HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:13:22 GMT

In article <17uk8uINNdoo@agate.berkeley.edu>
bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>
>
>Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states:
>  ...
>    The senators and representatives beforementioned, and the members
>  of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
>  officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
>  be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but
>  no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>  office or public trust under the United States

     When you tool up your flame-thrower, it's proper form to
make sure your facts are straight.  Your quote is from Article
VII, not article VI.

>
>The Republican Convention was treasonous.

     It is also good form to understand the terms you are throwing
about.  Specifically:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort."
     Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1, the Constitution of the
United States.

     The reason behind this little jewel was to prevent exactly what
you are trying to pull;  defining some act as violating the "ideals"
of the United States or even the Constitution, and arbitrarily
declaring it treason.

     Also, since your claim is obviously false, not fitting the
criteria for treason, you yourself may be breaking the law and
commiting libel.

>Bush's continued embrace
>with the religious right is dangerous to the survival of the union.

     I see no evidence of treason, here.  I also think you're
going way, way overboard suggesting that the religious right
is "dangerous to the survival of the union."  They aren't all
that friendly toward a lot of rights, but there aren't a *lot*
of groups that aren't, and certainly none of the nationally
powerful groups.  They just like to step on different rights.

>That Buchanan was not denounced for his viciousness and small-
>mindedness is sufficient proof that parlous forces are being unleashed
>by the GOP.

     Buchannon is an ass.  That part of the money which allowed
him to speak to the nation was public just adds insult to injury.

     It is his right, however, to speak as he will, and I see no
treason here.

>The defections of conservatives such as George Will and William
>Safire show the execrable orthodoxy of Houston.

     Conservative does not equal Republican any more than liberal
equals Democrat or libertarian equals Libertarian.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
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 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The Cultural Elite?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:28:06 GMT

DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:

>So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
>warning us about anyway?
[...]

For many, the phrase is code for "Jews".

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: REPUBLICRAT/DEMOPUBLICAN TAX SUBSIDY
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:23:45 GMT

In article <exukjb.102.714943234@exu.ericsson.se>,
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>Does anyone know much about the Hoover Institution?  I think they put out a
>journal called Libertarian Review.  How can one contact this institution?

The Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace is located on the
campus of Stanford University and is node HOOVER on BITNET.
However, they were never the publishers of Libertarian Review, a
publication which folded a number of year ago.  Hoover is a think
tank with a conservative bent although they do count a fair number
of libertarians (and liberals) among their senior fellows including
Milten Friedman.

/June
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12256 alt.politics.bush:3885 alt.politics.clinton:3849 talk.politics.misc:43358
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fonts of Wisdom
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:14:39 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <STEINLY.92Aug31175430@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.193504.28134@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>   [anyone want to do, say, Buchanan, Pat Robertson or Mr. Marrou? :-)]
>
>Marrou: Kid wants water she can go buy a glass! Or maybe some rich
>philanthrope type will pay to fix it; if not, we'll round up the
>neighbours and fix it ourselves, but then no outside weirdos get
>to drink our water or we'll blow 'em away.
>
Come on now...if we're gonna lampoon Libertarians at least give a good, typical
Libertarian answer:

Marrou: I think we need to look at why this fountain is broken. It's because
this is a fountain paid for with stolen taxpayer loot and maintained by an
unresponsive, dictatorial government. Now, if we PRIVATIZED all the water
fountains in America - then the owners would have a vested interest in
making sure they worked, and the increased competition amongst water fountain
services would assure that this little girl could always find a working one
to drink from.

Hmm...kinda makes sense in way....:-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: an ominous sign
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:59:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181252.10548@lucid.com>,
johng@lucid.com (John Gregory) writes:
>
>In my home town of Redwood City, CA there is
>a section of town where the streets are
>named for Presidents.  There is a cross
>street running from Jefferson to Roosevelt
>that is named.... Clinton.
>
>Prescient street planning? :-)

Can I assume it's a oneway street running *from* Jefferson *to*
Roosevelt?  :-)

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:31:12 GMT

It is a measure of the unbelieveable and unmitigated venom that some
academics and media types have for Reagan that they find they must
attack him for using a reference that apparantly mis-attributes quotes!
Even Joe Biden, who stole chunks of speeches knowingly, didn't suffer
as much at the hands of the critics as does Reagan.
 
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...! ;-)
 
  --mike
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12035 talk.politics.misc:42970 alt.politics.bush:3604 alt.politics.clinton:3601
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Aug30.141205.27600@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <X2NaqB6w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys!  All those RC are evil
>papists, in the employ of Satan.  Being dominated by the religious
>right is GOOD!
>


Are you talking about that well-known Roman Catholic, Pat Buchanan?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11839 talk.politics.misc:42550
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: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:13:58 GMT

In article <guido.715627157@sparc-3>
guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci) writes:
 
>
>>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>>>
>>>  I was just responding to an apparently popular view that we should stop
>>>investigating possible links between the Iran Hostage crisis and subsequent
>>>U.S. arms shipments to Iran.  The only points I brought up were:
>>>
>>>        1.  The first arms shipment to Iran was made six weeks after Reagan
>>>            took office.
>>>
>>>        2.  Reagan won the 1980 election, in part, because of the public's
>>>            perception that he would be more militant in his dealings with
>>>            Iran.
>
>One major problem that needs to be explained is why the hurry?
>Even if you believe everything rationalizing Reagan's actions, why
>were shipments made so quickly after taking office.
>
I fail to see how that supports any such contention.
 
>    1) The hostages were already released.
>    2) Reagan had just taken office and was/should have been busy
>       getting his administration organized.
 
It may not have occured to you that the electee has a full two months
to accomplish that before taking office.
 
>    3) Getting the arms shipped in a clandestine way required a
>       a significant amount of planning and effort.
 
Surprisingly, governments often consist of more than one person. Or is
competency and efficiency automatically in doubt? I'd think the nearly
60 days prior to taking office plus the 45 days hence would allow enough
time to plan and propose, contact the Iranians and cut a deal.
 
Wasn't it just the other day the Bush administration was condemned for
taking *two* *entire* *days* to ship a few planeloads of supplies to
florida? And there, he had to deal with Democrats. Iranians should be
trivial.
>
>    So why was Reagan in such a big hurry to ship arms for supposedly
>    longer term goals of improving relations with "moderates"?
 
If you take the giant leap of faith and accept that the new administration
was in "a big hurry". What would you have recommended? Waiting another two
months? How long a delay would it take for you to not see some evil cabal
at work? What's the critical delay that denotes suspicious behavior?
 
So the entire "surprise" case now rests, for the critic quoted above, on
one damning fact: The arms shipments were made "too quickly".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Reagan's quote
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:22:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>Since so many True Believers think that Regan's attribution of a quote
>to Lincoln makes him a candidate for the Inquisition, what about Clinton's
>defense of his draft dodging, in which he justified his lack of service
>by listing "good leaders" with no service record?
> 
>He listed, among others, Abraham Lincoln. Well, it's fairly well known by
>Lincoln scholars, historians and people who attended high school that Lincoln
>was a *captain* in the state militia. I guess that puts Clinton in the
>same sleazy category as Reagan, hmm?

Strawman argument du jour, huh? In Clinton's speech to the American Legion, 
he quoted Lincoln joking about his lack of military experience (something 
about only losing blood to mosquitoes). Also, Clinton mentioned that Lincoln 
served briefly in some context, but saw no action. His main point was that
Lincoln would have found the argument silly about whether a Presidential 
candidate needs to have combat experience.

Note that such a requirement would effectively disqualify women
from the Presidency. Have Republican sages addressed that point?

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Bush Blinks
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:27:10 GMT

Bradley K. Sherman writes
> Bush has backed out of a proposed series of debates with Clinton.
> The debate time, place and format were suggested by a bipartisan
> committee.  Clinton has accepted.

  Maybe Clinton will show up and debate an empty chair.  Bring back any  
memories?  :-)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Great Britain's View of Bush (Was: The Swedish view on Bush)
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:08:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <Aug.28.10.04.32.1992.5397@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>summers%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug24.140718.27714@ericsson.se> etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se writes:
>
>>THANK YOU!  Would other non-Americans care to report what their
>>papers are saying?  In general, I would think that other countries
>>would have less bias (either conserative or liberal), and its always
>>nice to see what the world thinks of the Americal political dream. :)
>
>I just returned from two weeks in Great Britain and was amazed at how
>biased the television media was against Bush.  Not that I was offended,
>but I was surprised.  They were much more biased against him than even
>our own media sources.
>
>For example, during coverage of the Republican convention, the tone of
>the commentary went along the lines of "In an effort to pull his political
>career out of the toilet, Bush said ____".  All the television and radio
>stories that I heard sounded like that.
>
>Clinton was only referred to as Bush's opponent.  I didn't hear anything
>about him other than that.

Hold on a sec. You're basically right: no-one here thinks Bush has a
snowball's chance in hell of winning, but the tone you refer to is not biased
against GB, just an accurate reflection of what's going on, according to
the pollsters in the US. I watched some of that Republican convention, and
maybe Paxman was a poor choice to anchor coverage, being the most snide and
superior sh*t on either side of the pond, but the color commentary, from which
most of that sort of remarks came, was by local political commentators, not
the BBC's.

The bottom line is no-one cares too much over here, because we're a little too
wrapped up in Maastricht and Bosnia. The US elections provide light relief:
it's better than any of the soaps you've so kindly sent us!  ;-)

The Wisp.

PS If you think the coverage is biased now, you should have seen it during our
own elections...
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:02:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.154414.17551@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <rrqyzl#@rpi.edu>, jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>|> 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?

>	"New Age" religion.

What exactly does this entail?
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dletcher@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Drew Letcher)
Subject: Iowa Political Securities Markets prices
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:56:23 GMT


IOWA POLITICAL SECURITIES MARKETS

Prices as of Thursday August 27, 1992

PRESIDENTIAL VOTE SHARE  (Dividends based on Nov. 3 Vote Share)

                  Bid     Ask    Last
     BUSH       0.437   0.481   0.468
     CLINTON    0.444   0.485   0.464
     PEROT      0.052   0.066   0.065

PRESIDENTIAL PLURALTIY  (Dividend of winner pays $1/share, others $0)

                  Bid     Ask    Last
     BUSH       0.432   0.454   0.428
     CLINTON    0.548   0.554   0.548
     PEROT      0.015   0.028   0.020

To see the latest prices:
(You must have a full screen terminal. Telnet-3270 will not work.)

     telnet ipsm.biz.uiowa.edu or 128.255.44.2

For more information contact:

     email: ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu
     phone: (319) 335-0881

The IPSM is a non-profit research project of the University of Iowa,
College of Business Adminstration.

-- 
Drew Letcher            | Specializing in PC network application programming.
Systems Programmer      | DOS, Netware, NetBIOS, IPX/SPX, etc.
drew-letcher@uiowa.edu  | 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11694 alt.politics.clinton:3180 alt.politics.bush:3116
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 06:41:50 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug24.005615.7132@ncsu.edu> 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.  

Bush disagrees with you here. He thinks the best bet is to compromise,
and then denounce the compromise, so that he can have his cake and eat
it too.

Neither Bush nor you have ever said what they would do if this were 1990
and they had it to do all over again. (Be specific!)

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: stacysm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Stacy + Audra)
Subject: Question about speeches.....
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:09:55 GMT

   This may sound like a stupid question, and may have nothing to do
with what this news group usually talks about, but I could think of
nowhere else to ask it.
   What are the small rectangular tinted pieces of glass that are 
on metal bars on either side of the president whenever he makes a speech
used for?  I have always wondered.  It's the kind of thing that keeps
you up a night, know what I mean?  
   Anyways, an answer would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks for your time.

	Steve
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush Blinks
Date: 4 Sep 1992 05:40:39 GMT
Organization: United States of America
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


Bush has backed out of a proposed series of debates with Clinton.
The debate time, place and format were suggested by a bipartisan
committee.  Clinton has accepted.

I suppose that between accusing Congress of spending too much and
promising billions of dollars in spending, he doesn't have enough
cognitive capacity to try to respond to a direct question.
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

The family values candidate? Check out the ethical status of his sons.
A case study in how to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by
investing in businesses which fail.  Nice work if you can get it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections