HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:41:14 GMT


1. He was On watch when the alledged 'end of the cold war' came about.
{Did I miss the word that suddenly the PRC became a Republican Model
of how a Freemarket economy works????? }

2. The Glorious Vicotry in the Desert that has ended the
threat of NuclearTerrorism from Saddam Hussein.

3. The Glorious Victory of "Voodoo Economics" over the
frivilous Tax and Spend Democratic Psuedo Socialism that
has lead our country into the Moral Bankruptcy that spawns
the sort of violence that recently occurred in LA.

4. The Depreciation of the Nikki Index from 30,000+ points
down to a mere 15,000 point, and thus the True Moral Superiority
of the American Way over Japanese Encroachment.

5. The Glorious Victory of the War on Drugs that has dropped
the price of Kilo of Cocaine from $50K, to $10K - { let us
all say thanks for the value of Supply Side Economics. }

6. The glorious victory over the Savings and Loan Scandal which
was obviously brought about by those Tax and Spend Deomocrats
who do not appreciate the WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
of Personal Responsibility and Fiscal Conservancy....

7. The restoration of WholesomeAndTraditionalFamilyValues, 
with the return of Prayer to School, and the Constitutional
Ammendment Protecting the Flag and the UnBorn... 

8. The Glorious Victory over the sort of 'let the criminals
run loose in the streets' that would have occurred had
Dukakis been allowed to let a WillieHorton Loose in 
every kitchen....

9. The Glorious Victory in Panama that has made the world
safe from unsavory elements that would wish to Peddle Drugs
in our lovely country.

10. The Glorious Victory over the ArmsForHostage mentality
that capitulated to International Terrorism under the
Tax and Spend Democrats.

Oh Yes, I say, ITs time for Four More Years of Bush....


Just think what glorious Victories we will have after
four More Years of The GreatStatesman at the helm, and then 8 years with 
J. Danforth "an 'e' at the end of potatoe - educational Presidential Material" Qyuale....

Yes boys and girls, the facts speak for themselves....


Its Time For BUSH, or Anarchy in the streets.


ciao
drieux





-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:16:29 GMT

In article <Bt3BDu.BvG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>First, only first degree murder is punishable by death and this is only
>true in some states (and in very specific instances in some states e.g.,
>for killing a policeman in the commission of another felony -- NY at
>least when I lived there).

Hold it.  When did Buckley live in NY?  I "remember" that NY is one
of the states that hasn't reinstituted the death penalty since 72,
when the Supremes invalidated all death penalty laws.  I don't
know about his predecessor's, but Cuomo has vetoed death penalty
legislation a couple of times.

There's nothing like a cite to actual law to settle such a statutory
question.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Memorable speech quotes (what the hell)
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:53:46 GMT

In article <4746@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>I am typing while listening to the Convention now.
>
>Dan "he seems a lot more confident now" Quayle:
>"If Bill Clinton and Al Gore are moderates, then I'm a world-champion
>speller."
>

This speech really surprised me. It had to be one of the best speeches that
Dan has ever given.  I am by no means a fan of his, or the Republican party
in general, but I will admit that he made several good points in the speech.
The fact that he's willing to take on his own bretheren in the legal profession
(his wife's too) gains him a bit of respect in my book. I gave his speech 
a B+. Points are deducted for the "I know Ronald Reagan..." joke.
Bush got a C+ from me (more due to length than content, and the retelling
of the "Clinton 128 taxes" fabrication.)  Gerald Ford's speech was a very
weak D. The delivery and content both sounded tired and weak to me. 
 
Best line: Bob Dole's comment about polls-  "If you believed every poll you've
ever heard, then I'd be the one being introduced right now...."



>George Bush forthcoming. :) 
>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
>August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:04:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Aug12.083955@wsl.dec.com> by gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil):

> In article <11706@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> Imagine if the Republican Party Convention upcoming had people
> |> holding up signs for the KKK, or Aryan Nations.  "By not completely
> |> ostracizing racists, the Republican Party keeps the fringe of
> |> 'acceptable' political expression on the fringe.  If racists are
> |> completely ostracized, then the people attacking racism will go
> |> after Christians (or pro-lifers or small business owners)."
> |> Do you see the silliness of this argument?  Would you consider the
> |> presence of such signs and groups at the RNC to be evidence of
> |> something terribly sick?
> |> 
> Ahh the GOP, you mean the people who first ran Willy Horton ads and
> then decided to try to dump David Duke when the pressure got too
> hot?  The GOP, who got a president elected who appointed a
> memeber of the KKK to the Supreme Court?

You mean the Willy Horton ads inspired by Democratic campaign workers to use
against each other?

Would that David Duke they tried to dump be anything like the Lyndon LaRouche
candidates that the Democrats perennially try to dump?

Speaking of KKK, which party does Robert Byrd belong to...?

> |> "By having a fringe group of racists -- and they are an extremely
> |> fringe group -- we can keep mainstream Republicanism out of it."
> |> You can't keep your foot out of dogshit by rubbing the edge of
> |> your sole in it.
> |> 
> I'd be very surprised to find that the GOP did not think this way.

Then you wouldn't disapprove if they said that?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41111 alt.activism:15227 misc.headlines:5817 sci.econ:7021
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:17:57 GMT
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO

ab> Alex Bunker

ab> Germany and Japan have highly interventionist economics and are kicking
ab> US butt.

  *PROVE* it. Let's see some numbers, buddy.

ab> The nations with the highest "quality of life index" all have socialist-
ab> interventionist economic policies.

  Do you know the difference between correlation and causation? One could say
  that all countries with the highest QoL indices also have populations under
  200 million. Do you see what I'm getting at?

  BTW, what do you call spending $400,000,000,000 for "entitlement" programs
  besides "socialist/interventionist economic policies"?

ab> Have you seen the posts comparing poverty, health, well being, employment,
ab> equity rates, in the USA as compared to countries with socialist/interven-
ab> tionist economies? (USA#1 for all the wrong reasons).

  Yes, I have, and I have dismissed them as I do all excessively cooked sta-
  tistics with a clear political agenda. In any case, these statistics are
  comparing apples and oranges. For example, I'm sure the US is near the bot-
  tom of the list in German-only speakers, whereas Germany is near the top.

ab> I think you, Gary and all the other net reaganomicists should have them
ab> mailed directly to you. 

  I'm not a fan of Reaganomics, sonny. I thought I had made it clear to you
  in our e-mail discussion in mid-June that I'm a *libertarian*, not a con-
  servative or Reaganite. Apparently you're so stuck in a 1-d political world
  that concepts like libertarianism escape you completely. 

ab> You still there HAREL?

  Yes, he's still here, deluging us with nonsense as he always has. He reminds
  me most of a kid holding his ears and simultaneously screaming at the top
  of his lungs, yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Candidates' Private Lives: WHO CARES (was Philandering George Bush)
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:58:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

> > Of course, the point of my original posting, which seems to have
> > eluded Ted entirely, was: WHO CARES!

> > I remain unconvinced that these alleged affairs have any bearing at
> > all on the real issues facing the country.

After all, these alleged affairs are in the PAST, by all accounts.
People make mistakes, they change.  Some of us have done things that
we are not proud of, but have since changed.  The issue is who these
two men ARE, not who they WERE.  Even Pat Robertson admits that his
life was "not in control" before his conversion.  

> The moral character of the chief executive of this country ought to be
> an issue of the utmost concern of _EVERY_ citizen -- even those who
> lack moral character of their own, I might add (though not to suggest
> that any present company might fall into that category).

I'm not sure how much a fan of the McCarthy hearings can be said to be
able to identify "moral character."

> > I found the information released by the Post last week to be entirely
> > believable.

> And I found it to be completely incredible (i.e., lacking in
> credibility).

Fine.  Everyone has a right to make their own judgements.  But,
considering the fact that we're dealing with a named, credible source
who repeated his version of the story to three separate people (two of
whom had identified themselves as journalists) makes the story
credible.  The story may yet prove to be false, but there are
reasonable grounds for suspicion.  

> > And, along with the longstanding rumors of infidelity between Bush and
> > his secretary,

> _WHAT_ long-standing rumors?

If you know any Washington insiders, ask them.  Stories about these
rumors have been published in Newsweek and the LA Times, among other
places.  There have also been stories in several media sources that
they had investigated  the rumors and that their reporters had met
with a stone wall.  There is also a rumor, which has not been widely
reported, that anyone who "crosses the line" on reporting this story
will suddenly find him or herself unable to obtain background
briefings from administration officials.  This rumor may have been
confirmed in a New York Times article the day after the infamous Post
article.  According to the article, Fitzwater told a reporter that
Tillotsen (the CNN reporter who asked Bush The Question) "was through"
as a White House reporter.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Misleading UPI story
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:15:23 GMT

In article <l8okrmINNa1s@nunki.usc.edu> rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.200916.8543@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>It seemed more likely to me that Mr. Echeverri would concoct 
>>such a misleading story. 
>
>But we've just met!

Perhaps Dougie is projecting?

   \_\_\_                               \
    \_   \_          \_                 /   -Pete Zakel
     \_   \_  \_\_    \_     \_\_       \
\_\_  \_\_\_ \_   \_ \_\_\_ \_   \_     /       phz@cadence.com
       \_     \_\_\_    \_   \_\_\_     \    or
        \_     \_        \_   \_        /       ..!uunet!cadence!phz
         \_      \_\_      \_   \_\_    \

Those who educate children well are more to be honored than parents,
for these only gave life, those the art of living well.

				-- Aristotle
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:58:44 GMT

wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:

>I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>born.

I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
need one.

>William F. Tell

                    -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41060 talk.politics.theory:3773 soc.culture.usa:6747 alt.conspiracy:10192
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:13:08 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Aug20.203305.26207@morrow.stanford.edu> silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.181232.23398@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.160827.13408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
>>>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".
>>
>>Examples, please.
>>
>	Answers pertinent to the question you asked, in regards to the use
>and advocacy of force by 'good liberals' are:

[examples deleted]

>	While neither Earth First! nor the animal-rightists are liberals
>in the classic sense,

That's right. They're extremists, just like the Operation Rescue folks.
They're not typical of the average liberal in this country, as represented
by, say, Gordon Fitch. 


>	Mr. Fitch is not a whiner. He is definitely partisan, and, as
>Freeman indicated, he does commonly cloak this partisanism or bias with
>a false display of even-handedness in language.

You think the display is false; I think it's genuine. Yes, Mr. Fitch does
come from the left, but he's always willing to debate conservative ideas
*on the merits*, without stooping to personal attacks. That he ultimately
may reject those ideas is no discredit to the honest style of debate that
he typically employs.

>|| Holly Silva

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39324 alt.politics.bush:1361
From: elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:34:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <BswBy6.ECK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug12.220315.1424@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >
|> >	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
|> >abortion?
|> >
|> >	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
|> >what is???
|> 
|> Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
|> is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
|> a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
|> a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
|> would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
|> 
|> Tim

OK Tim. Go ahead. Open the hornets nest. Let the abortion flame wars begin.
Since you brought it up, explain to me why I should consider a 1 month old
lump of cells with no brain and no heart as if it were alive. Also explain
how, if say, your beliefs about life and my beliefs about life differ, why
both of us should be ruled by yours. JESUS this debate is *tiresome!*
							- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:20:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.231603.5717@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick writes...
>In article <64289@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: 
>>Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
>>inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
>>Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").
>>Am I misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
>>as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.
> 
>Ford (or perhaps the Fed Reserve) brought inflation down.
>This was apparently unacceptable to Carter.

*sarcasm on

I think you're on to something now! Carter wanted inflation. Of course!
I'm also sure that the Republican's voted against deregulating oil
prices (which caused the inflation). The Republican's would never vote
for something that would cause inflation. 

*sarcasm off

>Pat

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug20.150529.28323@cos.com>
	<1992Aug21.193836.29118@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:13:06

In article <1992Aug21.193836.29118@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>   There are some big differences.  While the American settlers used the
>   Might is Right method of claiming ownership, the Israeli settlers are
>   merely relying on common fairness.  

I've read how this "fairness" operates.  A typical scheme is as
follows: A Palestinian farmer is denied the right to till his soil for
"security reasons".  (I guess the Israeli army is afraid of the big
bad olive trees.)  Farmland left untilled for a certain number of
years becomes to the property of the State of Israel (even if it is in
occupied territory).  Grazing is not considered sufficient to avoid
this seizure.  Once the property belongs to Israel, it is made
available for sale to Israelis, who are allowed to till the soil, even
plant olive trees.

All of this is, of course, under the complete scrutiny of Israeli
judges and Israeli lawyers and Israeli bureaucrats.  Legal it is, but
hardly fair.

--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: faxes and other terror tactics
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:51:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <l8l2dhINNhnl@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
]This is a really important point.  And if someone in the Clinton campaign
]said the next thing the republicans will do is call us rapists, then Mary would
]be justified in calling them rapists?

No, but she would be justified in putting that Clinton campaign statement
in a FAX with her interpretation of it.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: I want to see the 1992 Platforms
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:04:24 GMT

now that the Republican Party is almost ready to release their 1992
Platform, and the Democratic Platform has been available for a while,
how about posting them to the net? 

other parties, such as the Socialists, Natural Law Party, Taxpayers
Party, Greens, Peace & Freedom, New Alliance, etc... are welcome to
post theirs as well.

(no, i'm not forgetting the Libertarians, but our platform has been
posted so many times that i'm getting tired of seeing it, and it's
available by ftp from think.com)
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40702 alt.individualism:5277
From: jstiver@bach.helios.nd.edu (Jim Stiver)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:09:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <thong.714251052@husc10>, thong@husc10.harvard.edu (Theodore Hong) writes:
>
>You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store 
>owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name 
>begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's 
>name begins with "E").  What do you do?

	1) Move
	2) Change name
	3) Have a friend buy the food
	4) Shop in disguise
	5) Farm
	6) Mail order (it is possible believe it or not)
	7) Starve

>If you try to start your own grocery store, startup costs are high, and
>the market probably won't support a third grocery store.  You don't have
>a significant competitive advantage over the other two because your only
>added customer is yourself (the locals aren't bigoted, but aren't activist
>enough to boycott/whatever either).
>
>So what's the "correct" answer in this case?

There is no correct answer.  Libertarian governments don't have
provisions for taking care of people or forcing someone else to
take care of people.  It is theoretically possible to be legally
ignored to death under a libertarian government.

>Theo Hong
>thong@husc.harvard.edu 

Jim
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40471 alt.politics.elections:10858 alt.politics.clinton:2190 alt.politics.bush:2039