HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amym@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Amy Moseley Rupp)
Subject: Republican Party Platform
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:03:10 GMT

I managed to collect copies of the Libertarian and Democratic
platforms thanks to the folks at the compuserve e-mail addresses
for Clinton and Marrou.  Now I still need the Republican platform!
Please reply via e-mail if possible.

Amy 
-- 
Amy Moseley Rupp			Needed:  one witty, appropriate,
amym@oakhill.sps.mot.com		businesslike .sig that will perfectly
(512) 329-7117				reflect my philosophy of life and will
18 weeks and counting			fit in four lines or less.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush/Baker Ticket??
Date: 23 Jul 1992 15:12:47 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.143756.24661@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> My brother is saying that (although he is not sure if the VP would be
|> Kemp, Schwartzkoff, Colin Powell, or Baker).  His logic is much the 
|> same as Clinton's in pushing the party to the center.  Clinton knows
|> that "the left" has no where else to go (and while some may sit out,
|> he'll pick up more from the center).  Clinton can scare most of "the 
|> left" into voting for him by saying the alternative is four more years
|> of Bush (goodbye Roe-v-Wade).

True. It seems to me that the only real replacement to Quayle would be
Jack Kemp (or Dick Cheney). Powell and Schwarzkopf, being politically
neutral, would not appeal to the right-wing. Neither would Baker, since 
he is just a duplicate of Bush, with a Texas accent and a Princeton degree.

|> 
|> Bush is in a similar position with "the Right".  They have no where to 
|> go.  They may get pissed (or more pissed) at Bush, but Bush will still
|> be better, in their eyes (pro-life), than Clinton.  I think many on "the
|> right", feeling that Bush is going down anyway, would go along with dumping
|> Quayle because then they can distance themselves (the conservative name
|> and the Reagan legacy) from the Bush failure.

The Conservatives can simply stay home and sit on their hands on Nov.3. 
The left-wing, being sick of losing for 12 years, is more likely to accept
Clinton as the best that they can do with and vote for him because they
hate Bush so much.


|> Russ Anderson   

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Kemp to replace Bush !!! (was Re: Bush/Baker Ticket??)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.190101.6259@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>In article <64114@hydra.gatech.EDU> jbutterf@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Jill Butterfield) writes:
>>There's a rumor going around here that Baker's first task to help
>>out the Bush campaign is to kick Quayle out, and that Baker plans
>>on running for VP.

Won't happen. Zero chance.

What *will* happen is the GOP will see Bush's numbers in two weeks.
His still *way* behind. They know he will lose.  They need a candidate
who has charisma and credibility on domestic problems.

They dump Bush for Kemp at the Convention.

Could it happen?   Yes it could.

If you want to fan the rumor, call your local GOPer today.
Yup.  Let's start cranking up the rumor mill.

----------
P. McGuinness		Kemp in '92    (There is a chance for real change)
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com

P.S. I'd to get a sense of support for this on the net. 
If you support it, send me e-mail.


>I hadn't heard that, but I've long thought that Baker would make a run
>in 1996 (this prediction came immediately after Mush's 1988 win).

Again, zero chance on Baker.


>Drew 
>
>--
>drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
>"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
>- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:50:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA

In article <1992Jul24.150800.20274@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>  What bothers me about this great contest to see who's been victimized most
>  (and therefore deserves the most protection) is that there is no Calculus
>  of Victimhood that can be applied to come up with an objective solution.

Who's trying to see who's been victimized "most?"  That seems to be your
interest, not mine.

>  Oh, and by the way, life isn't fair. Show me where they said it was.

Life ain't fair, but that doesn't mean we should sit around on our fat
asses and not try to do anything about it.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: TSONGAS: Convention speech text
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:23:28 CDT


In article <1992Jul20.012000.2971@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <barrett.711519761@cc.gatech.edu>, barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
> > rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> > 
> >>scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl) writes:
> >>>I've seen this Willie Horton/Al Gore reference made twice now.
> >>>What does it mean?
> >>Gore's campaign is the original source of Willie Horton.
> > 
> > No. No. No.  Gore's campaign was the source for furloughs.  No mention
> > of race or a specific case at all.  Bush drug up one example of a black
> > man who (with hindsight) should not have been released.  
> 
> 	Yes Yes Yes.  Gore said (read his lips) "Willie Horton".

Gore specificly said, on "David Brinkley", that he did not use Horton's
name and was not aware of any specific names or races of those furloughed.

> 	Bush's campaign never, ever mentioned a name or displayed a picture.

Bush mentioned Horton by name.  Floyd Brown used Horton's picture.

> 	If only there were time machines so each one of you could go back and
> see it again....
> :)

I'm sure if Gore was lying (on David Brinkley), the Republicans would quickly 
have an add out showing Gore mentioning Horton in 1988.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:42:28 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <rdippold.711676309@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|> >In article <archer.93@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> >|> >No minimum drinking age, eh?  Pretty scarey to me...
|> >|> 
|> >|> Why?  Because it makes individuals responsible for their actions?  I can see 
|> >|> how that would scare some people.
|> 
|> >How does giving a fifteen year old the right to get drunk make him 
|> >responsible for his actions?  Children are children and their actions
|> >need to be subject to control.
|> 
|> No shit, and that's why you have parents.  If the parents feel that
|> the child is responsible enough and old enough to be drinking, then so
|> be it.
|> 
But if you have decided your children are not yet responsible enough, to
you support the right of the local sleeze following your child around and
giving/selling them alcohol?  Let's say it is your 13 year old daughter.

How do you protect your daughter from alcohol and drugs long enough for
you to instill your values?  Have you tried raising kids yet?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:00:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

>Finally homosexuality is a perversion, is immoral, is contrary to 
>the teachings of the Bible and those that engage in such practices
>typically are diseased both in the body and in mind. They carry 
>numerous infectious diseases including AIDS and other veneral 
>diseases, have higher rates of hepatitis etc, etc. These people
>are mentally depraved and are in need of psychiatric help.

1. Biblical rules and morals apply only to those who accept them.

2. Religion does not make law.  (Thank God)

3. Jesus commanded you to love your neighbor as yourself.

4. Homosexuality exists in other species, not just sentient homo sapiens.
   
5. YOU are depraved and are in need of SERIOUS psychiatric help.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:56:39 GMT

In <1992Jul18.202959.6262@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>In article <-5am+ar.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>> Let's face it, the guy is a buffoon and is in way over his head. He simply
>> isn't qualified ans sure as hell isn't polished enough to be prez. Governor
>> of a backward state like Arkansas, yes, President of the US, NO!

>Could you detail your reasons for asserting that

>   1)  he's a buffoon
>   2)  he's in over his head
>   3)  he's not qualified
>   4)  he's not polished

>It must be springtime in America, after all - the bigots are
>in bloom.
>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

I'm with you, Melinda. Bet all the Arkansas newsreaders are priming
their flame-throwers :-)

REB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35591 alt.politics.clinton:499
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:46:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:
>However, I would never be elected - at least not for many many years.
>I am female and I am Jewish.

1996 - the scenario...  Marti declares for President.  ARF immediately
disseminates information nationwide about how she is a Mossad agent
and her spirit was in league with Hitler.  The people, repulsed,
catapult her into office!
-- 
One man's "magic" is another man's "engineering." "Supernatural" is a
null word.     -- Lazarus Long
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36380 alt.individualism:4708 alt.activism:13670
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:39:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: >Yes, they control congress. However, how many vetoes have been presidential
: >vetoes have been overridden in the last 12 years? None? One?
: 
: A non-sequitur. If Congress sends a bill that has been passed by the 2/3rds
: majority of Congress or more, there is little reason for the President to
: veto it, since the votes were there to support it's passage to begin with.

Wrong. There are members of congress who will vote for a bill, fully 
expecting the president to veto the bill. Then, when it comes up for
override, the votes are not there. 

: >Both major parties are fucking the country up.
: 
: I agree completely. I want to get government completely out of my life. I 
: don't see the democrats as being that solution though. 

I don't see politicians of any stripe being the solution.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:53:18 GMT

It is interesting to note the level of cynicism abroad. Groucho
Marx is supposed to have said that we feel contempt for anyone
who is willing to put up with the gauntlet we run them through
to get elected. Anyway, just a couple of points:

1. I smoke and remember very clearly my first puff - my lungs
and throat said 'No way' and I simply couldn't get it down. I
did on the second try and passed out cold. As they say, its
an acquired taste :-(.

2. If we ever get a President who hasn't 'fooled around' it
will be a frosty day in July - what does that have to do with
the ability to govern?

3. If Governor Clinton has done such a lousy job in Arkansas,
how come they re-elected him 4 or 5 times?

4. Family values - Quayle makes me laugh. Which party allowed
salaries to drop so far behind inflation that both parents
have to work, or lose everything they tried to build. Can you
say GOP? With no one at home, we have a generation raised by
TV and the malls.

5. At least Clinton has a 'vision', while Bush doesn't under-
stand 'this vision thing', in fact according to interviews in
this past weekends Post, even his friends admit that thinking
is not his strong suit.

6. All this moaning about taxes - you would be better off if
you worried about your Constitutional rights, the few we have
left.

My $0.06 worth.

REB
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GATT/NAFTA Update -- Bush Keeps it Secret
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:40:49 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)


Secret?  Only if you assume that certain Canadian sources don't exist
(common practice, it seems; the latest Fraser Institute report on the
British Columbia heart bypass situation is ignored, and 1980 figures
are still being quoted down here to explain the "horrors" of Canada's
universal health insurance).

You can read all about it in Canadian papers and magazines like the
Toronto Globe & Mail or Maclean's, available at most better university
libraries.  Or, UPI Clarinet subscribers can read the Clari.canada.*
newsgroups.  I don't know about down here, but things are leaking like
a sieve up north ... if anything, the trilateral nature of NAFTA are
making things more cumbersome; from what I've read, the treaty will
probably be smaller than the existing U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement
(whose existence I still have a hard time convincing Americans about).
Not that I'm a fan of this treaty; I'd rather have Canada link up with
the EC to balance things out ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* H. Ross Perot (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:07:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.013455.20627@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> kjaskiew@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Keith Ross Jaskiewicz) writes:
>aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... aren't we ALREADY in the biggest
>>>recession since the 1930's?
>>
>>consider yourself corrected. The recession in the middle 70's and the
>>one in the early 80's where each far worse. This one is actually pretty
>>mild, it just seems worse compared to the previous decade of growth.
>
>Correct ME if I'M wrong, but according to the accepted succession of
>leading economic indicators, we are no longer in a recession.

You're wrong.  What the leading economic indicators do has nothing to
do with whether we are in a recession or not.  They are PREDICTORS,
nothing more, and they are not infallible (although they generally do
fairly well).  The ONLY definition of recession is to have two
successive quarters of no growth in Gross Domestic Product.  I believe
the economy actually grew (albeit slowly) in the last quarter.  We
will know in October or so (when we get the September figures) if we
are still in a recession or not -- I think we had no growth in the
Jan-Mar quarter, but I'm not sure.  If we actually DID have economic
growth in that quarter, then the recession is 'over'.  Of course, that
doesn't mean the recovery is going real fast.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:36:16 GMT

In article <archer.106@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

||> The responsability for choices rests with the individual, regardless of 
|> their age.  Properly raised, the child will not give consent, as her parents 
|> will have taught her.  State activity is no substitute for good parenting.
|> 
|> I am trying my best to address issues in a rational, adult, manner.  About 
|> one more bout of namecalling will earn you a place in my .kill file and I 
|> won't bother with you anymore.

Which name calling was that?  Whom did I call a name?  What was that 
name?  I described some of the concepts promoted by Libertarians as
being goofy.  Some of them as scarey.  And some of them are downright
dangerous.  I would put the ideas you put forth above in all three of
these categories.  The idea that the government or a society has no
business protecting children from a pedophilic father is not acceptable
to any rational, adult thinking person.  A pedophile does not produce a
"properly raised" child.  That's the problem.  Frankly, you can go ahead
now and put me in your .kill file - I will not restrain my criticism of
anyone who promotes rescinding laws against pedophilia.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:15:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <7117485162106@dalek.mcs.anl.gov> sullivan@dalek.mcs.anl.gov (Ms. Wendy Sullivan) writes:
>What about Gore??  The only problem is getting rid of Clinton--
>                                                 any volunteers?
>                 :-)

Well, the press does keep trying to compare Clinton to JFK....

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35224 alt.politics.clinton:231
From: borden@cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Jul18.174122.7142@infonode.ingr.com> haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner) writes:
>
>At the time when Clinton went on MTV, he was the low-man on/in the 
>poles, which is pretty bad when you consider who was ahead of him.
>His MTV spot was the act of a desparate man to say the least.

...

As a matter of fact, MTV asked Bill Clinton and the other major candidates
to go on TV, as part of a effort they've been making for several years to
get young people to be more politically involved.  (I think it's called
"Rock the Vote", but I'm not sure.)  I didn't see the show myself, but I've
only heard good things about it.  I don't think it was an act of desperation;
whether or not he was feeling desperate, it doesn't change the fact that he
was participating in a praiseworthy program aimed at heightening awareness
among a self-disenfranchised portion of society.  The fact that George Bush
would rather not see this portion of society become politically involved is
evidenced not only by his choice not to go on the show, but also by his
vetoing of the "Motor Voter" bill.  (I was really disgusted when he did that,
not for the first or last time.  I think the reasons he gave, increased
fraud and increased cost, are both lies.  By incorporating voter registration
records into one of the many large and comprehensive computer systems being
used by the government right now, e.g. the IRS computer or the motor vehicle
registy computers, both cost and fraud could be decreased.  The real reason
is that increased voter turnout would help the democrats and hurt the
Republicans.  The president of the United States is hindering the fair
election process.)

Think twice when you look down on things like MTV's voting drive.  I believe
that things like this - increased interaction between politics and pop
culture - are going to characterize the 1990s more and more.  The MTV thing
is one example; the proliferation of Desert Storm paraphernalia (which I
found truly revolting) is another example.  I for one would rather see more
things like the first example and fewer of the latter type.

     - Dave Borden
       borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc