HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:34:24 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 80987@bcsaic.boeing.com, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
 >
>That was the poll which showed the smallest gap between Clinton and Bush, so it
>came to be the one that replaced all the others.  What I found most amusing/
>depressing was the alacrity with which the so-called "liberal, biased" news media
>commentators began to announce that polls now showed Clinton and Bush to be in
>a "dead heat".  The "dead heat" was an interpolation (Republican fantasy) at 
>the time, but it immediately became a media reality.  Thus begins the bandwagon
>affect that Clinton benefitted from when *he* was the underdog.  When I came to
>work today, several people mentioned that they considered the race even now.  ;-(
>
 The latest polling shows Clinton with a 2%-8% lead.  Bush will probably pick up a few
points over the next few days, so I'd  say the election is too close to call.  I'll
look for Bush to pull away for about a 5% margin of victory.

The Iowa Political Stock Market, which often predicts to within less than a percentage
point, shows Clinton with a $0.002 lead over Bush (ie, dead heat). ("Shares" in 
candidates have anominal value of $1, and are paid off after the election at the 
candidate's percentage of the popular vote X $1.)

---
Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns. 
drm@esl.com  | 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40274 talk.abortion:32185 alt.politics.bush:1907
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:05:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug17.015820.27817@afterlife.ncsc.mil> glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>
>You seem to forget that *adults* get abortions sometimes. Even
>(horror) *married couples*. Case in point: Hypothetical situation,
>based on my current situation.
>
>:I've been married for almost two years now. I am a college
>student, 21 years old. Legally adult in every way except that I
>can't run for President and I can't rent a car. My wife is two
>years older than myself, also a college student.
>
>I just was given a FOAD (the last three letters stand for "Off And Die")
>from the place where I have been working on co-op for the last
>two years, and am facing unemployment when I graduate in December.
>
>Now: Suppose our preferred method of contraception fails. Should
>we keep the child? We can barely feed ourselves. The government
>won't help us; as college students we are in "voluntary impoverishment".
>We can't go to our parents--my mother just lost her job, as did
>my father-in-law. (Incidentally, we are not in a recession)
>I'll not put a child up for adoption when there are so many
>waiting now--and being turned down because so many adoptors
>want a perfect white child. (We're white, but I'll not have MY
>child raised by racists)
>
>I am perfectly willing to raise a child once I have a job; but
>why should I have to pay for an accident at this point?
>
>Anyway; neither my wife nor myself are irresponsible teenagers.
>But there are situations where we MIGHT decide to have an
>abortion. Do not over generalize.

Do you think of the unborn as a human?  Do you think of abortion as an
evil?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39140 talk.abortion:31365 alt.politics.bush:1263
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:02:14 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>platforms.

Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to George Herbert
Walker Bush. 

 
===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:29:52 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug14.061049.19344@athena.mit.edu>, howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug13.213828.9337@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
|> >
|> >Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?
|> >
|> >Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?
|> >
|> >Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?
|> >
|> >Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?
|> >
|> >Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
|> >
|> 
|>  Can the government enforce a religious doctrine that stealing or murder
|>  is wrong?  This is getting tiresome...
|>  Regardless of whether or not a particular religion teaches this, society
|>  has to decide whether life begins at conception.  We can't go through

WHY?  How is it important to decide who's religion is right when we are
nation comprised of many religions (and non-religions)?  If somone made
a person who believed abortion was wrong go through a forced abortion,
that would be a terrible wrong, and is a violation of many laws.  Why does
anyone want to do the same thing in the other direction?

|>  the doctrines of every religion to make sure that none of our laws 
|>  coincide with them.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:50:18 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <183042@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
> In article <zd4m6jj.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <183014@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>>    >You have yet to answer the question: Who appointed the US as
>>    >Global Policeman?
>>
>>Well, probably the entity (or non-entity) that say, appointed eco-fascist
>>groups such as Greenpeace as world what-evers.
>>
> BZZZZZZT!  Sorry, Phil, but with that non-sequiteur response, you've proven
> your inability to respond to this question.

	It answers the question very nicely.  They themselves decided to be
"world <insert cause>".

> Greenpeace is funded by contributions from individuals around the world who
> concur with their goals and methods.  It is not a nation interfering in 
> other nations' civil wars or secessionist issues.  

	The US is funded by individuals also. :)

	And Greenhype frequently interferes with national issues.

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:16:31 GMT

In article <11677@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug10.014216.12606@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
># Honestly, Clayton.  I see some similarity between automobiles made by
># Ford and those made by Chrysler, but this is not indicative of a more
># fundamental "Chrystlo-Ford automotive tradition" at the root of
># American society.
>
>You really aren't very bright, are you?  The strong similiarities
>between Ford and Chrysler automobiles are evidence of a fundamental
>set of engineering approaches taken by the American automobile
>industry.

Which, combined with the general pervasiveness of the automobile in
America, strongly indicates a coherent "American automotive
tradition."  But Ford and Chrysler play no bigger parts in that
picture than Buick, Mercury, etc., etc.  I hope you got a good
discount on those ideas.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40974 talk.politics.theory:3769 soc.culture.usa:6730 alt.conspiracy:10187
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:25:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
| >>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
| >>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".

pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
| >Examples, please.

silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
| [Earth First!, animal-rights terrorists]
| 	While neither Earth First! nor the animal-rightists are liberals
| in the classic sense, the general worldview they share springs from the New
| Left philosophies of the 1960's. These New Left philosophies were 
| originally expounded by classic liberals, and hence the inheritors or heir-
| apparents of such philosophies are still commonly regarded as 'good
| liberal' by John Q. Public.

Would you care to draw a rational connection between Earth First!
and the animal-rights terrorists, on the one hand, and any of
classical liberalism, modern liberalism, or the Democratic party
on the other, and thus relieve me, and I suspect many, of the
impression that you have written something fantastic and absurd?

| .... Fitch is not a whiner. He is definitely partisan, and, as
| Freeman indicated, he does commonly cloak this partisanism or bias with
| a false display of even-handedness in language. His posts, actually, are
| commonly even-handed, if taken alone. His pattern of posting is definitely
| _not_ even-handed.

I have never been anything but partisan.  If I have appeared to
cloak that in any way, you all have my apologies.  I shall try
to do better in the future.  In the present case, I am partisan
in opposition to the violent social reaction apparently proposed 
by Buchanan and apparently accepted by the Republican Party,
both for my own sake and for yours.  I can think of nothing 
worse than to be even-handed about such an issue.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40135 alt.politics.bush:1837
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 08:36:40 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >That is a lie, President Bush does not oppose health care reforms.  I just
> >finished watching an interview of President Bush by David Brinkley and
> >Bush mentioned that his administration did have a health care reform plan.
>
> In 1988, Bush claimed to have an education plan.  We haven't seen that
> yet, either.
>
>                          -rocker

we keep hearing about this phantom concept of 'parental choice'.  It's about
the only sort of choice that Bush favors...



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:25:09 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug14.131533.24782@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.050110.39709@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
> >>> But those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from
> >>> God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.
>
> >> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
> >> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
> >> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
> >> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
> >> abortion.
>
> > His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
> > He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
> > reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
> > side.
>
> Your statement is an appeal to anti-religious bigotry.

This statement is not true.

> Focusing solely on the religious segment of the pro-life movement

I'm not focusing solely on them; I simply pointed out that you ignored them.
Calling Michael's statement a "gross mischaracterization" implies that they
don't exist.  Just trying to keep you honest.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 03:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.190214.27080@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
# >	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
# >ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
# >tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
# >dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
# >plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
# >platforms.
# 
# Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to George Herbert
# Walker Bush. 

Would that be the same George Herbert Walker Bush who recently spouted
his moral support for abortion rights in front of God and Satcom-III?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"I am fully prepared to anoint myself with the rancid fat of a feral
sow and run naked through town while the villagers throw pot-stickers
at me."
                                                     -- Michael Rigler
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:46:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
(William December Starr) writes:

> I'm no expert on weaponry or insurrection, but... if push came to
> shove, would the presence or absence of weapons -- even "assault
> rifles" -- in the hands of civilians really make much difference to
> the outcome?  Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
> of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
> the conventional police, the deciding factor in any modern-day
> American revolution/insurrection/whatever would be whether those
> groups chose to support or oppose the government; the random
> civilians, even those organized fairly well, would, sooner or later,
> get squashed by the professionals if they opposed them.

Actually, I would say "Yes".  Count up how many troops the feds
could field, if they decided to go to war with it's citizenry.
Do you think they could field 10 Million?  (~2M regulars +.... who?).
Next count how many would defect (how many of these would actually be
willing to fire on their own people?).  Then realize that the citizens
might well field 60 Million.  Of course the feds have the advantage
of nukes, tanks, etc.  But if they use them on their own citizenry,
they will probably find that their troops all join the citizens.
Nukes aren't effective, or smart, to use on your citizens.  If you've
got big targets, they're great, but not against guerilla fighters (unless
you plan to nuke the whole continent).  Tanks might be, but tank traps are
easy enough to make.  And, as we saw in Afghanistan, anything you put in
the field may well be captured and used against you (they didn't appear
to be squashed...).

I think that even inexperienced fighters (the 60M+ citizens) fighting
on their own turf would beat the professionals.  Losses would be heavy,
of course;  Until they became battle hardened.

I suggest we not run the experiment to find out, however.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:57:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.145241.5284@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.224214.19889@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.182455.27303@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug19.153541.25676@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>>In article <Bt8GIq.99E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>I wish I had statistics, but my impression is that funding is rather recent
>(last 2-3 years, not really in the '80s).  Additionally, as was pointed out
>to me by Alan Carroll the education funding remains less than 3% of the 
>budget.  Furthermore, most of the education funding comes from the states.

Actually, even though it's around the figure you quote, it comprises 6% of
the average states education budget.

>Beyond that general analysis, I have recently become aware of reductions in
>the Head Start program and the Pell Grant program supported by the "education"
>president, George Bush.

Head start happens to be about the only education program that has been
consistently increased ever year of Bush's presidency.

Tim Tierney
tierney@nevada.edu
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:35:28 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Bob Deguc) writes:
|> In article 7580@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> > In article <l8lb20INNllb@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> > 
|> > > So the fact that he died, makes his earlier statements unreliable?
|> > 
|> > No, it makes them at the very least questionable -- and at the most
|> > unverifiable. 
|> 
|> It also is called hearsay and is not admissible in a court of law.  The target
|> of these type of charges cannot cross-examine it's accuser.
|> 
This is an election, not a court of law.  If it were, Bush would be on trial
for breaking his promise to his supporters over taxes.  Of course every
Democrat and Republican electee would be in the same position.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Mr. Clayton, you are wrong.
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:30:31 GMT


Mr. Clayton:

For a couple of weeks now I've been following your thread, in its
various incarnations, about the evils of NAMBLA.  I agree with you.
Organizations such as NAMBLA are forewording some pretty nausiating
agenda.  I believe, as a gay man, that child molestation is both
detrimental to the child, and a crime, and those who perpetrate
it should be arrested and punished with the full force of justice.

However, your position that by gays, by not abhorring it, are endorsing
it, is incorrect.

I know many gay people.  Not one of them are in favor of men having any
sexual contact with minors.  The very idea is disgusting to them.  I would
venture to say that a large majority of gay men feel that way.

You say that allowing NAMBLA forces to march in pride parades is the same
as saying that their agenda is OK.  You say that allowing their literature
to be sold in bookstores is the same as endorsing them.  Again, not so.

But you must understand, as a repressed people, we cannot fight that oppression
by oppressing others.  The gay pride parade organizers banning NAMBLA would
be viewed the same as when the Boston St. Patrick's day organizers tried
to ban a gay group from marching...as when the Scocie, IL city council tried
to prevent the Nazis from marching...as when the Montgomery, AL city council
tried to stop the Klan from marching.

As for the literature, there have been many instances of books, magazines, and
other publications which have been hated by a large majority of the general
population, but which have been sold, in order to protect a principal.

As much as I and most gay people hate what NAMBLA stands for, as much as I
would like to see the movement disappear off the face of the earth, we must
stand by the constitution, by its guarantees of the right to express our 
views, to be protected from prior restraint.  

Next time you witness a pride parade, look at how the NAMBLA marchers are 
treated by the other marchers, by the crowd, by the police.  While we dare
no stop them, we do let the general public, the press, and the onlookers know
that we do not believe in the garbage they push.

For you see, if we restrain them, then we have no right to bitch when we
are restrained.

Cheers!
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc