory a rejection of the
]>"politics of hate". In response, Herschensohn whined that it was Boxer
]>who was running the sleazy negative campaign, trying to make him seem
]>like some right-wing extremist. Why he's complaining with his
]>rejection of abortion and no cuts on military spending is strange.
]>
]>	I had half-thought of voting for Genis, but I wanted
]>Herschensohn out, so I was stuck with Boxer. Ah, the joys of
]>winner-take-all elections. :-(

I saw Herschensohn's ads.  Perhaps I did not see all of them, but
they appeared to me to be negative, but not "mad dog" or "vicious".
Does anyone have an example?

Does anyone have an example that would warrant Boxer's comments
on the "politics of hate"?  I am assuming that the examples given
about Herschensohn's support for abortion bans and no cuts in 
military spending are to show "right-wing extremism" and not
"politics of hate".  Unless, of course, "right-wing" is considered
shorthand for "hate politics".  If this is the case, I would still
like some examples because this has puzzled me for weeks.

Joan V
From: mholling@pollux.usc.edu (Michelle Hollinger)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Hersh and Seventh Veil
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:42:27 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

As I stated before, I no longer want to continue wasting net time on an
argument of this nature. Still, you continue to release unsubstantiated 
attacks on people and issues you really know nothing about. 

I know for a fact that the Boxer campaign had absolutely no previous
knowledge of the Seventh Veil Story. There will not be stories in the papers
to the contrary because those stories simply don't exist.If you don't beleive
me, why don't you just ask Bob Mulholland, Phil Angelides, or Barbara Boxer?
Or, you could even ask Bruce Herschensohn's opinion on the matter.

Also, I would love to see you reproduce a copy of the memo which you mention
in the following post. YOU CAN'T, it does not exist and it never has. 

You are beginning to remind me of Dan Quayle in the VP debate (yes, there was
only one), when he continuously hurled false accusations at Sen. Gore, 
insisted he had proof of these accusations, and then asked us who we could 
trust. Of course, within hours we were given proof that, indeed, it was Mr.
Quayle who could not be trusted.

However, in the end there is justice. The peolpe have elected Bill Clinton,
Al Gore, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer to be our representatives in
Washington DC this coming year.There is no denying that.

						Michelle Hollinger

		********* Hey Pete, You're Next !!! *********
In article <athos-061192091554@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>[lots of crap deleted]
>
>In the next few days the papers are going to start reporting how the Boxer
>campaign handed off this piece of "news" to the Democratic Party to release
>so they could maintain deniability.  When The Sleeze brought this out, we
>knew that he would (1) be suspended and (2) be reactivated right after the
>election.  We were right on both counts.  
>
>The Sleeze has a long history of doing this sort of thing to other
>candidates, and earlier this year authored a memo encouraging the
>Democratic party to spread rumors about President Bush concerning his
>sexual habits.
>
>Boxer planned this, she knew about this and she condoned it.  There's no
>denying that.
>
>As far as debates go.  One debate.  Wow.  All others she cancelled or
>refused since the debates were hurting her (she didn't look so good).  She
>claimed that the "format was changed on her" when the sponsor released the
>original agreement showing that it had not.
>
>
>******************************************************************************
>Rick Eames



Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Re: The Unbelievable Crap 
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:23:29 GMT

In article <1dhk97INNg9h@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
 
 [ Re: we all know who... ]

+You also are quite incorrect about homosexuals being licked by your
+illusion that your postings have been solid and critic proof.  I posted
+several things- you never responded to any of the intelligent stuff,
+just to nitty little points or take make a sarcastic comment.  You won
+nothing- it is a matter of many people just tired of responding to
                            ^^^^
+your unenlightened and seriouly biased postings.

Not freaking *enough* people, but a few...

jb
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The clinton Cabinet
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:41:17 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <7NTTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
>It's already begun:
>
>According to a Los Angeles Times story this morning, there is a quiet but 
>heavy lobbying campaign going on by the Israeli lobby to prevent Warren 
>Christopher from being named as Secretary of State in the Clinton 
>Administration.
>
>Reason: Christopher is not perceived as a "friend of Israel."
>
>Am I the only one annoyed by this?

I hope so.  Israel's activity sounds analogous to a meat company being an-
xious about a *possible* -- rumor unsubstantiated -- vegetarian being promo-
ted to store manager by a grocery store chain.  Just as a meat company has
the right to be worried that its products will not be promoted appropriately
at a store run by someone rumored to be an evangelical vegetarian, and there-
fore has the right to inquire from the head office about possible changes in
policy for the affected store, so too does Israel -- and every other country
in the world -- have the right to be concerned about whom Bill Clinton ap-
points to the post of Secretary of State.

How heavy-handed Israel's, or anyone else's, lobbying is a factor of both
reality and perception.  To some people, the mere existence of a person who
dares to call him/herself a Jew constitutes excessive lobbying.  To others,
John Major's (the British PM) invitation to Clinton to visit before Christmas
and discuss policy is merely a friendly gesture, not lobbying at all.

>I don't know enough about Christopher to say whether he is qualified for 
>the job. If he is, and Clinton wants him there, he should get the 
>appointment.  If he's not, then it should go to someone else. In any 
>case, copziness with Israel should *not* be a factor in the selection 
>process.

Neither should antisemitism or antagonism against Israel.  Israel is only one
of many countries *and other lobbies* that are clamoring for Clinton's atten-
tion at this moment.  To single out one group's lobbying as particularly in-
appropriate at this most appropriate time suggests a particular animosity to-
ward that group.  What's so special about Israel being in there along with 
England, Germany, Japan, the tobacco industry, the computer chip industry,
the US Council of Mayors, and a host of other countries, industries, and
other groups?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
|						-- Will Rogers		|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's armed rebellion (was:  CA REPUBLICAN PARTY)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:22:51 GMT

In article <randall.721441066@seashore>, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
> Seriously ... on the Family channel yesterday, Pat and a guest
> were giving financial/investment advice to callers.  (What qualifies
> Pat to give investment advice, I don't know.)  They seemed
> to think that the election results spelled doom.  One caller asked
> about armed fortresses in the mountains.  The guest was giving
> advice favoring buying gold to "head off the coming crisis."  
> No kidding- these guys were getting apocalyptic.  

  Well, that's nice to know. Maybe we can convince the xSSR to flood
the market with a gold selloff again. It sure would be nice seeing
fundies-flying-from-financial-foundations :-)
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9363 ba.politics:6758
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Elections as a football game
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:41:56 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov5.062839.29559@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.180145.6596@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>So let me see if I have this straight -- don't vote for your
    >>preferred candidate because it "obvious" that they won't win.
    >>Vote the least objectionable of the other slimeballs because
    >>one may do less "damage" to what is important to you than the
    >>other.
    >>
    >>Right?
    >>
    >Exactly right.
    >
    >Let us assume my co-workers are all ordering out lunch and
    >what they order will be the only option. We will all vote for
    >what type of food to order. I love Chinese food and want to
    >vote for that, but right before we all vote, after hearing
    >everyone discuss all the choices, it becomes obvious that
    >around 20 people will be voting for pizza, around 20 people
    >will be voting for sandwiches, and 4 or 5 people feel
    >inclined to vote for Chinese or something else. Now, if I
    >think sandwiches would be tolerable but pizza makes me
    >positively ill, I would be an idiot to sit there and vote for
    >Chinese food. Period.

Except for one BIG difference -- eating the food is NOT optional.
Your vote is part of process to select the ONLY food you will be
eating for the next 4 years, as well as the ONLY food that ALL your
coworkers (that did not or could not vote) will be eating.

At which point I say -- it is NOT right for me and a few others
to decide what food EVERYBODY else will be eating for the next four years.

After all, in your example, if pizza is ordered, you can go out and get
something else.

Or even refuse to eat.


-- 
Ah, thanks Gert, for that excellent recycling job [of Petra].

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Hersh and Seventh Veil
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:23:17 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <5520@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P.
Anderson) wrote:
> 
> Get over it, Rick. Boxer is your senator now. Are you gonna whine for
> six years? Jeeez, plant a garden or something...
> 								MPA

Ah, like you would have been a cheerful human had Hersch won?  That's what
really gets my goat: I am fully prepared to stand behind the President now
even though he was not my choice.  I will give him all the help I can, and
will try my best to see that he succeeds.  Most Republicans I know feel the
same way.

Now that I have said that, I want to point out that this is a major, major
difference between Conservatives and Liberals.  Not one Liberal I know
stood behind Bush in 1988.  Instead, they declared war on him.

While Liberals are fully ready to tear down the country to achieve their
goals, Conservatives are not.  Therin lies the difference.

############################################################################
Rick Eames                         Internet:      athos@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.               CompuServe:    76666,2114
My Opionions are my own.           AmericaOnline: EamesR
"The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is why he makes so many of
them."  - Lincoln

"But you know what?  There's another point that I'd like to make: it's very
possible that Adolf Hitler kept a very nice check book.  You know?  I mean,
and that's fine."  -- Barbara Boxer, Bill Press Show, KFI, 10/24/92
############################################################################
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Child Porn issues
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:34:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <mike03072921003043745@batpad.lgb.ca.us>, mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:
> In <1992Nov1.164033.5179@ms.uky.edu> amnick00@nx16.mik.uky.edu (alan m nickell) writes:
# #     Now who confused the people reading this newsgroup?  Who taught you
# #that showing an underage girl nude is child pornography?  They were wrong,
# #sorry to tell ya'.  Child pornography only involves placing an underage
# #girl into a sexual situation to be distributed either in pictures or video
# #or the sort.  Pictures of girls in the buff does NOT constitute child
# #pornography....hate to disappoint you guys.
# 
# Hmmm....
# 
# What a stinging indictment of Clayton Cramer and the REST of THOSE
# PEOPLE.  You should be ashamed of yourself, Cretin.  Why aren't you
# over in a.b.p.e ranting about this?  Don't care?  Your silence is
# tantamount to an endorsement.
# 
# [] Mike Batchelor <# Long Beach, California

What group is a.b.p.e?  He is clearly wrong.

When this turd alan nickel starts to organize rallies in support
of his position, let me know, so I can express my anger.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
October is National Quality Month.  That's why we wait until the first
Tuesday in November for national elections.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: The clinton Cabinet
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 08:44:05 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

It's already begun:

According to a Los Angeles Times story this morning, there is a quiet but 
heavy lobbying campaign going on by the Israeli lobby to prevent Warren 
Christopher from being named as Secretary of State in the Clinton 
Administration.

Reason: Christopher is not perceived as a "friend of Israel."

Am I the only one annoyed by this?

One hopes that Clinton will choose the most qualified people for his 
Cabinet posts. The Secretary of State is supposed to represent the 
foreign policy of the United States, and hopefully be an agent for peace. 
It is not a function of that office to be first and foremost a friend to 
Israel, or the Arab states, or anyone else.

I don't know enough about Christopher to say whether he is qualified for 
the job. If he is, and Clinton wants him there, he should get the 
appointment.  If he's not, then it should go to someone else. In any 
case, copziness with Israel should *not* be a factor in the selection 
process.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Playing Politics With Our Economy
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:56:13 GMT

This idea that the Congress is willing to give Clinton things that they
weren't willing to give Bush requires some selective re-writing of
recent history.  The Congress was more than willing to give Bush a
capital gains tax-cut.  They just asked for an increase in the top
tax brackets to pay for it.  What are they going to give Clinton - 
a capital gains tax cut and an increase in the higher tax brackets
to pay for it.  The difference is that Clinton won't veto this bill.

Guido
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's Fantasy World
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:30:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

>In article <1992Oct31.184056.4944@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> In article <13032@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #Being black isn't a matter of choice.
># What makes you think that being gay is? The data is at best inconclusive.
>
>You mean, you can't stop yourself from having sex?  THAT is a
>serious problem indeed.  Or did you mean you don't want to?

Tell me, Mr. Cramer, do you understand the difference between sexual orienta-
tion and sexual behavior?  Actually, the question is rhetorical--I know damned
well you do.  So why should you feel obliged to post nonsense like the
above?  It just makes you look like an idiot.

>Already posted a detailed article.  I received a few intelligent
>arguments, but mostly, homosexuals knew they were licked, and
>engaged in constant character assassination.

Boy, if this isn't the biggest fantasy I've seen from him in a long time.
Thanks, Mr. Cramer, for the biggest laugh I've had since your article
about gay-bashing.

Yes, I'm sure all of the articles responding to your "mother" postings were
character assassinations.  Brian Kane, for example, has ably refuted your
numbers.  You have yet to defend them.  Others, including myself, have
examined the rest of your conclusions and found them wanting.  I presented
a detailed analysis immediately following--an analysis you still have not
responded to.  Instead you decided to engage in a little character assassina-
tion of your own by claiming that I had "attacked" you.  Needless to say,
you were unable to provide any examples of any "attacks".

I guess I can claim that you knew when you were licked and chose to engage
in character assassination instead.  By the way, and for the fourth time,
I'm straight.  And so are others that have responded to your "mother"
postings.  This was one of your more ludicrous claims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@linus.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: prop 161 again
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:53:48 PDT

  >In ca.politics, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
  >   This was a political statement citing religious credentials of the
  >   author.  Such activity *ought* to result in the loss of tax-exempt
  >   status for the organization headed by this individual.  (It won't--but
  >   it ought to and it would if the IRS had half teh guts most people
  >   credit with having...)

Well, the legal matter is that religious organizations can take
stands on political issues, but not specific candidates.
Propositions are included in the category of "political issues."
The Catholic Bishops of California took stands against props 161
and to 165 (although the latter was not as high a profile of a
campaign). In Oregon, the Bishops opposed the anti-gay referendum
(kind of a surprisign stand to some, expected by others). If you
take away this ability of churches, you're probably crossing the
line of "Congress shall not enact any law etc." The wording of
the constitution indicates that while politics should not inform
religion, it's not unreasonable for religion to inform politics.
I don't necessarily agree with every case where the latter
happens, but I'd rather see a religious right republican in the
white house than see the ability of churches to speak to
political issues curtailed. (I'm a liberal Catholic to put that
in perspective.)

-dh
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Shoot the messenger
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:50:46 GMT

Well, the shouts of "of course the election would have turned out
all differently if it weren't for the Liberal Media Bias" are 
right on schedule.  Amazing, considering how if you open up most
any media outlet's closet you will still find the cheerleading outfit
from the Gulf War hanging up there...

When I listen to KPFA and hear them moaning about how the mainstream
media is so conservative, and I listen to the Right and hear them
screeching about how the mainstream media is so liberal, I figure the
mainstream media is about on target...

jb
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment