HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.183217.14282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale) writes:

>
>In article <PA146008.264.715036128@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Daid Veal) writes:
>>      It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
>> "serious whacko."  However, I've seen his letter quoted six times
>> from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
>> objects to.
>>
>>      Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
>> baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
>
>The amendment changes the consistution as follows (this is from memory:)
>
>It says that there can be no discrimination based on sex.

     I know this much.  I was looking more for the exact wording.
What people say laws say and what laws actually say are two different
things.   That's why politicians have such fun naming their bills things
like "Civil Rights Act of 1992" etc., knowing that no matter what they
put into the "Civil Rights Act" is is political suicide to oppose it.
"What?  Only *racists* oppose civil rights laws!"

     Is there anybody out there who knows what this amendment says?


========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep2.130219.5028@cbnews.cb.att.com> <Btz1D2.K61@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:37:18 GMT

In article <Btz1D2.K61@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>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?

I don't think that it is dishonest to leave out a candidate whose party at the
last election got less than 1% of the winner's votes (Bush 48'886'097, Ron Paul
432'179). In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls would be
somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a small extremist party.

On the other hand, I think that people responding with "None of the Above"
should be asked about their preference, and candidates receiving more than
about 2% should be reported in the results.

BTW, the next two candidates in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke. Are you
suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Clinton's lies
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:10:04 GMT

saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:

>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>>From a recent speech of Slippery Bill's:
>> 
>>"  Our productivity has fallen way below that of other rich countries
>>like Germany and Japan..."
>> 
>>But Japan's productivity is 80% of that of the US, and Germany's, 75%.
>>And US productivity grew twice as fast in the 80s as in the 70s.

>But I read a few months ago in US News & World Reports that
>the rate of productivity increase for Japan and Germany is larger than
>the US's. 

This means that Germany and Japan are currently closing the gap as far
as productivity is concerned. It doesn't seem to suggest that their
productivity has surpassed ours, however. Also, it would be important
to know how long these countries have been closing the gap. If it is a
one or two year phenomenon, then it is not very meaningful. It seems as
if Clinton was inaccurate, intentional or not.

.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kpbg3203@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kestutis P. Boyev)
Subject: Doctor of Gonzo
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:38:15 GMT

 Dear Folks:  
     I don't mean to devalue the insight I gain from reading this newsgroup,
     but I'm afraid the current election year is so confusing that I need
     a true expert to explain it to me.  To that end, I ask the general 
     question,

     Does Dr. Hunter S. Thompson still write about politics?
     Has he got some kind of syndicated column that some people are 
     reading but which has escaped my notice?  I know he put out a
     book recently, but where is the razor-sharp commentary on 
     current stuff like Bush v. Clinton?

     Does he still write?  Is he still alive?

     Any information will be appreciated.  Post to alt.politics.elections or 
     e-mail to me at kpbg3203@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (internet).

			 K. Paul Boyev

			  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western)
Subject: Clinton leads new poll by 34 points
Keywords: yes
Organization: Ramona Engineering, Inc.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:49:41 GMT

Yep, it's:

        Clinton         67%
        Bush            33%

I asked three people the following question:

        Which presidential candidate has the longest name?

All results are completely official, of course, plus/minus 100%.

ObPol: I guess the Bushman wasn't kidding when he said he would do
anything to win. Now he's pissed off his buddy, China. And for this
we stayed silent while Democracy-loving Chinese went to prison?
        - Jim Western
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Remember, if you have an agreement with someone and you think they owe
   you money, don't take the law into your own hands. Carve their fucking
                              organs out."
                                              - The Bizarro Doug Lewellyn
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:16:18 GMT

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:


>In a previous article, jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) wrote:
>>Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
>>aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
>>ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
>>air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
>>will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
>>The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
>>to the cheering throng.
>>
>Each plane will display a yellow Gulf War ribbon, hand-painted by Dan Quayle.

>I saw part of Bush's speech to a similar crowd about sales of fighter 
>planes to Taiwan (I think). 

>As we know, nobody in this election has a monopoly on pandering...

>-

Yah, god forbid we should sell fighters to a country which will
use them to maintain their national security and identity separate
from such a paragon of virtue like Communist China.

Let's not forget that this is the first time Bush has risked
pissing off the Communist Chinese. And what happens but all
the retarded liberals start attacking him for it...

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:08:49 GMT

In article <168509AE6.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>
>>> Here's the AP wire report on the Pat Robertson letter.
>>>
>>
>     (deleted)
> 
>>Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
>>amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
>>
>>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
>I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
>shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be running
>around loose.

     It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
"serious whacko."  However, I've seen his letter quoted six times 
from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
objects to.

     Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
 
>Jim McMaster

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:10:39 GMT

In article <guido.715381022@sparc-3>
guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci) writes:
 
>
>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>
>
>Using your past statement that it takes about a year for a
>presidents policies to take effect we have for Carter:
>         (% increase)  (% of workforce)
>year     CPI    Unemployment            Misery index
>78       7.6    6.0                     13.6
>81      10.3    7.5                     17.8  Increase of about 31%
>
>Where do you get "more than doubled inflation and unemployment"?
>I guess you where trying to make a rhetorical point?
>
>>
I guess by leaving out 80, the election year, you're trying to dissemble?
Look at the monthly figures for fall of 1980. Even allowing for statistical
fluctuations we're still well over 20.
 
>>The "October Surprise" argument is pure bullshit, an attempt to criminalize
>>any and all acts by a non-Democratic executive branch. When Kennedy and
>>his cabinet lied about the secret prototcols, did we have a call for
>>criminal indictment?
>
>No, we shot them. :-)  More seriously, what non-Democratic executive
>branch?  The October surprise is talking about events before
>Reagan got elected.  Last time I checked Carter was a Democrat and
>so the executive branch was Democratic.  Maybe you meant to say
>"any and all acts by a non-Democratic non-executive branch."
>
More silly dissembling. It's part of the general disorganized effort to
use criminal law to overturn the results of a popular election by either
criminalizing the real actions of the executive, or by fabricating events
to create the illusion of criminal action. The "Surprise" bullshit is just
one more silly bit.
 
We had a wonderful example of this when some brain-dead undergraduate
(I assume) attempted to charge the Republican Party with treason for
allowing a minister to speak at their convention. Whereas the Rev. Jesse
Jackson's speech at a few Democratic conventions was, uh, something else.
This kid was so brain dead he thought a party convention constituted an
official branch of government.
 
Hey, maybe he'll charge the entire Supreme Court with treason for taking
their oaths on a bible.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
From: r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:27:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <JASON.92Sep3145714@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>	Going back to politics, the GOP family values plank is not
>pushing toward laws to enforce some narrow moral view but to promote a
>value system that is meant to keep the family together and keep kids
>from growing up under unsupportive and impoverished conditions.  Don't
>be mislead by the press trying to tie this in with religious
>extremists like Pat Robertson, because it is not a religious issue.
>Anyone who has been through financial or emotional hardship knows how
>important it is to have your family there to get you back on your
>feet.

...especially when daddy is U.S. senator or grandfather happens to be a
multi-millionaire.



Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: NASA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:50:39 GMT

David Redish writes
> Most of the best presidents we have ever had have had 
> mistresses, some of them in them in the White House.

  And that's not limited to just our presidents; some of our finest statesmen  
have succumbed to the same guilty pleasures.  My all-time favorite is Ben  
Franklin, who once remarked that he preferred older mistresses, "because they  
are more appreciative."

  I wouldn't advocate anyone having an extramarital affair.  I don't think  
Clinton would, either, with the benefit of hindsight.  (I suppose GHWB is one  
of those rare individuals who was able to learn all of life's lessons by doing  
everything right the first time.)  But I don't think it's really relevant to  
presidential politics.  In '88, one of Gary Hart's campaign advisors was quoted  
as saying, "Someone who would base his vote for or against a candidate based on  
whether or not he had had a liaison probably wouldn't vote for Hart in the  
first place."  Good words; unfortunately, Gary didn't listen to them himself.

  I'm afraid the moral war being waged by the religious right has caused us to  
lose, among other things, our sense of humor.  Then again, I often find Jesse  
Helms' speeches to be quite entertaining... :-)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: Clark University
Date: 29 AUG 92 01:11:32 GMT


In a previous article, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) wrote:
>All I want to know is if he
>actually admited to having an affair with her and what is the source of 
>your information so I can look it up for myself.
>-- 
>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
>Publications Coordinator - User Services
>Rutgers University Computing Services

I can't quote you an actual source, but from various interviews (such 
as his appearance on "60 Minutes" after the story broke) I believe he 
only went so far as to admit to having had marital problems. 

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Negativity at conventions
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 02:49:17 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <22971@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:
>MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
]: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
]: But the Republicans, on the other hand -- the invective being directed
]: at the entire Democratic Party is, well, awe-inspiring. They've accused
]: the Democrats -- EVERY one of the millions of people who identify themselves
]: as Democrats -- as being depression-causing, tax-raising, business-closing,
]: <deletion>
]: Now, my questions: Why do the Republican speakers feel compelled to pour
]: such vitriol on the Democratic Party?
]
]Because the economy (and society) are in awful shape, and
]if it isn't Bush's fault then it must be somebody's.  The

More accurately, because when it comes to arguing about the cause
of current problems, the Democratic Congress shares much of the blame.
The republicans are railing about the democratic congress, and the
party as exemplars of what Clinton and Gore's behavior and policies
are likely to be.
-- 
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
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:35:34 GMT

In article <cQh-Ad@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <BtHuDE.5II@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>|> In article <67+nz3d.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>|>>
>|>>So I am proposing merging the two taxes into the umbrella of the Income Tax
>|>>and to discontinue having the ~$55K ceiling on it since it would be buried
>|>>int he Income Tax anyway and making adjustments in the tax rates would
>|>>be able to provide the effect if still desired.
>|> 
>|>   I agree.  We need to eliminate this draconian %15 surtax on the poor
>|>   as well as middle class, and replace it with a flat rate income tax.
>|>   The first ~$8-10,000 of one's income should be exempt from taxes
>|>   altogether.
>
>I sort-of agree.  I agree that we need a flat tax.  I agree that the
>first $x in income should be exempt.  $8-10,000 is reasonable but I
>wouldn't be adverse to it being higher.  I agree that FICA should
>be eliminated but I disagree that it should simply be rolled into
>the income tax.  Social Security must be phased out or it will simply
>be a continuing drain on the government.  We should start by reducing
>FICA to the point where the revenues meet current expenditures.  The
>difference between that rate and the current rate should be put into
>a retirement investment of the individuals choosing.  In this way
>we meet our obligations to current (and soon to be current) retirees
>and yet still encourage people to save for their own retirement.
>Overtime the tax needed to support current expenditures could be
>eliminated.  I think it would be vital that this tax be explicit
>so that individuals can see when it is lowered.
>
>
>
How about simply indexing the tax on whatever the poverty level is for an
x-member family? That would allow for a sliding scale as said poverty level
for a single person living alone would be much different than a person working
for 5 dependents.

An intelligent, possible meeting on common ground in a politics section by 
people of diverse political views?  Did I take a wrong turn in talk.bizzare? :)



>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Tom H.

-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 4 Sep 1992 07:03:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


From dxc4 Fri Sep  4 02:56:21 1992
Received:  by thor.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5-freenet)
	id AA09668; Fri, 4 Sep 92 02:56:21 -0400 (from dxc4 for /usr/local/bin/m2mbox /u/10/dxc4/mbox)
Message-Id: <9209040656.AA09668@thor.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 02:56:21 -0400
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
To: john@anasazi.com
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Cc: dxc4
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)



In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:
>
>I see... your cousin got lucky and now I don't know what I am talking
>about. I almost enlisted in the army in 1966, and I got the word that they
>could not guarantee me ANYTHING. As I later found out during my tour in
>the Navy, the military at that time would never guarantee anything to
>anyone. There are lots of people who were sweet talked by recruiters
>into joining the army to avoid Vietnam, who ended up going there
>right after boot camp. ==> I don't doubt that.

I cancelled my article just a few minutes after writing, realising that
the statement, as well as the tone, were indefensible. It looks like the 
cancel either didn't make it to your site or was not implemented.

>
>Once you are sworn in to the military, you serve at THEIR pleasure, doing
>whatever THEY want, wherever THEY want it. Sounds like you have never
>experienced the military.

You are right. I think, though, that the answer is somewhere in between.
If you enlisted, you could at least state a preference as to what your
training, and therefore your duties, would be. You had no guarantee that
that preference would be honored. That is my understanding, second hand
though it is.

>
>So, there is MY direct experience. What's yours? Or, is it perhaps YOU
>who don't know what you are talking about.
>
My apologies.





 
-- 
          "In universities, it is forbidden to teach nonsense. 
          But the _history_ of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"

                                            -- Saul Lieberman