HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:00:34 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <1992Sep2.171132.21604@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>
>The offending (and offensive to some Americans) words were added during the
>Eisenhower administration, in the late 1950s.  The interpolation makes no
>sense gramatically or politically and it distorts the meaning and purpose
>of the pledge of allegience.  The whole thing was quite is silly, as well
>as divisive.  (At the time, I had thought the silly insertion would be 
>soon dropped but, alas, a whole generation has learned it the wrong way.)
>
>The correct text is:
>	I pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America,
>	and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible,
>	with liberty and justice for all.
>
>The words "one nation, indivisible" make sense.
>The words "under god, indivsible" do not.
>
>(Indeed, the alteration may well be viewed as unpatriotic.
>Furthermore, the insertion of a particular religious concept
>makes a mockery of the final phrase and contradicts its final word.)
>
>I shall continue to say it that way I learned it!

I fully agree with your sentiments, especially the second sentence
of your final parenthetical phrase.

My personal solution as a child was simply to omit the two words when
I stated the pledge in school.  In fifth grade, a teacher tried
to "correct" me; I simply told her that the Bill of Rights allows me
to say or not say the pledge as I see fit.  Fortunately, this teacher had
integrity; a potential "bad mark" was translated into a commendation 
of the attention I paid to my Civics lessons. 

As an aside, is not the recitation of these words in a school
context similar to school prayer?  (Uh oh, have I opened Pandora's
box on this?)

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: George Bush's new math...
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:57:41 GMT

In article <t!cng=k@lynx.unm.edu>
johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic) writes:
 
>I seem to be a bit confused.
>
>President Bush wants to lower taxes across the board.
>
>President Bush wants to cut the capital gains tax.
>
>President Bush wants to cut the deficeit.
>
>Now President Bush wants to increase spending with a job training act.
>
>And President Bush refuses to tell us what programs he is going to
>cut. We are asked to "trust" him.
>
>Somehow, this does not add up at all. Perhaps someone could enlighten me
>how the President plans to decrease revenue, increase the budget (oh, I
>forget, tax vouchers don't increase the budget, they just lower revenue
>even more) and balance the budget.
>
>--john chadwick
 
That's easy...he'l do it *exactly* the same way Reagan did it.
 
Jim McMaster
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: re: liberal v. conser
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:02:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Seriously, a system of vouchers is yet another ploy to appease Pat "Ayatollah"
 
>Robertson and his band of crazies.  It plays heavily toward sectarian schools
>that have been dominated by fundamentalists and charismatics.

Excuse me, but I know plenty of people who consider socialized education
to be a cesspool of statist indoctrination and bureaucratic incompetence,
and who resent bitterly having their money taken by threat of violence
to pay for it, and not one of them has any use whatsoever for the
religious Right.

>"Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking!"
>       --Abbie Hoffman

"Whine for Big Brother, it's easier that being responsible for yourself."
        --Me


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Fundies distort republican politics
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:55:20 GMT

The fundamentalists, who are well organized, have IMHO achieved too much
power in the republican party, which could cost the republicans the
presidential election this year. I think the republicans could organize
a good campaign which included family values and pro-life views,
but only if those views were moderated. As it is, we keep getting tarred
with the brush of extremism, because the fundies have forced an
extreme anti-abortion plank in the platform, and have voiced extreme
anti-homosexual views.

Most republicans, including, I suspect, George Bush, are not vehemently
against abortion under all circumstances... but we are against it
under some. Most republicans, I suspect, do not believe that we
should run the country literally from the Bible, or that we should
cram religion down people's throats. Most conservatives, whether
very religious (Buchanan, Buckley) or not, don't feel that
religion has a place in politics, but we do feel that morality
has a place in public debate and public policy.

On the other hand, we can address:
  -the damage to our society caused by the rejection of many
   traditional moral (NOT religious) values. We can oppose
   immoral governmental programs without making immorality 
   illegal.
  -the democrat emphasis on "rights" without responsibilities
  -the moral repugnance of abortion as a method of birth control,
   and the reasons that there should be some, but not too many,
   state restrictions on it.
  -the anti-family, anti-moral extremists who have gained such a
   loud voice in the democratic party.
  -the legitimate gay issues (end of discrimination and condemnation) as 
   contrasted to the illegitimate gay issues (gays as a legally priviledged
   minority groups; equal time to gay viewpoint in schools).

If we cannot reform the moral majority/fundamentalist (really, literalist)
types who really are the extreme on the social conservativism scale,
we risk offending the majority of americans who are on neither
the social conservative side or the social liberal side.

What do you fellow republicans think? (I can guess what I will hear from
the "rights but no responsiblities" crowd so prevalent on the net).
-- 
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
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot threatens to return!!
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:52:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

>In article <Aug.24.19.48.20.1992.10285@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>>
>>I am a supporter of both the Republican Party and George Bush, and 
>        ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^
>>would enjoy seeing Perot destroy slick Bill's chances.
>>
>>There is NO chance that Perot could ever win, but he might give the
>>existing parties the shake in their foundations they very much require
> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^

>How can you support those in whom you've evidently recognized 
>corruptness and moral bankruptcy?

I sight neither moral bankruptcy or corruptness within the party or
the qualified individuals I support.  I want the Republican Party to
remain the voice of Conservative ideology, and to obtain a majority in
the Congress to enact the necessary policies to restore the stability
of the American economy.  The line item veto, capital gains cut, among
others are necessary and important to economic recovery.

This, however, escapes those currently in control at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, who are still trying to figure out their checkbooks.

Perot's lack of understanding of how Capital Hill works, and his large
following, should be a loud enough message for Republicans to rally
and re-energize the party.

By no means will this be an easy win for George Bush.  It will be a
tough and muddy race, and the first year or so of his second term
could be bumpy.  But unless he can have a Congress which will work with
him, his re-election will be marked by the same ineffectiveness from
Congress the last four have produced.


-- 
David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
__________________________________________________

"We're sailing on the wind of better days"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:01:01 GMT

dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
>> The courts are in existence to interpret the ... Constitution.

>Says who? Not the U.S. Constitution. John Jay, perhaps? :-) The
>document is very simple, and very clear. It needs no
>"interpretation." To do so is just a front for making it say what you
>want it to, what is convenient to support your partisan position. The
>U.S. Constitution is not some magical document with holy words
>needing a priest's understanding. It is a straightforward contract
>between the people and the government. Which happens to be ignored
>for just about all intents and purposes.

>Not a flame, I suppose, just something else that irks me. :-)

A famous court case called Marbury vs Madison established the precedent
of judicial review. That's where. Much like many other traditions, jud
review is not written anywhere but has just been following that precedent
(and basically is now accepted). 

For example, the V-P is President of the Senate according to the
Constitution but precedent has established that he only attends
sessions in order to break a tie vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (alt.activism user)
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Great Britain's View of Bush (Was: The Swedish view on Bush)
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:04:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1992Aug30.175750.25291@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>
>>Hold on a sec. You're basically right: no-one here thinks Bush has a
>>snowball's chance in hell of winning, but the tone you refer to is not biased
>>against GB, just an accurate reflection of what's going on, according to
>>the pollsters in the US. I watched some of that Republican convention, and
>>maybe Paxman was a poor choice to anchor coverage, being the most snide and
>>superior sh*t on either side of the pond, but the color commentary, from which
>>most of that sort of remarks came, was by local political commentators, not
>>the BBC's.
>
>Well, it was the veteran Charles Wheeler, _not_ Paxman, who commented
>that this year's Republican Convention was the silliest he'd ever seen.
>
>And the silliest _I'd_ ever seen, for that matter.

Fair enough. I missed that bit. It was true, though, wasn't it? I've seen more
sensible and relevant military tattoos... On a more serious note, parts of ti
did remind me of the Nuremburg rallies... (Buchanan etc...)

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Hostage Swap
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.235510.15785@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>I propose we let people choose which party they'd like to be in themselves,
>for whatever reasons they have.

Unless you're a pregnant female, eh???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11988 talk.politics.misc:42898 alt.politics.bush:3536 alt.politics.clinton:3539
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:58:00 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <mjenkins.715015044@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>Following this Pat Robertson thread, I keep noticing people mentioning
>Jesus Christ and saying he preached "love and tolerance."
>
....
>
>Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
>surprised.
>
>Michael

Maybe one would be surprised. However, I believe that the main messge of 
Jesus is love. The word love, or variations thereof, is used over 300 times
in the New Testament. No other word that expresses attitude towards others
is used anywhere near as often.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Newt Gingrich: The New York Times made me do it!!
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:51:14 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) writes:

> I had a good laugh this morning.  Newt Gingrich was asked on
> NPR's Morning Edition about recent news reports that he had
> called Woody Allen the perfect embodiment of Democratic family
> values.
>
> Gingrich pretended to be puzzled at media reaction because, he
> said, he had simply repeated what he had read in an op-ed piece
> in the New York Times, so he couldn't have been resorting to
> sleazy politics, could he?
>
> I've enjoyed the way the Republicans have tried to have it both
> ways in this campaign.  For example, Republican brown shirts
> put the most anti-choice language possible into the platform,
> then Quayle, George and Barbara start talking kinder, gentler
> choice....  Or, the convention speakers attack Hillary Clinton,
> then, after Bill Clinton says it looks as if Bush is running
> for first lady (but he doesn't want to live with him!), Bush
> (or was it Barbara?) says that such attacks are not the way
> Republicans do things.  But the idea that Gingrich, supposedly
> one of the smartest Republicans (an oxymoron?) in the House,
> was just innocently repeating what he read in the (supposedly)
> liberal New York Times without intending to be sleazy -- well,
> that's the best yet, IMHO.
>
> Keep right on slitherin', Newt!
>
>
> George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org)         'Beat Bush, bag Quayle"

Newt Gingrich also admitted to smoking dope back in the '88 campaign, and he's
a check kiter from the House Bank scandal.  Given these facts, I'll bet that
the walls of his house are all made of glass.




|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|
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Poll results AL AZ VT
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:34:17 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

>          %      %    +/- %
> State Clinton Bush  E.Margin  No.Polled  When     Source
>  AL     47     47    3.5       525      8/24-27  Alabama Report
>  AZ     42     36    5         410      8/29-30  KAET-TV
>  VT     46     31    5         417      8/23-24  Burlington Free Press
> 
> Arizona is the biggest surprise here.

Indeed it is!  I really can't tell you why, except that Arizona's state
Republican party has been such a joke (Evan Mecham, Fife Symington, the
AzScam scandal) that a lot of people are forswearing the GOP and looking
elsewhere.  Maybe that's why.

I expect Bush to carry Arizona anyway.  We have a lot of fundamentally
conservative people who simply won't vote for Clinton no matter what
Bush says or does.

>     --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:12:13 GMT

I was going to reprint extracts from this silly article, but frankly,
why would Reagan have to steal the election when Carter *handed* victory
to him? No one cared that much about Iran. What people vote on is
the economy. Carter more than doubled inflation and unemployment. He
ran on a campaign that cited the "misery index" and then doubled that
index.
 
The "October Surprise" argument is pure bullshit, an attempt to criminalize
any and all acts by a non-Democratic executive branch. When Kennedy and
his cabinet lied about the secret prototcols, did we have a call for
criminal indictment?
 
             --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.pagan
From:  (Michael Snider)
Subject: Wicca (was Re: Pat Robertson)
Followup-To: alt.pagan
Organization: BNR
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:04:46 GMT

In article <Aug.28.10.11.12.1992.5585@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) wrote:
> 
> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> >jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
> 
> >>In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> 
> >>>Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
> >>>political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
> >>>kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
> >>>become lesbians."
> >> ...
> 
> He says that as if its a bad thing.  :)
> 
> But seriously, or as serious as you can get with this kind of nonsense
> staring you in the face, I just have a small question.
> 
> >Age" is witchcraft, allong with Wicca, etc.  Any 'pagan' rituals would
> 
> What is Wicca?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
> Publications Coordinator - User Services
> Rutgers University Computing Services

Wicca is a name used by any of several neo-pagan groups.  Some claim to
be descended from the pre-Christian folk-religions of Europe.  Most worship
a Goddess and her male consort in a kind of nature religion.  Some wiccans 
call themselves witches.  A reasonably good book to start with (I think)
is _Drawing Down the Moon_, the author of which I can't remember.  You can
get lots of information, company, and entertainment at alt.pagan.


***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******

Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
                                                   Charles Darwin          

Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  

                                                   George Santayana
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot threatens to return!!
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:45:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <y7cVPB1w164w@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz> scrooge@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz (Glenn Murphy) writes:
>In New Zealand our media are reporting stories from the US that Perot 
>unhappy with the economic policies of both Bush and Clinton and is saying 
>that if there is not some changes he will rejoin the race for the 
>Presidency. He appearantly still has offices in all 50 states and says the 
>infrastructure is still in place for him to remount the campaign.
>
>Any comments from America?
>
>Glenn.

I have also heard hints that Perot is unhappy with the current situation.
But any polls that include him give him less than 1 % of the vote.  Perot
has lost any chance by dropping out once.  What is he going to do during 
a crisis?  Quit?  Very few (if any) Perot supporters will still support him,
let alone the rest of the american populace.

david redish
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc