HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:53:59 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <adams.715007831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>	As to Fundie intolerance, let us not forget that these fellows
>are traditionally anti-Catholic, also. They usually believe Catholic
>ritual to be riddled with idolatry, and some of them have considered
>the Vatican a hostile foreign power bent on world domination.

True enough...I was raised Roman Catholic and have heard lots about this
from Evangelical friends...

>>He's missed a MAJOR part of the message: love and tolerance.  Heck, Jesus
>>hung around with 'tax collectors and sinners.'  And he also commanded us to
>>love our enemies.  "Do not even the pagans love their friends"...

>	I've always suspected a lot of Jesus Christ's teachings to be
>Politically Incorrect by many common standards of Political
>Correctness. I confess I don't agree with a number of them myself.

Hmm.  I would have to say that Christ *was* "politically correct"!  He
condemned the rich, proclaimed universal love and tolerance, associated
with the down-trodden, advocated disposal of wealth to help the poor, etc.

>>He's hung up on the idea that God has somehow ordered a Christian Govt. for
>>the US (and the world) when the Bible says no such thing.  But, alas, you
>>won't get most evangelicals or fundamentalists to admit this.

>	The Bible doesn't even mention the nation we live in.

But it is universally applicable.  What applied to Christians living under
the domination of Rome, applies to us today.  We are to obey the laws of
the land, spead the message (not force it), and only violate the law when
it would force us to violate God's law.

Followups to talk.relgion.misc...

 -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
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 19:52:19 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Stan Knight) writes:
|> Chris Andersen) writes:
|> >I was on vacation over the last week so I didn't get a chance
|> >to watch the Republican convention or Bush's acceptance speech.
|> >However, I did manage to read the papers every day.  The paper
|> >that came out the last day of the convention, before his
|> >speech, mentioned that a new poll had been taken which showed
|> >that Bush's standing compared to Clinton (~-25%) had barely
|> >changed (it may have even worsened).
|> >
|> >However, the very next day, after Bush's speech, there were 
|> >results from two other polls which showed Bush either trailing
|> >by only 5 percentage points or in a virtual tie with Clinton.
|> >
|> >I find it hard to believe that anyone, even Ronald Reagan at
|> >his best, could give a speech that would make up nearly 25
|> >points in the polls in a single day!
|> >
|> >Are these polls inherently flawed, or are the American people
|> >really that fickle?
|> 
|> 
|> Good question--to be or not to be(fickle)? The polls did some very interesting
|> stuff during the RNC. There was alot of reports about how the polls showed
|> George and Bill ~ even. I even saw one such report on a nation wide news report.
|> What they didn't tell you was that the poll that showed them almost even was
|> taken in Huston during the convention(or just after the end)and it must have
|> included a few delegates! The 1st nation wide poll taken after the RNC
|> (CNN-I think) showed the Clinton lead to be ~ 19%. This would indicate that the
|> public at large is just a little fickle(but not alot)and the polls are not 
|> inherently flawed just a little fickle!?:-) Polls, much like history, are more
|> of a matter of who's reporting the information then that of reality. IMHO
|> the polls will stay about where they are now(maybe lean a little towards GB)
|> up intil the debates. Afterwards one of 2 things 1)It will be dead even going
|> into Nov. or 2)Clinton's lead will be so large that Reps. will be forced to
|> do something drastic.(Hope it don't involve the military)
|> Either 1 or 2 will occur or something else will happen!
|> 
Add to this that the news says a poll is accurate to within 3%.  This is
a statistical guess at the accuracy.  A poll could be actually off by
20% or even more.

2nd issue is the impact of the questions asked.  You can prove anything you
want with a poll if you asked the questions right.  A perfect example is
a constitutional ammendment in Calif years ago to outlaw adult magazines.
The polls asked people about how they felt about adult magazines for sale
in public places.  Passage was guaranteed.  Defeat occured.  People will
answer a poll the way they think they should, not necessarily the way
they will vote in private.
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:12:27 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

In article <1992Aug27.171537.23534@cbfsb.cb.att.com> rkj@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (richard.janka) writes:

>Hopefully the post-convention discussions have simmered down somewhat.
>I have not read the actual Republican Platform, but many of the speeches
>referred to the Republicans wanting to reinstitute "prayer in school."
[...]

This must mean government-sponsored prayer since that is the only
prayer that is now forbidden.

Speaking of government and religion:

Back in the 1940's 2000 Jehovah's Witness childern were excluded from
public schools because, for reasons of religion, they would not say
the Pledge of Alligence. In the hysteria that followed the 1940
Supreme Court decision to uphold the must-pledge laws, Jehovah's
Witness were taunted, abused and tared and feathered. A church was
burned. In Nebraka, one Witness was castrated. In 1943 the Supreme
Court reversed and outlawed such laws.

In 1988, Vice-President Bush attacked Dukakis for vetoing a bill that
would have prohibited teachers from refusing to conduct flag-salute
ceremonies, even if the refusal was based on religious grounds.

[Paraphrased from _Visions of Liberty_ by Ira Glasser p. 92]

Maybe with this Platform and a few more Supreme Court appointments
George Bush will be able to return us to the good old days.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Family Values
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 11:59:27 GMT

My mother went to hear Clinton speak in Corsicana, Texas the other day.
She went with other members of Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who
were carrying a sign stating "Thank you for recognizing our families, too."
After the speech Clinton went around shaking hands, and my mother managed
to squeeze in - after shaking his hand she showed him the button she was 
wearing, "Another Straight for Gay Rights," to which he responded to 
positively.  So when talk of "family values" comes up, perhaps we should
talk about parents like my mother who actually _values_ their family.
Bush, Quayle, et al, seem to be more interested in silencing and demeaning
their gay and lesbian children (assuming, of course, that they had any).
So much for their family values.


======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Religious Right Wing Censorship On Rise
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:57:08 GMT

In article <183l53INNc97@agate.berkeley.edu>
bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>
>
>As some correspondents thought that my condemnation of the Republican
>party for embracing the rabid religious right was overstated I offer
>the following:
>
     I don't think "overstated" begins to describe the use accusation
thet the Republican National Convention was treasonous.

>    WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Censorship or challenges of textbooks, classic
>  novels, and other materials frequently used in public school classrooms
>  was at its highest level in 10 years of surveys of the practices, a
>  public education watchdog group reported Tuesday.
>    ...
>    ``The censors' success rate was disturbingly high, higher in fact
>  than at any point in the last four years,'' the group said. ``Forty-one
>  percent of the materials challenged were removed or restricted in some
>  fashion.''
>    ...
>    The group said the most frequently challenged books during 1991-92
>  school year included Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck; More Scary
>  Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz; The Catcher in the Rye by
>  J.D. Salinger; and The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier.
>    ...
>    ``The most frequent rationale for challenges was that materials were
>  perceived to be at odds with the challengers' religious views. Such
>  materials, including classic novels, were frequently labeled 'Satanic,
>  New Age, or anti-Christian.'
>    ...

     Such attempts should be opposed whenever they rear their ugly
head.  However, the far left has, in recent years, begun challanging
the far right's monopoly on censorship.  For instanance, such nonsense
as pulling Huckleberry Finn because it is racist, or pulling books
with the words "Policeman" in them, because it is sexist.
     The religious right no longer has any monopoly on censorship.
They just want to censor different things.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Bush steals from Clinton yet again!
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:01:12 GMT

In article <25AUG92.17491951@vax.clarku.edu>, htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>Bush's reaction....

Bush is a reactor.  Clinton is a leader.  Bush is doing better now because he's
started reacting to Clinton.  If Clinton went away, so would Bush.  If problems
didn't come up, Bush wouldn't do anything.  Look back over Bush's term.  Look for
examples where he took the initiative--was proactive rather than reactive.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Keywords: yes
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.005508.22377@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
|> Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
|> 
|> In article <21.X92001@ramona.com> jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) writes:
|> : 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.
|> 
|> 	This is a joke, right?

	Maybe. Maybe not.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:32:17 GMT

In article <PA146008.264.715036128@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David 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.

That's it. That's all it says, except in legalese. Of course,
you can see how witches ("Burn witches!!!") and children-sacrificing
comes naturally out of that statement.

Steve
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Newt Gingrich: The New York Times made me do it!!
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:50:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) writes:
>                        But the idea that Gingrich, supposedly
>one of the smartest Republicans (an oxymoron?) in the House,
>was just innocently repeating what he read in the (supposedly)
>liberal New York Times without intending to be sleazy -- well,
>that's the best yet, IMHO.

Similarly, when asked whether Bush Cassidy's Hole-in-the-Wall Gang is
going to continue the ludicrous "128 tax increases" charge, one of his
boys replied that they sure are because they're just repeating what was
written in a publication by the "DEMOCRAT LEGISLATURE" of Arkansas!

I'm willing to bet that nowhere in this supposed publication does the
number 128 appear. The complete inability of these international outlaws
to read and count and tell the truth is the issue here, not the raw data 
their claims are supposedly based on.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: NASA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:57:06 GMT

Michael Edelman writes
> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
> >  The Iran Hostage crisis was one of the major issues of the 1980 campaign,
> >along with the economy.  Can you explain why Reagan authorized the first
> >shipment of arms to Iran in March of 1981, less than two months after he 
> >took office?
>
> We all know the arms shipment was an attempt to deal with what we thought
> were the "moderate" elements in Iran and to play them against the clerics.

  We all know that's what Reagan & Co. want us to believe.  But we have no real  
facts, do we?  The details of the operation remain hidden under the guise of  
National Security.  Do you believe that the contacts and plans for this  
operation were made in the first six weeks of Reagan's presidency?

> You've got the argument backwards. The question is not why the release was
> "delayed", but why it happened at all?
>      [Good supporting arguments deleted]
> Reagan had a very different plan, and he made it well known. The hostages 
> were released before Reagan acted unilaterally, allowing the Iranians to save
> face.

  Or, at least, the Iranians did not wish to put Reagan in the same position in  
which they put Carter.  Go figure.

> Before you can talk about a mythical "delay" you have to establish
> why the Iranians would have considered releasing the hostages to an impotent
> President like Carter in the first place- which you cannot do.

  No, but I can venture a guess.  I suspect that the Iranians would prefer to  
deal with an "impotent" U.S. President than a more aggressive one like Reagan.   
They knew that their continued refusal to release the hostages was politically  
damaging to Carter; can you give me one good reason why they might have wanted  
Reagan to take over?

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: 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: 2 Sep 1992 14:06:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:
>
>]I believe a fair number of people ENLISTED in the army to avoid going
>]to Vietnam: the military prefered to send draftees over there, and if
>]you entered the army willingly, they'd send you to, say, Europe.
>]
>If so, these folks were mighty dumb, because the army would happily
>have sent them to Vietnam. After all, sending motivated (ie, volunteer)
>troops to VN would seem a GOOD thing to them. Also, volunteers
>were for a longer enlistment (3 years min) and as such were more
>cost effective to send to specialist training. VN needed LOTS
>of specialists.

You don't know what you're talking about. The previous contributor is
correct. I have a cousin who enlisted for exactly that reason. He went
to Europe. As a matter of fact, he's still working for the US military
in Europe (in a civilian position, as a teacher)
-- 
          "In universities, it is forbidden to teach nonsense. 
          But the _history_ of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"

                                            -- Saul Lieberman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:39:50 GMT

In article <182ftaINN4pc@news.aero.org>
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>
>In article <16854137BE.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David eal) writes:
>>
[Comments on Libertarian's and Dueling.]
>
>This is a very thoughful response. It might even get me to vote
>libertarian.
>
>Richard Foy
>Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer

     Hey, cool.  You've made my day.  :-)

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu / veal@cs.utk.edu                |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
|                                                                      |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Pat Robertson
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:18:42 GMT

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"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11840 alt.politics.bush:3301
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:23:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

(David C Daye) writes:
>It is often true that the abortion debate is not appropriate for 
>ALT.FAN.DAN-QUAYLE.

"How true that is."

-- 
Ameet A. Raval
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12234 talk.politics.misc:43315