HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:10:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170431.17854@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
>In article <MATT.92Oct5103321@physics16.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>|> In article <1067@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>|> 
>|> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
>|> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  
>|> 
>|> Funny.  In this country, it is legal for me to marry a woman but
>|> illegal for me to marry a man.  This doesn't look very much like
>|> "equal protection of the law."
>|> 
>|> Or is it your opinion that the marriage laws of all fifty states are
>|> in fact unconstitutional?
>|> --
>
>This is not a value judgement, just a comment.
>
>There is no right that heterosexuals have with regard to marriage that
>homosexuals do not have.  Homosexuals *choose* not to marry, because
>they are not attracted to people of the opposite gender.  Heterosexuals
>living with people of the same gender do not have "marriage" rights
>either, because a marriage is currently defined in our society as a
>special bond and legal contract between 1 man and 1 woman.  There is
>no statement of sexual orientation anywhere, though it is certainly
>implied.  But the law does not state the homosexuals cannot marry.

Hmmm...I wonder why gays have been not allowed to get a marriage 
license in many states, and *why* it was billed as such a large
step forward in (I think) Washington state when gays were allowed
to enter into a contract approximating marriage in many legal senses 
(insurance, health care, inheritence, etc), but was STILL NOT A
MARRIAGE LICENSE...I wonder...

John
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:11:44 GMT

In article <5989@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>Wrong, that's been the liberals' answer to everything. Why do you think
>Bush and Republicans accuse Democrats of "tax and spend" policies?
>-- 

Because Bush will say anything in order to get reelected.  
Because he wants to deflect attacks that he supported the 
nation's second biggest tax increase and
his illustrious predecessor supported the biggest, 
that he's supported the fastest growth in government spending 
of any president in this nation's history, government spending
that would have been even greater if Congress hadn't reined
in his tendencies to throw money around recklessly, that under
President Reagan and Bush the national debt has quadrupled and the
annual deficit has gone up an order of magnitude.   
Irresponsible "tax and spend" policies have been the hallmark
of the past twelve years.  The Republicans and Bush accuse
Democrats of those policies to cover their own excess.


John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Bush a cocaine user?
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:29:04 GMT



Didn't anyone notice the funny bit during the debate where
George Bush took a deep sniff (with appropriate gestures)
as he said the word 'cocaine'?

Hmmm...  Reflex reaction??   :-)


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: About the VP debate.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:05:19 GMT

In article <CASEY.92Oct15143454@anxiety.lexmark.lex.usa.na> pacasey@lexmark.com writes:
>
>Didn't it strike anyone besides me as incredibly rude, how Quayle
>interrupted Gore during Gore's opening remarks?  (The Truman, Kennedy
>comment). 

I was struck, too.  Grrr.

>Keep in mind that I'm talking about the first part of the debate only.
>Everybody was interrupting everybody else later, but that was mostly
>during the "free exchange" part I believe.
>
>Also, am I the only one who would love to get rid of the audiences in
>these debates?  No matter what the moderators say, the audience
>INSISTS on clapping, howling, hissing, drooling, etc.

Sadly true.  Another thing that I noticed in the VP debate
was the interruptions by the moderator.  I had heard
(apparently mistakenly) that the debate was to be "free-format",
but every time the exchange got interesting, another
new topic was inserted by the moderator.  Boo hiss.

This sort of moderator power play can get totally frustrating.
Example:  in a debate for a local office I saw recently,
the moderator asked a question about environmental policy.
The candidates exchanged views, but when one candidate
began to discuss the endangered species act, the moderator
junped in and said "oh, we're going to discuss this later"
and changed the topic.  ARGH!  SHUT UP!

Preferred debate format:
(1) No audience.
(2) Moderator asks a seed question, then leaves the stage
for 15 minutes.
(3) Have at least one debate containing ALL candidates
on the ballot in all 50 states.

Less serious suggestions:
(4)  Allow candidates to bring props (books, laptop computers,
potato, noise makers, etc.)
(5)  Have the TV camera pointing at a candidate be manned
by a cameraman from the other party.
(6)  Replace the curtain backdrop behind the candidates
with an "Evade-O-Meter" and a "Sleaze-O-Meter",
making it easier for us at home to keep score.

>Patrick A. Casey      pacasey@lexmark.com         Hi, I.S. big brothers!


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:24:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.022810.3737@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) wr
ites:
>In article <29165@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for Pres
ident) writes:
>
> ["a distortion" deleted]
>
>> DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE U.S.
>>
>> RHETORIC: "I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own
>> country. I just find it impossible to understand how an American can
>> demonstrate against his own country"
>
>Bush did not say this.  He said he thought it was wrong to demonstrate
>against your own country *IN A FOREIGN* country, and to organize
>demonstrations against your country *IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY*.  This is
>a bit of prevarication to sucker the people who didn't watch the
>debate, and those with memory problems.
>
Actually, the "in a foreign country" bit was added on later, after it was seen 
that the original line was getting alot of criticism.  Bush's orignial 
statement was as quoted above.

>
> [more stuff deled]
>>--
>Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
[etc., etc]
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   |
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  _Anyone_But_Bush_ '92
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Why the Dems make poor financial leaders...
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:09:54 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Stupendous Man writes:
>
>>   He didn't mention his secretive Competitiveness Council, Iraq
>
>	Secretive?  Maybe to Gore & Clinton :).
>
>>  Gate or Iran Contra eventhough George Bush - just hours before the
>>  debate - finally admitted he knew about the arms-for-hostage deal
>>  with Iran after he denied it for the past six years.
>
>	*Yawn*.  And?  Will Willie document his flip-flops on the draft for us?
>

This is where things get all shimmery for me...the mystical, magical
Thomistic hair-splitting...

It has long been obvious and is now documented that Bush has repeatedly
lied about his involvement in the arms-for-hostages cave-in with Iran.
And now it is obvious and will soon be indictable that his White House
actively obstructed justice to hide the depth of Bush's appeasement
of Saddam.  [It's ironic that he now touts the "presidential" qualities
of Dan Quayle since it has always been the specter of Dan's ineptitude
which supposedly made George impeachment proof.]

Has Clinton lied about his draft record? I would say so. I don't
think a reasonable person would doubt that. Is that a tad less wicked
than Bush's Middle East duplicities? In a political campaign
I can't imagine a Bush supporter saying so: they've bet the house
that the "character" issue will stick. But I can't imagine
the Objective Observer who wouldn't lift his robes and point the 
chalky finger of accusation at Bush and say "Begone!"
[Love that melodrama]

Bush's plight reminds me of that song from "West Side Story" --
Officer Krupke:

Officer Krupke, you've done it again!
This boy don't need a job, he needs a year in the pen!

Ta, ta. George. I understand Danbury is pleasant in a confining
sort of way.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9803 alt.politics.perot:1972 alt.politics.bush:8688
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:53:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

My impression of the debate:


SUMMARY

CLINTON: Charismatic but confused

BUSH: Defensive, weak attacks, more civilized than expected but no real point

PEROT: Strong agenda, ready to kick ass and take names


Bush fell to the old standards (4 more years, peace through strength, etc) with
a few weak exceptions.  The attacks he did make were either on non-issues or
were factually suspect.

Clinton maintained his image but failed to make any real ground.  Seemed 
visibly surprised by Perot's influence on the debate.  Made good points
on drug (non)-issue and defense.  Thwarted lame Bush attacks.

Perot came off as the big winner.  Basically stole each of the other 
candidate's thunder.  Elaborated on plans to enact immediately upon election.
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10384 talk.politics.misc:51713 alt.politics.bush:9125
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:16:37 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct14.144919.13588@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Okay, the facts:
>His [Clinton]proposal won't raise the amount of money he claims, and will
>further dampen the economy. This will leave him with two choices:
>raise taxes on lower income taxpayers, or increase the deficit.
>	Neither is acceptable.

I have some problems with the Clinton plan, myself. But let's look at
the Bush plan. Across the board tax cut. Capital gains tax cut.
Indexing. Export subsidies. Hurricane relief, including rebuilding
Homestead AFB. Claimed deficit reduction. Health care plan. Job
training.

Is there something missing?

Yes. Not one clue anywhere about how to pay for it. Not one!
Bush's so-called spending cuts, besides being inadequate amount-wise,
include things like cuts in grain subsidies which he has retracted
during the campaign.
That's even worse than Clinton!

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:31:09 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct10.200451.25877@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns) writes:
]I have an honest question for conservatives that plan to vote for George
]Bush.  Do you believe that while in  Moscow during 1969 that Bill Clinton
]met with and was influenced by the KGB or other anti-American forces?  Do
]you believe that this trip casts any doubt on his ability to be a good
]President?  If you say yes to either or both could you please explain
]the bases for the belief.

I believe that he was observed by the KGB, and that he probably met KGB
people, but that he didn't know it and that it doesn't make any difference
(ie, everyone going there at that time ran into the KGB). I don't know
if he met with any peace groups, since he won't tell us. If he did, they
were certainly anti-American. He probably didn't, but it is disturbing
that he lies about the incident (he claims to have met with anti-Soviet
students at Moscow University, which is an obvious fabrication). If he
met with students at Moscow University, the chances are that they
were instructed to attempt to influence him. Read "KGB" by John Barron
for a description of how they operated.

I believe that this trip, to the capital of the enemy, during a war,
while part of a group protesting the war, needs to be fully explained.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10926 talk.politics.misc:52375
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:13:39 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.153034.11574@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can
> point
>>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that
> was
>>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did
> not" vote
>>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.
> 
> Although true, it was noted by the media that Gore's affirmative vote was
> only after the CBI was part of a much larger piece of legislation. If he
> believed
> that the total package was too important to vote against for the sake of
> CBI,
> then this arguement is without merit.

	Which we'll remember when Dems start jeering when people say the prez
has no choice but to sign budgets, because the alternative is to shut down
government over some items (s)he doesn't want.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won NOT! (But he did...)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:23:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.170827.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>    (Let me add that I have a great deal of respect for the
>Admiral, I just wish he would have been less nervous and more
>prepared.  He definitely is a man worth listening to.)
>

it was hard to listen to his stories because i was hoping 
that Quayle would seriously overheat and Stockdale's war
stories cooled things down too much

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:36:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <ads3.14.718989065@PO.CWRU.edu> ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults) writes:
>In article <Bw2B0r.9yx@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>>If the economy is growing (or even staying stable), we are not in a
>>>a recession.  A recession is defined as a period of time during which
>>>GNP declines for two or more successive quarters.  Open up any
>>>Macroeconomics textbook for confirmation of that. 
>
>>   Another Usenerd answer.  Yes, technically this is correct.  But
>>   it's a "distinction without a difference".   Maybe we need some
>>   new word for whatever we're in, but slinging economic formalisms
>>   around the Net doesn't change the fact that the economy's in the
>>   toilet (open up any plumbing textbook).
>
>     there is a difference.  The economy is in bad shape.  However, If
>we were still in a recession, the economy would be getting even worse,
>instead of just staying consistantly bad.  We'd be headed toward the
>sewer instead of just being in the toilet.

   More Usenerdism.   "The economy" is not some amorphous lump.  We
   can *choose* what weighting to give various aspects of it.   For
   you, apparently, GDP is a measure of whether things are getting
   worse.  For others it might be jobs, for other interest rates, etc.
   
   I will suggest that since this is talk.POLITICS.misc we might want to
   use a metric that has a strong political effect, and I would suggest
   jobs.   Note that I'm aware this choice is somewhat arbitrary, so
   I'm not naive enough to suggest that this is some single metric
   that tells us whether the economy is in a recession.  


---peter









Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: test2
X-Xxdate: Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:07:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:10:24 GMT

this is another test.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle: from Dolt to Jerk
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:16:50 GMT
Reply-To: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Distribution: na
Organization: Group 101, MIT Lincoln Lab.
Originator: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)


In article <16944@pitt.UUCP>, grefen@cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes:
|> 
|> After last night's debate I was surprised by the commentator's
|> reactions,  particularly their suggestion that Quayle came off well.
|> 
|> Except for one commentator's remark that Quayle's nervous
|> laughter was a little troubling,  the rest seem to feel
|> that Quayle not coming off as a dolt as he did in 88
|> and only appearing as a jerk was a definite improvement.
|> 

  My sentiments exactly.  In my (highly unscientific) quickie analysis of
the post-debate coverage and the thoughts of coworkers, etc., I've decided
that there is a definite gender gap in the impressions of Quayle.  My wife
and most other women I talked to (my wife was raised moderate Republican)
all thought he came across as a complete jerk.  The macho men of the
airwaves, etc. seemed to conclude that his "agressiveness" was an asset
and a sign of growth, etc.  Of course, as I read in the paper before the
debate, all Quayle had to do was not break down into a quivering idiot (he
came close a couple times) to "win" the debate.  The NPR comments (people
wishing for Gore or other candidates for president) worry me: it points out
the gulliblity people still have for opposition mudslinging.  Clinton should
grab the trust issue by the horns in the first minutes of the debate
tomorrow, or else Bush might actually get some momentum going.

-- 
Dr. Marty Ryba                     |	Generation X:
Group 101 - Air Defense Techniques |
MIT Lincoln Laboratory             |  Too young to be cynical,
ryba@ll.mit.edu                    |		too old to be optimistic.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:26:45 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.

	So much for that "did not" denial :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Where will Bush want to have his library ? Maine or Texas
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:00:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.140858.4777@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.150035.26288@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>> 
>>    Next year, the Bush Presidential Library will need to be built. My 
>> question is, where will Bush want the library be built ?  Texas or Maine  
>
>	Texas.  Not enough people in Maine.

That fewer casual readers will look at his memoes might be considered
a plus...


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10817 talk.politics.misc:52229