HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Abortion politics
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:26:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <l9g2fqINNmb1@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>
>Bill Weld did though, and got booed a lot less than he had expected.

  Certainly true.   He gave a good speech.

>
>Meet some more: Gov. Joan Finney of Kansas (someone back me up on this?),

  Ok, the real reason I'm posting.  You are correct she is pro-life 
(and Catholic.)   However, Finney did win the 1990 election in part by 
saying that she would not "push any anti-abortion bills."  

>>But the pro-choice Republicans weren't excluded from the debate.
>> 
>>Nor were the pro-life Democrats excluded--there just aren't many of them.  The
>					     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Like to change your mind now? The Democrats are no more monolithic on the
>abortion issue than the GOP. Only they also muzzle dissenting voices, and
>not just at the convention. David Bonior had to promise that he wouldn't
>take part in any abortion debates to win the backing of Congress bigwigs
>when he ran for the post of Majority Whip in the House after Bill Gray left
>to head the UNCF.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: RE: Clinton's lies
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:36:16 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

In article <27AUG92.18224635@vax.clarku.edu>
htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
 
>
>
>In a previous article, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) wrote:
>        [see original posting for "statistics"]
>>
>>Having said all that, I will say that perhaps what America needs is four
>>years of Clinton, just to remind them of what four years of Carter was like.
>>
>>Kemp in '96!
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
>> medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
>
>Let me guess, you also agree with Bush that Clinton "raised taxes 128
>times" as governor in Arkansas.
>
That's as impressive a non-sequitar as any I've heard. Are you trying to tell
us the peak inflation rates (near 16.5%, one month) and unemployment rates
under Carter were just a figment of our collective unconciousness? ;-)
 
Or is it just an attempt at an ignoratio elenki?
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gore on Sunday Interview Show
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:40:05 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

My favorite line from Gore on one of the major shows (sorry I cannot
recall which one) this past Sunday a.m.:
After spending 5 minutes bashing Bush for his reneging on the
"No New Taxes" pledge, Gore was asked "How did you vote on that
budget package, Senator?"
Gore's answer: "Oh, I voted for it. . . uh. . but I had recommended
a different package."

Dear Mr. Gore:  That is exactly what Bush had done.  He in fact had risked his
political future by having a bipartisan budget summit in which the
leadership on both sides of the house had pledged that they would get support
from their people for the austerity package (as it was called by Dems and Reps)
  After some members of the house backed out due to pressure from their own
precious PAC's (like the elderly fearing cuts in social security), the
budget crisis in which Washington began to operate without the ability to
pay (ala California's situation now), and Bush's embarrassment and House
leadership's embarrassment at not being able to control Congress, the resulting
bill was passed and the rest is history.
  If we had a balanced press, I think this stuff might come out.  I encourage
you to go to the library, look up US nEws and World Report (or whatever you
trust) from late 1990 and you will see the facts as they happened.  Bush
is being sliced and diced by the likes of Gore and the lockstep press corps(e).
If you don't believe it, look it up. And the next time Gore or Clinton open
their mouth, become very skeptical.  It's the only way that has worked so far.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12317 alt.politics.bush:3953
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: new york times article: bush was in the loop?
Keywords: Iran-Contra, Weinberger diaries
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:21:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I heard from a friend that a New York Times article last week
published a quote from Bush in reaction to the Weinberger diaries
that said that he was in the loop.  Apparently Bush said that
he was in the loop (note change of statement from previous "I was 
out of the loop") but that because no one else objected he said
go ahead.  Does anyone have the article?  Know which day this was?
Can you post it?  Or if you can point me to the day, I will 
(if it's not too long) type it in.


thanx
david redish
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Bush and Clinton Character Issue
Organization: Clark University
Date: 26 AUG 92 21:56:17 GMT


In a previous article, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) wrote:
>What can be a greater measure of a mans character than his honesty?
>I think nothing can, so who is the greater perpetrator of flasehoods,
>Bush or Clinton?  ...I'm soliciting examples, quotes, and facts.
> 
>Marty L. Dart.
>My opinions are mine and mine alone.

At this point in the election, with months of partisan commentary "salvos"
having been traded, I think it would be very difficult to determine who 
has "perpetrated more falsehoods." I have also always felt that these 
vague notions of "personal character" and "family values" are preposterous
and laughable considering the media-fanned flamewar that presidential
elections are becoming. 

You want to pick a candidate? Disregard what they're saying in speeches.
Maybe listen during the debates. Beyond that, examine their *records* in
terms of the issues that are most important to you. You like one guy better?
Vote for him.

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:34:12 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

>Ah yes, taxation has been going on for almost a century now.  The LP's
>main attraction in their platform is the call for abolishment of taxation.
>It doesn't ring true to me.  The math behind it has exactly as much
>support as the math for supply-side economics.  The LP (and Marrou)
>is clearly using it as a slogan to attract disaffected voters: i.e.,
>"read my lips, no more taxes."  Zero intellectual content, and no
>guarantees the promise would be carried out.

The LP is not saying taxation should be abolished because it's the popular
thing to say this year. The LP opposes taxation because it is taking some-
one else's property by force. While we can debate the practicality of
this attitude, it is not "zero intellectual content", but rather putting
the old "thou shalt not steal" into action.

>I can't believe how many otherwise intelligent people believe that
>"getting government off our backs" via eliminating income tax is a
>serious response to reforming government financing.  It's harder than
>that, and I'm hoping Marrou knows it.  He's slick enough.

Marrou is not saying that abolishing the income tax would reform the
government financing mess we're now having to put up with.
Eliminating the income tax will put more money into people's pockets,
which will in turn allow them to have more to spend on the goods and
services they desire (which would be good for economic growth.)
Reforming government financing would indeed be more complex, as even
a Libertarian government would have to undertake the monumental task
of dismantling the federal monster.

>My opinion is that if the LP were running the government, things like
>the hurricane would be even worse than they have been.  Even less help
>would come to the stricken area, on the grounds of "no national funds
>to alleviate private problems."  And Marrou would be bounced out of
>Florida in the next election by a 10-to-1 margin.

This is probably true - which is a damn sad statement. Need should
not justify theft - yet most people seem to believe that if they need
something badly enough, it should be given to them regardless of the
way it is procured. Since, however, private charities do perform so
well, it is not illogical to assume that if only private charities
existed and people REALLY cared as much as they claim to when voting
for statist Republicrats - the problem would be solved as well as
the government is solving it now, if not better.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11926 talk.environment:3440
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.environment
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 18:03:57 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <16847A975.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>
  <1992Aug18.185554.9334@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
  <1992Aug19.153426.21442@anasazi.com> <1992Aug20.125508.12570@ornl.gov>

>It amazes me that people can be so naive!  "Available evidence"... "more
>likely to be beneficial"...What if we're missing some crucial evidence?
>if we don't really understand the long-term effects of increased atmospheric
>CO2 and methane?  What if it turns out to be a disaster instead of a  
>benefit?

What if we fail to burn all the Jews and homosexuals at the stake before the
year 2000 and Gawd punishes us all with His terrible swift sword?


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: A challange to Clintonopiles
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 16:26:34 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <16855D9B9.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>  MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

> by January 1, 1996? The details: If the index is under 10 by then I'll
> donate $100 to NOW. But first I want to see 10 Democrats who are willing,
> if the index is above 10, to donate $100 to Pat Robertson.

Why NOW?  Do you put them at the "same" part of the opposite side of
the political spectrum as Pat Robertson?  Please don't...

>
> Any takers? Public acceptence only, please.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
>  medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
>  mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
>  medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
>  KE8YY


Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Clinton leads new poll by 34 points
Keywords: yes
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:04:57 GMT

In article <1889@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> Ok, Ok. Has anyone noticed that recently polls seem to be varying quite
>drastically. Last night CNN had a poll which showed the following.
>       Clinton  50%
>       Bush     45%
> So with all the charges of media bias and the fact that the poll data is
>being reported through the media, hows about conducting our own polls.
>People around the country could call 50 households local to them and we
>could total up the counts here. This should not be to expensive if the 
>calls are local for the pollers. This would require honest reporting by
>the users of the net. My local area is LA and its very liberal and should
>go for Clinton. 40 miles away is Orange County a conservative stronghold.
>Would any be interested in conducted an independent poll. I am very busy
>but would not mind making 50 phone calls on a weekend for the poll. Just
>talking about how to conduct accurate polling might enlighten us on how
>hard it is to get an acurate poll for the nation.

I'm not a professional pollster, but I am aware that a lot more goes
into polling than calling 50 households at random. I'm not aware of
all the details, but I would venture to say that we're unlikely to get
a representative survey if we do it unprofessionally. Besides, the
more accurate polls tend to be done over a series of evenings (unlike
the "one-night wonder" polls) in order to contact as many as possible
out of a survey sample.

What I'd personally like to see in the media is abandoning the
one-poll report. Different polls taken at the same time have reflected
differences which are not accounted for by their margins of error. It
seems that poll reporting should be based on two (at the least) or
more simultaneously conducted polls in an effort to improve accuracy
in the press.

Or maybe that's what the press doesn't want. :)
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:33:56 GMT

Conrad Poelman writes
> Paul S Galvanek@pitt.edu (233)
> > Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.  This is from the
> > August 31 issue of Time.
> 
> > % of black families in the U.S. with incomes
> > over $50,000
> 
> > 1970:  9.9%
> > 1980: 10.9%
> > 1985: 12.3%
> > 1990: 14.5%
> 
> Such statistics are utterly meaningless without adjusting for inflation.
>  Are they adjusted for inflation?  If so, this is indeed interesting. 
> If not, then it in fact reinforces the common belief that blacks are
> worse off than they used to be, given that inflation between 1970 and
> 1990 was almost certainly more than 50%.

  I find it hard to believe that Time would print such statistics without  
adjusting for inflation; the original poster probably forgot to include a  
footnote that read something like, "...in 1990 dollars."  Nevertheless, these  
figures alone don't tell us much.  It would be helpful to see a comparison of  
minority families with all American families; that would give us some idea  
about how minoritits fared over the last 20 years.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:36:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.025652.24784@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <92233.173023DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>]I'm so sick, nearly violently so, of hearing of how the Reagan and
>]Bush won the cold war.  This is an awful lie that is nothing but a
>]huge slap in the face to the real heroes of the revolution.  Lech
>]Walesa and Gorbachev are a couple of names that come to mind right
>]off.  Then there were many others who held high ideals of a better
>]life for them and their fellow countrymen/women, and were put in
>]prison and killed for it.  We'll never know who a lot of them were,
>]but I'm sure none of them were named 'Reagan' or 'Bush'.

E.Kennedy,for example.

>Well, if you as Gorbachev (who, to this day, is still a communist), he
>will tell you that Reagan's policies forced him to institute Perestroika
>(which required Glasnost). If you travel to eastern europe, you will find
>out that many people there and in Russia consider Reagan to be their
>liberator. Lech Walesa got a lot of aid from Reagan (via the pope).

Just as I remember it. Soviet Union withdrew from the Geneva talks due
to Reagan administration  position on  SDI program.
Soviet Union was unable to make  anything similar to SDI without
finally ruining soviet economy.  They had returned to the Geneva talks
just on November 1984. So it was a first sign that communist leadership
regognized that they do not have enough resources to compete with
USA in arms race having Reagan administration against them.
So they elected Gorbachev in april 1985 trying  to find other ways
of competing with the west.

I guess that people who unable to  recognize Reagan-Bush virtues in defeating
communism are just politically blind. Clinton is among them.
America cannot afford to have politically blind president.


-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:55:23 GMT

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."
>
>I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
>fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
>about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
>call "tolerance."
>
>Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
>very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
>thieves in his Father's house.

And if Jesus returned today I would expect a repeat performance, I
would love to see the look on Pat Robertsons face as Jesus and his
band of drag queens ripped the satellite dish off the roof :-)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:59:43 GMT

In article <16856B7D6.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.202640.10864@midway.uchicago.edu>
>shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
> 
>>
>>See, for example, recent work by Robert Jewell of the University of
>>Chicago (Administrator's Notebook, Volume 34 -- can't remember the issue #).
>I'll just add a footnote to Roger's excellent references by mentioning that
>the Detroit News did a series on school spending in Southeast Michigan,
>and area that includes the highest and lowest spending per pupil in the
>state, as well as some of the highest and lowest scores on standardized
>achievement tests. Their staistician found no correlation between per-pupil
>spending and achievement.

A footnote to your footnote; in a study released last year by the Dayton, Ohio
based Urban Policy Research Institute, Marjorie Davies discovered that among
school districts in Ohio there was small (but statistically significant)
*negative* correlation between per pupil spending and scores on standard
achievement tests.  On the otherhand, there was a large positive correlation
between the average income of pupils and their scores.

                                       James Parker
                                       jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: Warning to voters?
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 00:32:27 GMT


In a previous article, dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) says:

>
>b    My grandparents received recently a campaign brochure from one
>Bo Gritz - I hadn't heard of him either before now, but their HQ apparently
>got my grandparents' names off the Perot petition that they signed.
>     Anyway, it mentioned something that I didn't know - that there is a
>State Department document which allows for the complete disarming of the
>U.S. military, turning our total control over to a World government with
[Paranoid far-right hooey deleted]

The real warning to voters should be: note who the ex-Perot campaign is
sharing names with.
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Marriages that stay together Re: Responsibility: The Dirty Word (was Re: Insulted by...
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:29:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.025710.1102@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.020451.5367@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Mart writes...
>>I believe one of the keys in a marriage that will stay together
>>"till death do us part" are partners who come from strong, stable
>>families.  
>> 
>[lots of true and well known stuff stuff deleted]
>> 
>This is all true, but what does it have to do with "alt.politics.elections"
>or for that matter, politics in general?
>
>-Garrett

Traditional Family Values?!??

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton leads new poll by 34 points
Keywords: yes
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:52:01 GMT

In article <1889@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

|>  Ok, Ok. Has anyone noticed that recently polls seem to be varying quite
|> drastically. Last night CNN had a poll which showed the following.
|>        Clinton  50%
|>        Bush     45%

	Yup. Thats the Time/CNN poll.

	The trick in reading poll results is to look at the results based on
previous examples of the same poll. The polls this year have been pretty 
consistant in that they all go the same direction at once, although the
spreads vary considerably, thanks to the questions that they ask.

	The only poll that I see regularly is the Times poll, which has
Clinton leading by about 16 points. Thats not terribly relevent: what is
relevent is that he was only leading by 12 points last week, when people
were asked the same questions. I understand that the other polls have also 
shown an increase in Clintons support, although I don't have the figures.

	I think that the big desparity come from the screening process.
All the polls screen the participants for "registered voters" or "likely
voters" or sume such criteria, and it seems to make a big difference.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections