HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:51:23 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
: |> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

: |> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
: |> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  
: |> Funny.  In this country, it is legal for me to marry a woman but
: |> illegal for me to marry a man.  This doesn't look very much like
: |> "equal protection of the law."
: |> Or is it your opinion that the marriage laws of all fifty states are
: |> in fact unconstitutional?
: This is not a value judgement, just a comment.
: 
: There is no right that heterosexuals have with regard to marriage that
: homosexuals do not have.  Homosexuals *choose* not to marry, because
: they are not attracted to people of the opposite gender.  

So, if homosexual people wanted to "choose" to marry, they would have
to deny their sexuality.  I don't know about you, but my sexuality
plays a role in defining who I am.

: Heterosexuals
: living with people of the same gender do not have "marriage" rights
: either, because a marriage is currently defined in our society as a
: special bond and legal contract between 1 man and 1 woman.  There is
: no statement of sexual orientation anywhere, though it is certainly
: implied.  But the law does not state the homosexuals cannot marry.

Funny.  I always thought that marriage was the union of two or more people 
whose love was so strong that it made them one entity.  Marriage laws, 
I thought, are supposed to be civil recognition of the reality of the 
situation.

People can and do marry other people of the same gender.  The law might
not recognize this little corner of reality, but the powers-that-be have
been known for their nearsightedness.

Current laws prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex marriages violate the
Fourteenth Amendment.  You know; that's the amendment that reads, "No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States...."  In not giving legal
recognition to the reality of the situation, the states are denying
same-sex married couples (or married trios, or...) the privileges
of the tax benefits, etc. of marriage.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:44:06 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu wrote:
:      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
: National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
: 
:                          ...  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
:      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
:      1 per cent. 
: 
:      C. Perttunen

And you believe those figures.   Gee, I guess no Republican would ever lie would they ?

	Ben
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8011 talk.politics.misc:48877
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Economic Questions
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:10:21 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep25.131841.14639@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.211724.5473@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>> >
>> >Which president managed the economy best to produce:
>> >1) Highest growth in gross domestic product?

	Reagan: "Real growth in 1983 hit 3.6%, while 1984 came in at 6.8%, the
best peacetime year in modern history."  _The Seven Fat Years_, page 174.

>> >2) Highest growth in jobs?

	If you include growth in the bureaucracy as a real increase in jobs,
sure Jimmy "wins".

>> >3) Biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?

	Johnson, thanx to Kennedy's tax cuts.

>> >4) Highest growth in industrial production?

	See above :)

>> >5) Biggest rise in hourly wages?

	Can you say "guns and butter"?

>> >6) Lowest Misery Index(inflation + unemployment)?

	How about biggest *decrease* in index?  Mr. Reagan wins hands down.  He
brought it down from 19% after the early 80-1 recession to 8% in 1986.

>> >7) Lowest Inflation?

	A bit misleading.  How about biggest decrease?  Once again, Mr. Reagan
wins.

>> >8) Lowest interest rates on long-term treasury bonds?

	Oops, a repeat of 7, no?

>> >The Federal Reserve Board and news accounts.
>> >Not one republican amoung the bunch.

	I can cook the questions so that only Mr. Reagan appears as a "winner".
:)

...
>> 	This is great! An undeniable example of the hypocricy and insanity
>> of worshipping 'results!'  Hahahahahhaha!  Jimmy Carter?! Hah!
>> Lyndon Johnson!? Total Uproar of humor.  Harry Truman? My long-dead
>> beagle mutt could've done better.  Kennedy?  Whoah! Major sad humor!
>> 	Here is a bunch of neat figures, I'm sure they should
>> tell you which planet Elvis is on;
>> 
>> 		13.4
>> 		3.141692
>> 		-2
>> 		A googleplex(ooh!)
>> 		99.997%
>> 		42
>> 		-12%
>> 
>> 			Gee, I bet you can find all kinds of neato stuff
>> from that. Please post your results.  The comedy line awaits.
>> 
> Still another intelligent response from the Bushies.... Come on! If you
> have some figures, experiences, expert testimony,.... to refute the
> assertion, post them. If you want to see Mike's figures, ask for them.
> I'm beginning to wonder if the Bushies can debate in a civil, thoughtful
> manner.

	Can't speak for the Bushies, but no Democrat seems to be able to cope
with the fact that Mr. Reagan provided the biggest peacetime expansion in
history.
	Mr. Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:02:53 GMT

I apologize. The SOuthern California post was not intended
to be a post. I meant it to be an email reply to the author
not a posting. I apologize for apparently hitting the wrong button.

BRI FARENELL

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: buckmr@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Democratic Platform
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:33:39 GMT

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>Well, I got a couple of requests, so I'll post the beastie.....

>The opinions/ideas expressed below are not necessarily my own.
>I'd still like to see the Republican and Libertarian platforms,
>but I suppose that it's possible that they've been posted and I've
>just missed them.

>                    1992 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

>            "A NEW COVENANT WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"

So, is the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM online anywhere? What are they hiding??

-- 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority 
receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8336 alt.politics.bush:7621
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Clinton leading in Maine
Date: 4 Oct 1992 02:29:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a poll of 800 households conducted last week by WCSH-TV in Portland,
the showings in a three-way race were:

Clinton 44%   Bush 30%    Perot 14%

In a two-way race, Clinton led by 19%. I didn't get the exact numbers.

Favorable ratings for the candidates were as follows:

Gore 53%
Clinton 40%
Bush 26%
Perot 25% (approx.)
Quayle 23%

Numbers as recalled by my father. Thanks, Dad. 
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:00:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.034955.11642@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.033139.8908@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>>>National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>>>
>>>     In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>>>     saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>>>     Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>>>     two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>>>     to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>>>     of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>>>     1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>>>     for federal poverty programs.
>>>
>>>It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>>>another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>>>dwarfs his private generosity.
>>>
>>>     C. Perttunen
>>
>> 
>>   By replying to your post I already gave it some value, which doesn't
>>really have any.   If this is all you have, it's really a sorry case for 
>>you.  Are you a pupil in the Childcare Center of University of Louisville ?
>>
>>
>
>	I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
>cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
>an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the 
>fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
>and I will take you ALL to your graves!
>
>					John Peter Wagner
>P.S. Pardon the bellicosity. 
 
    Hardly necessary , John Wagner. Pardon Request from you ?  Not necessary.
 
    If you don't get my point, let me put it in a more obvious way, 
 
    Many people, including myself, have donated more than either the Quayles
or the Gores, does this mean these people are more qualified to be the Vice
President ?  
 
    If the game you can play is like the above, you are as mature as an 
kindergarden kid.  "my father has more and better cars than your father".


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Monthian Buntan)
Subject: Trueman is not a Republican
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:54:27 GMT


If I'm Mr. Bush, I would be ashamed of myself to compare
myself to Trueman.  After all, Trueman was a Democrat who ran against
a do nothing republican congress.  Mr. Bush himself didn't even vote
for Trueman.  I myself am not an American, yet
I know enough American history.
Thank you for reading
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton/Gore Store
Date: 5 Oct 1992 15:08:56 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

Could someone mail or post the phone number to the 
Clinton/Gore Store...


thanks



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8455 alt.politics.bush:7716 alt.politics.elections:15144
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Why Gore is more charitable than Quayle - Top 10 Reasons
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:29:24 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


     Due to the overwhelming response to the "Quayle is
more charitable than Gore" thread, I thought that I would
post the "Top Ten Reasons Why Gore Actually is More Charitable
Than Quayle."  At the outset, I would like to admit that there
were some *valid* arguments given by some of the respondants.
However, I will emphasize the exercise in *denial* displayed by you 
people -- the volunteers -- of the Net (to use some Perot lingo) 
on why 1% (Gore) is actually greater than 3% (Quayle) and why 
$1,727 (Gore) is actually greater than $5,670 (Quayle).  Note
that all of these are based on actual responses to the original 
posting.  Let's count them down...could we have a drum roll, Anton?

THE TOP TEN REASONS WHY GORE IS MORE CHARITABLE THAN QUAYLE

10.  Because the Bible commands a tithe of 10%.

 9.  Because many people have donated more than either the
     Quayles or the Gores.

 8.  Because Quayle made more charitable contributions to weasel out 
     of paying his fair share of taxes.

 7.  Because a busy man will donate less to charity because he fails to
     read his junk mail.  [HA HA HA!]

 6.  Because the percentage of contribution to net worth should be 
     compared.  [A reasonable argument, until you see #5 and #4.]

 5.  Because the Quayles' net worth is $50 million dollars.  [Really?]

 4.  Because the Quayles' net worth is $1 *billion* dollars.  [WOW!!!]

 3.  Because the opera, symphony, and art galleries are not real,
     politically-correct charities.

 2.  Because all Republicans are liars.

And the number 1 reason why Gore actually contributed more to charity
than Quayle (drum roll crescendo):

 1.  Because Neil Bush ripped off tax payers for $2.5 million and
     got off scott-free.  [Can you say non sequitur?]

     We'll be back with Terri Garr after these messages....  :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Platform Archives on ftp?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:28:43 GMT

In article <hcgzksb@rpi.edu> buckmr@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>And does ANYONEhave the Republican latform on-line? Or are they trying to hide
>the thing??

Interesting assumption "doesn't seem to be on usenet" = "hiding".

They're trying to hide it by sending it to anyone who asks for a copy.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7601 alt.politics.bush:7011 soc.rights.human:3732 alt.society.civil-liberty:6077
From: yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Making "I've got a bomb in my backpack" jokes
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:08:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
>	Really, if you want to do comedy, try stand-up in a nightclub.
>	When the lives of over 300 people depend on YOU not leting a
>	maniac with a bomb or what have you on the plane, you take it
>	seriously when someone announces  that he's carrying a gun in
>	his luggage. Don't ask me why, it's one of those 'funny' things
>	of modern life.

Wrong.  Security is perfectly correct to take it seriously but it is a
violation of my right to free speech to outlaw my joke.  If I make the
joke, I am guilty of poor taste but not of any reasonable definition
of a crime.  Such a joke is a crime only because the government has
defined it to be a crime.  I have, however, given Security due cause
to search me.




-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:17:01 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

:      It's difficult to attribute the title of "student" to Clinton
: in his second year, since he really didn't show up for class on
: a regular basis (if at all), he did not take the exams, and did not
: graduate.

Depends on the school.  Around here, and probably at several other
Universities, there are many "students" like this.  I happen to live
with two (cf. my posts in a different group  ;)  I also hear that
Dan Quayle cut classes fairly frequently when they conflicted with
his tee times.

(soucre: the _Quayle Quotes_ book published by the _Quayle Quarterly_.
 Further documentation can be found in there.)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Subject: A Challenge for President Clinton
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:10:40 GMT

The Clinton economic program calls for deficit reduction by growth (which
the government can encourage, but has no real control over), and spending
cuts (which have to pass through a Congress that has no incentive to cut
spending). I seem to recall Ronald Reagan was going to balance the budget
with growth, yet after "the longest sustained period of economic growth in
history" (as the republicans like to describe the Reagan/Bush years), we
also had the most fantastically unimaginable growth in the national debt in
history. The history of growth without corresponding controls on spending
does not make a very promising case that growth alone will bring deficit
reduction.

The only possible hope the Clinton plan holds out for actually controlling
spending is the line item veto Bill Clinton wants, but the line item veto
also has to make it through Congress before the President can use it to
control spending.

I am publicly issuing the following challenge to Bill Clinton:

   If you can get Congress to give you a line item veto within the first 100
   days of the Clinton Presidency, I will donate $40,000 to the Democratic
   National Committee.

   As your part of the bargain, if you can't get a line item veto through
   Congress, you let me come to the White House and explain my Congressional
   reform program to President Clinton.

(I'll give you a hint: my program involves an amendment to the constitution
which gently but firmly links congressional term limits to sustained deficit
spending - if they can't control the deficit, they can't run for reelection.
It also calls for a total reform of the budget making process to use
priorities to determine which programs are fully funded and which are not).

By the way, I'm not going to donate that much money to the DNC without an
explicit commitment from Bill Clinton that he is accepting this challenge
and will let me meet with him after he fails to get a line item veto. If
Governor Clinton honestly believes he can get Congress to give him the power
to control spending, he should consider this a cheap and risk-free way to
get $40,000 for the DNC. If he refuses to accept this challenge, I will
consider it evidence that Governor Clinton is perfectly aware that he stands
zero chance of controlling spending with his current program.

P.S. Personally, I consider my $40,000 as safe as if it were in a Swiss bank
account. Even Al Gore doesn't like the line item veto...
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:00:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.202919.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

>How very kind of you to point out to all the Dems. why their tax and spend (oh,
>sorry, this year it's "investing in America") liberal policies just don't add
 
    In my dictionary and that of many other people who are able to see and
think for themselves,
 
    Tax And Spend = George H.W. Bush
 
    Borrow And Spend = Ronald Reagan
 
    Steal And Spend = Richard Nixon
 
    
    Labels don't mean anything anymore, facts and records do. 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics