HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:11:32 GMT
Organization: (none)

In article <1992Aug31.032025.9211@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>Regarding the pledge of allegience (what a *wonderful* name:-):
>The words "(one nation) *UNDER GOD*..." were added to the pledge
>sometime in the 30's or 40's.  I don't know when, but my mother
>told me when she said the pledge as a little girl, the words weren't
>there.  So much for "original intent."

The offending (and offensive to some Americans) words were added during the
Eisenhower administration, in the late 1950s.  The interpolation makes no
sense gramatically or politically and it distorts the meaning and purpose
of the pledge of allegience.  The whole thing was quite is silly, as well
as divisive.  (At the time, I had thought the silly insertion would be 
soon dropped but, alas, a whole generation has learned it the wrong way.)

The Pledge of Allegience was first published in a Boston magazine in 1892.
It was written by either James B. Upham or Francis Bellamy.

The correct text is:

	I pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America,
	and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible,
	with liberty and justice for all.

The words "one nation, indivisible" make sense.
The words "under god, indivsible" do not.

(Indeed, the alteration may well be viewed as unpatriotic.
Furthermore, the insertion of a particular religious concept
makes a mockery of the final phrase and contradicts its final word.)

I shall continue to say it that way I learned it!

bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)     /|\Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus./|\  
[My opinions are my property, belong to me only, and represent no one else!]
# include discaimers.h          /*** Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now! ***/
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie  /*** Marrou/Lord in '92.  (800) 682-1776 ***/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:49:11 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Aug24.231150.22540@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <DisZPB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> 
>elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> That's true, but a lot of budget compromises are made between the
>>> President and Congress before any appropriations bill is approved
>>> by Congress.  Bush could take a hard line, and refuse to sign any
>>> appropriations bill which does not meet his approval, but then he
>>> runs the risk of a Congressional override, and Congress could
>>> ignore all his budget proposals.  His best bet is to compromise
>>> up front.
>
>> So, what you're saying is that the President's 'tough guy' act on Congress 
>> will always be just what it looks like--an act.  
>
>No, I said that Bush is often forced to compromise with Congress over
>the budget before Congress ever approves an appropriations bill. 

So, what you're saying is that the President's 'tough guy' act on Congress
will always be just what it looks like--an act.

C'mon, Doug, what's the use of a "tough guy" if he's not ever willing to
call Congress' bluff? If Bush isn't ever going to dig in his heels over
issues HE CLAIMS are important, then why should even people who agree with
him vote for him? If he really has a mandate from the people, he should be
able to cajole/convince/bully Congress into going along. Reagan did. For all
his faults, Ronnie did have some direction in mind. Bush just goes along.

>> The Democrats don't have a
>> two-thirds majority in either house of Congress.  If Rubbers would veto
>> an appropriations bill, the odds of that veto being overridden are nil.
>
>That's wrong on two counts.  Bush must compromise with Democrats and
>Republicans in Congress.  A Bush veto of an appropriations bill would 
>unlikely to have the support of every Republican in the Congress. 

Pardon? On one count, the Democrats certainly don't have a 2/3 majority in
either house. On the other, Congress has yet to override a Bush veto.
Methinks you're blowing smoke here.

>And the Congress must pass appropriations bills in order to keep
>the government running.  If Bush vetoed an appropriations bill,  
>and Congress couldn't override the veto, then no appropriations
>bill gets passed.  Congress would have to pass stop-gap spending
>measures until the President signs the bill, or until Congress
>managed to override his veto.  

Yes, and the President has to sign each of the stop-gap bills (or have the
veto overridden). The President actually has a fair bit of leverage on the
process in practice, if he will use it.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

The Ranger isn't gonna like it, Yogi.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12367 talk.politics.misc:43634 alt.politics.marrou:1026 alt.politics.bush:4013 alt.politics.clinton:3980 alt.politics.perot:1393
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:49:46 GMT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US

There have been polls taken with Perot as on the ballot, and polls taken
with Perot as active campaigner, on a recent CNN news.

The polls showed I think 13% if he was just on the ballot, 20% if he
actively campaigned.  The gap between Bush and Clinton was 15% in the
former, 11% in the latter.  Since 11% is the average gap the current
polls are showing between Bush and Clinton anyway...

Clinton is picking up a lot of people who are willing to spend moeny
and time getting the vote out November 3rd.  I wouldn't be too
surprised if the _weather_ on voting day would make a 3-6 point shift
in outcome.

Sometimes I feel the polls _more_ accurately reflect American sentiment
than the actual election.  Crazy hunh?


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11959 talk.politics.misc:42843 alt.politics.bush:3484 alt.politics.clinton:3499
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:05:26 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In article <1992Sep2.130219.5028@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
 jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>   poll                  dates      Clinton Bush    gap
>   ====================  =========  ======= ====    ===
>   ABC/Post              8/21-8/23     47    42      5
>   ABC/Post              8/21-8/25     51    41     10
>   ABC/Post              8/26-8/30     55    36     19
>   Gallup/Newsweek       8/27-8/28     49    39     10
>   Yankelovich/Time/CNN  8/25-8/27     46    40      6
>   Times/CBS             8/23-8/24     51    36     15
>

I note with interest that the *minimum* "neither of these" response
above is 8%, and the maximum is a whopping 14%.  While I'd like to
claim that all of these people are going to vote Libertarian, even
I'm not *that* optimistic.  But it *does* irk me that the above polls
consistently omit the other name that will be on the November 3 "poll"
for virtually every citizen of the US: namely Andre Marrou.  Isn't it
just a bit dishonest to conduct a poll relating to a vote and omit one
of the choices that will be on that vote in the poll?  If Marrou
wasn't going to be on virtually all (probably *will* be all plus DC) of
the state ballots then there might be some argument that he isn't
really a choice for some people.  But that's not the case; his name is
fully qualified in 39 states, pending some counting and minor
paperwork in 7 more, and nearly done in the other 5.  (Uh, that
includes DC, btw.)  Marrou's name will be in front of well over 90% of
the population of the country on November 3rd, right beside Bush and
Clinton (poor company, but what can you do?  ;-).

The Perot supporters probably have similar feelings about their
candidate, but at least in his case the argument could be made that
until and unless he re-declares himself a candidate, the fact that his
name might be on a lot of ballots is meaningless.  Even so, he'll
probably get a lot of votes.

Anybody know how we might inject some rationality into the polling
organizations?  Convince them that any name which is going to be in
front of well over 90% of the population of the country should be
included in their polls...?  Is anybody from one of the networks
reading any of these newsgroups?    ;-)

--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman)
Subject: Newt Gingrich: The New York Times made me do it!!
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:29:07 GMT

I had a good laugh this morning.  Newt Gingrich was asked on
NPR's Morning Edition about recent news reports that he had
called Woody Allen the perfect embodiment of Democratic family
values.

Gingrich pretended to be puzzled at media reaction because, he
said, he had simply repeated what he had read in an op-ed piece
in the New York Times, so he couldn't have been resorting to
sleazy politics, could he?

I've enjoyed the way the Republicans have tried to have it both
ways in this campaign.  For example, Republican brown shirts
put the most anti-choice language possible into the platform,
then Quayle, George and Barbara start talking kinder, gentler
choice....  Or, the convention speakers attack Hillary Clinton,
then, after Bill Clinton says it looks as if Bush is running
for first lady (but he doesn't want to live with him!), Bush
(or was it Barbara?) says that such attacks are not the way
Republicans do things.  But the idea that Gingrich, supposedly
one of the smartest Republicans (an oxymoron?) in the House,
was just innocently repeating what he read in the (supposedly)
liberal New York Times without intending to be sleazy -- well,
that's the best yet, IMHO.

Keep right on slitherin', Newt!


George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org)		'Beat Bush, bag Quayle"
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: re: liberal v. conser
Date: 18 Aug 92  18:45:00 EST

-> Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have
-> a workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education.
-> The Democrats - ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite
-> happy to defend the status quo indefinitely.

Perhaps you would like to enumerate "The Education President"'s "vision" for American education.  One would only hope that it's better than his "vision" for American business and the economy! :->

Seriously, a system of vouchers is yet another ploy to appease Pat "Ayatollah" Robertson and his band of crazies.  It plays heavily toward sectarian schools that have been dominated by fundamentalists and charismatics.

And isn't it altogether possible that vouchers would be contrary to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?  After all, wouldn't the government be funding religious instruction?  I remember a case from the forties or fifties (can't remember the name of the case) in which the Supreme Court decided that it was o.k. to provide transportation to private schools since the money didn't directly go to religious instruction, and it served a higher, secular purpose (education).  The voucher program allows 
the government to fund (through the backdoor) religious instruction.

The emphasis ought to be on improving public education and preserving the First Amendment, rather than supporting the Religious Right.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

======================================================================

"Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking!"
       --Abbie Hoffman

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 
20 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12049 talk.politics.misc:43000 alt.politics.bush:3632 alt.politics.clinton:3630
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:00:00 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <X2NaqB6w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
[majority deleted]. . .

>In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out in
>my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
>Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
>and other such nonense.  It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
>party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
>now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
>years later.
>
|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|

	Yeah, Mr. Branley!  I remember that, too!  Thanks for reminding
	us (or enlightening the youngsters).

			Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:51:38 GMT

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

>Regarding the pledge of allegience (what a *wonderful* name:-):
>The words "(one nation) *UNDER GOD*..." were added to the pledge
>sometime in the 30's or 40's.  I don't know when, but my mother
>told me when she said the pledge as a little girl, the words weren't
>there.  So much for "original intent."
[...]

1954

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:40:56 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>The democrats seem to think they're the real party of liberty. Hmm.
>... 
>What we have is a star chamber in which citizens are brought and forced to
>confess to crimes without protection from self-incrimination.
> 
>The left has repeatedly attacked the second amendment of course... [etc.]
>... 
>Yup. It's those damn evil republicans.

We can all thank the Republicans for raising all of our consciousnesses
as to the nobility of the Fifth Amendment. Not since Jimmy Hoffa appeared
before Bobby Kennedy's "Star Chamber" investigating organized crime has the
character of those hiding under its auspices been made more clear.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Clinton's lies
Organization: Clark University
Date: 27 AUG 92 18:22:46 GMT


In a previous article, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) wrote:
	[see original posting for "statistics"]
> 
>Having said all that, I will say that perhaps what America needs is four
>years of Clinton, just to remind them of what four years of Carter was like.
> 
>Kemp in '96!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
> medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology

Let me guess, you also agree with Bush that Clinton "raised taxes 128 
times" as governor in Arkansas.

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 02:27:47 GMT

In article <16854DE35.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.193546.13432@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
>sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
> 
>>  Improving the lifestyles of teachers and administrators, eh?  You make that
>>sound like such a horrible thing to do.  I don't have any statistics in front
>>of me, but I rarely meet a public school teacher that does not have to work a
>>second job just to have a reasonable income.  A friend of mine, who is a
>>middle-school music teacher, sells shoes after hours.
>>
...
>In general, they don't. Here in Detroit teachers make between $27,000 and
>$40,000 per annum- for a 9-month job. That's $36,000 to $53,000 fte.
>Teachers aren't starving.
> 
...
>So much for the argument that all we need is to throw more money at the
>problem. The data seems to say the oppposite.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University

	Hmm, so THAT'S why Detroit is in big doo-doo, budget wise! :-)
I don't know about the Motor City, but my sister-in-law is a high
school bio teacher, and she just moved to a new system (from city to
rural county) for higher pay, and she's not pulling in $25,000.  And
work in the summer is usually the same burger-flipping that her
students can find.  With my brother in school, they're REALLY scraping
bottom.
Brad

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12258 talk.politics.misc:43361
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Poll results AL AZ VT
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:00:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Psephology R Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


         %      %    +/- %
State Clinton Bush  E.Margin  No.Polled  When     Source
 AL     47     47    3.5       525      8/24-27  Alabama Report
 AZ     42     36    5         410      8/29-30  KAET-TV
 VT     46     31    5         417      8/23-24  Burlington Free Press

Arizona is the biggest surprise here.
-----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Many are sure, few are right.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11940 talk.politics.misc:42799 alt.politics.bush:3451 alt.politics.clinton:3473
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:47:32 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

> In <rrqyzl#@rpi.edu> jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>
> >In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbi
> >>ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS
>
> >>-----
> >>Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
> >>-----
>
> >>DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
> >>evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
> >>amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
> >>to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
> > ...
>
> >>Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
> >>political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
> >>kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
> >>become lesbians."
> > ...
>
> >I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
> >(anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
> >Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?
>
> >-->             U                                                  _/ \_
>
> I'm sure this isn't the example Mr. Robertson had on hand when he made
> the comment, but its still verifiable. A magazine published out of
> Alberta, called Western Report, ran an article recently about a
> feminism conference sponsored in part by the Alberta government. Among
> the workshops offered were courses on witchcraft/wicca, seminars on
> lesbian relationships, pagan worship ceremonies, etc.
>
> So much for separation of church and state! :)
>
> And, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work!
>
> Michael

In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out in
my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
and other such nonense.  It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
years later.




|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|
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Seeking citation: Falwell criticizes Dems 'new covenant' phrase
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:12:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.

[Originally posted to t.r.m.; sorry for the duplication]

Does anyone happen to recall (as I do, vaguely) a newspaper article, I 
think it was immediately before the Repub. Convention, in 
which Jerry Falwell & two other clergypersons criticized Clinton & 
Gore's use of biblical themes; (Biblical
themes are obviously the exclusive province of Republicans :-) )

I have checked several places, and I can't now verify this news item.

Note: I am aware the more recent complaint about the Repubs., and that's 
not the one I'm looking for. I'm looking for a
complaint about the Dems *by* the Repubs 'court prophets'.

(Even if you post, please e-mail me any response as well, as propagation
problems may interfere with me seeing it).  

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Hey, say what you will about Homer Simpson, but
at least he has a job, owns his own house, and didn't have more
kids than he can feed!"
			Jay Leno
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:26:16 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>We all know the arms shipment was an attempt to deal with what we thought
>were the "moderate" elements in Iran and to play them against the clerics.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This has since been defined as Iranians who have run out of ammunition.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:14:59 GMT

In article <1684EBE20.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
>Here's a politician who actually wote his own speech- a very fine one, I think,
>with some wonderful humor in it- and the critics spend their time faulting
>him for not knowing that his reference source is in dispute by Lincoln
>scholars? Obviously the man is capable of anything...! ;-)

Admittedly, Reagan is one of the fines speech-readers of this century,
but when was the last time he actually wrote one?  Peggy Noonan must
have been doing something during the 1980s.



--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections