HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:11:28 GMT

sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>In article <Bx7x0C.Hx1@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>>Yup.  The majority has spoken.  And the majority DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON.
>>57% of the poeple voted for someone OTHER THAN Clinton.  So now we have
>>a president elect that the majority of the people did not want in office.
>>

>  Faulty reasoning. The ballot only allows you to choose one candidate that
>you prefer/want most. It does not allow second choices (presumably based
>upon some weighting system). Therefore, it is invalid to conclude that a
>majority did not want/would not find acceptable Bill Clinton, only that he
>was not the first choice of a majority.

True, BUT: It would be just as faulty reasoning to conclude that a majority
did want Bill Clinton. Of cource, with the way we elect the President, we 
will never know.
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:43:45 GMT

In article <14636.2b00fce7@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> Hey John, don't be so cowardly as to remove the followup newsgroups
> to your insane replies so that people can't reply. You people at
> Anasazi have an annoying habit of doing that (what is Anasazi anyway,
> some extreme right wing fascist think tank? All of you people seem to
> have the same "groupthink".)

Let's see, with a little mutation we get the following anagram:

     ++--++--+
     ||  ||  |
    Anasazi  |
    |  ||    |
    +--+|    |
    |   |    |
    As  a  nazi

Coincidence, or evidence of a hidden agenda?  You be the judge.  :-) :-)

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:01:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.141534.19179@ncsu.edu> jccompto@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES C COMPTON) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.230134.26099@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>|> >Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>|> >individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>|> >the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>|> >at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>|> >todays portion of happiness.
>|> 
>|> A True Conservative (tm) would be against the RICO seizure statutes, against
>|> keeping drugs illegal, against keeping prostitution illegal, against making
>|> abortion illegal, against forced prayer in schools, etc., etc., etc.
>
>A conservative would support prostitution and drug legalization?
>
>|> 
>|> Everything you know is wrong!
>
>No, I'm not the one that's wrong.

You see, the problem is that the "conservative" label is like a big
run you can sweep all these disparate groups under.  You got the
libertarian right, like what Mr. Zakel described, that would support
prostitution and drug legalization, on the argument that the market
always knows what's best.  You got the fundamentalist right, like
Robertson, that thinks the libs are kinda crazy, and would want
prayer, etc.  You got isolationists and people who want to go back to
the America of small towns, like Buchanan.  You got blatant racists,
like Duke.  I think all of these groups were brought under the
"conservative" banner by Buckley, when he started the National Review,
Once Upon A Time (well, the '50s) by the argument that "conservatives"
are first and foremost anti-Communists.  An enemy served to paper over
their differences, long enough for them to get into power under
Reagan.  Then, Communism fell, and you're seeing the splintering of
the GOP and the "conservative" coalition right before your eyes.


And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 08:16:58 GMT

There's quite in interesting battle going on in Oregon for the soul of the
Republican party here.  The chairman of the state GOP has threatened to
recreate the Republican party under a different name to escape a takeover
by a fundamentalist group here called the OCA.

The OCA (Oregon Citizens Alliance) began as a grass-roots effort to run
conservative candidates against more moderate Republicans in statewide
primaries for Senate and Governor.  This year, the group sponsored a
ballot initiative to require the state to teach in schools that homo-
sexuality (and bestiality and sadomasochism) are perverse, and forbid
the state from condoning or facilitating homosexuality in any way.
Almost every single elected official and candidate in Oregon opposed 
the measure, and it lost 58% to 42% -- surprisingly close.

Oregon has a tradition for electing very moderate, even liberal Republicans.
Both our US Senators are Republican, though Packwood is pro-choice and
Hatfield is famously anti-war and liberal on social causes.  The state
GOP thinks the OCA has been sneaky about getting its grass-roots people
elected to local GOP positions, to influence the party platform and 
run conservatives against Hatfield and Packwood among others.

If the state GOP reorganizes under a different name and asks the National
GOP to recognize it and not the OCA-controlled party, would that be some
kind of first?  And doesn't it seem to mirror the fight going on nationally
over control of the GOP?

---
David Christensen

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13501 alt.politics.clinton:16375 alt.politics.elections:23083 talk.politics.misc:58830
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:31:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: CERFnet

In article <1992Nov6.062458.26454@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>mandate.
>
[spurious noise deleted]

First of all let me say I voted for Ross Perot.  Now Ross lost
fair and square.  GHWB lost fair and square.  But to call
Clintons win a mandate, and the Republicans loss a rout, Well,
lets just say it appears you are practicing spin control.  It
was hardly a rout, and hardly a mandate.  Of course, all the 
Dems spin doctors are going to call it a mandate/rout, what do
you want them to say, we squeaked by with less than 50% of
the voters voting for us?  (still laughing)

Of course I'm excited that Clinton is our president.  What? do
you think the MAJORITY of voters that DIDN'T vote for Clinton
are going to CRY for the next four years?  In order to get on
with a constructive life you must except and become part of 
what happend, the alternative is to self-emoliate(sp)  Only the
hard right is plotting Clintons political demise, the moderates
are going to get along alright.

Say what you will, go ahead practice your spin control tactics,
but don't delude yourself that Clintons victory was a mandate 
and that the republican loss was a rout.  If Clinton fails
as GHWB failed, the Republicans will bounce back next election.
Thats a guarantee.

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net			TSONGAS||RUDMAN||PEROT '96


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:04:45 GMT

jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:

>Yup, and 62% of the people *didn't* want Bush, and 81% didn't want
>Perot...so *obviously* you get the lesser of three evils...so what!!!

So that means we don't like what we got, and we are voicing it. If
Bush had won by less than 50%, I know we would have had an outcry.
So that is what we are getting now. This will continue as long as
a person can win with less than 50%. When this happens, we should
have a run off between the two highest people, and winner take all.

Of cource, if a Rep. wins in 96 by less than 50%, I will deny everything :-)

-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:30:11 GMT

In <1992Nov4.234640.7402@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:

>In article <1d955aINNbgp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>#                                            Only 5 of 13 women won in senate
># races yesterday, and those that did won on merit, not on this phony Hill
># martyr issue.

>If you think Carol Mosely Braun won on any merit besides being a black
>woman, you are sadly mistaken.


[gloom and doom deleted]

I hope in his changes to the health insurance, President Clinton
will provide free valium to all registered republicans. Sheesh,
what poor losers. Lighten up.

REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13637 alt.politics.clinton:16639 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8262
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:55:06 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield
Keywords: abrupt
Summary: Definition of Conservatism a la Webster to settle this silliness.

In article <1d58tpINNq5t@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach
) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) wr
ites:
>>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>>todays portion of happiness.
>>
>>Mike Best
>
>Mike,
>
>Please now DEMONSTRATE how these "consertive beliefs" are followed by
>Nixon
>Reagan
>Bush
Did you stand in line for meat under any of the previous administrations?

>Expound especally on the limited government.  And if you can, on
>limited government spending.
Government spending is rarely the President's fault.  Typically it's Congress'.

>(Hint:  This may be the 'definition' of conservativism, but I'd 
>much rather define by actions.  So far, NEITHER the Democrats
>or the Republicans score well on the limited Gonverment scales....)
Conservatism, according to Webster (The Dictionary Dude):
n. a political philosophy based on the maintenance of existing institutions,
and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.  Read it and weep, Alex.
Not NO CHANGE, conservative = no ABRUPT change.

>-- 
>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.

Jennifer
* 1 line .sig for those of you offended by .sigs which actually SAY something *
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
In-reply-to: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:36:40 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Nov5.171836.18358@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
	<1992Nov6.222614.23808@dg-rtp.dg.com>
	<1992Nov9.143640.10283@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:34:41

In article <1992Nov9.143640.10283@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>   Taxes. You see, if the money you make from the T-bills are taxed at the same
>   rate as the money you'd make off of the business, then you'll put your money
>   where it's safe. But, if you pay less taxes for money you make off of the
>   business, then the tax break will offset the risk. Then your money goes into
>   the private sector, creating jobs and helping our economy.

Ok, Greg, time for Lesson 1 of Econ 101.  And I'm asking.

Number 1: where does the guy have his million dollars before
investing?

Second: I thought the Capital Gains Tax is on assets that are sold?
Do they also apply to income gained from running a business as well?
Or that derived from stocks?  If the tax is on assets that are sold,
then I can't see how they help spur investment.  I can only see a spur
to disinvestment: sell your assets while you can get out with lower
taxes.  

This curious mind wants to know.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:22:51 GMT

Uh... no. In theory, "true" Conservatives do not support these things because
we believe in sanity, and law and order. Not to mention protecting the
community. But, to classify "true" Conservatives from "untrue" Conservatives is
inherently wrong. There are varying degrees in all ideology's, right or left.
To say one is "more true" is simply a stereotype. I, as a Conservative, honor
different ideas of my fellow Conservatives. I will never start the "more
Conservative than thou" attitude on another Conservative. And from the ones I
have met, this remain 100% true. We don't use this internal superiority on each
other, we save that for the Liberals.

Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
		Jack Kemp in '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: What happened to ???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:31:46 GMT

davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David Kitaguchi) writes:

>Does anyone know what happened to Mz. Fitzgerald, the woman that G. Bush had a
                                                                          ^^^
                                                That should be "allegedly had".

>affair with?  I had heard something a while ago and forgot all about it until
>a friend of mine asked.  So I will ask you all, Anyone knows where she went?

>-=davidk@welch.jhu.edu
>my words, my question...

That accusation was, in my opinion, a disgrace to the election process.  I will
never understand how an unfounded accusation like that was able to carry on for
as long as it did.


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:08:57 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:

>One thing he's already done is to commit a lot of money for porkbarrel
>projects (rebuilding Hanscom Air Force base in Florida [which was
>scheduled to close before Andrew levelled it], building the V22 Osprey
>helicrasher [which the DOD says it doesn't want], etc.). To have a
>hope of reducing the deficit, Clinton will have to cancel these, to
>the chagrin of those living in the areas affected. Republicans will
>then start hollering about how Clinton's destroying jobs.

Hate to disappoint you, but Clinton already came out in
support of the Osprey - this disappoints me as well, but
in every life some pork must fall...
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13775 alt.politics.clinton:16881
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:16:56 GMT
 <1992Nov10.234736.833@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1992Nov11.001753.12304@news.columbia.edu> <1992Nov11.020808.11274@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov11.020808.11274@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu
(Eileen Simpson) writes: 
> 
> The posts on the Tower argument did not appear until the last
> week of the campaign and fit right into the timing of Quayle's pitch to
> Baker to make this a final smear against Clinton.  The timing, the content--
> all a perfect fit with the Quayle smear.  It was a net plant by the
> Bush-Quayle 
> campaign. Anyone who followed that thread can take a good guess who was in
> on it and draw their own conclusions.
> 
> The really interesting thing to me is that we obviously have some people on
> the net who are willing to dive for voters at levels even the Bush campaign
> found repugnant and rejected outright.  Hardly something to put on a resume.

What I find repugnant is this smug air of moral sanctimony.  Would you care to
pretend to some objectivity and decry the second indictment of Weinberger, just
four days before the election, using old, stale, and dredged-up materiel?  And
don't bother to mouth the liberal epiphany ("sent to you via e-mail, no doubt"
to quote your other post) that "Walsh is a Republican."  Walsh admitted MONTHS
ago that his #2 man has been running the show for a year, and he (and his law
firm) contributed *heavily* to the Clinton campaign.  (And, of course, the IRS 
and the Justice Dept are investigating both of them for tax evasion... oh, but 
of course, 'character is not an issue.')

Or is it too much to ask for you to admit that liberals can be sleazy, too? 
<slick grin> 

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13740 alt.politics.clinton:16822 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8360 alt.rush-limbaugh:9433
From: johna@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (john.a.welsh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Summary: Libertarian?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:20:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

> 
> A True Conservative (tm) would be against the RICO seizure statutes, against
> keeping drugs illegal, against keeping prostitution illegal, against making
> abortion illegal, against forced prayer in schools, etc., etc., etc.

This sounds more like a libertarian than a conservative.  Libertarians
do not like the aggressive use of force in government and want to
de-criminalize "victimless" crimes, such as the above.  The sad thing
is that they would probably send in the police to break up prayer
meetings that the students organized.



> >Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
> >individual 

This sounds more like true conservatism.  A conservative seems to
have a more stringent standard for right and wrong and a greater 
desire to see individual freedom within a this standard.  One of
Rush's truths is that right and wrong is not a matter of individual
choice, another is that there is a God and a yet another is that
abortion is wrong.  There are many politicians that say that they
believe that abortion is wrong for them, but that they will not
impose their standards on others.  That is liberalism; a "to each
his own" stance.  A true conservative would say that it is wrong
(and possibly give very specific exemptions) and would crusade
for his/her cause.  Conservatives believe in enforcing the law
just as much as liberals do.  The difference is the type and tone
of the laws they would support.  Another difference is the source
of their standards of right and wrong.  Conservatives usually have
a faith in God and is is by this God's standards that they go (now
we have to hope that no Aztecs or Druids get into high office, they
believe in human sacrifice).  One of the most important thing about
this character issue is what is the source of your standards of
right and wrong and quite often that source determines your leaning
towards what kind of government you want.

                      John Welsh
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:09:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.003026.15098@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Alright already!! I said I'd cut back on that type of posting.  I know that
>message ended up looking like "Dewey defeats Truman" photo from 1948.
>
>That message was posted around 11am or so on Election Day, not the day
>after.

Heh, heh.  I hear that James Carvile took off his black leather gloves
at around 11am.  He had been wearing them for the past week or so
because he has this superstitious streak (like baseball players keeping
quiet while a no-hitter is being pitched, or Wade Boggs wearing the
same socks when pursing a batting title).  That he took the gloves off
was a sign that he became confident of the election results at that time.
Internal polling, etc.



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh