HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET (more noise please)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: About Buchanan
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:00:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"

Sue states:
>>Clinton blew it so much that he had a 20-30 point lead after the convention.
>Ancient history.  In case you haven't squinted at a newpaper lately or heard
>the local or national vocals on the TV or radio the 'dropping' lead is now
>only....um....19 points.

I think I misworded the line you replied to - it should have read "Brown blew
it so much that Clinton had a 20-30 point lead after the convention."  That is,
after all, what you were going on about, how Brown supposedly blew it.  I
rather doubt that Brown can be considered responsible for the post-convention
drop.

>The media refers to it as a 'whopping' 19 points,
>when only just before that it was the 'whopping' 30 points.  My, how soooon,
>they forget, or want you to forget.  Oh, the liberal-bull hype of our lovely
>4th estate.

In this case, it's you who seem to be the forgetful one.  I indicated, back
when the Democratic Convention was just over, that the surge in Clinton's
numbers would reflect the post-convention bounce that typically occurs after
party conventions, and that the numbers would settle after a few weeks.  The
30 point lead seemed to startle just about everybody, and it would have
surprised me even more if it had not settled.  I expect Bush to get a bounce
from the Republican convention, though just how much of one he'll get is a
matter of intense speculation - I think he'll close to be about 15 points
back, and the Clinton lead will grow back to around 20 by the time of the
first debate.

And you're right - the media oughta get a thesaurus or something.  Either that
or find a way to differentiate between the truly spectacular 30 point lead
and the merely amazing 19 point lead.

>Sue Clark

Gary W. Olson                 "I heard it on the airwaves...
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   the politicians are now deejays."
76 days and counting down...   - Reflex, "The Politics of Dancing"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:28:37 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ask andy

>Andy says that progress has been made on the environment in the past
>20 years. end of story.
>
>Let's see some facts and figures to back up your claim. Care to debate
>the effectiveness of the superfund for environmental cleanup?

What's to debate?  It's moving slowly, but to argue for NO progress or
backsliding, it's moving in the "wrong" direction.

>Let's talk about standards for auto emissions and factory/refinery output
>into the air.

What a deal!

The standards for both are now significantly tighter than they were 20
years ago.  (Does Fred really want to argue that the 72 auto emissions
standards were more strict than those today?)  More importantly the
measured pollution "out there" is down.  See the LA basin.  Look at
Pittsburgh.  One couldn't do either 20 years ago.

We've adopted stricter standards and while we may not be meeting them,
we are better off, when it comes to pollution, than we were 20 years
ago.

>The main thrust wasn't that ghwb is obligated to debate at his photo ops.

If that wasn't the main thrust, then why was it the charge?

>The point is that a true president of the people would be happy to handle
>questions on his policies instead of blaming congress for not passing them.

Pointing to instances of heckler-handling isn't relevant to that
point.  Moreover, when someone is discussing one thing, it is
reasonable for them to "I don't want to talk about that now" questions
on other things.  There's a difference between refusing to talk about
certain issues when someone else decides to talk about them and
refusing to talk about them at all.

Fred is criticising Bush for not accepting a heckler's veto, for
insisting on talking about things he wants to talk about, and trying
to hide it in a "he won't talk about my issue" and leaving off "when I
him want to".  "Civilized debate" doesn't mean "debate on Fred's
terms".

>We don't know what george really means unless we ask questions. Only those
>with something to hide refuse to discuss their record.

Only those with no real argument use bogus arguments.  Fred
confuses "won't discuss when I want to" with "won't discuss".

BTW - I'm sure Fred has nothing to hide, so I told the DEA that he'll
be home at 8pm and that they can search at their convenience.

-andy likes the "nothing to hide" argument
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:32:39 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality

 *** Resending note of 08/20/92 11:42

 >                   ...I was recently quite analyitical in response to
 >your nonsensical commentary regarding AIDS statistics, so I don't
 >think you are in much of a position to be addressing my ability to
 >discern "information."
 >--Julie

 Quite analytical?  As I recall, no one else had any trouble *discerning*
 the figures.

 BTW Yes I do think the national media has a liberal agenda.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:43:14 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

>>those jammies obviously
>>belong to someone taller who must have left them behind one night.

>  Must've been Gary.  After all, *he* is the candidate
>in charge of vice.

Not necessarily, they could have been "Scrootie's;" we sent the "Central
Scrutinizer" up to brownsville just last weekend to provide us with
inside campaign information. His mission was to get Tim drunk (from
what we heard not a lot of arm twisting was required for that one B))
and spew forth his campaign strategies...

>  Jimbo talks a lot about scandal, but will he ever deliver?

Well Tim, did you discover the masking tape on your terminal...?


-other Andy

*Vote Y's Guys*  1-800-4NO-GOVT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:37:22 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
              19 Aug 1992 00:40:44 GMT from <jwales@COPPER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Jimbo

Since you asked, my position on "the right to abortion" is that there
is no such animal--morally, Constitutionally, or otherwise.

Abortion is the indefensible taking of undefended innocent unborn
human life.  As such, it is not only murder, but a particularly
reprehensible kind of murder, except when exercised in self-
defense to save the physical life of the mother.

Constitutionally, there is no "right" to abortion in the text.  Obviously,
I disagree with the Court's opinion on the interpretation of substantive
due process regarding privacy from 1972 onward.

Having devoted my life to the study of this issue almost exclusively for
the past three years (and peripherally for the seven previous to that),
I can see no justification for elective induced abortion, and every
justification for avoiding it.  (And when I started studying it, I was
rabidly proabortion.)

Next question.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:20:00 EDT
From:         more noise please <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      reporting live from the center of the universe

Todays Lansing State Journal had more on the impending debate betwixt
Bush and Clinton at MSU.  Tickets are probably out of the question -
some will go to MSU students, and some to local and political dignitaries
(the state capitol building is about twenty minutes away...).

Rallies are possible, and we might get to see them around town.  Bush and
Clinton will probably arrive the day before the debate and stay overnight.

I can just see it now: Bush walks into the local WhereHouse records store...
BUSH: "Nice store you've got here.  Do you have any Barbara Mandrell records?"
CLERK: "(snicker) uh, no, Mr. President."
BUSH: "Do you have any Christian music?"
CLERK: "Well, (snicker) there's this CD from 'Ministry'..."
BUSH: "I'll take it! (aside to aide) This'll make a great photo op, won't it?"
AIDE: "Whatever you say, Mr. President."

About 1,500 to 2,000 people from the candidates' entourages and national media
are expected.  Some could stay two days, some could stay two, and it's expected
that over half of Lansing's hotel space will be taken by them (it ain't that
big a town, despite being the capitol n all...).

And in case you're wondering, the other tenative debate dates (sites
unannounced) for George and Bill are October 4th and October 15th.  Danny
and Al are scheduled to debate on September 29th.

And now, on to v-election matters:

Tim says, in response to Jenna:
>>those jammies obviously
>>belong to someone taller who must have left them behind one night.
>Must've been Gary.  After all, *he* is the candidate
>in charge of vice.

No, it couldn't be me.  I left behind the french maid's uniform and the
fishnet stockings.

You know, something just occured to me.  George Bush is tall.  He's had a
shady past with a Jennifer...could it be...?  Naaahh....:)

Gary W. Olson                 "The great and direct end of government is
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   liberty.  Secure our liberties and privileges,
83 days and counting down...   and the end of government is answered.  If this
                               be not effectively done, government is an evil."
           - Patrick Henry, Speech against the U.S. Constitution, June 25, 1788
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:44:37 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Night 3 at the ol' RNC

I got so bored trying the watch the RNC last night that I went out and
rented Woody Allen's "Manhattan".
---------------------------------------------------------------
   Another in the series of topical George Bush quotes...
   ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)

"I'm all for Lawrence Welk. Lawrence Welk is a wonderful man. He used to be, or
was, or - wherever is he now, bless him."

      - Bush at a question and answer session at a school. Bush apparently did
        not know whether Welk was alive or dead, February 1992.

                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Family values
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:52:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Regarding family values:
Funny that Barbara thinks that the worse offense her sons commited was
breaking a second story window. What about the son involved in the S and L
mess?
I am so glad to see a large presidential entourage (family) on the stage. Too
bad Bush couldn't see his way to have less children. He used to know about
family planning and overpopulation...
I bet we all feel safer knowing grandpa is at the helm. I know the fact that
he has "family values" makes me sleep at night without the threat of nuclear
war. I wonder if we are to forget that a few third world countries have the
bomb. I also must remember that Bush and Reagan single handedly brought down
communism. I think that Gorbachav (sp) and Kohl had something to do with it.
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Prohibition is legalized hate crime
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:53:40 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

jimmy donal wales writes:
> Q:  Currently, it is illegal for individuals in almost all states to
> possess any quantity of marijuana, cocaine, etc.  At the same time,
> alcohol is perfectly legal.  Tobacco is actually subsidized by the
> state!  Modern day economists are almost (not quite, but almost)
> unanimous in arguing that the war on drugs is hopeless and has extremely
> bad consequences in terms of gang violence, etc.
> 
> Kerry, do you think that people ought to have the legal right to
> peacefully injest whatever chemicals they want into their body?
> An alternative way to approach the question is: do you think that
> the state (via police and courts, etc.) ought to have the legal
> right to use force upon people who are behaving peacefully?
> 
> Why or why not?

I think not because:

1)  Although the so-called War On Drugs is not about "sending a message"--it's
       about arresting people, I do think that the discrepensy caused marijuana
       being illegal and alcohol and tobacco being legal _does_ send a
       message--one that results in about 150,000 alcohol deaths (not counting
       the highway deaths and homicides) and about 400,000 tobacco deaths (when
       marijuana has never _ever_ killed anyone).  In fact, the some of the
       largest sponsors of anti-currently-illegal-drug organizations are
       alcohol, tobacco, and pharmapseutical (Oh, forgive me my spelling!)
       companies.

2)  America does not have a drug problem, it has a violent black market
       problem--this is _not_ helped by draconian enforcement tactics.

3)  Prohibition is a failed idea.  It has never worked and will never work 
       because it's premises are wrong.  Drugs have been around throughout
       human history and the drive to take them is as basic as hunger or
       sex--this desire to alter one's consciousness can be observed in
       children who spin themselves until they get dizzy.  It is because of
       this utter failure that many European countries have reformed their drug
       policies, and now it looks likely that the EC will have a decriminalized
       marijuana.

4)  It's socialism.  (Just kidding--I wouldn't use this argument because I have
       nothing against socialism).

5)  The only possible defense of drug enforcement policies is that it would be
       protect the citizenry.  But it doesn't.  The "cure" (ha!) is much, much
       than the symptoms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is permissible."  <--- Hassan i Saddah      |      Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:44:31 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Bush vs. Congress

  Alot of what I heard Monday night, in defense of Bush's administration
and lack of domestic achievements, was a bashing of the "Democratic,
liberal, tax-and-spend", etc. Congress.  This line will wash with die-
hard republicans and disciples of Rush Limbaugh, but to believe this is
to deny the power of the Presidency.  We have a massive interstate high-
ways system in America today because of the influence of one man, Dwight
Eisenhower;  we had the "Great Society" programs because of the influence
of one man, LBJ;  we've funnelled billions into the SDI program because
of the influence of one man, President Reagan.  The list goes on.
  Most Presidents face a hostile congress yet can mobilize the legislature
to enact their proposals.  Bush hasn't done this.  The reasons for this
are speculative and varied.  Bush isn't a leader unless there is a military
crisis.  Bush has no domestic agenda but a haphazard quilt of unrelated
proposals that are apt to change with the latest Gallop poll.  The Bush
'88 campaign got him elected more out of a fear of a Dukakis Presidency
than for a desire for a Bush Presidency.  Consequently, Bush had no
"mandate from the people" that Reagan could claim and use to his advantage
to push his agendas through congress.  While Reagan would often visit
the hill to peddle influence, Bush rarely meets with members of congress
and instead chastises them from afar rather than work with them in close
quarters.  Reagan would try to unite while Bush tries to divide.
  The "blame it on congress" line will work for the Republican campaign
for a while, but will fall apart upon closer examination.  The question
is to what extent will this defense be examined, by whom, and at what
point in the campaign?
    todddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I don't have a solution,
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   but I certainly admire the
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    problem."  - UNKNOWN
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: CLINTON BIRTHDAY THANKS TO YOU
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:40:19 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <BtCr26.HE2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

>
>	Great Bill! I'll be looking forward to seeing you on Sunday, 
>when your bus capade cruises through Buffalo. I'll be wearing the red 
>shirt with the big black "X" on it.

Bobby, baby, like get hip, dude! You're supposed to be wearing a *baseball 
cap* with an X on it.

Geez, you Republics are so out of it, man. 
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

--John
  "The piece of cod which passeth all understanding."



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:14:35 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: a boy and his dog could go walkin'

>Anybody in netland familiar with the don johnson sci-fi movie called
>"A boy and his dog"? The republicans remind me of the committee in New
>Topeka....

  And Bill Clinton is Don Johnson, hunting for babes.  But who
would play the role of the dog?

  Milk the metaphor for all it is worth....  Ahem.

                                         -Tim
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Religion, rights, Hitler reincarnated, Reagan is the Antichrist
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:04:56 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>I will no longer attempt to explain the distinction between rights
>before God and civil/political/legal rights before government.  I have
>done so time without number, and the answer is continually ignored.

I have not ignored you, Kerry.  I've been patiently waiting to hear
from you on the question: what legal rights ought people to have?

In particular, I would like to know whether you think various
controversial activities ought to be legally prohibited.

This is about politics; I am asking your position on a political
question... a political question which I think, ultimately, is
THE political question.

You've mentioned 'natural rights' a couple of times, and I really
wonder what those are and how they are different from legal rights?
If we have some 'natural rights', then how do we derive what they
are?

>There will be a test; you will not pass.

I am reminded of your request for a freshman in college level
explanation for my little statement about what a right is.
I laughed when I read it, since all the words I used ought to
be easy enough for a college freshman to understand.

>--Missy P 2 B

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:25:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      i thought libraries were safe places to work

okay, this has nothing to do with anything but i need to vent.

yesterday i had to go to a meeting. representatives from the library computer
system we use (geac) were here to demonstrate their new & improved system.
we had a violent storm.
one of the librarians on duty upstairs came down and said, i think someone
should come upstairs, there's smoke pouring out of the computer room.
one of the big disk thingies (about the size of an oven) took a direct hit
of lightning through the cable and blew up.

(real life example of irony follows)
we had just finished talking about all the great stuff that protects the system
from power surges and such. ZAP!
guess we gotta get the new system now.

anyway, of course the million dollar fire alarm system they put in this place
last year complete with computer generated voice didn't go off even tho the
entire 1st floor was filled w/smoke.
altho' it goes off when dust is stirred up in bound periodicals.
expensive dust buster.

so now, we have no catalog, can't do any library work a'tall. we are completely
disabled.

i think pat robertson has put a curse on libraries cause they are staffed
primarily with women, giving us access to ungodly amounts of INFORMATION.
and that could lead to KNOWLEDGE.
and of course that could lead us all into the depths of INTELLIGENCE.

oh no.
its the end of the world as we know it.


-linda  (and i feel fine)

gonna go repot the plants on the reserve room windowsill for lack of anything
else to do.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:47:00 -0400
From:         "Men-- can't live with 'em,
              can't shoot 'em" <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ACLJ Activities

Carl:

I'm not dismissing the article you posted out of hand, but I might warn
you that Michael Klein has a long history of posting abject nonsense
on various places around the net, most of which he gets from the 700
Club, a show which has a long history of deviating from fact whenever
it suits their purposes.

What you read _may_ be true, but I'd like some source other than the
700 Club before I am willing to take it seriously.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:24:39 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: In your heart, you know he's right. (NOT!)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:53:40 CDT rufus t. firefly said:
>   scott, are you old enough to remember the last democratic president
>we had? southern governor, running as an outsider, against an unpopular
>republican president, with a democratic congress to boot? why don't you
>check out the economy after he got done with it, and then tell me why
>you think clinton can do any better.

I still don't think Clinton's numbers are actual support for Clinton and
I'll bet the polls don't allow the opportunity to capture the data
properly:  they are more anti-Bush than pro-Clinton.

As I recall, the numbers for Mr. Peanut were (approximately):

                    Before   After
        Prime Rate   12%       22%
        Inflation     3.5%     14%

The really sad part is watching him during the '80 Convention as he tried
to convince everyone he had "inherited a bad economy"...

But as I've said time-and-time again, Jimmy has been one of our better
ex-Presidents in terms of what he did /c his time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU