HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elliott@leda.princeton.edu (Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:15:03 GMT

In article <1874@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>I keep saying this, but oh well...AMEN!  What a great story!  The GOP
>>propaganda tool they dub "traditional family values" has nothing to do
>>with values...it has everything to do with *rejecting* members of the
>>family who don't happen to be straight, don't happen to be
>>"conservative," don't happen to feel "Christian" all the time.
>
> Reread Bill Bennets speech at the convention. Family Values means relying on
>your family members and surrounding neighbors for support, counsel and guid-
>ance and not expecting a big government socialist program to cure all the
>problems you have. It also means establishing a set of traditions or values
>within your family which you think are important. 
> These values can vary from family to family but must be based on a foundation
>of ideals. These ideals can be very simple. Dont steal, murder, use racism etc.

 dont [sic] use apostrophes...

>etc. The family unit can pass its value system along with is fortune down to
>succeding members. Eventually the family becomes economically secure and might
>even free itself from the bondage of labor. They still will have to pay taxes
>though. At least for now.
>
> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Actually "family values" was a popular phrase with right-wing religious
groups before this campaign started.  What does the phrase "family
values" mean? Literally, it has _no_ meaning; however, it serves as a
signal that "It's US against THEM." (In this respect it's much like
Hitler's phrase "white culture".)

On another level, Bush's use of phrases popular with the religious right,
(e.g. "family values" and "no special rights") is a signal that he's willing
to sell out his allegedly moderate position for the support of the religious
right.  Even Barry Goldwater, the leading conservative Republican
ideologue, says flatly that Bush is wrong.

To Lilliputian minds, it scarcely matters what the difference is between US
and THEM.  (It might as well be how one opens an egg.)  Do we want to
elect a president of the United States or a king of Lilliput?

-- Frank
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:39:11 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>I am sick to death of the Republicans using the non-issue of "family values"
>I am sick to death of the lies distortions and half-truths being spewed from
>I am sick to death of Republicans using crystal ball arguements (Bill Clintons
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Mr. LaFave.  You are a doctor.  Cure yourself of these sicknesses.

One hint would be to apply the same attacking spiteful analysis
toward the Democrats.  They too make up lies (Bush's deficit is really
a congressional deficit.  Read Thomas Sowell's analysis.)  The
Rep.'s talk about family values because they are important to many
people (they must be since both parties are fighting for that turf).
Topics as diverse as school reform, abortion, condom distribution,
welfare reform, community standards of decency, are all important.
Yet, to you, they are non-issues.

And crystal ball arguments!  Geez are you on weak ground here.  Gore has a
pie-in-the-sky fanaticism about the environment and his self righteousness
about his claims which have little resemblance to scientific thinking on
the topic.  Clinton's economic proposals assume that the economy will rebound
and just start churning out more money.  He says he will raise taxes by $150
billion. I could go on, but your mind is set in concrete.  If you want to
have a reasonable debate, choose an issue.  I hope I can keep up with
a Dr. Dr. like yourselfself.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Joke, j-o-k-e:  more!
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:51:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.150552.7200@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <17munbINNeei@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.190750.18703@news.columbia.edu> js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>4. Show me a pro-lifer, I'll show you someone who supports the death penalty!
>>
>>Not true.  I am sure there are lots of people out there who are pro-life
>>when it comes to the unborn, the criminal, the elderly and the sick.
>
>But certainly not any with real influence.
>

Archbishop John Bernardin of the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago has
been an outspoken advocate of what he calls "a consistent ethic of
life," which encompasses opposition to the death penalty along with
elective abortion and other things.  He may not be a media hotdog
like Randall Terry, but I would say he does have considerable
influence.  And he is not the only Catholic leader to espouse this
broader pro-life view.

Jer.

walsh@wri.com          ---Clinton/Gore in '92---
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:55:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:

>>SCHEDULE FOR GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON
>>Macon, Georgia
> Corporal Clinton tries to explain how he got out of the draft
>
>>Greensboro, North Carolina
> Corporal Clinton tries to ignore the draft dodging his relatives
> orchestrated "to maintain my political viability within the system"
>
>>BALTIMORE, MD
> An increasingly hostile Private Clinton attempts to portray the facts
> about his draft dodging as Bush lies to no avail
>
>>Washington, D.C.
> Hillary steps in and saves a quivering, weeping, Citizen Clinton

this is all very clever.  ha ha!

>Whose son or husband or brother died while Slick Willie was laughing
>at the system?  Do you want this coward and liar to protect you?

sorry, not all of us are mindless militaristic drones like yourself.
blind support of or service in an immoral war is not something i like
in a candidate.  and Bush is a career liar, magnitudes more phony than 
Clinton.  for whom do you plan to vote?

						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: joeg@meaddata.com
Subject: Why I won't vote for Clinton
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:31:16 GMT
Distribution: na

Clinton has placed himself in to many comprimising positions.  Whether
he inhaled or not, he tried drugs.  Whether he dodged the draft or
not, he received his notice and didn't comply.  I am not clear what
truth lies in the allegations of his affairs.  I try not to let the
allegations cloud my judgement, but given his other personal failures,
I'm not sure what to believe.  These are the problems I have with the
character of Bill Clinton.  Why should I look any farther?  He doesn't
have the qualities I want in a leader.

-- 
Joe
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: More intelligence
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:25:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.162128.6305@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Wait a minute, now.
>
>Political theorists are wrong, but economic theorists we can trust?
>
>The brunt of the intelligence issue argument is this:
>1)  Assuming some amount of moral goodness in men who have spent time in the
>public arena (possibly excepting Nixon), moots out the "character issue".
>
>2)  Using some of the only data that we have available to measure the
>candidate's intelligence, the GOP ticket comes up a little shorter than their
>opponents'.
>
>Provide me some evidence that Bush and Quayle are smarter than Clinton and Gore
>and (as an intelligent man) I will listen to it.

	Yes, you are correct.  Karl Marx was a genius.  If I had
a time machine I would let you go back to his time and support the formation
of the USSR, which was ideologically created by the writings of Marx
and Ingels.  Perhaps you could help in the overthrow of the Czarist state.
Maybe the Bolsheviks would give you a nice state job at the top
someplace.
	After all, Marx was a hell of a lot smarter than the Czar.  His policiesshould work, right?
	They certainly couldn't do any harm, eh?

				J. Wagner

>
>Otherwise, I am not looking for saints in office, but effective
>decision-makers.
	Effective? Stalin was very effective. So was Hitler. That does
not mean that the 'effect' was something I would vote for.
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why I won't vote for Clinton
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:13:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug28.153116.28827@meaddata.com> joeg@meaddata.com writes:
>Clinton has placed himself in to many comprimising positions.  Whether
>he inhaled or not, he tried drugs.  Whether he dodged the draft or
>not, he received his notice and didn't comply.  

I'm glad I'm not running for office.  I'd hate to be evaluated on what I did
20 years ago.  Can't people mature and turn over a new leaf?  

I am not clear what
>truth lies in the allegations of his affairs.  

A story was sold to a supermarket tabloid - the type that talk about lost
WWII planes being seen near Mars.  No reputable paper endorsed it.

I try not to let the
>allegations cloud my judgement, but given his other personal failures,

such as ...

These are the problems I have with the
>character of Bill Clinton.  Why should I look any farther?  

Because none of these issues are relevant.  You should consider who has the
policies which will best benefit the country.  Also, if you would like to
consider character, why not consider what the candidates have done more
recently?  Why not consider Bush's blatant lies both during and after the GOP
convention?

Peter Lauren.
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:38:51 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Distribution: usa
Organization: not very organized

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.214809.15810@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In other words, THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE for all the
>>deficit spending we're doing.  Either he can control it (via veto and
>>threatened veto) or he can't.  If he can, then he is responsible for
>>the deficit.  If he can't, then there's no reason to reelect him.

>Sure there is.  Will Clinton do any better?  If Clinton is actually
>worse, it doesn't much matter how bad Bush is.

>We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
>increase and spending since then.  Bush MIGHT go for that if it was
>proposed, but Clinton WILL.  If you think that more of the same is a
>good idea, vote for Clinton.  If you think that more of the same is a
>bad idea, then the only chance you've got is a vote for Bush.


Huh?  Why would four more years of the same thing we've got now be
a means for change?
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: covenants and character
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:11:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.143002.6354@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> Covenants do matter.
> 
> 
> The issue is not if Bush's convenant was legally enforceable.  A promise to not
> sell your house to any of "those people" is a repugnant promise.  A man who is
> supposedly going to provide is with "moral leadership" has to meet different
> standards than that to get my vote.
> 
> Of course, if you agree with the covenant he signed, that's your right.  (sigh)
> 
> P.S.  Clinton supporters having signed or not signed such agreements is
> irrelevent.  So is having one Clinton backer agree or disagree on the issue
> with other view-points.  If youi have a hard time following that, maybe you
> have to think a little more clearly.


Not having heard the full story but from the context of your remarks, I assume
you are talking about racial covenants in a property deed.

If this is the case, then almost all deeds from property developed before the 
middle fifties in the South will include these types of covenants in them.
They were part of the original deed and must remain a part of the title chain 
for the property. All of these restrictions have legally been made unenforcible
but my understanding is that the language remains in the legal documents which 
form part of the title chain and cannot be edited out.
I remember that my grandmother's deed had one of these for Oklahoma City.
(It was not part of the deed but formed part of the papers given to new owners
when the deed was transferred.) The language forms a part of the legal title
chain and buying a piece of property in the South will imply 'signing this
covenant' but really means NOTHING since the covenant is legally nonexistent. 

-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
From: smueller@sbctri.sbc.com (Steve Mueller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Books on candidates
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:24:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwestern Bell Tech Resources

In article <1992Sep1.205608.3022@kodak.kodak.com>, basile@acadia.Kodak.COM (Bob Basile) writes:
> 
> I have just finished reading a ***LONG*** book (1047 pages) about 6 of the major contenders for
> President in 1988. ... The book is
> 
> 	"What it Takes", by Richard Ben Cramer
> 
..
> 
> There are many chapters in the book on Bush's family connections, his desire to "make friends"
> with **everybody**, his apparent desire to **be** rather than **do** as President, and so
> on...

A footnote:  The St Louis Post-Dispatch had an article about the author of "What It Takes" 
a couple weeks ago.  In it, Cramer said that no one should count George Bush out of anything,
calling him "the most ruthless white man on the face of the planet."  He also thought up the
title before George's famous quote on what he'd do to get re-elected.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:39:33 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:

>
> >Face it, the Republicans are running scared !
> >
>
>
> The nation should be running scared.  It is more spending and HIGHER taxes th
> put us in the current (ending) recession.
>
> >Look at it this way.  Clinton has created for himself a very tall
> >order to fill.  If his term becomes like Carter's, the Republicans
> >will be running against the last TWO times the Democrats had
> >both the White House and the Congress from then on. If Clinton
>                                                    ^^When
> >screws up, it'll be the last time the Democrats have the White House
> >for a LONG time. ~
>
>
> The tax and spend government involvement that the Democrats push will continu
> jobs abroad and cut the income of working class Americans.  The Democratic Pa
> since LBJ had one goal: To make as many people possible dependent on grovernm
> as possible.  Democratic welfare programs are like drugs once they get you ho
> you want is more.
>
>

Of course, this is preferable to the borrow-and-spend Republicans, and the last
two liars (oops, excuse me, Republican Presidents) who have signed those tax
increases into law and then say they had nothing to do with it?  Right.



|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|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:25:15 GMT

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

>Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
>this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
>REAGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
>of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
>smashed it to pieces.

>Some of the subjects covered are:

>	Liberal claim		This article says

>Household income went down	NOT
>Rich got richer			not much
>Poor got poorer			NOT
>Poor are normal families	NOT
>Jobs created were McJobs	NOT
>US national debt is terrible	NOT
>negative trade surplus is bad	not as simple as that
>foreigners are taking over	not really        
>deficits caused by tax cuts	NOT
>entitlements went down		NOT
>Rich paid less taxes		NOT
>Rich got a tax break		NOT
>Junk bonds were bad for bus.	NOT
>policies were especially 
>	hard on blacks		NOT
>Reagan caused S&L crisis	NOT
>policies made it harder 
>	for poor to advance	NOT
>Reagan created homelessness	NOT
>Reagan made homelessness worse	NOT
>more difficult to own a home	NOT
>HUD spending went down		NOT
>Decade of Greed			NOT
>bad for the environment		NOT


>I'm sure you liberals will hate to hear this, and you conservatives will 
>love it.  Either way, it is a good read.


>-- 
>Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com

Do conservatives love it when the GOP resorts to lies and distortions to
explain away our economic crisis?  Or would they rather hear some potential
solutions?  To simply blame everything on Congress is obviously a cop-out,
but at least then they're admitting there is a problem!  

I would think conservatives would hate to hear this.  They already must 
hate Reagan for endorsing the Brady Bill, but now they find out he soaked
the rich and gave to the poor.  What a Liberal!

Dave Bell
belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: boaz@concerto.lcs.mit.edu (Boaz Ben-Zvi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:42:46 GMT
Reply-To: boaz@lcs.mit.edu
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT

In article <92239.133933YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
|> I wouldn't put my chances of voting for Bush as any better than
|> that of a snowball in Hell, and with the slur reportedly made by his
|> Secretary of State and now campaign manager Jim Baker ...

Did you notice that during the GOP convention there was a guy who
vigorously waved a sign saying "Pro-Israel, Pro-Bush" ?
  Which reminded me of Ted Koppel's comment: "This convention is as
spontaneous as a tax return." :-)

apropos: Richard Stallman is collecting funny one-liners about this Bush,
Baker and Quayle team (email your ideas to bush-bashers@gnu.ai.mit.edu ).

-- Boaz

===============================================================================
  _              _            __         __ ___  _ _   __ ___    ____      ___
 /_) _  _  __   /_) _   __ __ _/    o     |   |   \| __ |   |     /    \ |   |
/__)(_)(_|__/  /__)(_'_/ /   /__\/_(        __|_ __\    | __|_     \  __\| __|_
          __)                                           |                      
===============================================================================
 Boaz Ben-Zvi <boaz@olem-golem.lcs.mit.edu>                 MIT Addr: NE43-526 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wre0498@rigel.tamu.edu (ERHART, WESLEY RONALD)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:31:00 GMT

In article <BtzvtB.FHp@beach.csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes...
> 
>  By the way, for the record, I evaded being drafted into the army by
>enlisting in the Air Force; the day before my induction notice came,
>as it turned out (I knew it was inevitable - I was 1A from a pre-induction
>physical and had a draft lottery number of 26 in the first pool). I
>figured my liklihood of getting shot at in the Air Force where much less
>than getting sent to Vietnam in the Army. I was right: I spent 4 years
>in Virginia. So a lot of us had a lot of ways of avoiding being an active
>participant or victim of that war and the choices forced on us often had
>a lot to do with chance.
> 
> 
>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Finally, it seems to me that if anyone took a look at how that war was
being run they would decide to avoid it.  During the Persian Gulf war,
the point made again and again was to avoid another Vietnam.  Why do
people fault a person whose was capable of realizing this before the
US government called it quits? w.
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton's Budget Plan (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 30 Aug 1992 23:36:37 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug30.185712.4999@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

|...While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
|"right off the cliff" aim.


Realizing that you were not trying to make a indepth analysis, it seems to me
that Clinton's plan is much preferable to that of Bush. Clinton proposes to
rearrange spending on Human and phyisical capital, instead of defense,
entitlements, and other government waste. Investments in health, education and
research and development, on par with other developed nations, will hopefully
bring back productivity growth on par with those other nations. Clinton will
be able to get his plan working since he is a leader, is a democrat that can
work with congress, and congress has shown acceptance of a similiar bill that
Bush Vetoed.

Now, look at Bush. Even with newer members of congress, there will be no
significant change of the party line. Bush will come into office in the same
state as he did in 1988. In short, he cannot or will not be able to 
accomplish anything in the area of economics or welfare. And that is *if* 
he had any kind of plan beyond a capital gains tax cut. Bush's plan is
to increase the national debt, the interest payments on these, and do 
nothing about rising entitlements. He shrugs off the human impact of his own
paultry defense cuts, and leaves his once proud fighting men out of work. 
He has no plan to increase the nation's productivity, nothing to help
the war on drugs or the poor who need public education or health insurance. 
With the debt *4* times larger than what it was when Reagan took office,
the largest single expenditure of the budget is now the interest on that
debt. With social security and nothing but small 2-3% real defense cuts
per year, and the interest on the debt created by tax cut led deficit
spending, Bush is powerless to even attempt any plan to help our country.



-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)