HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DOUBLE the size of GOVERMENT!
Summary: Killer Tomatoes
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:20:49 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <67910004@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>, slack@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David S writes...

>	The Government Racket, Washington Waste from A to Z
>	Bantam Books, $7.99 US
>	Martin L. Gross
>	ISBN 0-553-37175-4
> 
>paying for.  As pointed out in the book, there is no reason for agencies like 
>the dept of ag. to have 60,000 employees for only 2.1 million farms.
> 
Obviously, you have never seen "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes".


>Dave 

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bumpersticker
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:19:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.235405.18704@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>
>Well, I don't know exactly WHO I support in this upcoming 
>election, but I DO know who I DON't support. So any other
>anti-clinton'ers out there who want a bumpersticker to that
>effect, you can print out the enclosed postscript file on
>your laser printer by cutting along (and including) the
>dotted line (so that the first 2 characters of the file are "%!".
>then just lpr the file. Contact me if you can't get it to work
>right.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>%!
>
>/mod 7 dict def
>/MOF
>  { mod begin
>    /uid exch def
>    /sw exch def
>    /nfn exch def
>    /bfn exch def
>
>    /bfd bfn findfont def
>
>    /nume bfd maxlength 1 add def
>
>    bfd /UID known not
>      { /nume nume 1 add def } if
>
>    /ofd nume dict def
>
>    bfd
>      { exch dup /FID ne
>        {exch ofd 3 1 roll put }
>        { pop pop }
>        ifelse
>      } forall
>
>    ofd /FontName nfn put
>    ofd /PaintType 2 put
>    ofd /StrokeWidth sw put
>    ofd /UID uid put
>
>    nfn ofd definefont pop
>    end
>  } def
>
>90 rotate 0 -792 translate
>
>/Helvetica-BoldOblique /HO1 1000 54 div
>
>/Helvetica-BoldOblique findfont dup /UID known
>  { /UID get 1 add }
>  { pop 1 }
>  ifelse
>MOF
>
>/HO1 findfont 200 scalefont setfont
>22 610 moveto (Clinton) show
>22 410 moveto(is a ) show
>22 210 moveto (Sleaze) show
>showpage
>

Hot!  Change one little line of code, and we have an instant
opportunity for subject-variable political sniping!
--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15370 alt.politics.libertarian:612 alt.politics.marrou:1454
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Big Science funding
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:58:06 GMT

There has been a lot of debate over funding big science research like the SSC,
space station, and manned mission to Mars this year.  I know Bush supports the
space station (too bad the scientists don't!) and the Mars mission.  What about
the SSC?  What is Clinton's position on such funding?  What can we expect from
each on research for cures for cancer, AIDS, etc. in light of their respective
ideas on big science?

  -- Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:26:30 GMT


An unborn child is innocent, and deserves a chance to live. A murderer has
obviously done something heinous-execution is not just some arbitrary
killing.  Abortion has the potential to be used liked this.  I'm
concerened about abortion being used as a method of eugenics, abortion
when an unborn child is deemed "inferior" or "undesirable" by someone
else's standards.
I was born with certain physical problems.  When I was younger a common
unwarranted attack at me was the comment "After you were born, I bet your
mother is pro-abortion..".  That's probably one of the few times I wanted
to fight someone.  Irrellavent comment, I know.  Getting carried away.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mss2@amber.uchicago.edu (Michael Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:03:04 GMT

In article <92273.122247MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou@quads.uchicago.edu

>>What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
>>_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
>>is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
>>difference, but still it's an important one.

>Umm, seen "Terminator 2"? Hint: He's not a bad guy, and he's still very mean
>to lots of police officers.

>Incidentally, I enjoyed T2 immensely, but I still agree with Royko's original
>point -- it seems a role model who goes around killing the police is a lot
>worse than a role model who decides to have a baby out of wedlock.

	Actually, as I recall, John Connor specifically instructs
Arnold's character _not_ to kill the police, or anyone, because "you
can't just go around killing people".  One may question the realism of
tossing around the sort of firepower Arnold does without accidental
casualties, but questioning the realism of T2 is really shooting ducks
on water, isn't it?

	Indeed, T2, for better or worse, is very much in line with the
family values stuff.  John Connor begins as the maladjusted child of a
single mother.  He is then redeemed by the presence of a father figure
and conversely saves his mother and redeems said father figure by
transforming it (the Arnold-Terminator) from an amoral killing machine
to something which does not deal random death and which does, in the
end, sacrifice itself for its "family".  It's not exactly "Leave it to
Beaver", but it is very much in keeping with a fairly straightforward
(if simplistic) morality: violence is to be avoided and minimized, but
is sometimes necessary in cases of self-defense (the T1000 _was_ going
to kill John and Sarah, remember) or defense of others (to prevent the
war which would kill hundreds of millions).

 Essentially,
>the Republican anti-"media-elite" family-values types are forced to either
>denounce Schwarzenegger, an ardent Republican, or else admit that this whole
>Hollywood elite thing is in fact just a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the
>real issues.

	I guess I don't really see that they are forced to do either,
even to remain self-consistent (not that either party has exactly made
consistency a priority in any case).  T2 doesn't really conflict with
the family values line the Republicans have taken.  One may take issue
with that line itself (I do), but that's a different question.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@amber.uchicago.edu		 when I reflect that God is just."
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu	-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
aq578@cleveland.freenet.edu	   Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Bush and Iran Contra
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:22:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.022554.16175@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	Why discount it? There was nothing wrong with Iran Contra but the fact
>that it violated 'proper routes.' [...]
>	The fact is, Iran-Contra was about as physically harmful as
>WaterGate.  And perhaps as politically useful to the opponents.

Nothing wrong?  You're forgetting the part about it being the end
"payback" for helping Reagan/Bush get elected.  Using old CIA ties to
get into power of the most powerful nation on earth?

Sheesh.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
       Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
          one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:23:09 GMT

In article <1a2h50INN7l5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
>In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:
>
>>In article <1992Sep25.085020.29253@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>
>>>I would suggest that the American pejorative use of the word
>>>"liberal" is quite intentional since it is meant to tar anyone
>>>who opposes social authoritarianism with the "socialist" or
>>>"tax-wasting" brush, and thus to dismiss them without ever
>>>having to face up to their real case.
>>
>>  "Liberal" is an English word (granted it has Latin roots, but it
>>  is, nonetheless, an English word).  We speak English and, moreover,
>>  we are the largest English speaking country in the world (unless
>>  you count India) so we have every right to define the word as we
>>  wish without regard for the non-English speaking world's opinion
>>  of the meaning of the term.  
>>
>I  might suggest that an intelligen reading of the above passage
>suggests not that Americans cannot reinterpret words the way they
>like but that conservatives have tried to imbue the word "liberal"
>with inherently negative connotations.

You are dead on here.

I have always considered "conservative" to be a dirty word (everybody did 
in the early 70's), even back when I was a still a Republican.  In the 80's 
the arch-conservative wing of the Republican party won out and they began 
distorting the meaning of the term liberal, with the result today that some 
people are confused by what the word means.

Here are the historical meanings of the terms.  That is, these terms
will fit any country in any era.  They also show, for instance, what
the conservatives of the late Soviet Union had in common with U.S. 
conservatives.  Conservative/Liberal are less of a political ideology
than a mindset.

Reactionary - wants things to return to the way they previously were.
Conservative - wants things to remain as they are or to change more slowly.
Liberal - wants things to change faster than they are now changing.
Radical - wants things to change immediately.

From the above definitions one can see that some of the speakers at the
1992 Republican convention can be considered as "reactionary" rather than
"conservative".

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:06:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.142447.27483@bnr.ca>, yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
> 
> How can we look up to a President who is even afraid
> of Bryant Gumbel?!?
> However, now that this list is public, I would expect
> the Bush campaign to agree to some kind of interview 
> with one of these people soon. If I were on the list
> I would be calling today. 
> 
 How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country? How
can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife? How
can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
American work place? How can we look up to a President who has experimented
with drugs... particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and
murders children? You've choosen an interesting thread. Now let's see how many
other flaws we can find in "Billary" Clinton. 
Here endith the lesson.
		
		 --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Interesting Happenings on Larry King Live (STL)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:06:51 GMT

   Just before the start of Larry King Live this evening, featuring an interview
with Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the TCI Cablevision signal for CNN became 
disrupted (it looked similar to the scrambling used on Pay-TV channels).

   At 9 PM, just after the show ended, the signal returned to normal.

   TCI Cablevision was not sure of the cause, at the last I heard.

   Just makes you wonder...

Greg

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
From: costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Pro-choice
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:20:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <66636@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>>
>>
>>                      Bush   Clinton  Marrou
>>Pro choice on:
>>
>>  abortion            no     yes      ?
>>  education           yes    no       yes
>>  trade               no     no       yes
>>  drug use            no     no       yes
>>  Social Security     no     no       yes
>
>Bush's position is that a woman should be forcibly prevented from
>paying someone to perform an abortion, even if she considers it morally
>permissible to do so.  Clinton's position is that a woman should be
>forcibly compelled to pay someone to perform an abortion, even if she
>considers it morally reprehensible to do so.  Neither one of them is
>pro-choice.
>
	Please explain what you mean by forcibly compelled. How can
	Clinton force a woman to get an abortion? I don't get it.


	Costin,
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: The environmental president
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:34:58 GMT

One of my co-workers has a great cartoon posted outside his office, by
Jim Borgman for the Cincinnati Enquirer....
 
Picture a very large, freshly cut tree.  A chain saw sitting on the
stump.  We are looking at the cut end, with the rings labelled.
Starting from the center, are:
 
   Battle of Hastings
   Magna Carta signed
   Columbus reaches America
   Declaration of Independence
   Louisiana Purchase
   Lincoln shot
   Attack on Pearl Harbor
 
Finally, about three rings from the outside, is one labelled:
 
   George Bush elected the Environmental President
 
I think this sums up Bush's environmental record quite well.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14577 alt.politics.clinton:7681 alt.politics.bush:7078
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Parents Beware, Sex Education
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:08:22 GMT

In article <BvF224.EEJ@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>In article <BvCrr9.L79.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>|> 
>
>|> I'm willing to bet that this guy would oppose sex education
>|> in schools because only he should decide when his children
>                                                 ^^^
>|> are ready to know about sex and what they should be taught
>       ^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
>|> 
>|> Susan
>
>Are you saying that people do not have the right to decide
>what their children are taught?  You say this statement as if
>you think its unusual for a parent to want to influence their
>child's education.
>
>PARENTS OUT THERE, BEWARE!  Your rights are being eroded by
>people like this, who believe they know better than you "when (your)
>children are ready to know about sex..."!
>
>
>-- 
>Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
>Rice University                    
>Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
>XUV Holographic Microscope Project 

  Are you saying that you should have the right to decide what
*my* children are taught? I didn't think so. If you want your
children to be ignorant of sex thats fine, just don't be too
surprised when one accidentally gets (or gets someone) pregnant.
Yes, you should have influence into what your child is taught and
in most states you have the option of teaching them at home.
Schools should provide knowledge/skills that will aid in survival
in the current society. Sex education is necessary for survival
(i.e. how NOT to get pregnant, how NOT to acquire a STD, etc)

BTW: exactly when is a child ready for sex education? when they are
about to get married? If you haven't noticed, many children are
curious about sex and sex related matters ("where do babies come
from?") early in elementary school.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14431 alt.politics.clinton:7487 alt.politics.bush:6920
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush and Iran Contra
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:42:33 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO

In article <1992Sep27.022554.16175@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	Why discount it? There was nothing wrong with Iran Contra but the fact
>that it violated 'proper routes.' But the Democrats, who were bitching
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, like the Constitution. Yeesh, what a loser.

Alan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing)
Subject: Scheduled times for debates?
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:49:12 GMT

Could someone post the scheduled local times for the presidential debates in
St. Louis, Richmond and E. Lansing?   Thanks -- I want to try to listen in
on the Voice of America, which has carried the debates live in past
elections.
Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New CNN Poll
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:05:16 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
| Even so, these numbers are not that meaningful.  Perot's presence could
| tip the balance in states such as Texas, despite a small overall effect.

  If Perot plays his cards right and gives it an all-out effort (which
  I'm not sure he'll do), he could have a significant overall effect.
  Polls have consistently shown a substantial undecided vote and that
  about half (slightly over half for the Democrats and slightly below
  for the Republicans) of each candidates support is very weakly
  attached.

  Anything can happen.  Don't underestimate the level of discontent
  with the estabishment parties and the power of a genuine citizens'
  campaign.
  ==

  Bob                                         Seattle, Washington
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Subject: Is Perot In?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:34:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

Well, his news conference should be about over - is he or isn't
he?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: 1992 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM (1/5)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:05:55 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

: Excuse me, but this is what happens when your opposition posts
: something. It happens all the time on this network. I joyfully post an
: article, then get blasted to Kingdom Come!

Emil--I apologize if it seemed like I was flaming you.  I did not
intend to do so.  I appreciate the effort you took to get this
document in etext form.

My earlier comments were meant as a flame against the Republican Party.
Yes, there are things in the Democrats', the Republicans' and the
Libertarians' platforms that I agreed and disagreed with.  For example,
I feel that the LP's platform is unrealistic, and the Democrats'...well...
someone else introduced the term "bread and circuses," not to mention
that the Democrats' platform supports publicly funded abortions.
(I may be pro-choice, but I do have limits to that philosophy....)

The passages I quoted, however, were the first I've come across
in any of the platforms that I found morally reprehensible.  I would
have understood if people had posted comments when I posted the
Democratic Party Platform and the LP Platform, and I assume that
anything is posted to an unmoderated USENET group is open for discussion.

I also admit that I did go a little overboard in claiming that
the Republican Platform gets too carried away in Democrat-bashing and
Bushwacker-glorifying.  However, while the Democrats do some bashing
in their platform, IMHO the Republicans' bashing is more severe, 
especially considering that it was a Republican presidential candidate
who was calling for a kindler, gentler nation four years ago.
Yes, some of that is to be expected in today's political scene,
but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Again, thank-you for posting the platform.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc