HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
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 21:35:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <8984@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>The "Church" of the middle ages was much more a political body than it was
>a reigious body.  Given its abilities to effect the lives of millions, it
>quite naturally attracted the attentions of those who lusted after power.
>
>Those who gain such power are naturally lothe to loose it, they will do
>what is necessary to protect their power.  Heretics threatened this cozy
>relationship and had to be destroyed.
>
>BTW, the "political" leaders of the church were no more ruthless with those
>who threatened their power base, than were the "secular" rulers with
>their "heretics".
>
>-- 
>--Mark

What you write is the absolute GOD's truth.(Hmmm was that a pun?) After the
emergence from the "Middle/Dark Ages" when government more or less came into
their own they strived to control the church so they could keep the power. This
pretty much(or at least tried to)squash all but government approved religion.
That's one of the reasons that our founding fathers put that line in about
the sepration of church and state. Of course what that really does is protect
the "CHURCH" from the "STATE". IMHO what we need now are laws that will
also protect the "STATE" from the "CHURCH". All this is European/US history and
should in no way be confused with World history.

Stan Knight
|"God uses the good ones and the bad ones use God."|
|            ---Jimmy Steward---                   |
  (from one of his movies, can't remember which) 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4547 talk.politics.misc:44440 alt.politics.elections:12712
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Scary thought for the day
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:30:14 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep3.154303.27072@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>Personally, I have a problem with the fact that she [Mary Matalin]
>has been one of the 
>people flinging lies and distortions...

Excuse me, but please cite any such "lies and distortions".  After
all, "bimbo eruptions" was a direct quote from a Clinton campaign
worker.

>another Bush lap dog

What's your definition of a "Bush lap dog"?  Anyone who supports him?

>with no ethics.

Once again, please provide evidence.

>Using these tactics to "hang Slick Willie out to dry"

What tactics?  Direct quotes from Clinton aides who were discussing
the private detectives they have hire to quash further bimbo eruptions?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:48:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.123555.11553@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>The truth is:
>
[biased and broad general characterizations of two major parties]

[Now, about Bill Clinton, I presume:]

>He did inhale. 

How do you know?

>He lied about the draft.

I do not think so.  What was the lie?

>He did sleep with Flowers. 
>He did cheat on his wife.

If true, so what?  She supports him; it's no one else's business.

>He will raise taxes.

I hope so!  I am not looking forward to the gov't going bankrupt.

>He will put people out of
>work. 

And Bush won't!?

>He is LIBERAL.

Ooooo!  Scary!  Not Moderate, or even Liberal, but LIBERAL! 
Seriously, to quote Ronald Reagan (August 8, 1992):
"America needs leaders, not labels."

>You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Sure you can.  Bush is a decent man, but a lousy President.

>Fred Seals

----------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4462 alt.politics.clinton:4519 alt.politics.elections:12678
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 09:32:15 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>   Isn't it amazing how the liberal left doesn't have anything to say
> anymore on Tipper Gore?  I guess she's their 'token' Family Values
> advocate.
>
>   He he he he he he!
>
>   Seriously, I'd forget about watching any Presidential debates this year.
> Instead it would be much more interesting to watch Hillary Clinton debate
> Tipper Gore on the question of 'Should children have the right to sue their
> parents for cutting off access to obscene records?'.
>
> --
> Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.go
> NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  4413
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontification
> of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!

Hey, sport, I'm still waiting for you to explain all of that pandering that
George Bush has been doing since 1980.  I guess we can infer from your lack of
desire to defend your candidate that he has no record, therefore all you can do
is spew forth foolishness like the above in his defense.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4960 talk.politics.misc:45195 alt.politics.clinton:5219 alt.politics.democrats.d:92
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:58:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep5.153736.6743@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!
>
>I've been looking forward to that for four years now.

I doubt that the Quayle vs. Gore debate would be half as entertaining as
the Quayle vs. Bentsen(sp?) debate.  "You are no Jack Kennedy!"


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:33:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
-> From article <1992Sep15.154148.12964@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, by rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat):
-> I wan't even thinking about the Methodists.  Thanks for tipping me off
-> to their left leanings.  Actually if you went out and polled churches
-> for their 'official' positions on gun control, you'd find many main-line
-> denominations in favor of gun control.

	How do you poll a church?  Just because two people belong to
the same church doesn't mean they have the same political views.  I
doubt you would find many churches that even discuss politics in any
formal way.  It's a mistake to lump the enormous number of people
that go to church into having the same views as extremists like
Robertson. 

-> In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
-> handguns.  I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
-> them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
-> serving.  Guns are big business.  Many of the people involved in the
-> NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns. People stand to lose money if we
-> as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.  We'll
-> never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
-> because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
-> ownership.
-> 
-> Guns engender violence.  Fights that used to be settled with fists and
-> bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.  Where do
-> the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  Then it was
-> stolen or sold or lost.  We are a nation awash in guns. We keep making
-> more.  Why?
-> 
-> There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
-> pro gun side seems to want to find it.

	This is a case of treating the symptoms and not the problem.
The problem is not that the guns exists but that people are willing to
use them.  If someone has been brought up to believe it is wrong to
hurt someone, they are probably not going to do it.  Pushing values is
not as tangible or easy as restricting guns, so it's harder to
convince people it's the right thing to do.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:41:42 GMT

In article <ART.92Sep11142723@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.174408.33847@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
> 
>    In article <ART.92Sep11013334@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>    >In article <lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>    >   StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
>    >   |> Glenn Story) writes:
>    >   |> : forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>    >   |> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
>    >   |> write bad checks?
> 	   [stuff deleted]
>    >   I am not saying it was not abused.  I am just saying they broke no
>    >   laws, spent none of our money, violated no bank rules, etc.
>    >Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
>    >our tax dollars that covered their loans.
> 
>    You are either being knowingly duplicitous or willfully ignorant. The
>    overdrafts were covered by the deposits of other House members. There was no
>    external (i.e., other than salaries paid to Representatives) tax money
>    involved?
> 
> Are you sure about this.  I thought I read somewhere that the Treasury
> covered any deficits in the House bank.
> 

When half of the members are habitually overdrawn, there has to be
a source to cover it.  Naturally, both the Dems and the Repubs don't
want you to know about it --- they were both involved.

Both parties have been ripping us all off for decades -- it's about
to time to vote out the Dem's & the Repub's.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 19:15:47 GMT

In article <h66pbcs@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
writes:
>>>                                             In the meantime, we should make
>>>sure that each and every child receives adequate sex education--just the
>>>facts, no moralizing.
>>>
>>Sure!  And while we're at it, let's teach children about guns the same way -
>>just the facts about how to use them, no moralizing about where to point them
>>and when to pull the trigger.
>
>It's always a good sign when people resort to such asinine postings. Children
>don't need to learn about guns: the world would be a better place without
>them. Sex, on the other hand, is what keeps the planet populated, and whether
>you like it or not, everyone does it, even children. It's responsible to teach
>children the rights and wrongs of sex, just plain stupid to arm them.

Personally, I think you're both exhibiting absurd world views.

Regarding sex:  I think that everybody should be taught early how to avoid
pregnancy and STDs.  The fact is that kids DO have sex and pretending that
ignorance regarding condoms will prevent that makes no sense at all.  Parents
can then provide their kids with whatever ethical framework they like, even
the (twisted) idea that abstinence is good.

Regarding guns:  I don't know if the world would be better off without guns
or not but the fact is they DO exist.  Personally, I enjoy shooting at
paper and clay targets with them.  Teaching kids that guns are bad and
not providing themn with the knowledge necessary to coping with their
actual existence is also twisted, IMO.

My kids are going to know how to express their sexuality AND use guns
safely.

    don


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:03:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.175342.11514@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:

>Bush: erase the deficit by limiting the growth of entitlement programs
>(with the exception of Social Security) to changes in the consumer
>price index. The objection was raised that this prevents the deficit
>from growing further, but doesn't do much to reduce it -- especially
>given that Bush wants to lower taxes slightly, which will (at least in
>the short run) *lower* revenue.

The best way to analyze this would be to simulate both plans at some
point in the past and see how they do.

Over the past 10 years, for every $1 brought in through higher
taxes Congress has spent $1.25. If Clinton's plan had been
enacted in 1984 we would be in even worse shape today.

On the other hand, government revenues have been increasing at a rate
faster then the CPI. If in 1984 we had held spending to increases in
the CPI we would have a ballanced or nearly balanced budget.

I personally don't like a freeze as a way to do it; is simply enshrines
too much wasteful spending. But I do support it as I think it is the
only workable way to solve the deficit.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5070 talk.politics.misc:45367 alt.politics.clinton:5349
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:21:52 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <9100@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
> In <1992Sep10.212650.8832@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> >The National Review is run by Buckley and has the likes of Reagan, Selleck,
> >and Heston doing adds for it. These do not exactly constitute a covey of
> >liberals. Read the rag sometime and then tell me what constitutes bias
> >journalism.
> 
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> Wow Doc, truth by innuendo.  Is this the kind of research you did to
> get your Phd.  Yes these gentlemen are well known as having a conservative
> bent.  They must like the magazine, otherwise they would not do adds for
> it.
> 
> Therefor the rag is biased and not worth reading.  NOT.
> 
> You still have not given any evidence to back up your claims.  All you have
> done is ask us to prove you wrong.  I guess you did not take any classes
> in logic along the way to the Phd of yours.
> 
> -- 
> --Mark
> My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
> 
> 

As I have said before, I will not waste my time debating with people who
question my honor or my credentials. That is the reason I have not and will not
give any "evidence" at this time. If any polite posters want to pick up
this debate, I will be happy to continue.

Norman (for the anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:29:00 GMT

Could someone please give me details on B/Q's supposed plan for national
health care? I saw a rather long clip of Quayle yesterday (it may have been
from his Labor Day speech) where he made all sorts of wild assertions about
Clinton's health care plans (claiming that it would be "rationing" health
care -- and commenting that the last time we had rationing was when the
other Democratic President (Carter) rationed Energy and everyone had to wait
in huge lines and that we would have to do that if Clinton had his way).
Then ol' Danny Boy says that he and Bushy have this plan, where they would
have tax incentives and vouchers (!) for health care.

So what the hell does he mean by that? Tax deductions (for itemized returns
only, of course) if you buy your own health care and a piece of paper that
says you can get health care?

Someone mind explaining their plan, or better yet, emailing me a copy of
their plan? Or is that too much to ask... 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:33:34 GMT

In article <lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

   StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
   |> Glenn Story) writes:
   |> : forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
   |> 
   |> : >If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
   |> : >stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
   |> : >himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
   |> : >the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
   |> : >results of due process.)
   |> : 
   |> : Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
   |> 
   |> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
   |> write bad checks?
   |> 
   One more time, and slowly.  No one in congress wrote a bad check.  The 
   congressional bank had an overdraft protection program, supported by
   it's members.  You can get the same thing from your bank, although they
   will probably charge you interest.

   The Congressional bank was set up just for this reason.  It allowed 
   congressmen new to washington to draw against upcoming pay to set up
   their washingon households.

   I am not saying it was not abused.  I am just saying they broke no
   laws, spent none of our money, violated no bank rules, etc.

Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
our tax dollars that covered their loans.

   If you want to bash congress, use facts, not bull-shit.

I just did.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4322 alt.politics.clinton:4327 alt.politics.elections:12591
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 22:30:31 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> 1.  Clinton is all NOW has.  Every single member of NOW will vote
> Clinton.  Patricia Ireland will not be the next American president
> because of her abortion on demand disagreement with Clinton.  As an
> aside, Clinton is not asking for any restrictions on abortion.  He was
> against the Pennsylvania Law, which as a pro-lifer I considered a very
> fair middle-road compromise.

I'm not interested in an abortion debate.  I stand by my original argument,
however.

>
> 2.  All he wants is raising the top 2% (he says aloud).  Part of his
> class warfare, nail the rich approach to politics says that he taxes the
> hell out of them.  His divisive techniques have worked so far (due in
> part to the GOP's lack of an adequate response), and most people want
> that tax.  By the way, the top 2% goes down to 77,000 - that includes
> many of our parents and friends - Clinton isn't just soaking the rich.

Your statement would then support the original contention, that Clinton's tax
increase is a minority point of view.  Thanks for that support.

>
> 3.  Everybody wants to reduce defense spending.  By saying he wants more
> than Bush, he's only arguing a matter of degree, something which in the
> end will be decided by Congress anyway.

So, if it's just a matter of degree, how is this evidence of Clinton's
'pandering'?


>
> All in all, Clinton is the ultimate panderer, second to only H. Ross
> Perot.  This country needs leadership and strength of character, and
> Clinton's pandering along with his extra-marital flings show that he has
> neither.
>

Please explain how Bush's flip-flop on the following are not examples of
pandering:

1.  Abortion in 1980
2.  'Read My Lips...' from 1988
4.  Promising across the board tax cuts at the RNC
5.  Promising to rebuild Homestead AFB last week, even though it was slated to
be closed.
6.  Promising to cover 100% of South FL and LA's expenses related to hurricane
damage, even though this will increase federal spending. (last week)
7.  Agreeing to sell F-16s to Taiwan after opposing the same sale for the last
three years.

One last point:  Bush's extra-marital flings have never been disproven, so I
wouldn't go throwing too many stones while standing in a glass house.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4226 alt.politics.elections:12523