HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gklein@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Gary Klein, bear at heart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Buchanan's speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:06:53 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Carlson Library, Univ of Toledo

     Folks, lets not forget the words of this orator who is "right besides 
himself":                       (courtesy NEW YORK TIMES)

          "My friends, even in tough times,
           these poeple are with us.  They don't
           read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but
           they came from the same schoolyards and
           playgrounds and towns as we did.  They
           share our beliefs and convictions, our
           hopes and our dreams."
           ...
          "And, we need to reconnect with them.
           We need to let them know we know they're
           hurting.  They don't expect miracles,
           but they need to know we care."

     Such a kind, caring and thoughtful soul!

     Amazing, how those sentences, when standing by themselves on the
phosphors of the screen can take on a whole new meaning.

     Don't you just want to embrace him for his concern over OUR hurt!  After
all, he did grow up with us, in the same schoolyards, playgrounds and town as
we did.  He knows us so well -- he could never turn away from a friend in need
of a bit of support!

     DOESN'T HE DESERVE AN HONORARY DEGREE in Social Work!

     We ought to find a pair of Siamese Twins who can give this man the sort of
two faced kiss-off that he truly deserves.  Where are Blaine & Antoinne when
you really need them?

	READ MY LIPS MISTER BUCHANAN	(written by Gary M. Klein, 8/20/92)
                
		We're queer,
		We're here,
	       	And we grew up playing in your schoolyard!
 
		We're queer,
		We're here,
		And we were once friends!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And we once cared about each other!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And we never hated anyone!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And you don't respect us anymore!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And we ain't gonna hide!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And we've got love on our side!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        Can you see the rising tide!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And Roy Cohn wants a bride!

		We're queer,
		We're here,
	        And God is on YOUR side?

		We're queer,
		We're here,
                And we're all gonna cheer!	        	       


P.S.  Guess who is going on a vacation in the woods?
      And coping without a newsfeed.
      But I will be spending time with an e-mail buddy!
-- 
"Read Queer Books"                                  "Librarian, Leather bound"

Gary Klein,   Business Librarian,  (Univ of Toledo)           * * * * 
PO Box 12650                  Toledo OH  43606-0250            *   *   
(w): 419-537-2629      fac2813@uoft01                            *   
(h): 419-243-2740      fac2813@uoft01.utoledo.edu         B4 t+ w- g s+ k
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Cuomo nominating speech
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:56:00 GMT


Is the text of Cuomo's convention speech available anywhere from
ftp, other electronic sources?

Thanks all.
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Keywords: States Clinton has to win
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:06:26 GMT

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>|> narrow victory ?
>|> Can he win against California, too ? 

>What do you mean by "against California?" If you mean, can he
>win without it, the answer is NO. I doubt that he has to worry
>about that though. After all, Ca. has a 9.5% unemployment rate.

>-- 
>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

I agree with that. Without California, Clinton is washed up. That won't
happen though, no matter what. California is and will be securely Clinton's
providing there's no disaster.

Let's look at the more likely predictors...if Clinton starts weakening in
the Northeast, where he's not selling well at all, in states like New York
or Massachusetts, then Clinton will be finished. Clinton cannot win 
without New York or Massachusetts. This may be going out on a limb, but I'll
say that Bush has a good shot at stealing one or both of these this year.
By concentrating his efforts on the Midwest, Clinton may be unwisely
neglecting his supposed "stronghold."

-ACF
.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:17:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.140431.7598@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
}   The only vigilantes present in L.A. were the rioters taking `justice' into
}their own hands when they felt the court system had let them down.  The rioters
}sought out people to punish after the crime was commited.  Personally I don't
}see what Korean-American merchants had to do with four L.A. cops beating up on
}Rodney King.
}  Once the riots started, police were ordered out of the area.  Citizens left
}without police protection had to fend for themselves.  These people were NOT
}vigilantes.  They were citizens defending themselves from a crime in progress.

You're attaching an unduly negative meaning to "vigilante" here.  A vigilante
is a private party that defends itself or others from crime, citizen or not.

The rioters weren't vigilantes, those defending themselves from them were, and
good for them!

Statists would like you to think that vigilantes are Bad Things, but that's
only so that they can retain their monopoly on force.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Date: 20 Aug 1992 19:23:56 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Aug20.124946.11141@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
|> While listening to the TV last night, one of the commentators mentioned how
|> Bill Bennett is a naturalized Republican, that is, originally a Democrat that
|> later became a Republican.  They went on to name a number of others:  Ronald
|> Reagan, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, ...
|> 
|> Are there any naturalized Democrats?

If you recall, the reason that the commentator (Mark Shields) gave for the
paucity of naturalized Democrats was that there are just so many damn
Democrats that the only place to go w.r.t. the Democratic Party was... OUT
of it.

I remember reading that Oregon Senator Wayne Morse quit the GOP sometime in
the '50's in protest at the McCarthy hearings and the GOP's weak (or no)
denunciation of Joe. Then, there is Leon Panetta, who is the House Budget
Chairman and was an education Undersecretary under Bob Finch in the Nixon
administration. He was fired for being excessively aggressive as far as the
timetables on desegregation went. Nixon, who fired him did that by
simply announcing one day "I accept Leon Panetta's resignation." He hit
the ground running, switched parties, ran for Congress, and won. 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: 128 Tax Increases...NOT!!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:57:48 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University


	The New Republic last night shed some interesting light on the
Republican claim that Bill Clinton has raised taxes 128 times in his 11
years as gov of Arkansas.

	First, the list is a single sheet of paper with numbered lines.
Three of the tax increases are places where the description of the tax
wrapped on to the next line, and got counted again.
	A single tax on alcohol was counted 5 times (beer, wine, coolers)
and another tax was mistakenly listed twice.
	One fee increase was a $1 fee on convicted criminals to cover
their court costs.
	Another was a $500 license fee on Abortion clinics.
	Another was a law that lengthed dog racing season, apparently
following the reasoning that this would increase state revenues.

	Using this same accounting methods (without the obvious errors
like counting things twice) the 1990 tax increase by Bush was 73 seperate
increases.  Including 89 and 90 tax bills, Bush raised taxes 133 times in
just 3 years, compared to the 128 claimed for Clinton.  This does not
include the hundreds more fee increases that could be counted if anyone
had the patience to wade through federal regs (I suspect someone will
eventually).

	A Clinton aide was asked to respond, and came up with a list of
59 tax increases by Clinton in his 11 years, including 10 the Republicans
somehow missed.  But he also came up with a list of 48 TAX CUTS, including
capital incentives and enterprise zones.  

	The BOTTOM LINE is:
	Arkansas is 49th in per capita tax burden in the U.S.
	and
	50th is per capita spending.

	TAX AND SPEND?  Bill Clinton has the best Tax and Spend record
of any governor in the U.S.

	-JG
	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:08:10 GMT

In article <92233.173023DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
 
>
>
>I'm so sick, nearly violently so, of hearing of how the Reagan and
>Bush won the cold war.  This is an awful lie that is nothing but a
>huge slap in the face to the real heroes of the revolution.  Lech
>Walesa and Gorbachev are a couple of names that come to mind right
>off.  Then there were many others who held high ideals of a better
>life for them and their fellow countrymen/women, and were put in
>prison and killed for it.  We'll never know who a lot of them were,
>but I'm sure none of them were named 'Reagan' or 'Bush'.
>
>Marty L. Dart
>My opinions are mine and mine alone.
 
Not necessarily. AS for Lech Walesa, he was, and remains, a communist,
though a "reformer" among communists. You may note that he was tossed
out of office when he tried to continue Marxist policies.
 
Gorbachev tried to continue the "reform from within", it seems, right
up until the leaders he was trying to appease tried to overthrow him with a
coup. He still maintained, pretty much up to the end, that the USSR would
remain whole, and would remain a Marxist state.
 
What killed the USSR? Primarily rot from within, yes, but that happened long
ago. The USSR only managed to hold on through a program of imperialism,
importing wealth from conquered nations and continuing to expand its empire
through SOuth America and Asia. This could have continued for some time.
 
The success of the Reagan doctrine was in limiting and countering this
expansion in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and elsewhere. The US helped to turn
Afghanistan into the USSR's Vietnam, Returning Red Army conscripts from
Afghanistan helped to tell the story to the people of the USSR, and that
further fueled internal dissent.
 
The greatest heros of the Second Revolution, though, are those who kept up the
internal struggle for the independance of their homelands- Georgia, the
Ukraine, and so forth- when most Western governments had long ago written them
off.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Some truths about the economy
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:59:30 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Note, 30 years ago (1962) was the start of the largest post-war
>economic expansion.  Where did the income rise take place?  Back
>then or during Reagan?  The WSJ stats are incomplete without this
>information.

Please have the common courtesy to sign your postings. I like to
know to whom I am responding. 

I don't believe that this is true. From the end of WWII until the late
1960's the US was in a very unique position in the world economy. The
US at that time accounted for roughly 75% of the worlds GNP. This was
due to the global devastation caused by the war. As Japan and Europe
(especially Germany) rebuilt, this percentage steadily dropped. 

During the 60's we had a tremendous post-war expansion: we helped
rebuild both Europe and parts of Asia, trade increased (the GATT
agreements), and until Vietnam, there was no war. The size of the
Federal government with respect to the size of the economy was much
smaller than it is now. 

As a country, our living standard was very high (with one income
families) due to our position in the global marketplace and other
factors mentioned above, not because
of gains in worker productivity. Since the oil shocks of the 70's the
global playing field has become more and more even. 

Most serious discussions (both political and economic) that I have
seen, take the incredible domination of the US in the global economy
into account. Because this situation is very unlikely to ever happen
again, it is pointless to compare economic and income statistics to
that era. 

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10407 alt.politics.perot:1245 alt.politics.bush:1341 talk.politics.misc:39293
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CONSERVATIVES:  KEMP IS SOMEONE WE CAN RALLY BEHIND!!!
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:23:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Aug8.174336.421@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>P.S.  *BUSH* is NOT conservative and you all know it.

Any one who knows certain things finds this very very very funny :-)

Any one out there know what I mean :-)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10558 talk.politics.misc:39644
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:13:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:

>In article <1992Aug10.201059.23168@noao.edu> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>>Let's
>>face it - THE NETWORKS CAN SELECT ANY PRESIDENT THEY DESIRE -.
>>Enough of the voting public will support the media choice, that    
>>thinking voters will not make a substantial difference.  Hell, they
>>could probably get Charley Manson elected.

>Well, if he ran on a pro life/pro 2nd Amendment/pro death penalty/no new taxes
>platform and picked a politically experienced running mate (Lyndon LaRouche?),
>why not?

>Matthias

>BTW, is Manson out already?

No.  He's still in prison in California.  He is eligible for parole (his
death sentence was commuted to life when the death penalty was tossed out
by the US Supreme's).    Only gotta do 7 years in California before being
eligible for parole...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 23:38:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.214304.12559@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
writes:
>	And before you flay me on being a hypocrite on gun control, I
>do not believe in banning guns. Just in having a nationwide system of
>gun permits and essentially instant checks on the validity of one when
>one purchases guns or ammo. The system would be computerized and
>denials of permits would be open to challenge (to help take care of
>bureaucratic snafus). The system would be very much like driver's
>licenses, which no one calls a threat to freedom. Or is it? :-)

Sorry, I don't believe that gun "permits" are a good idea.  I don't need
a permit to execute any of my other rights; why should I need one to own
a gun?


   don


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
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 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.environment
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:15:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Aug12.182715.25650@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.184033.9941@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>There's no comparison between Clinton and Quayle.  Clinton was clearly
>>trying to avoid military service.  Quayle entered a Guard outfit that
>>had lots of reasons to expect that it might be shipped to a combat area.
>
>My impression was that Quayle pulled strings to get himself assigned
>to a Guard unit that had no chance of being shipped out for some
>reason.  Given this, Quayle was a hawk who avoided the draft.  Clinton
>had moral objections to the war, and avoided the draft.  One is a
>hypocrite in this matter, the other not.
>

How could you possibly know?  People who had TRUE moral objections to
the war left the country, went to jail, led the anti-war movement.
What they did right or wrong was to put their life on the line.
People who were looking out for NUMBER 1 went to school.  At least
Quayle went in if only halfass.  People lie to themselves.  They can
say I don't believe in this, I object to this and as long as they do
not have to prove it then you never know how true their belief is.

I live though that time.  I received a letter that began "Greeting and
Salutations" and ended with "Hereafter fail not".  I too objected to
war in general.  I did not want to kill other human beings. I did not choose 
to go to jail. I did not choose to leave the country.  I choose instead to 
enlist as a medic days before I was ordered to report for induction into 
the armed sevices.  In medic school I met guys who because of their religious
beliefs would be going into battle without a weapon.  They my friend are
true belivers.

I served in Vietnam in the 173ed Airbore Birgade as a combat medic.  I was
with my brothers when they died, I held them in my arms, I know the color
of their blood.  You can see their names on a wall of black granite in
Wasington DC.

I hold nothing but respect for those who for REAL moral reason choose
to spend five years in Ft. Levenworth Prison, leave the country not knowing
if they were to ever see their homeland agian, those who organized and
marched to 'bring the boys home', to end the killing.  They my friend are
true belivers.

But lets not pretend that Mr. Clinton is among them, lets not belittle the
courage of those who choose to act and make a stand based on a TRUE belief.
I have friends who went to college to become exempt from the draft.  I do
not judge them.  But I do not pretend that their choice was anything other
than in the interest of NUMBER 1.  When they went to college they gained
an advantage over those that did not.

starbuck
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10678 misc.education:3124