HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:23:18 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
>
>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
>               For those with short memories, go look at what
>               the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
>               He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
>               they invaded Afghanistan. And then there were our
>               hostages in Iran. And Cubans in Angola. And Soviet
>               advisors in Central America. Libya's Qaddaffi was
>               also openly supporting state-sponsored terrorism.
>           
>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
>               During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
>                  "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
>               Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
>               increase for any state, in the entire history of our country, 
>               all WITHIN SIX MONTHS. He never apologized or attempted to 
>               say why. NJ residents are generally *furious* with Jim and 
>               his party.
>
>And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.
>
>In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.
>
>Just my opinion....
>
>Joe
>joec@morgan.com
>Usual disclaimers....
>
>
>

I suggest you take a look at some members of the Republican party
who spew out hatred, fear, and intolerance.  Does that worry you?
You odnt have to look to David Duke for it even, just people like
Pat Buchanan and other bible thumping judgmental types.  If you
are worried about gov't help me programs of the Dems. I suggst you
be worried aobut the gov't knows what your morals should be of the
Reps.  At leat the help meprograms are trying to let all people
fulfil hukan potential and not judging them on the
basis of their religion, their race, or their sexual orientation,
and check out the War on Drugs lack of civil liberties -- has
it really accomplished anything, I mean is the lure of easy 
money by selling drugs stopping the trade?  No, not when whole
areas are poor, un-educated, and trapped in a vicious cycle of
poverty and the leaders of this country don't care, and offer
no hope to them.
This bogey man of taxes is ridiculous, just look at No New Taxes in
the White HOuse, yeah, trust him, NOT


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.180933.1906@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>>Democratic in the near future.
>>            [ .... ]
>>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
>>               During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
>>                  "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
>>               Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
>>And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.
>
>>In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>>party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.

Isn't there a famous Pete `I OWE YOU' Wilson ? He must be a Democrat, or
is he just another governor? Looks like that `failed governor of a
small state' ain't doing too bad.

>both parties suck.  
>
>>Just my opinion....
>go for it, this is America.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42596 ca.politics:7181 ba.politics:4853
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Not Voting & proud of it?  Woodbury the wooden-headed
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:42:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug28.054342.17605@wolves.uucp> wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:
>In article <_0bnv-=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>But, I don't vote (never have, never will), so don't blame
    >>me.
    >Oh yes I *will* blame you!
    >
    >How dare you even open your mouth and talk about the rights
    >and responsibilities of the political process when you've
    >ducked out on the prime responsibility?
    >
    >If you are so proudly a non-participant in the process, you
    >have no right to criticise the process. Even if you have a
    >philosophical opposition to the way that the system is set up
    >and run, if you fail to work within the system for its
    >reform, you have no right to criticize it.
    >
    >You've proved that you don't really think about what you are
    >saying several times over, this is just proof of it.

Well, first, sawdust for brains, I didn't say diddly about "the rights
and responsibilities of the political process".

Telling people I don't vote often elicits a strong reaction, akin to say,
telling a Britisher (200 years ago) that the very concept of royalty is
disgusting and obscene and flat out illogical.

People react most strongly to having their myths attacked.

Politics IS coercion. Naked, raw, pulsating processes of running YOUR life
and MINE.

Now, with the worst form of government to date, except for all the others,
(i.e., democracy) we have managed to keep the immoral interference in
the lifes of many people to a more or less all time low (from over the last
2,000+ years).

But, it is STILL immoral.

Nobody, but nobody has ever answered this question.

 Q: Since most of us agree that me and my buddy have no right to
    agree to break into someone elses house and take their property,
    and that we still don't have that right even if me and 5 of my
    buddies agree to do it, THEN WHY is it somehow O.K. when me and
    say, 5 million of my buddies agree to do it?

Might does not make right.

Democracy paints coercion in a popular light. Will of the people, mandate
from the people, and all that bilge.

The great thing about not voting is the very message it sends.

Let's see, how many elected "officials" dare talk about mandate of the
people when they were elected (in a 3-way) with 38% of a vote with 19%
turn out?


It is NOT O.K. to get together, in secret, with several million fellow
"gang" members and decided who to steal from this time or to select the
new gang leader.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:18:09 GMT

In article <MATT.92Aug25195149@physics16.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>As it happens, all three of those seats are up for election this year;
>in two of them, the incumbents are running.  I am going to vote for
>one of those incumbents and against the other.  In other words: giving
>me a reason to vote against "Congress" is useless.  You have to give
>me a reason to vote against John Seymour and Ron Dellums.

Do you like Jon Seymour and Ron Dellums?  If the answer for either
of them is no, then you shouldn't vote for him even if you think
his opponent is even worse.  Whenever you cast a vote for someone
that you really don't think should have the job you are voting
against your long term best interests.  If you can't find anyone
you like in this race, and remember that there are likely
Libertarian, AIP and P&F candidates in both those contests, it's
better to register yourself as a write-in candidate and vote for
yourself rather than give the sanction of your vote to something
you don't really want.

We will not see meaningful political change in thsi country until
people start voting for what they want, rather than what they think
they have to settle for.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Isn't it time you stopped voting for evil?

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:45:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.154514.24172@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>By the way, many gays claim that their "characteristic" is not
>involuntary. I think that they are in general wrong about that.
>

Just like your 'choice' to be heterosexual, I guess.

>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: BUSH: The "Energy President" (I)
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep01.221302.2565@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
	<1992Sep2.031624.6419@seq.uncwil.edu>
	<1992Sep02.114403.11542@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:21:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.114403.11542@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>>So, is nuclear power generators a "renewable energy" source?
>
>Certainly more "renewable" than oil, coal, or natural gas, wouldn't you
>agree?

Huh? Oil, Coal and natural gas are theoretically renewable, Uranium isn't
(unless stellar explosions count).

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: Tell that to My Woman
Organization: i represent myself
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:33:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.113421.10256@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep2.170308.21095@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep2.130328.3186@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> >> 
> >> 3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
> >> merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
> >> to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ciao
> >> drieux
> >
> >aah, if only we all had such problems.
> 
> Trust me, it's good but only up to a point.  When instead of finding *your*
> hand sliding under and inside your pants, like Al Bundy, you find *her* hand
> there -- and all the time -- then you begine to realize the ramifications of
> the situation you're in.  There just comes a point when you say, the hell with
> it, remove your clothes and just walk around nude the whole time you're indoors
> for her benefit, so that she can claim what she feels is rightfully hers
> without the clothing obstructing her persistent efforts.
> 

it really does sound quite horrible. :)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:49:38 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>By this reasoning, a newborn baby sucking on its mother's breast is 
>(technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.  

Yes. So?

>Doug Holtsinger

                   -rocker
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Stay home: was Call for Action -- Naples, Idaho
Date: 27 Aug 1992 16:50:39 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stephen Tice) writes:
|> This comes by way of a the Stan Majors radio program,
|> regarding the confrontation between federal agents 
|> and a family up in Naples, Idaho. One federal agent
|> is dead -- and a child and a family dog -- following an 
|> exchange of gunfire. Reportedly several hundred federal 
|> agents are trying to capture an individual who sold 
|> one of them a sawed off shotgun. 
|> 
|> The problem is that the guy is holed up with 
|> his family, wife and baby, and that the federal agents 
|> will not allow "Presidential Candidate" Bo Gritz to act 
|> as a mediator to defuse the situation or get the wife and
|> child out. 
|> 
|> Gritz is on scene, and requesting that patriotic
|> Americans converge on Idaho to give him support. 
|> 
Sure.  Send the idiot another hostage.  It is obvious that
Gritz knows a lot more about hostage situations, negotiating
with gunmen, etc.

|> Seems to me like the best thing is for anyone up 
|> in that area who's concerned that the situation not 
|> end up a bloody massacre, to go there to demonstrate 
|> that they think it's gotten way out of hand. A call 
|> to your reps might do some good as well. 
|> 
How about letting the professionals do their jobs?  On the
other hand, maybe we should send federal agents to your
company to tell you how to do your job.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42089 talk.politics.theory:3877 soc.culture.usa:6894 alt.conspiracy:10305 alt.revisionism:665
From: randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:09:27
Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed
	<1992Aug23.152947.10213@isc-br.isc-br.com> <l9leemINNdk@news.bbn.com>
	<1992Aug26.001655.12403@cs.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognito.ebay.sun.com
In-reply-to: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 00:16:55 GMT

Buchanan: the kinder, gentler David Duke.

Brrrr.

__Randolph Fritz  sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || randolph@ebay.sun.com
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:46:24 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Distribution: usa
 <92239.092117DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Aug27.161456.10809@kadsma.kodak.com>

In article <1992Aug27.161456.10809@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com
(Don Pajerek) says:
>
>In article <92239.092117DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>There are numerous states that are already experimenting with novel
>approaches
>>to health insurance under a program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson
>>Foundation.
>>
>>Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
>
>
>We've all heard about the Oregon plan (and its problems with the Americans
>with Disabilities Act). What about other states? Which are they, and what
>are the details?

I'll try and post a summary over the weekend.  It will take me some
time to hunt down all the details.


Dennis Shea
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42592 ca.politics:7178 ba.politics:4850
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:31:59 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <8225.24802@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
    >>If the system continually presents you with a choice of two
    >>evils, the only morally legitimate option is to not make a
    >>choice.
    >>
    >You must be blind.....there are more options than that! Just
    >imagine...30% takes the Replicrat road....while the other 70%
    >votes Libertarian or Populist.....can you imagine what would
    >happen? And if the popular vote was broadcast for a
    >Libertarian but a Democrat or Republican won....now that
    >would expose the system for what it is.
    >
    >You and the rest of the 70% haven't got a clue do ya?! You
    >are playing right into the Elite's hands...the hands of those
    >who would convince you we have a bi-partisan system while
    >both side spout the same nonsense and we the voters ignore
    >all the other choices....

Eh? Did you read what I posted? "If the system continually presents you with
a choice of two evils, the only morally legitimate option is to not make 
choice."

The system continually presents us with the choice between two evils.

Now, if tomorrow we could vote on PERMANENTLY removing political
coercion, I might consider voting. But, voting as we have it today
(political voting), is an inherently coercive act.

But then again, very few people really think about the morality of their
actions.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42351 alt.rush-limbaugh:4022
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:53:03 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Al Thompson) writes:
|> Ankur Saha) writes:
|> 
|>    >
|>    >This is another one of those democratic lies I mentioned in another post.
|>    >At no time did anyone criticize Hillary for having a career.  She was
|>    >criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,
|>    >marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
|>    >indeed fair game, with all that implies.
|>    >
|> 
|>    For some article she wrote in 1973, when
|> 
|>    o Bush was pro-choice
|>    o Reagan was right-wing
|>    o Nixon was president
|>    o Gramm was a democrat
|>    o Elvis was alive
|> 
|>    In brief, give me a break!
|> 
|> What's your point?  Are you saying her writings shouldn't be examined
|> just because they were written in 1973?  Once something's on paper it's
|> there forever and if you have new views it's up to you to disavow your
|> older positions.
|> 
Actually, the point is that if you are going to examine her writings from
1973, you should then not lie about them.  Both liberal and conservative
attorneys and educators have agreed that her written opinions were badly
misquoted and that the statements made about those writings do not in
any way reflect the actual writings.

Hillary Clinton supported extending the right of judges to, in extreme
circumstances, consider the legal rights of the child in cases where the
judge felt the life and well being of the child was at stake.  She also 
stated that the (then) current treatment of children as parental property
were consistent with earlier treatement of indians on reservations and wives
at a time when women were not allowed to work or vote.

Some examples given as to cases where "rights of children to sue
their parents" have been considered are  1) child abuse, 2) deprivation
of medical treatment, and 3) refusal to allow the child to attend school.

If the Republicans believe that this is radical anti-family feminism,
please let us know.  We didn't know that your "family values" include
uncontolled abuse of family members.

|>    >The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
|>    >for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
|>    >the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
|>    >opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.
|>    >
If you don't lie about her statements, we enjoy having her record as
part of the debate.  I am dying to hear you support the rights of child
abusers.
|> 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dogs, never my employers.
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Call for Action -- Naples, Idaho
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:07:00 GMT

This comes by way of a the Stan Majors radio program,
regarding the confrontation between federal agents 
and a family up in Naples, Idaho. One federal agent
is dead -- and a child and a family dog -- following an 
exchange of gunfire. Reportedly several hundred federal 
agents are trying to capture an individual who sold 
one of them a sawed off shotgun. 

The problem is that the guy is holed up with 
his family, wife and baby, and that the federal agents 
will not allow "Presidential Candidate" Bo Gritz to act 
as a mediator to defuse the situation or get the wife and
child out. 

Gritz is on scene, and requesting that patriotic
Americans converge on Idaho to give him support. 

Seems to me like the best thing is for anyone up 
in that area who's concerned that the situation not 
end up a bloody massacre, to go there to demonstrate 
that they think it's gotten way out of hand. A call 
to your reps might do some good as well. 

I'm not a supporter of Gritz, the survivalists, or the 
"Aryans" up there, but since the guy the federal agents 
are trying to get is willing to talk to Gritz, I don't
understand why not?? It would show who Gritz is in cahoots 
with, and it seems like there's a lot more that should 
be known about all this before the feds seal it all it away.

And no I don't think that dumb rambo idiot up there should
be hiding behind his family. Then again I reckon that many
federal agents weren't involved in all of the LA riot either, 
so somethin' is weird about all this. 

-- Sdt    "Mebe, we should send the hotshots to Iraq instead."
 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43415 alt.politics.clinton:3883 alt.politics.bush:3911
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: The politics of Andrew
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:53:02 GMT
Distribution: talk


"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Governor Chiles of Florida waited until *Thursday* of last week to request
help from the federal government for the victims of Hurricane Andrew.

On the TV news today, it showed people in south Florida who were trying
to offer help but were held in a dead stop in traffic.  The reason:
George Bush was paying a visit into the area, and apparently officials
decided it was more important that his motorcade went unimpeded than the
victims actually getting the supplies they needed.  Seems to me that if
he had taken a helicopter instead, he still would have been able to survey
the damage.  And if he needed to be on the ground, he could just land
there.  In either case, the same objectives would have been accomplished,
and it would have been considerably less disruptive.

Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?

Why can't these people just get the f*ck out of the way?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc