HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:13:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1992Aug30.224116.13550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

[Lots of stuff deleted...]

>>I think he was probably talking about the industrial democracies.
>
>That's not what he said.  A lies is a lie is a lie.
>

Unless it's told by a Republican, at which point it becomes a mistake, right?

>>The
>>health care situation *for the population as a whole* is worse in the USA than
>>any country in Europe (with the obvious exception of Yugoslavia as was), in
>>addition to Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan Korea etc. etc...
>
>Evidence please...  To begin with, please define "The health care
>situation for the population as a whole."  I don't think you can and I
>think your statement above is just someone blowing hot air and
>propaganda out their ass.
>

OK, how about this? How many people in Europe, Oz, NZ, Canada and Japan (I
haven't got the stats for Korea...) have no health cover? Answer NONE. 35
million Americans don't: that's over 10% of the population. THAT makes the
health care situation worse in the US than in those other places, if you
happen to care what happens to other people. Of course, if you've got that
typical "f*ck you, Jack, I'm alright" attitude, then the evidence above won't
affect you.

As for the hot air crack, I always take it as a good sign that I'm on the
right track when someone who disagrees resorts to personal abuse. It's a
typical response from those who know they hold the moral low ground...

Cheers,

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     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^>)
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: 10% check-off proposal
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:57:34 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

}In article <POPAT.92Aug27174459@image.mit.edu>, popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat) writes...
}> 
}>I think the idea is that the 10% would be taken right off the top.  
} 
}If that's the case (it would be good if we knew for sure) then what 
}are they planning on cutting? This idea means nothing without making
}a huge cut in spending. 

Naw, you just raise everyone's taxes by 10%.  And blame it on Congress,
of course.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:29:44 GMT

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.
> 
> NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92
> 
> 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.
> 
> The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a
> broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.
> 
> But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
> of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
> proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
> rights for women."
> 
> 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."
> 
> Mr. Robertson, a 1988 Republican Presidential contender, included in
> the letter a plea that money be sent to the group Stop ERA to "help
> defeat ERA and defend the family in Iowa."
> 
> Betty Durden, head of the group Iowa Equal Rights Amendment 1992,
> said Mr. Robertson's letter was "ridiculous."
> 
> But Ione Dilley, a member of Stop ERA and chairwoman of the Iowa
> Christian Coalition, said that although she would not defend Mr.
> Robertson's references to child-killing and witchcraft, he was
> correct about hidden agendas.
> 
> She said her proof came from a hearing called by state officials
> seeking opinions on how the amendment should be summarized on the
> Iowa ballot.  She said the meeting had been attended by officials for
> the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and "the
> homosexuals."
> 
> "If this resolution to change our Constitution were not vital to
> them," Mrs. Dilley said, "why would they show up at this hearing?"
> --
> Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
> Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
> 			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
> 
> 

Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Unbiased media?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:17:26 GMT

The media, some of my correspondants claim, were no more biased against
the Republicans than the Democrats, proving again that faith is a
wonderous thing. Let's look at some quotes:
 
"For ten years Ronald Reagan taught us that there was a free lunch. Folks,
he said, we're going to cut your taxes and we're going to spend like there's
no tomorrow and you don't have to pay for it."
 --Sam Donaldson, "This Week with David Brinkley", 10/7/90
 
But as we saw, there was no tax cut. Total federal revenue increased about`
0.5% per decade from WWII to the present, regardless of the administration.
 
"Reagan, as commander in cheif, was the military's best friend. He gave the
Pentagon almnost everything it wanted. That spending, combined with a broad
tax cut..."   Tom Brokaw, NBC News Special, 12/27/90
 
As we saw, there was no tax cut- and Military spending decreased overall
through the 90s. The big increase was social spending. Housing spending
alone increased 65% (adjusted for inflation) from 1981, the year of the
last Carter Budget, to 1989. Health spending increased 63%. Nutrition and
Social Services held constant. Is Brokaw lying, or merely ignorant?
 
"It is really Reagan's fault: His steady emasculation of federal
domestic spending...." Marianne Means' column, 3/29/91
 
Are these people all that stupid? Or do they have a "damn the facts"
agenda to push? Did you know GNP was up 3.1% for the first quarter
of 1992? Haven't seen it reported, have you? That's because we're supposed
to be on a downward recessionary spiral, I suppose, and the facts be
damned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Summary: televangilist babble
Organization: Rentlicyot Pesasettleh Inrcuseni
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>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?

-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: No Answer from Clinton/Gore to This...
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:38:06 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Despite the radical differences between the Republican and Democratic
>platforms

Radical differences, eh?

Both are rabidly Prohibitionist.

One would prevent a woman from paying for an abortion, even if she
considered it moral.  The other would force a woman to pay for
abortions (through taxation), even if she considered it immoral.
NEITHER ONE leaves it to a woman's own choice.

If Reagan, Bush, or Quayle were to propose "boot camps", the social
democrats (I refuse to desecrate the word "liberal" by applying it to
them) would be shrieking holes in our eardrums.

The only way Clinton will ever have the motive to reconsider the
Democratic Party's despicable policy of toadying the prohibitioNazis
will be if Andre Marrou's campaign collects enough bucks to buy
network TV time, thereby becoming a profitable customer of The Media.
Then (maybe) he will get media coverage when he says: THE EMPEROR WEARS
NO CLOTHES.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: A challange to Clintonopiles
Organization: Clark University
Date: 2 SEP 92 21:13:11 GMT


In a previous article, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) wrote:
> 
>Since it's pretty clear that Clinton is
>going to be elected, let's make a wager on his economic performance. We'll
>use the "misery index" that Jimmy Carter was fond of. RIght now it's
>around 10, same as at the end of Ford's presidency. 3% inflation + 7%
>unadjusted unemployment.
> 
>Here's the challange: It should be child's play for Clinton to get the
>index under 10, right? He's promised us full employment and no inflation.
>How many of those with Jann Wenner's embarressing enthusiasm for Clinton
>are willing to bet me that Clinton will have the total misery index under 10
>by January 1, 1996? The details: If the index is under 10 by then I'll
>donate $100 to NOW. But first I want to see 10 Democrats who are willing,
>if the index is above 10, to donate $100 to Pat Robertson.
> 
Hardy-har-har. Nice to see you have a sense of humor, Mr. Edelman. I was
beginning to wonder. In this election I guess you'd better have one.

Clinton's penchant for trying to make things sound easy is what has kept
me from becoming "embarrassingly enthusiastic" about him. He has admitted
to this fault, but he could still stand to emphasize more the tough economic
choices ahead. He's got my vote, but I'm not a glazed-eyed drum-beating
supporter with embarrassing enthusiasm.

In any case, I'm not a registered Democrat either, so maybe I don't qualify
for your "contest." I agree to the terms, with one condition: not only would
you have to donate $100 to NOW, but you would also have to get a sex change
and join the Women Republicans league. Ha ha. 

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Cultural Elite?
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:53:16 GMT
 <1992Aug27.002806.18291@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


>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

With the far right taking such a predominant role in the GOP this year
I think you have a strong argument for your stance.

Marty Dart.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:57:20 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Aug31.193137.12032@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
>                 LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
> 
>      The Libertarian Party candidate for President, former Alaska State
> Representative Andre Marrou (AHN'-dray mah-ROO'), received 6 percent of the
> vote in an unscientific poll of users of the CompuServe computer network,
> Libertarian Party national vice chair Steve Dasbach (DOZZ'-bok) announced
> today.
> 
>      As of 27 August, Rep. Marrou had the support of 6 percent of the 1,443
> respondents to the question "For which Presidential candidate do you plan to
> vote in November?"
> 
>      President Bush had 44 percent, Governor Clinton 41 percent, "Someone
> Else" 3 percent, "No One" 1 percent, and "Undecided" had 5 percent.  The
> question was posed to CompuServe users starting on 20 August.

This is the highlight of the LP's campaign??

Sigh.  Was anyone here on a.p.e for the straw poll in April, where the a.p.e
readers were polled on who they would vote for in November?

The results were something like Perot with 40%, Marrou with 25-30%, and
Bush, Clinton, etc. far behind.  Self-selecting computer polls reveal
more about the net-readers' opinions than the general public's.  (See
the 1932/6 (?) Reader's Digest "poll" for a similar example.)

I've seen the Libertarians pull this kind of dishonest trick before (who
remembers "We won Dixville Notch"?), and it really does damage to their
reputation, IMHO.  It's like Brezhnev's old propaganda: the party says
things are getting better and better, while in fact the opposite is true.

Incidentally, I heard Marrou on a radio talk show -- 60 minutes, call-in
format. Damn, why hasn't anyone labeled him "Slick Andre" yet?  He's got
all the answers, canned and down pat (he said he'd have left the survivors
of Hurricane Andrew to fend for themselves without federal intervention),
and generally impressed me as a good candidate for hosting his own radio
talk show.  Not for President of the U.S.

Sadly, the LP will never gain more than a core of true-believers if they
go on this path.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The lie of "school choice"
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:36:06 -0500
Summary: get real
Keywords: sham
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I'm going to guess that most people in favor of school choice as a solution to 
all of our educational woes come from cities.

I grew up in western Wisconsin, from a town of less than 1500.  There was only
one school in town--in fact, we had students bussed in from two other towns and
a lot of farm routes to get my graduating class up to 80.

If I had wanted to go to another school, how would I have gotten there?

1)  My folks both worked, my mom starting at 7am.  I suppose I could have sat
around for an hour or two before school and the same after school.  I suppose
that if I wanted to be in an extra-curricular activity they could have gotten
me even later.  (My school had extra bus-times for extra-curriculars).

2)  Wait, of course the school that I choose will pick me up, right?  Let's say
they get kids from 50 different towns wanting to go there, they'll just find
the money somehow, right?  Of course, that may mean that they run short, so
thjey cancel some of the programs that were the reason I chose them in the
first place...

If schools compete, on what will they focus?

1)  Certainly no school board in the country right now is more concerned with
how good the football team instead of having textbooks less than 30 years old. 
No schoolboard will make extra efforts to have good jocksmanship instead of
high academic standards.  Never would such a thing happen.

2)  In my area, I'm sure that competition means that all of the science kids
would go to Osceola, all the future farmers to Grantsburg, all the artistic
ones to Somerset, with no confusion or muddle at all.


Let's be realistic here.  For those of us not in urban areas with a large
number of schools in close proximity, school choice is a sham and a rip-off.

Do you know the real reason why education is in such sorry shape in this
country?  The biggest single reason is because we don't give a damn about it. 
"Eggheads" and "wonks" and "brains" are all nerds and losers.  Character is
more of a political issue than having enough brains to make rational decisions.

P.S.  Instead of asking people who stayed in education why they stayed, you'll
get more insight asking people who left.  I hear thinks like parents who don't
care if their kids are learning as long as they pass, being told that they've
never done "real work" in their lives (including by the present VP), and a
slary that works out to less than the minimum wage when you figure in all the
real hours spent.






Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:54:12 GMT

In article <Btv02A.4C.2@cs.cmu.edu>
dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
 
>     [..]
>Why don't you ask Hilary Clinton if she trusts her husband?
>
Because her character judgement is already in question ;-)
 
   [...]
 
>Most of the best presidents we have ever had have had
>mistresses, some of them in them in the White House.
>
Ah, so it's an asset rather than a liability. I think I understand;
the more experience they have f*cking someone else, the better they'll
be at it when it comes to f*cking over the entire country.
 
Sort of makes Joseph P. Kennedy the spiritual father of the entire
Democratic party.`
 
         --mike
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Cultural Elite?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 19:46:26 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>     d. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who don't want big government
>        probing in their personal lives?
>
>     e. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who aren't satisfied with our
>        stagnant economy and want something better for America?
>
>     f. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who are fed up with record
>        unemployment and underemployment in this country and with an
>        administration that is oblivious to it all?

If to "want something better for America" than a "stagnant economy" and
to want the Government to be less "oblivious" to "record unemployment
and underemployment" means what it usually means in contemporary
political rhetoric--namely, to want massive Keynesian subsidies and
spending--then these desires necessarily imply massive taxation.  And
since human beings (as opposed to social insects or the New Socialist
Man of Lenin and Stalin) like to keep their earnings, massive taxation
of people necessarily implies "big government probing into their personal
lives" in order to identify evaders (when making a living becomes just
another victimless crime).

I find it hard to get choked up over people who demand contradictions.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Pat Buchanan
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 22:34:39 GMT


 Is there a Republican reading this who could tell me what
Pat Buchanan meant by a religious war? Are there neutrals in
this war? Has President Bush subscribed to it and is he organizing
a coalition?
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Clinton leads new poll by 34 points
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:06:54 GMT

In article <=5lnkcb.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>-- 
>John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
>                           | remember Candace Bergen or Murphy
>74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
>jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.

AAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

I better study my French so I can emigrate.

Au revoir.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush on Education
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:39:40 GMT
Organization: NASA

Patrick Sugent writes
> Steve Davis writes:
>> I have only one question regarding Bush's "school choice" plan for improving  
>>our education system.  If it was such a good idea, then why didn't he propose  
>>it in 1989, instead of waiting until the next election year? 

>   To be fair, he proposed the whole thing in April of 1991 when he
> was 90s or so in the polls and it looked like he would win
> election easily.
> 
>   Why hasn't he pushed it harder is a more fair question. (IMHO).
> 
>   His timing was fine.  It just wasn't well publicized by the media
> until this election year.

  Well, I guess I'm once again the victim of skewed priorities in the media.   
Of course, there were still enough Gulf War stories in the news in April '91  
that Bush's education proposal could have been covered without the public's  
notice.  I suspect that if Bush had made a stronger play for his plan, the  
media (and Congress) might have paid more attention.

  I still don't believe that school choice was ever a priority for Bush.  Did  
he even mention it in his 1992 State of the Union Address?  If so, I don't  
remember it.  Sorry, but it still sounds like an election year ploy, albeit one  
that was planned over a year in advance.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP