HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: NAFTA IS GOOD ...
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:08:09 GMT

In <1992Aug28.012709.17689@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.232752.29425@news.Hawaii.Edu>, gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu  writes...
>>In article <mjenkins.714857288@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>>|> [stuff deleted]
>>|> 
>>|> Again, at Canadian expense. We spend 125 years building this country,
>>|> and its all gonna be stolen to the Rio Grande.
>>

>I heard from somewhere that your government didn't like the idea (except
>for your Prime Minister of course). Can you give me update on the 
>Canadian politics concerning the NAFTA?  

In brief, then: NAFTA isn't getting the same attention that the
Canada-US FTA got a few years back, becuase all our attention is
diverted by the current (and never-ending) constitional crisis. The
FTA is being blamed for every thing from job loss to manufacturing
relocation in the US to warts.

NAFTA wasn't an election issue in 1988 in Canada, nor was it given
much publicity when it was being negotiated. Brian Mulroney,
dictator-for-the-next-year-and-a-half, likes NAFTA, of course, as does
his International Trade minister, Michael Wilson. Predictably, the
opposition Liberal and New Democratic parties are against the deal,
the NDP in particular because they are a social democratic party that
sees NAFTA, like FTA, being a sell-out of Canadian jobs.

On the whole, I think most Canadians are grudgingly accepting it for a
couple of reasons: the current PC government has shoved so many things
down our throat without our approval (the GST, FTA, and now NAFTA, and
soo, a new constitution) that we feel powerless to stop it. Business
realizes its better than being left out of the New World Order.

But its not like we're holding parades in the streets. This is the
most unpopular government in the history of democracy, bar none.

Michael

>> 
>>Correction: Rio Bravo del Norte.

Yes, well, I'm a history and journalism major, what do I know about
geography and accuracy? :)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3864 alt.politics.clinton:3830 alt.rush-limbaugh:4198 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5011
From: duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: duke@ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:41:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.171500.8607@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.163023.23747@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>I was totally amazed that there was a delay in getting federal aid to
>>florida, and it's convinced me that GHWB is flat out incompetant.
>>Here's what I figured would happen:
>>
>>	Hurricane Andrew is on its way to florida. GHWB makes sure that
>>	the pentagon is ready to act on a moments notice.
>>
>>	Andrew hits. Florida is devistated. GHWB interrupts his campaign
>>	and flies to the disaster area immediately, gathering damage info
>>	as it comes in. Arriving in florida, GHWB shows massive concern
>>	for the suffering, and promises immediate federal troops to
>>	help out.
>
>This is exactly what was planned, but we must be aware that some politics
>was going on with the governor of florida (who just happens to be a
>democrat) that prevented Bush from sending the troops in.  The media did not
>point this out, although Mona Charin pointed it out Saturday night on the
>Capital Gang.

Actually, I heard this from several sources. So much for the "liberal media".

>What prevented Bush from sending the troops?  The governor
>of a state must request troops for them to be sent, and, unfortunately for
>Floridians, the governor did not request them until 3 or 4 days after the
>Hurricane hit.
>
I don't know about this. I think it is customary, not necessary, for
the governor to request federal troops.

>by the way, the state did ask for national guard unit from the state of
>florida to help, which they did promptly.
>
>======================================================
> Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu
>   University of GA Computing & Network Services
>     Inst.of Higher Education
>=====================================================

--
Duke P. Hong
duke@valentine.uci.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1992Aug29.213123.19508@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Abortion is not a religious issue, it is a legal and moral issue. 
>
>There are many good arguments against abortion which are based on 
>secular thought.  Come over to talk.abortion sometime and you'll 
>find them. 
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>
Call abortion whatever you like. As long as you're voting for Clinton,
I'll agree with anything you say.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: a0s5108@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Neal and Mara Priestly)
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:41:38 GMT


>In article <bazyar.714457003@teal> bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
>>adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>>Thus spake bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar):
>>>	How about "I raised taxes ONCE . . .[Clinton] raised them 128 times.
>>>. ." a statement which is totally untrue and which cites numbers refuted in
>>>print in the New Republic well prior to his speech.
>>  Uh huh, refuted in a newspaper.  Who says the newspaper is telling the
>>complete truth?  I don't know, do you?
>

When discussing politics one must remember the immortal words of Mark
Twain:  There are 3 kinds of lie, the lie, the damn lie and the statistic.

Bush was comparing apples and apple trees.  What he said amounts to:  I
planted one apple tree, He brought 128 apples to market.  It's bullshit,
but it makes good copy, and is short enough to guarantee it's use as a
sound byte.  To the easily swayed it might make a difference and it shores
up the image of the 'tax and spend democrat' Bush so enjoys villifing.

-Neal
These opinions are solely mine, but site liscensing is available at a 
reasonable price.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:04:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.155024.19609@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> 	How is Bush a tax dodger?
>|> 
>|> 	I've never heard _that_ one before.
>
>	Although Bush has a 18 room house in Maine, his official residance
>is an empty lot in downtown houston (33'x150'). He does this to avoid
>paying any state income taxes. (Maine? Thats his vacation house)

In that, he's just like any other govt official stationed somewhere
else.  He's just like Congress critters who "live" in their home
district only to maintain election eligibility.  (My critter doesn't
own squat in "his" district and may not even rent more than a mail
drop.)

Of course, when Bush does it, it's different than when a Demo leader
in Congress does.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:02:10 GMT

From article <H3icqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, by elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley):
[...]
> So, instead of deflecting the issue, how about we go back to the original
> question:  can you (or anyone else) defend the Thomas appointment?
> 

How about a voting record that has been everything the conservatives could
have hoped for?

Don't you think the gutless Senate is more to blame?  Duh, I don't agree
with his views and he's totally unqualified; but he is black, I guess he's
in.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:15:33 GMT

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.105858.1@vxdesy.desy.de>, forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep1.225210.993@nuchat.sccsi.com>, lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>|> > Newest poll results...printed this morning in Houston Chronicle of a
>|> > ABC poll, or was it CNN or CBS, or whatever...but anyway(I could go get
>|> > the paper but I am lazy), the results were as follows.....
>|> > 
>|> > Clinton - 56%
>|> > 
>|> > Bush    - 36%
>|> > 

>It was an ABC News - Washington Post poll.

>|> I really wonder what the demographic and regional samples
>|> are for the different polls that are taken. Am I the only
>|> one, or did anyone else notice that one poll has a
>|> consistent 6-8% difference while the other has a consistent
>|> 20% difference?
>|> 
>|> Maybe the poll with the 20% difference was taken in Miami? :^} 

>I don't know about the ABC News - Post poll, but the Time-CNN poll, which 
>showed only a 6%-age point difference, as opposed to the former's 20 pt.
>lead, was conducted by quizzing "likely voters" as opposed to their previous
>practice of only "registered voters." If ABC-Post quizzed only registered voters,
>it might account for SOME of the disparity.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Very likely MOST of the disparity (see my post Poll Bias).  Finding
out who is actually going to vote on election day is the trickiest part of
polling.  Now the question is, what does "likely voters" mean?  Does it
mean a subset or a superset of the registered voters?  Hopefully, a 
subset, with perhaps an adjustment for those who "swear" they are going
to register to vote before the big day.  But more than that, how do you
determine "likely".  Do you ask them "Are you likely to vote?", and
trust them to answer truthfully, or do you examine demographics or voting
records?

	-JG

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:53:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.165207.9573@mcs.anl.gov>
shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
 
>>Many atheist publicly stated there disgust with Russia. Where are the
>>Christians opposing the OCA in Oregon? Where were the Christians opposing
>
>I am not familiar with the OCA event.
>
>The Christians opposing the Inquisition were being kill and imprisoned I
>suppose. History is chock full of accounts of Christians being persecuted
>for standing up against "the church".
>
>>the inquisition? If Christians remain silent when people kill in Christs
>>name they have only themselves to blame for any misconceptions that
>>result.
>
>However. There maybe some validity for taking this discussion off line as
>we have probably covered all that pertains to the original political
>discussion.
>
>                                mike
 
AT LAST!!!!!!  These clowns get it!!!!!!
 
This hasn't belonged in alt.politics.exections for days!
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front.....
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.114908.20245@nuchat.sccsi.com>, lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
|> In article <01GO047HLUTUCIQXXC@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
|> >	Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA.  President Bush,
|> >as promised, eradicated  gangs from LA area.  Members  of various gangs take
|> >part in picnics and baseball games together. They no longer kill people, but 
|> >are in community service.  This is a great victory for President Bush in the
|> >decades long war against gangs.  Street War has been won by Republican White
|> >House.  People can walk in the streets without any fear of a cross fire.  Mr
|> >George Bush, the great President of USA after Ronald Reagan  made LA a safer
|> >place to live.  Of course, there are few (gang looking) groups around.  They
|> >have "favorite group" status anyway.....
|> >
|> >
|> >Vicky:
|> >Aug 24, UMass
|> 
|> Please tell me how Bush single handedly did this....What did he do exactly?
|> All I ever saw him do was walk around burnt down buildings and mutter,
|> 'what a shame' to himself....How did *HE* affect the gangs and turn them
|> into rosie community helpers....Street war has been won by republican
|> white house? OH MI GH0D...give me a break...

Do I really believe what I just read?  (The response, not the original
posting.)  I thought the Democrats were going to be a shoo-in this
election, but if they are such demonstrable drongos perhaps I should
think again.
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:29:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug31.224936.2433@news.columbia.edu>,
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) wrote:

> >Would you care to elaborate on this?  If he was opposed to the war, then
> >why did he join ROTC?
> 
> Er, so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam to fight a war he didn't want
> to fight?

Nope.
 
> I believe a fair number of people ENLISTED in the army to avoid going
> to Vietnam: the military prefered to send draftees over there, and if
> you entered the army willingly, they'd send you to, say, Europe.
> 
> Clinton worked for Sen. Fulbright when he was at Georgetown, and
> concluded the war was wrong long before he went to Oxford.

He was a coward.  He didn't have the moral courage to fight the draft. 
Instead, he looked ahead to his political career and said "Maybe I don't
want to actively fight this thing...".  What a wuss.  

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4089 alt.politics.marrou:1040 talk.politics.misc:43766 alt.politics.elections:12431 talk.politics.theory:4039
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
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: 4 Sep 92 16:52:07 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

>Many atheist publicly stated there disgust with Russia. Where are the
>Christians opposing the OCA in Oregon? Where were the Christians opposing

I am not familiar with the OCA event.

The Christians opposing the Inquisition were being kill and imprisoned I
suppose. History is chock full of accounts of Christians being persecuted
for standing up against "the church".

>the inquisition? If Christians remain silent when people kill in Christs
>name they have only themselves to blame for any misconceptions that
>result.

However. There maybe some validity for taking this discussion off line as
we have probably covered all that pertains to the original political
discussion.

				mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:30:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.185156.18883@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>>>Huh?  What's that got to do with the leap of faith, suspension of disbelief,
>>>and subjugation of will required to be a Christian?
>>
>>Once again, you reveal your ignorance. Spend a decent amount of time
>>learning Christ's teachings and you'll get a clue. 
>
>Well, I was raised Methodist, and have been exposed to Christianity all my
>life.  If I'm lacking a clue, why don't you just give it to me?  I'm not going
>to run out and buy/study a bible just to satisfy you.

I'm afraid this says very little.  In my experience, Methodists can range from
humanists to "holy-rollers".  You may have had a lot of exposure to
"Christianity" but to a very distorted version of it.  A lot of people who
consider themselves to be Christians (I am not passing judgement) may believe
in such things as a "leap of faith" and "suspensions of disbelief" (whatever
that is) and possibly "subjugation of will" (???).  However none of them have
any basis either in scripture or in early Christian writings.  Various
heresies have arisen over the years and many still subscribe to them.  However,
this does not make them a valid part of Christianity.  It would appear that
you have plenty of time to say what you think the Bible says but none to find
out what it actually does say.

Faith is not inconsistent with a reasoned belief.  It is more a part of
making the transition from "believing that" to "believing in".  The thrust of
the Gospels involves presenting evidence for Christ's claims.  Why would such
pains have been taken to present evidence if the writers felt that one should
believe w/o evidence?

Peter Lauren

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:59:00 GMT

In article <Aug.26.07.39.21.1992.12991@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.220643.28500@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) should have written:
>
>> [Because I'm a Canadian.]
>
>Now shut up and mind your own business.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, another reason why I cannot vote Democratic.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: School choice: comments and questions
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:22:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.174609.4941@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
-> In article <4802@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
-> >First comments:
-> >A lot of people have been saying that the Bush plan to give vouchers to
-> >all parents to send kids to their choice of public, private, or
-> >parochial schools will result in a more segregated, class-oriented
-> >education system with the richest people getting the best teachers and
-> >education environment and the poorest getting the shaft.
-> 
-> For all of the market theory paraded by neo-conservatives, they seem to
-> have a little difficulty with this rather obvious analysis.
-> Introducing "market forces" to public education *means* providing the
-> quality of education commensurate with the individual's ability to pay.
-> That's really all there is to it, as far as market theory is concerned.

	If each school requires a voucher and each child gets a
voucher, how does this prevent a parent from sending their child to
any school they want to?  It will only require schools to compete for
those vouchers.  The plan does not throw the school system to the
mercy of the market.

-> Following from that eminently predictable outcome is a situation where the
-> less wealthy have less access to quality education, and thus, less access
-> to higher-paying careers. That's what I call re-systematizing classism, because
-> it is an example of government action to reverse previous steps that allowed
-> for social mobility. Reagan and Bush have done a great deal to re-systematize
-> classism, one often overlooked mechanism being the national debt and interest
-> payments on that debt. This program would do more than everything else they
-> have done combined.

	Does this mean you also want to get rid of the University
system, since people that can afford to go to college make a much
higher average income?  Competition between Universities is what has
made them some of the best in the world.

-> The increased segregation is also obvious: the substantial majority of American
-> blacks and hispanic people are poor. Again, this program would do more than
-> anything yet done by Reagan and Bush to keep them that way.

	Saying it's obvious doesn't prove anything.  Reagan and Bush
have done what conservatives believe should be done: leave it to the
individual to take care of themselves.  Most people are poor, because
they don't want to work hard.  Why should someone who has worked 12
hour days for years to get the position and income they want pay a
very large percentage of their work to someone who doesn't want to get
off the couch.  It doesn't have anything to do with hispanic or black;
there are more white people on welfare than anyone else.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Reply-To: keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: VERSYSS Incorporated, Torrance, California
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:24:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.161349.24795@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Yes, and those that work the best look just like the well-known stereotype
>of the "traditional family." Families without fathers (for whatever reason)
>or families without mothers (for whatever reason) or families with
>step-parents are simply not as successful in raising happy and successful
>children. This isn't some sort of half-baked morality argument... it
>is a pragmatic one.

And according to the Republicans, the things to do about it are to make
no-fault divorce illegal (implied by William Benett's speech at the
convention anyway, who listed it as one of the causes), ban abortions,
and institute a school voucher system.  Pragmatism at work, I see.

I suppose another thing we could do is to confiscate the children of
single parents and put them in some kind of government regulated
homes.

Just what exactly should go into this "Family Values Amendment" anyway?

Keith

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush