HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@nmt.edu (Ray Piworunas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.election,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Our constitution and politics.
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:07:32 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech)


	Just some thoughts which crossed my mind this morning.

	The constitution is the foundation of our country.  It should
	not be a depository of laws, but the document which defines the
	workings of our law.

	Our constitution establishes and defines our freedoms.  It
	allows each individual the flexibility to live their life as
	they see fit.  We should not let it become an instrument by
	which extremists (or any others) can harness power over our
	lives through its modification, to enforce their point of
	view, during whatever brief periods when they may seem to have
	the favor of the general populace.  Such modifications might
	well outlast the life of such views.

	Voting is but one means of political expression.  It should be
	put to good use.  If blame is to be assigned (a waste of effort)
	for our current situation we, as individuals, are the only ones
	upon whom it can properly be placed.  I think we have come to
	expect others to live the difficult parts of our lives for us.

	Enough.  Is there discussion on any of this?  (No private email
	please. I don't have the time).

	Ray Piworunas,
	ray@nmt.edu
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:54:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <5147@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.  This is from the
>August 31 issue of Time.
>
>% of black families in the U.S. with incomes
>over $50,000
>
>1970:  9.9%
>1980: 10.9%
>1985: 12.3%
>1990: 14.5%
>
>
>Yep must be tough!
>
>PSG 

 Also in August 31 issue of Time..

Does Bush deserve to be reelected?

Yes - 40
No  - 54%

Should schools health clinics provide students with condoms?

Yes - 53%
no  - 42%

repubs- yes-40%   no-56%
demo  - yes-62%   no-33%

Which position best represents your views on abortion?

A woman should be able to get an abortion no matter what
the reason                                                --49%

Abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances    --38%

Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances           --10%
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Idiocies from Al Gore (was Re: Better Off Than ...)
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.221410.23427@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <17u0j8INNa2o@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>No, Freeman started by claiming such covenants are a non-issue unless
>Bush owns property with one.  He pointed out that they're legally void
>and ignored by everyone.
>
>When we see Democrats hounding Democrats over such covenants, we'll
>know that "Bush owns property with a racist covenant" isn't partisan
>whining.  Until they do, hounding Bush over it is merely yet another
>example of how Democrats have become their caricature of Republicans.

Right on.  The negative bilge spewing from the Clinton/Gore camp
is unbelievable - "Hatemonger"," paharisee", and a continual drumbeat
of demonizing everything Bush is or has done. Then they turn around
and whine about how negative Bush is. Well, perhaps you *can* fool
the people some of the time.

Well .... it was interesting to see the following on Sunday morning:
----

Gore: (Several minutes of anti-Bush ravings, especially how
the evil nasty Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and signed on to
increased taxes in 1990.)

Hume: One last question Senator. Did you support the 1990
budget agreement?

Gore: Why , YES! .... ( the proud look lasted for about one second,
which then turned to one of embarrassed pain)
.... but, but I was also a cosponsor with Sen (?) of, of 
a bill (etc., as he tries to explain away his support of the measure).
----


The exchange lends credence to my thesis that Clinton is running
as a Republican:

1) The Dems are running against a tax increase.
(While proposing their own tax hike no less! Go figure!)

2) "Read my lips" is the "Willy Horton" of 1992.

3) Clinton *also* has an idiot for a running mate.


Damn. Sounds like a winning combination to me. :-)

---
Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3655 alt.politics.elections:12069 alt.politics.clinton:3654
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:25:31 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep3.061238.23450@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.175645.829@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>]>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
>]>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
>]>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
>]
>]Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
>
>Yes... see American Spectator - they have a complete quote (I don't
>expect you to believe their non-quoted stuff).

Please post the quote.  My understanding was that her argument for
eliminating the "minor" status was because a 15-year old is more
competent than a 2-year old.  Clearly, they should not be lumped
together in the same legal classification.  I believe she argued that
situations involving children should then be considered on a
case-by-case basis to take into account the variations of competency.
This does not mean any child can sue under any conditions.


--
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"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:39:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.203730.5166@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

@   How am I stereotyping all parents?  I am merely pointing out the
@   undeniable: that millions of families DON'T provide such guidance.
@   What are you going to offer those children?
>
>Well, when you use a collective pronoun, such as they, you didn't seem
>to leave any room for variance.  But back to the point.  I recommend
>teaching children, with a straight face and without any mixed messages
>that abstinence before marriage is the _best_ way to prevent unwanted
>pregnancies, STDs, etc.  If, knowing the facts, kids still desire to be

	Wrongo. Sex _inside_ marriage can _also_ lead to unwanted
children and STD's. Furthermore, non-contact sex, such as masturbation
and dry-humping (with one's clothes on), are much safer than sexual
contact.

>promiscuous, I can't do anything more for them than you can by handing
>them a condom.  You, by your own admission, can be sure they'll use the
>thing, since sex is largely an act of passion, not of reason.  Once the

	One can always _plan_ to have sex.

>kids have decided they are going to have sex, expecting them to remember
>to stop and put on a condom is a little silly.

	How is that any different from putting on a seat belt on when
you drive?

@   Read what you wrote!   "Can be" is a conditional.  This is what I mean
@   by hypothetical.   "Can be" is not the same as "is".  The church has
@   been one of the central institutions in the black community for 
@   a century or more.  A huge percentage of black leaders in the US
@   have either been clergymen or sons and daughters of clergymen. 
>You must mean guys like Jessie Jackson, who proclaimed that Jesus was
>born to an unwed mother.  Perhaps he hasn't read his Bible very much.

	Jesse Jackson is _right_ here. Mary _had_ been unwed when she
got pregnant with Jesus Christ. And even if she had, JC would still
have been an illegitimate child unless Joseph had been the father.
That applies whether it was God or a Roman soldier named Panthera (two
alternate theories) who was the real father.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Reply-To: dash@skyy.b17d.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:18:54 GMT

Dave Martin writes.....

With all the argument over whether Bush could have legally sent troops to
Florida, and the claims that he was sitting by the phone waiting for the
call from Florida's Governor (any pictures?), nobody has pointed out how
simple it would have been for Bush to call Florida and say, "It looks as
though you have a tough situation on your hands. Could you use some help
down there? I've got some troops ready to roll if you want them."
As far as I have heard, Bush did not make any such offer. Bush has means
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for getting reports (don't know if he trusts the TV :) and could have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
decided that the people of Florida were in serious need and made that call
to the Governor.


I agree. Surly the former head of the CIA could pull some strings and
get some first hand "intelligence" and "damage estimates" on a place
as far away as south Florida. What puzzles me is that his campaign
managers were astute enough to have George B. fly in right after the
Hurricane, why the troops didn't follow is indeed puzzling....
(And don't bring up legal mumbo jumbo on why he couldn't send the troops,
legal precedent was found which enabled us to invade another country
and bring a certain person back for trial, legal (or moral) precedent
could have been found to send Food and water)

Of course this is the Liberal Media's fault. What I will find amusing is
that if George Bush fails in his re-election bid, conservatives will blame
the Liberal Media, just like they derided Democrats for blaming the
Willie Horton ads.
      
                                    O.P.P.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:04:54 GMT

At least two people in this debate have asked for a definition of promiscuity. 

Well?  We're still waiting....

Or is it not as black and white as you first thought?

-- 
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.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:57:20 GMT

lex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:


>	That said, I think it's irrelevent. If the president had violated
>the law and sent the troops in early, the political remifications would
>have been nil, vs. waiting for the governers call, which carries the
>obvious consequences. The fact stands that bush had a great oppertunity
>to show himself as sympathetic to domestic issues, and he blew it.


If Mr. Bush had done this, he would have been in deeper shit.  Every anti-
Bush critter would crawl out from the woodwork and proclaim Bush's total
disregard for states rights and federal law.

No, Andrew turned out to be a lose-lose proposition for Bush.  They gambled
that the damage would not be significant, that it could be handled
"quietly" by the local militias.  It couldn't, and Bush will probably end up
paying the price.  I also happen to think that the Florida governor will
also suffer.

-- 
Clay Luther
cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3065 talk.politics.misc:42161 alt.politics.clinton:3135 alt.politics.elections:11665
From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: ARRRGHG!
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:54:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.222532.4591@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>
>Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
>of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:
>
>
>According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
>                                                               
>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>but still led the nation to war".                                 

They fucked up... Lincoln did serve briefly as a militia captain.  The point
remains that he was far from being a career military officer, though.

>It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>reads:                                                                 
>                                                  
>"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>company."                                                          

As I said, this is comparatively minor.  Entering the militia in a limited
role is not enormously different from joining the National Guard today,
particularly in light of the fact that his entrance was in a crisis situation.

>Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
>would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
>to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!  

This is as much interpretation as a "faux pas."  By your grounds, Quayle 
himself would have a military background.  Your comment on the media's
efforts to get Clinton elected make me think that you're about to 
start ranting about the "Liberal revisionist media" or something.  American
history is a banquet of revisionism... as much, if not more by the right 
than by the left.

>Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
>today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
>Clinton's personal political cause, right?  

Oh, Christ on a Crutch... I should have know you were going to froth on
about Liberal Revisionism.  It's hardly that uniform:  witness the media
that clicked its heels and goose-stepped along during the Gulf War, and
the media that destroyed Gary Hart's Presidential aspirations.

>Send Bill back to school!  

And you should attend a Paranoid's Anonymous meeting.  :-)

>   
>----
>-- 
>Michael        
> 


-- 
Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:47:31 GMT

[lots of good stuff deleted]

>	So what should we do in the meantime? Discriminate against
>people with AIDS?
>
>				J. Wagner

How 'bout treating them like anyone else who has a deadly infectious
disease. Naw can't do that.

				mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Subject: Re: Fred Malek
Organization: Nat'l Center for Supercomputing Applications
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:33:46 GMT

--> On Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:48:36 GMT, bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) said:

  /ben/  Wasn't Fred Malek forced to retire from George Bush's 1988
  /ben/ campaign because of his participation in unsavory political
  /ben/ activities?

From Spy Magazine's 1000 reasons not to vote for GHWB:

``In 1988 a campaign aide, Fred Malek, resigned when the media pointed
out that he had compiled the names of possibly cabalistic Jews working
in the Bureau of Labor Statistics during the Nixon administration.''

Wonderful people.

Marc

--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:08:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.222615.4507@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>All this about Christians killing and hating etc. is very interesting. I guess
>we all know that the Atheists never persecuted anyone. They never sent
>people to siberia, or tortured them for holding different views. They never
>put people in mental hospitals because the had different beliefs. It's
>only the Christians that hurt others. And you know all Christians are alike.
>What a crock!

Many atheist publicly stated there disgust with Russia. Where are the
Christians opposing the OCA in Oregon? Where were the Christians opposing
the inquisition? If Christians remain silent when people kill in Christs
name they have only themselves to blame for any misconceptions that
result.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Is your Congressperson on this list?
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:24:59 GMT

In article <BtyE86.DHv@scd.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>Actually, No.  I've lived in midwestern states all of my life, and only
>one of the states that I have lived in was listed, and way down towards the
>bottom at that.  Does this mean that we should allow the midwestern congress-
>critters to balance the budget? (this was a playful, meaningless question.)
>I do have to add, on a serious note, that I was greatly disappointed by the
>geographical distribution of the those voting for greater spending.  Might
>be an interesting study in this.
>


  Hmm.  Maybe I'll do some simple analysis.  Does anyone have an on-line
list of the number of representatives each state has?  I could do it
by state and by eight census regions (just for kicks.)

  Sounds like a good idea.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jacksonk@nova.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Organization: Rirtteteas Pecosehnlet Icsninuly
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:00:15 GMT

In article <PquHqB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> [argument about who's responsibility the slow response to Andrew was ]
>States
>rights are a myth perpetuated by Republicans and racists (when the two are not
>the same).

Ahh, so you would get rid of the 10th amendment and just have Uncle Sugar
do everything?  (Or should I say, Big Brother.)  Just how do you consider
something defined in the constitution a "myth"?  In addition, how do you
tie something as fundamental as that to any party or group?  Sure, the Reps
would like to increase states rights, i.e. quit expanding the horrible
bureaucracy of the federal government and start delegating more
responsibility to the state and local governments where the bureaucracy
tends to be a bit smaller and less cumbersome, and therefore more
responsive to the needs of the public.  Sure, there are racists who call
for similar measures to keep the federal government from interfering in
their policies, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept -- just the
area of civil rights.

As for tying together Reps and racists, sure there's a contingent of
racists in the Rep party, but I'd say that the Dems have the majority of
racists -- in the form of reverse-racists.
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3163 talk.politics.misc:42304 alt.politics.clinton:3225 alt.politics.elections:11728
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:49:32 GMT
	<NEERI.92Aug26163447@iis.ethz.ch> <1992Aug26.181455.7405@crd.ge.com>
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Aug26.181455.7405@crd.ge.com> doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>In article <NEERI.92Aug26163447@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>
>> People won't like saying they have to give up something they
>> like in order to solve a problem.  Instead, they say, "lets preach abstinence
>> so they can have the best of both worlds: health and morality."  That's fine.
>> But it's blood on their hands every time someone is impregnated or infected
>> with some sexually communicated disease because of unprotected sex.
>
>So every time "someone is impregnated or infected with some sexually
>communicated disease because of unprotected sex", it's the fault of those
>who encourage abstinence?  What about the people who chose to have the
>unprotected sex?

The important word here is "chose". You advocate policies to *hinder* choice by
making access to contraceptives more difficult.

>People who encourage abstinence are in no way responsible for those who
>chose to have unprotected sex.

Suppose that I, as a radical bicycle activist, would decide to encourage
abstinence from motorized traffic by forbidding schools to educate children
about traffic lights and about the need to watch out for cars before crossing
astreet. Would you seriously claim that I were in no way responsible for the
results of such a policy?

>People show their values in their actions.
>If their actions include unprotected sex, then it's certainly not the
>fault of the people who discourage those things.

It's not the fault of people who discourage unprotected sex, but it's partially
the fault of people who discourage teaching about protection.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "One fine day in my odd past..." -- Pixies, _Planet of Sound_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
From: norris@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff Norris)
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:14:40 GMT

dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>Wow!  My opinion of organized religion just took a large leap
>towards the positive end of the spectrum...

Amen!

-jeff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections