HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:01:36 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Aug7.182147.27623@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) said:

> Too many people in our society are anti-religious, for reasons that
> I truly don't understand.
>
> Yes... I know of the excesses of the bible beaters, and I have
> indeed read about the Spanish Inquisition. These are no excuse for
> the hostility or even hatred for anything related to Christian
> religion (which seems to be the main target). An odd phenomenon! I
> guess it is part of the general trend to believe that anything that
> is traditionally american is ipso facto wrong or bad or stupid.

Speaking for myself, I am "anti-religious" for two primary reasons:

(1) It offends my sense of intellect to see people believe in alleged
facts for which there is and can be no proof.  I want to take these
people by the lapels and shake them and shout "Are you fucking crazy!
How can you _believe_ this stuff?"  Stupidity bugs me.

(2) More importantly, it looks to me that if everything that these
Christian-type religious people believe is true then this God person
is _the_ all-time major-league #1 asshole of the universe (let's face
it, the Christian God is not exactly an advocate of individual rights
and self-determination), yet they all seem to support his claim to be
the rightful legitimate ruler of everything.  If there really _is_ a
God, I want him put on trial for crimes against humanity...

Perhaps John Moore can understand this: some of us Americans don't
like being told that we have to do what somebody else tells us to do
just because he's got a big stick to hit us with if we disobey him.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1286 alt.politics.marrou:736 talk.politics.misc:39181 alt.politics.elections:10368 talk.politics.theory:3633
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:34:26 GMT
	<1992Aug11.092848.14286@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
	<1992Aug11.162314.27117@access.digex.com>
	<1992Aug12.094854.9585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: NMSU Computer Science


Followup set to talk.politics.misc

<In article <1992Aug12.094854.9585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:<

<From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
<>>  There is no major party in the USA which would abolish the Constitution
<>>  altogether and replace it by something completely different.

<>  You mean there is no major party which will do so openly.  Both major
<>parties in the USA routinely subvert, ignore, and distort the Constitution
<>when it is expedient to do so.

<   There is still a President, Senate, Congress, Supreme Court;
<   there is still a Federal Government and State governments.

	True.
 
<  Bills are still passed by vote in the legislature, law is still
<   interpreted in the courts.

	True, BUT "law" is actually made by nonelected
	administrators nowadays. Sure, the "laws" are
	called "regulations"...but they ARE law.

<   You really have such a blinkered American-centred view of the
<   world if you cannot understand my point - however the
<   constitution of the USA has been subverted, ignored or
<   distorted by the major parties, this is fairly minor compared
<   to what could be. There is no political party saying "we
<   shouldn't have a presidential system" 
	
	Sure there is; isn't that part of the Socialist
	Workers Party platform?

<or "we should completely
<abolish the federal system and have a centralised government in
<the place of fifty states" 

	I believe this was part of one of the other splinter
	Socialist party platforms in the 1970's.

<etc. etc. Other countries do have politically
<   forces which are radically opposed to their constitution in
<   ways like this.

	The U.S. does, also. As in other countries,
	these forces are splinter groups.

	What's your point, anyway?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1593 alt.politics.marrou:786 talk.politics.misc:39738 alt.politics.elections:10589 talk.politics.theory:3677
From: juana@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Juana Moreno)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:39:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


 [Someone writes:]

>>Perhaps the problem is that you have never seen a real centrist
>>party ...

tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:

>I, for one, agree with the original poster, and not with your rebuttal.  Le
>Pen's National Front party in France is a good example of a true right-wing
>party.  The Republicans here resemble much more the European center-right
>parties.

I think the french National Front is an extremist right-wing party, very
close to being a fascist party. Most of the members of the Republican
party are not fascists, but this doesn't mean the GOP is a centrist party
in any sense. It is a conservative right-wing party. The European center-right
parties are more similar to the Democratic party. It is not a coincidence that
many center-right parties in Europe are called "liberal". We have the feeling
that a liberal in Europe is more to the right and a liberal in the U.S. is
more to the left, but it's not so. It's just that the center of gravity is
more to the right in the U.S. Liberals are in the center-right everywhere.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:39:30 GMT

v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
|> Oops, wrong choice of phrasing...  Even so, given that the president favors 
|> the Death Penalty for first-degree murder, you'd think that consistency would
|> demand the same for his granddaughter.  Unless, of course, he doesn't believe
|> that abortion *is* murder...

Oh, please, please, please let their be some hint of pro-choice
in the language of this only-on-the-surface pro-lifer Pres. Bush.
Please please please.  I'll give up all objectivity just to find
that one thread of pro-choice in his speak.

This is getting ridiculous.  So now pro-lifers are hypocrites unless they
want their children executed if she had an abortion.

Don't flame a pro-lifer for this reality check.  I'm pro-choice.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: ajm@wag.caltech.edu (Abner J. Mintz)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:36:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.194038.5116@wam.umd.edu> ara@wam.umd.edu (Ford Prefect) writes:
>>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
>>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
>>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>>broken the law.  
>
>I am a victim of his Law breaking!!!!
>He turned me into a Newt!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Thats against the law isn't it??

Well, there are worse things to be turned into than a Minority Whip in
congress!  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2101 alt.politics.elections:10917 alt.politics.clinton:2221
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:17:26 GMT
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Aug19.003940.12469@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>  Did anyone else notice all the young, college-aged, enthusiastic people
>  at the Republican convention last night? 
>
>  I seriously doubt they are all delegates.  The guys are clean-cut,
>  nerdy-looking and mostly wearing blue-blazers, white shirts and ties.  
>  The girls are very attractive (in a country-club sort of way) and 
>  could be models for milk commercials.  
>  
>  They seem to be leading the cheers and providing much of the enthusiasm.
>  They are very photogenic and are often captured in the television shots
>  of the convention crowd.  There are a lot of them.
>
>  Are they ushers?  Hosts and hostesses?  Young-Rebulican cheerleaders 
>  brought in to fill space and put life into the cavernous Astrodome?

Probably unemployed yuppies trying to make a few bucks.

Another question: CNN said that about a third of Republican Congresspersons
were not going to the convention. Does anybody have the percentage of
Democratic Congresspersons going to the Democrat convention for comparison ?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "I think I should tell you that I am enjoying my involuntary
    retirement, and I know and hope that President Bush will share
    the same pleasure after January." -- Jimmy Carter
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1591 alt.politics.elections:10588 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2474
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:33:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug14.143930.16354@encore.com>, rcollins@encore.com writes...
>v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>|> Oops, wrong choice of phrasing...  Even so, given that the president favors 
>|> the Death Penalty for first-degree murder, you'd think that consistency would
>|> demand the same for his granddaughter.  Unless, of course, he doesn't believe
>|> that abortion *is* murder...

>This is getting ridiculous.  So now pro-lifers are hypocrites unless they
>want their children executed if she had an abortion.

It's really not that difficult to understand.  According to a pro-death penalty
pro-lifer:

1. Abortion is murder, therefore 
2. Those who have abortions are murderers
3. Murderers should be put to death

The only logical conclusion would be that

3. Those who have abortions should be put to death.  

Why is that ridiculous?  It is plainly hypocritical, unless he doesn't truly 
believe that abortion is murder.  

Look, I agree that Bush may have been showing some natural parental caring for
his descendents.  What I find fascinating is that he seems unwilling to do the
same for women outside of his family.  

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2252 alt.politics.elections:11054 alt.politics.clinton:2317
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:21:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Aug20.034740.10661@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <16sjusINNdi9@agate.berkeley.edu> 
> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> 
> > BUSH HAS NEVER SUBMITTED A BALANCED BUDGET AND HE WILL
> > NEVER DO SO. 
> 
> As I said before, the Bush adminstration has submitted a PLAN to
> balance the budget by 1995.  It will take more than a year to 
> eliminate the deficit, much less get it under control.  

Great. Let's look at the record on Bush's "plans." In 1988, one
of Bush's campaign promises was to balance the budget by 1993.
Let us assume this is what Douggie means by "plan." Well, come
1993, Bush had the deficit up to $400 billion instead of down
to near zero. Terrific plan, huh?

So now Bush has a new plan. How are we supposed to believe it
will be any better than his '88 plan? The first plan was to
eliminate a ~$160 billion/year deficit in 5 years. Now he has a
plan to eliminate a $400 billion/year deficit in 3 years. Does
anyone believe in this? Please speak up!

						- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:57:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Why is abortion the only choice worthy of respect?  After all, we
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>believe pro-choice advocates who say say "we don't like abortion, but
>it isn't our decision to make", so why doesn't that apply to other
>choices she might make, choices that said advocates may not like.
>
>-andy

   Could we please get this nonsensical crap of alt.fan.dan-quayle?  Proof
of nonsense: we respect the choice of which religion a person has.  
Pro-life, Pro-choice, and most other Americans respect this choice.
The above rhetoric is therefore invalid.

   This group is for:
      (I) Making fun of Dan Quayl,
      (II) Defending his honor, Vice President Dan Quayle,
      (III) Dumping on posts of category (II), and
      (IV) Humorous or inconsistent behavior linked to JDQ.

Edit your subject line or prepare to face the rieghtious wrath of the true
polity of alt.fan.dan-quayle.  We have a can for the abortion nuts, filberts 
and macadamias alike.  It is called talk.abortion.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1470 alt.politics.marrou:767 talk.politics.misc:39501 alt.politics.elections:10509 talk.politics.theory:3659
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:44:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>To sum up, Mr. McCall believes that government funding (through some sort
>of school choice voucher system) of schools that have required courses in
>religion is unconstitutional.  I disagree, believing that so long as parents
>can use the voucher to send their kids to a different school with no such
>required religous classes, there is no establishment of religion nor
>prohibition of the free exercise thereof.  (We're talking about the federal
>constitution, not the Texas constitution, or any other state constitution.)

>Additionally, I would point out that, under a system such as the one I
>advocate, *any* religious organization (e.g., Bhuddist, Satanic, Islamic,
>Baptist, Hindu, Catholic, Secular Humanist, Shinto, Atheist) would be free
>to operate a school with their own brand of required religious instruction
>and accept state vouchers as payment.  Thus, use of state-funded vouchers
>no way establishes a religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof.

A number of years ago California had a program that passed out text books to
all private schools in the state.  (For all I know it may still be in
effect.)  The purpose of this program was to guareentee that all
students would be taught from books of at least minimal value, or
something to that effect.

To make a long story short, the law was challenged since religious
schools were also receiving free text books.  The law was upheld, at
least in the California supreme court, I don't know if the case made it
to the US supreme court.

The courts have long ruled that as long as the primary purpose of a
given law is secular, the fact that the law gives incidental aid to
a religious group is irrelevant.  This is why contributions to churches
can be tax deductible.

IMHO, it the proposals to exclude religious schools from any voucher
program are discriminatory and bigoted.

Does anyone out there know whether a law that specifically excluded
religious groups that were otherwise qualified has ever been challenged in
court.

Would the "religious affiliation" clause of most anti-discrimination
statutes come into play here?

>John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug21.000534.5661@aero.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:07:48 GMT

<In article <1992Aug21.000534.5661@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
<   In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
<   ...>
<   >Labor Secratary Lynn Martin asked that question, not Barbara Bush.
<   >
<   ...
<   >
<   >But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
<   >adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..

<   Lynn Martin was smart enough not to try to give Bush credit for what 
<   happened under Reagan.

	Huh? Something GOOD happened while Reagan was President?

	Somebody alert the media.....

<   >> I eat out a lot. It costs me a substantially larger percentage of my 
<   >income
<   >> than it did 4 years ago.
<   >
 <  >Better restaurants?  Seriously.

 <  When I eat out at better resturarants, which I do from time to time, the
 <  cost is moer than substantially more. 

	Shrug. Inflation is a fact of life. The only ways
	anyone has found for funding a government that insists
	on living "beyond its means", i.e. spending more than it
	takes in are borrowing or inflation...or a mix of both.


<   >> I drive around LA a lot. It takes a substantially larger percentage of my
<   >> time than it did 4 years ago. I read the news. In spite of the Willie
<   >> Hornton ad there is a substantially greater amount of crime in it than
<   >> there was 4 years ago.
<   >
<   >I drive around Houston a lot.  It takes less time than 4 years ago.  We 
<   >elected a tough new mayor this year who gave new life and support to our 
<   >police department.  Crime in Houston is down 37%.  The point is that you 
<   >will have much better luck combatting it on the local level than depending 
<   >on the feds.   BTW, George Bush's crime bill, which takes a tough stance 
<   >against crime and has some real teeth to it has been languishing in 
   >Congress for most of the 4 years.

<   Perhaps that is due to the fact that Texas is an oil state or that Bush
<   came from Houston. 

	Oh, please, this is stone-ignorant. "An oil state" means
	that the economy dropped into a hole in the ground around
	1982 and has been very slowly diversifying since then; you
	DO know what the price of oil was 11 years ago?

	"Bush came from Houston": are you honestly asserting that
	because Bush maintains an address at a hotel in Houston
	the whole city somehow benefits?

	Gee whiz, the credulity of some people.

<In any case you are luckier than Californians in those 
<   respects.

	Texas is "luckier" than Kalifornia in that the state
	of Texas has never tried to be "mommy and daddy" to
	the citizens, unlike Kalifornia.

	Pyramid schemes, after all, must have new suckers 
	coming in; when the supply of new suckers dwindles,
	the pyramid goes broke....sorta like Kalifornia,
	or Social Security.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:17:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.173307.25429@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) 
>writes:
>
>> I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
>> larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
>
>But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
>adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..
>
	Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was Carter who initially 
deregulated the S&Ls and Airlines. Did Reagan deregulate airlines
on his own? 



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: kasvand@ccrs.emr.ca (Tony Kasvand)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:44:41 GMT

      Who is Bush?


-- 
Tonis Kasvand      | "..and then I realized , without a shadow of a doubt,   
Ottawa, Canada     |     I was doubtful."  
kasvand@ccrs.emr.ca|            - Tonis Kasvand  
                             
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:22:39 GMT


lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:

>All I have to say is - finally. I think it is, or would be, a wise move
>on Bush's behalf to come forward and clearly state a pro-choice stand, but
>he won't, because of the many republicans that vote on one issue alone.
>Which is also kinda funny. seeing as how there is an overwhelming majority
>of republicans that are pro-choice, but the platform is right-to-run-your-life.
>Strange how these things happen. I think the only chance Bush has of winning
>even a year's supply of TV dinners in november, is to change his stance
>on abortion. But, again, it won't happen.

Yes, but you notice how he and Quayle are now sending out double messages
on the abortion issue. Personally I don't think their answers to these
hypothetical questions are screw-ups at all; I think they are calculated
moves to enable Batman and Robin to talk out of both sides of their
mouths. Bush wants to have it both ways on the abortion issue; he wants
to reassure right-wingers with his platform call for an antiabortion
amendment while at the same time soothing moderates by showing that he's
personally not that inflexible. It's just more proof that the man really
has no morals except those of expediency; he'll do and say anything that
will gain him some support in the polls.

-----
Eric Smith	    | "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
erics@sco.com	    |     on the ground.  'If.'  Too hypothetical."
erics@infoserv.com  | - George Bush, on extending unemployment benefits
CI$: 70262,3610	    |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory