HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:06:00 GMT
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <l981hbINNg3b@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes...
}        The Chronicle/Hotline poll of 2,000 registered voters shows Bush's
}favorable rating increased as the convention progressed, from 41 percent
}to 45 percent, while his unfavorable rating dropped from 51 percent to
}46 percent.

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, the poll was only of registered voters in the
Houston area, where the convention is currently taking place. That doesn't
count as an indicator of increased support nationwide. 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:31:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.223215.4429@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>That's why we should vote the Democrats out of the House and Senate.

	I'm interested in how you intend to do this. Like most americans, I
would be quite happy to see the congress change hands, as long as my congress
critters get to stay. Something like 80% of the US thinks this way, which
means that congress is unlikely to shift much in the comming election,
inspite of the number of "retiring" representitives.

	Voting congress out is not a viable solution, and won't solve Bushs
problems. If Bush can't solve his problems, he should retire.




-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Marilyn Quayle comes out of the closet
Date: 20 Aug 1992 16:17:33 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Last night in her speech before the Republican Convention, Marilyn finally
told us who she is.

The Marilyn Quayle of "Family Values."

The Marilyn Quayle of whom Gerald Rainey said that the thing she missed
most now that she is the 2nd lady is carpooling her kids.

The Marilyn Quayle that said that Hillory Clinton is fair game because she
has said "you get both of us."

That Marilyn Qualye last night admitted that she did not give up her job
for her family, for her kids.  She said you can have a job and be a mother
and wife as well.

She said she gave up her law practice when her husband moved from the 
newspaper business to politics.

At least as a wife and a woman she knows her place.

Of course my very liberal, pro-choice, active, and educated wife decided
to stay home with our kids and then go to work after.  Must be something
wrong with our family values.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:09:45 GMT

In article <l97ftfINN2un@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>So we are left with the following alternatives:
>
>1	The only purpose of sex is reproduction.

   No.  Sex is fine between consenting adults, but it should be *responsible*
   sex where measures are taken by the man or the woman, or preferably
   both to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.  Something like 90% (can't remember
   the exact figure) of aborted pregnancies are the result of "unprotected"
   sex.

>
>2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 

   No.  Same answer as in reply to #1.

>
>3.	Sex is a sin, for which the penalty is pregnancy.  Sure puts an
>	interesting slant on the wonderfulness of parenting and the meaning
>	of "family values."
   
   No.  Again, see answer to point #1.  The *sin* is all the people out
   there that take sex with such a cavalier attitude.  There is nothing
   wrong with with sex between consenting adults, married or not, nor
   should anyone, regardless of their religious convictions, try to tell
   you that there is.  There is, or should be, a *moral* obligation for
   those engaging in the acts to ensure that they do whatever they can to
   prevent those unwanted pregnancies.

Tim Tierney
tierney@nevada.edu



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:33:53 GMT

In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> platforms.

Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - Chicago Div.
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:24:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>worrying.   Also remember that you don't have to worry about the Soviets 
>pushing the button in the middle of the night and obliterating the world.

Sure, now we only have to  worry about 3rd  rate countries that bought
nuclear technology on the open market...

Am I better off now than 4 years ago?  Yes --  I'm not a poor starving
student any more.  But  is  the *country* better  off now than 4 years
ago?  No way!

If Bush thinks it's  time for a   change  then WHY  should  we reelect
*him*? Let's vote for a *real* change and throw the fucker out!

					reb
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39655 talk.abortion:31684 alt.politics.bush:1550
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:08:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>OK, Tim:

>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?

>I don't believe women have rights merely because fetuses don't.  I believe
>that women have rights because women are born human beings, who are capa-
>ble of exercising their rights.

>What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?

Rights come into conflict all of the time.
We as a society have decided that a shopkeepers rights to control who
comes into his store have to give way to a minorities rights to shop
where they want.

The same goes for landlords and employers.

*IF* the fetus is human, than the right to life *must* take precedence
over the right to privacy.  Without life, none of your other rights
mean much.

Life's a bitch, sometimes there are no good answers.

>Adrienne Regard
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:06:58 GMT

In article <26683@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:

>> It probably has more to do with how fewer people carry semi-automatic rifles
>> around with them.  And those that do, will rarely need to use them.  (Would
>> YOU threaten someone carrying an M-16 over his shoulder?  I sure wouldn't!
>> "Hey man!  Gimee yer wallet!"  <Bang> )
>
>   Threaten him/her? No! I'd kill 'em first, then take the wallet.
>I.e.: <bang>  "Hey man! Thanx fer yer wallet! A-and I doan think
>you'll be needin' th' M-16 either!"

     Then you're not thinking like a criminal.  Criminals who just
want to take your wallet will skip over anybody they think is a threat
and go after weaker people.  That's why you're safer in groups and if
your bigger and stronger.  It's too easy for them to skip by you and
and find easier "prey."
     Most criminals aren't interested in killing anybody.  This is
why non-lethal alternatives to guns (like tasers and stun-guns) had
the odd effect of producing more assaults, especially on police
officers.  You could incapacitate your victim without taking any serious
risk of injuring them.  Police have called for the banning of many
of these weapons, because criminals use them far more readily than
they would a firearm.
     Some people think there is some sort of "escalation" going on between
gun owners and criminals.  That if a criminal knows you are armed he'll
go get a bigger gun or something.  That's not how most of them think.  There
are too many people who *don't* have guns, or are weaker, or smaller, or
alone, they can prey on.

>> For a group who espouse personal liberties so much of the time, the democratic
>> party never has seen fit to extend this to gun ownership.  Americans love to
>> hunt.  Americans love to target shoot.  We invented sharpshooting, and we're
>> never going to give it up.
>
>I'm not asking you to give up your gun; just a little license &
>registration...
>
     Registration has been used for confiscation in Germany, Jamaica, 
Bermuda, Greece, New York, Ner Jersey, and was considered in Washington
D.C.  You'll understand if I'l skeptical.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Summary: Projection
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:34:35 GMT

In article <l8mjc8INNlh1@alcor.usc.edu> rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
#In article <1992Aug13.181814.24794@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.

[text deleted]

#Since most major newspapers get their stories from UPI (among other newswires)
#you may have to look a little harder, Mr. Holtsinger.  Just to add to my
#credibility, today we discussed about this in my Political Science class.
#We usually do not discuss "concoctions" of mine in class.

Holtsinger has a tendency to fabricate sources when he can't
support his claims.  I had wondered why he would lie about 
books and court cases that are easily checked, but now I
no longer wonder.  He must be insane.  Anyone who would
challenge someone else for quoting a newspaper story that
most people in the U.S. have read has lost touch with reality.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40959 alt.politics.elections:11133 alt.politics.clinton:2414 alt.politics.bush:2341
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:16:11 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
>ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <1992Aug13.023553.20420@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>>>How come the only solution the Dems can come up with is blame
>>>>Reagan/Bush and raise taxes yet again?
>>>
>>>Well, unfortunately, Kemp is not running for president (not yet,
>>>anyway). So how does _Bush_ propose to alleviate the tax burden on
>>>the poor? Does he think they'll benefit from a capital gains tax cut?
>>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates
>>opportunity for ALL to advance!
>>
>>
>Indeed. The reason capital is fleeing overseas is not the spectre of
>"cheap labor", as some like to think, but the desire to shelter capital
>from historically stratospheric tax rates. Cheap labor alone is not the
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
huh?  how do you figure?  and what does fleeing overseas mean?  doesn't
that conflict with that debter nation thing (national borrowing).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:47:42 GMT

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.

- the multicultural requirements that have been inserted into the curricula
of high schools and colleges, from the New York City school system
to Stanford University.
- meanwhile, schools likewise have sought to prevent, many times successfully,
the formation of private Bible study groups,  
- The existence of the NEA and NEH itself, which has been primarily 
a promoter of "Good Liberal" projects, at taxpayer expense.
 
>>There's nothing wrong with being a partisan whiner, but it is
>>deceptive to hide it behind "general" concerns.

Agreed.

>What
>are the 'good liberals' doing that compares to Jesse Helms' attempts
>to police the National Endowment for the Arts?

Criticizing Jess Helms for doing what the NEA has *always* done -
decide to fund some art, while declining to fund other art -
is hypocritical.
Liberals don't disfavor Government selection of art. Rather,
they are opposed to Helms' attempt to base that selection on whether
the art is pornographic or not.
Personally, I think we would be better off *without* the NEA.

---
Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39439 talk.abortion:31547 alt.politics.bush:1436
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:27:58 GMT
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.140530.26145@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>>>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
>>>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that
>>>> they would remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or
>>>> granddaughter; all equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents
>>>> support of their right to choose.

>>> You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?

>> Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
>> hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
>> the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.

>I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
>and that all of them are pro-choice.  

Sorry, Doug, but Chris was not insinuating anything like you claim here. Chris
was mainly pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bush & Quayle ticket in
connection with the abortion issue. It is pretty scary to think that
the upper class of the society, on the presidential level, will
have the choice of abortion, but that these same people wish to
take it away from the poor. Scary thought! 

Why not give (or keep) the choice there? If someone wishes to have
an abortion then let her have it and if someone does not want an
abortion, then she won't have one? Outlaw forced abortions (makes everyone 
happy)! What's wrong with that? 

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:15:54 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
:It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos
:like Mary Matalin protest the New York Post article
:on George's alleged affair with a staff aide.  I wonder
:why the same indignation was not present when the Clinton
:allegations surfaced.  It's rather fun to watch the
:Bush operatives wallow in their own sleaze.
	Why not the same indignation? Because Gennifer Flowers came out
with a press conference (albeit for a tabloid too) and told the
reporters about her affair. It seems a lot more believable if the person
with whom an affair was alleged comes out and tells people what it's all
about rather than having some person use the words of a DEAD ambassador
to character-assassinate a man or a woman. Flowers had evidence (tapes
or pictures or such) about the trist with Bill; but even some of the
more careful media sources like the Washington Post found no evidence
about the trists between Fitzgerald and Bush.
	About sleaze, what about the "sleaze" against Clarence Thomas?
About Robert Bork? About Dan Quayle? How does this differ versus the
"sleaze" against Jim Wright and the House Bank scandals? Ted Kennedy? We all
selectively decide who is telling the truth. If you see any fun in
watching people's reputations destroyed based purely on suspicious
rumors in order to advance the agenda you see fit, then we have no shame
and no respect for anyone anymore.
	By the way, Matalin dates someone who's a key member of the
Clinton campaign. If she's a wacko, her boyfriend's got to be a lunatic.
:)


-- 
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?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What's libertarianism?
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:38:09 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In article <1992Aug15.192509.449@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
 lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>I tend toward the libertarian side but unfortunitly in my experience
>the libertarians on the net are the most homophobic of anyone. I find
>it bizarre that someone supports the right to take drugs, the right
>to own guns but doesn't support the right of consenting people to
>have sex (I also find it bizarre that some gbl's support the war
>on drugs). 

I'm surprised that you have this impression!  The rights of consenting
adults is a plank in our platform, and I personally don't know *any*
libertarians who are actually homophobic.  (I've been active in the
California party for over 7 years, and have attended three national
conventions so far.)  Naturally, lots of the local activists in the SF
Bay Area are gay or bi (I'm a hetboy myself, sorry ;-) but there are
lesbigay members and leaders all over the party.

Again, I'm not aware of *any* activists who are homophobic; if you've
met someone who's calling themselves a libertarian just keep in mind
that we don't have a patent on the word and can't prevent them from
using it.    ;-)    Heck, you advocated a number of things that we
would disagree with in your posting (not the minimal-but-not-missing
government stuff; I'm a minarchist myself and would likely agree with
a lot of that).

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:29:34 GMT

In article <l8thp4INNa84@alcor.usc.edu> rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>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).  Therefore one can certainly call someone a
>>murderer (even in the first degree) without calling for their death.
>>Many do.  If one were to follow your logic then a state like NY which
>>allows the death penalty only in specific cases is a state filled with
>>hypocrites (or at least hypocritical lawmakers) because some people are
>>murderers and they are not subject to the death penalty.  The main point
>>is that our society views different types of murder differently.
>
>That's not the issue, Tim.  The issue is, if you support the death penalty,
>regardless of what state you may be in, then you must enforce it equally upon
>all murderers.  Quite simple, eh?
>
Uh.. no. Most people that favor the death penalty favor it for only some
murderers, and all states with death penalties use it on only a small fraction
of all murderers.

IT doesn't matter though ... logic is of no use when dealing with fascists.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39136 ca.politics:6681