HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:04:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.201130.12074@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.154402.5410@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
>>>_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
>>>is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
>>>difference, but still it's an important one.
>>
>>Gee, when Ice-T portrays a character in one of his songs that supports
>>killing police, the Republicans are up in arms.
>
>Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
>cops.  Arnold's work does not.  

How so?  One's a fictional movie, the other's a fictional song.  And
one can certainly find other Arnold movies where he kills people
gratuitously, even when he's a good guy.  (I recall him putting a bullet
in Sharon Stone's head when she was playing his wife with the line "Consider
this a divorce!"  Family values indeed.)

About the only difference I see is that you don't seem to believe that black
people are capable of the complexities and subtleties of engaging in
fictional discourse.  

>There are two different messages here.
>This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
>to grasp it.

Do you believe that Dante actually visited Hell, too?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: First Debate Site
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 17:35:17 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.13 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <1992Oct5.081935.1@azcc.arizona.edu>  kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.011420.25458@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec1.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
> > 
> >     Chancellor William Danforth of Washington University announced this 
> > afternoon that Washington University will host the first Presidential Debate
> > next Sunday.
> > 
> >     It will be held in our fieldhouse (with maximum capacity ~4,000, but less 
> > for the debate due to press and stage, etc.).
> > 
> >     Now, I just hope I can get one of the few tickets that will be issued.
> > 
> > Greg
> 
> 
> Where are all the people who said that Bush was "Chicken" to debate???????
 
I'm still here.  Bush is like a little boy who joins a
little-league team but won't play if he can't be the pitcher.




--
Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge)
Subject: Re: Interesting Happenings on Larry King Live (STL)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:42:23 GMT

	How interesting. I wonder if it was a trick using the same 
system that was used by that fellow who took over a satellite uplink a few
years ago?
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:48:40 GMT
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>The columnist had an amusing editorial the other day. The general point
>involved the irony of the chairman of the President's Council for Physical
>Fitness making movies in which he (Schwarzenegger, not the Presid) breaks
>into police stations and uses an automatic weapon to mow down officers.
>
>Of course Bush shouldn't be expected to control what roles Arnold plays,
>although the actor is recognized as an outspoken Bush supporter. This
>circumstance serves onl to degrade the already-pointless attack by Quayle
>on the "Hollywood elite." IMO Dan Quayle calling _anyone_ elite is a
>joke in itself.
>
>Bart

What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
difference, but still it's an important one.

-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:59:19 GMT

In article <96918@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
>>William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>>It is also _equally_ possible that aborting a fetus MAY NOT be taking
>>a life.  As far as "society" erring on the side of caution, how do
>>you define society, and what gives the government authority to dictate
>>on behalf of society?

>Government does not dictate in a democracy.  You want abortion to be legal?

But this isn't a democracy.  It is a constitutional republic.

>Overturn R.V.W. and vote for it.  Or vote against it if opposed.  Government
>then upholds and enforces the decision, it does not dictate.
>R.V.W. is a good example of dictating by the government.

I don't understand.  How is the government NOT telling you what you can
and can't do "dictating by the government"?

>>Um, friend?  Who are you to say that any person should live or die.

>A concerned member of society.  The constitution does not outlaw the killing of
>prisoners, so it is up to the states (that's you and me) to decide if the death

That sort of depends on your interpretation of the 8th amendment, doesn't it?

>penalty is valid.  Should be the same with abortion.  This is not difficult.

The constitution doesn't explicitly outlaw a whole bunch of things.  That
doesn't mean they should be left up to you, or even you and me.

>>I don't think you have any place to be saying that any person "DESERVES"
>>to be put to death.

>Then why do we have juries (or judges) in murder cases in death penalty states?

Because legislatures have legislated them there.  This is irrelevant to
whether someone SHOULD decide whether a person deserves to be put to death.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!	  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Anybody got a database?
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:24:17 GMT


Does anyone know of a database for US elections by 
state going back as far as 1940?

Thanks in advance.

Norman Miller
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Ro$$ Perot
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:46:50 EDT



-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee)
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:42:31 GMT

In <1992Oct2.150548.5055@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.124348.12393@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>>
>>So I'm a little confused.  If Texas is a "must-win" for Bush (with
>>its ~34 electoral votes), why isn't it a "must-win" for Clinton?
>>Ditto for Florida.  And what about those midwestern states?

>Listening to the news, you'd think every state is a must-win state
>for candidate X.

>Certain states can be considered "Republican" from voting history and
>demographics.  It is perhaps more of a guage of support among a
>party's core voters than anything else.  Someone in Utah remarked that
>Bush support was more or less invisible.  If I were the Shrub, I'd
>take that as a very bad sign: the most conservative state in the
>nation isn't a whole-hearted supporter.

Invisible support in Utah does not necessarily mean Bush is in danger there.
It might, but it might also mean that organizers and party loyalists feel no 
need to make a lot of noise in a state where it's a given that he'll win.

>If Bush has to fight for his "home" (I use that term loosely) state of
>Texas, he's in deep doo doo.

That's another story. I've read on other networks that Texans are a little repulsed
by George's adoption of a state that just happens to be the third most populous 
and have no income tax.

Perot is dangerous for Bush in Texas because he's a real Texan, and he may be 
appealing to conservative voters (particularly pro-military types)
who wouldn't vote for Clinton, but are disenchanted with Bush.

>--
>"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
>				-- Homer Simpson
-- 
*****************************************************************
yvonne_lee@infoworld.com   (preferred email reply address)
yvonne@well.sf.ca.us       (news account) (415) 312-0571 w  (415) 968-3132 h
*****************************************************************
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Congress has exempted itself...
Date: 26 Sep 92 13:46:06 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Indiana has a law forbidding the arrest of anyone for a misdemeanor
while going to a polling place to vote. It dates from the 1800's.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
The current epidemic of violent crime in the U.S. arises not from drug
use, but as a consequence of government-sponsored oppression of
producers, distributors and consumers of popular drugs not produced by
(and hence threatening the market share of) the alcohol, tobacco or
pharmacutical industries (which industries, coincidentally, are the
largest contributors to the Bush Reelection Campaign and the biggest
underwriters of antidrug advertisements (which advertisements,
coincidentally, never mention tobacco or alcohol as dangerous drugs)).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Bush & Debates
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:59:26 GMT

In article <19u7c5INNoci@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) says:
> 
> >Vasudev Murthy writes
> >> The second debate scheduled for next Tuesday has also been cancelled.
> >> Are there any polls out there  measuring the effect of the Bush campaign's
> >> refusal to debate? I would expect it to hurt, but is that the case?
> >
> >  I don't know if any ad hoc polls have been conducted, but I doubt if Bush's  
> >refusal will have much lasting impact.  I think he has already done a pretty  
> >good job of clouding the debate issue, to the point where many actually believe  
> >that Clinton was the one playing stonewall.
> >[...]
> 
> You may want to check out Mike Royko's latest column.  Apparently, GHWB has
> taken on the nickname "Chicken George" for his craven refusal to face Clinton.
> That's the sort of thing that could sink him in deeper doo-doo, as it's
> pretty darn unPresidential to be heckled by guys in chicken suits!
> 
> Pop quiz:  From what novel/mini-series is GHWB's new moniker derived?

IMHO, the newsmedia should schedule debates and invite all candidates
who are on the ballot in more than 40 states.  If Bush does not show,
then we get Clinton, Perot, Marrou, and (maybe) Gritz and the public
gets to see the Bush just couldn't be bothered: it would do Bush
more harm than good and he'd likely show up anyway - inspite of his
complaints.


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Bush cowardice
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:05:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country?

How can we respect a President who is willing to sacrifice US lives
and fortune for his own political gain?

>How
>can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
>priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife?

You mean like GHWB's little peccadillos with Ms. Fitzgerald?

>How
>can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>American work place?

How can we look up to a President who refuses to see how
bad things are in this country?

>How can we look up to a President who has experimented
>with drugs... particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and
>murders children?

GHWB - Halcion.  Speaking of murdering children, how are
things in old Baghdad?

>You've choosen an interesting thread. Now let's see how many
>other flaws we can find in "Billary" Clinton. 
>Here endith the lesson.
>		
>		 --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)   

GHWB believes that Dan Quayl is qualified to be the next
leader of the free world (etc).  No more lesson is needed.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.092137.1439@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.015238.19372@b30.ingr.com>, pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:
>> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>Over 500,000 calls were logged in the first 30 minutes and over a million
>>>calls by this morning.
>> 
>> I read in the paper that some people are upset, because they called the
>> number to tell him _not_ to run.  The number is just an automated counter,
>> so they inadvertently logged a "yes" vote.
>> 
>> So take the above numbers with a grain of salt.
>
>  Pat, stupid question of the month #4097:
>
>  Do you think that there are that many people that want Perot out??

There's also no guarantee that there's one million separate people who
want Perot to run.  I can set up my computer to call that number every
15 seconds.  Hell, for me, it doesn't cost anything, really.

--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Keywords: tweedle-dum, tweedel-dummer
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:14:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.130115.9872@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>
>|>Nope. I've heard several newscasts today, and it's still
>|>President Bush.  For four more weeks.
>
>What you mean Bush's dicky heart is going to give out so soon?

Ooops.  I'm apparently getting over-anxious at the thought of
removing the Bushman from office.  He really has about 3 1/2 
months left before he has to leave the White House and
move back to Houston (*snicker*).

>Does the VP still step in for a deceased Prez even when the successor has been
>elected?

Sad, but true.  President Quayl would give new meaning 
to the term "lame duck".

>President Dan Quayleee here we come !

Urp.  

>Phill Hallam-Baker


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14846 talk.politics.misc:48946
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:38:21 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <MATT.92Oct1115451@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.165541.8226@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>
>> >Growth industry following a Perot victory: Private Investigations.
>> >Discretion is Our Watchword.
>>
>> 	Wow, Perot must be pretty stupid if as the Boss of the FBI, CIA, and
>> NSA, he would prefer to hire private detectives.
>
>Dunno, he seems to be very fond of private detectives.  The paper
>today printed a story that Perot admitted to hiring private detectives
>to investigate his own campaign volunteers.

	Just speculation, but...

	I think he's fond of private dectives is because he Can't hire
the FBI, CIA, Secret Service etc- so he hires his own private police force. 
Why would the commander in chief need to hire an outside agency, when he's
got access to the biggest police force in the world?

	By the way- It's implied that the Repubs and Demos never hire investigators.
Right - just plumbers.
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:22:47 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
 <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou@quads.uchicago.edu
(roger colin shouse) says:

>In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>The columnist had an amusing editorial the other day. The general point
>>involved the irony of the chairman of the President's Council for Physical
>>Fitness making movies in which he (Schwarzenegger, not the Presid) breaks
>>into police stations and uses an automatic weapon to mow down officers.

>What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
>_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
>is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
>difference, but still it's an important one.

Umm, seen "Terminator 2"? Hint: He's not a bad guy, and he's still very mean
to lots of police officers.

Incidentally, I enjoyed T2 immensely, but I still agree with Royko's original
point -- it seems a role model who goes around killing the police is a lot
worse than a role model who decides to have a baby out of wedlock. Essentially,
the Republican anti-"media-elite" family-values types are forced to either
denounce Schwarzenegger, an ardent Republican, or else admit that this whole
Hollywood elite thing is in fact just a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the
real issues.

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: ssurgui@ucdacm.denver.colorado.edu (Scott Surguine)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:17:37 GMT
Distribution: comp.unix.admin comp.unix.bsd

In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>  
shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
> In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu  
writes:

In Response To A Post RE: Mike Royko's Sunday Column The ever Brilliantly
Intuitive Roger Shouse States...
 
> What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
> _bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
> is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
> difference, but still it's an important one.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW!!!!!  WHAT WISDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forget the fact that VIOLENT CRIMES in AMERICA ARE UP DRAMATICALLY!!!!!!
Let's forget the fact that Men and Women get killed mutilated and 
grossly dismembered in this film.  Forget the fact that people get their
heads torn off and Arnold shits down what's left of thier torso.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This is a bad guy who EVENTUALLY gets killed by the good guys.
Wow!!!!  Why Arnold could have raped, tortured, and mutilated your
Little Sister VERY GRAPHICALLY in this film.  But as long as the good
guys come riding in with their white hats on ITS NO PROB...

Is It Just Me? or Do All Reagan Republican's collectively have an IQ
In the single digit range... ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


> -- 
> Roger Shouse
> The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14731 alt.politics.clinton:7924 alt.politics.bush:7285
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Clinton/Gore in the Northwest
Keywords: broadcast, clinton, northwest
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:40:57 GMT

Here is an article from clarinet about Clinton/Gore's chances
in Washington and Oregon:
---------------------------------------------------------------

In article <Bwa-briefsURc56_2O2@clarinet.com> clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI-Radio) writes:
>                               	-2-
>	(OLYMPIA)- Ross Perot's reemergence as a presidential candidate hurts
>Bill Clinton more than George Bush in the Pacific Northwest. That's
>according to a political analyst at Oregon State University. Professor
>Bill Lunch says Perot and Clinton have overlapping appeal to people who
>are ``dissatisfied with the status quo.'' However, Lunch still expects
>Clinton to carry Washington and Oregon on election day. He says the
>Arkansas governor is so far ahead in the Pacific Northwest that he can
>lose some supporters to Perot and still win.Lunch says one of the
>biggest challenges for the local Perot volunteers is to combat the
>perception that a vote for Ross Perot is a ``wasted vote.''

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14756 talk.politics.misc:48782
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:52:10 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Sep30.091937.1438@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>  But it's how loud that answer will be....
>
>  A million calls in 12-16 hours??
>
>  Now, unless someone's doing some serious calling, there's got to be a lot of
>support for him.  It's just that, in these polls, "likely voter" usually =
>Republican or Democrat.
>

If I really wanted Ross Perot to run I'd call the number hundreds of times.
Why not - he's paying for the call.  It doesn't take much effort to dial
a number, wait for a machine to answer, and then hang-up.  I'd be willing
to bet that there are quick a few people doing some serious calling.
Add to that the number of people who called to say DON'T run and your
'poll' is pretty useless for telling how many people want him to run.
Ross Perot may call the number himself a few hundred times :)



-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections