HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:27:45 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Bush-orama

>>Hey, you on the East Coast!  What's the real scoop??  Saw this morning that
>>the NEW YORK POST is claiming Bush had an affair in 1984 with aid Jennifer
>>Fitzgerald.  Bush says it's "a lie".

>i'm having a hard time seeing bush as a super-stud, ruled by massive amounts
>of testosterone.
>so, um, like who cares?
>-linda

Listen, I could give a damn if Bush had a dozen affairs.  But, I do find it
disgusting for them to cry "foul" after leaking all the information on
Clinton's alledged indiscretions.

Yesterday both Barbara Bush and Quayle took after the media for pursuing
"sleaze" about George's private life.  And, Barbara said it was an outrageous
lie.  But, more disquieting are the charges that the "media" is out to get
the President.  Give me a break.

This is the guy and the political party that has used every dirty trick in
the book in the past 20 years.  Or have you forgotten about Donald Segretti
and the others.

Paul Harvey (of political right-wing radio fame) said this morning that the
press is expecting more of Bush than they expect of themselves.  You're
damned right!!!  The members of the press are not 1) standing for election
and 2) trying to attain a position where they spend the taxpayers dollars
and also live off same monies.

I'm about fed up with the whole thing.....Bush is a wimp, Barbara is a
frump, Clinton is an infidel, Hilliary thinks marriage and slavery are
one-in-same, Quayle is.....well Quayle.

Wasn't there once a song with the line "let's call the whole thing off".

                                                       ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:51:08 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: the gipper saves the night from being sank by the loose
              buchanan

Missy J:
>The point being made in Houston is that Bush hasn't had much effect
>on the economy because he *can't*.  If the Congress won't pass (or
>even discuss) Bush's domestic agenda, there ain't much he can do
>about it, short of dissolving Congress or suspending the Constitution.

Actually, I agree with your points that (1) ultimately Congress has to deal
with legislation and that (2) the demo rhetoric about "Bush has no plan" is
exaggerated.  But some of us, at least, are wondering whether Bush has
really done as much as he could to *try* to get Congress to deal with his
proposals.  I, for one, see a difference between simply sending legislation
to the Hill and following that up with the kinds of lobbying efforts that
indicate an attempt to exercise one's leadership.  To me, blaming the
Congress for failing to take up Bush's proposals would only be valid if the
latter course had been followed.

Does that make sense?  My brain is fried . . .

Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: RNC II: The Second Night
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:24:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.013937.5004@gw.wmich.edu> 92price@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>Overall, an enjoyable experience watching the conservatives going down in
>flames (no pun intended) despite their lies, frightening ideas, and hate
>speech.  Although to be fair, Kemp was not too bad, he said some positive
>things and sounded like he might actually _have_ some ideas about how to make
>things better.  He was more inclusionary than the others, and the Republicans
>responded better to him.  It looks like he might be the Republican candidate in
>1996 (although he has made no comments) and I think he might be hard to beat
>because he comes across as so much more reasonable than the others.  Does any
>body think that it might help to mend things between Dems & Repubs in Congress
>if Clinton appointed Kemp to the same place in his cabinet we he gets elected? 
>Does anyone think it might neutralize that powerful potential 1996 Republican
>bid for the Presidency?

Kemp's reasonableness, just like Tsongas's, is a liability when it
comes winning the nomination of their respective parties...only
extremists (or incumbants) can now win the nomination of both the 
Democratic and Republican parties.  There is a huge canyon in the
the middle of America that is really in need of a centrist third
party...Clinton is an extremist, and Bush has sold out to the 
extremists...a slightly libertarian slightly right-of-center economic
new party would be a godsend for America and for the world.

Kemp basically thinks Bush's economics is screwy...he thinks Clinton's
is downright crazy.  Kemp and Clinton may agree a bit on welfare reform,
but there is essentially no overlap on taxation policy, and on Kemp's
ideas about how to create opportunity via entrepreuneurial capitalism.

Gerald
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:06:23 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Somewhat Unusual "Family Values"

Rufus: Most every feminist woman I know of respects women who choose
to be homemakers and would do nothing to invalidate their right to do
so, but that doesn't mean that the idea of doing it themselves would
be appalling to them.

--Julie
****************

  i would be inclined to agree with you. most of the women i know
respect that particular choice, too. unfortunately, most of the press
goes to the kind of person who considers marriage to be the same as
slavery, heterosexual sex to be the same as rape, and a career to be
the only sane choice a woman can make. i think you know the names
better than i do, so i won't bring them up.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:38:52 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      convention subtexts?

Hi folks.
Just wanted to share my $.02 on the first night of the convention.
Bennett's commentary, and the responses of various folks on the floor, lent
more credence to the "read my lips -- not our platform" view that Scott (
did I get that right?) so eloquently expressed.  And the moaning and
wailing about how Bush can't get any of his policies through the Democratic
Congress came across, to me at least, as the message "I'm impotent in the
face of Congressional opposition."  Seems to me a pretty poor basis for a
re-election campaign.

I was pretty amused at some of the other stuff that came out last night.
The bit in the platform about building a barrier between the U.S. and
Mexico to prevent illegal immigration is pretty funny.  Listening to some
southern governor (of South Carolina?) bashing Clinton for "being on the
public dole", I couldn't help but wonder whether said governor refers to
his own paycheck that way.  I enjoyed the attempts by various Republican
politicos to explain what Rich Bond *really* meant by the "we're Americans
and they're not" line.  And I even giggled a bit this morning when I heard
that Quayle's staff, following Quayle's promise not to back down on family
values, chastised Tanya Tucker for choosing a "lifestyle we don't support."

What fun.  I'm hoping that after the hooplah dies down we'll have a
reasonably interesting campaign season.  Leaving aside the "family values"
nonsense, the two camps would seem to have some pretty substantive ideas to
debate and discuss (NAFTA is one that I'd like to hear more about).

Well, I'd better get to work.  Classes start in less than a week (moan,
groan).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:35:39 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

>  and let me just add that the "central
>scrutinizer" drank many more broo-hah hahs than anyone else.  And
>you would be appalled at the things he told us about YOU.

Damn, I must have forgotten to send a supply of Ben & Jerry's with
him to give him something to do besides drink.


>votE E. at least we don't drink light bEEr.

"E" is the most commonly used letter in the english language, do
you want to be common?


-other Andy

*Vote Y's Guys*  1-800-4NO-GOVT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:12:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More on rights

>           ...To my knowledge, in many states, homosexual behaviors
>           are illegal.  In others they are...
>
>                     --Missy P 2 B

Missy--

   Could you explain for my benifit what you mean by "homosexual
behaviours?"  Are you referring to specific sex acts and only those
sex acts or other activites as well.  What, specifically, makes
specific sex acts "homosexual" by nature?

--Julie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @ Mother: "Is it a boy or @
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @   a girl?"              @
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @ Doctor: "I think it's a @
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   bit early to start    @
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   imposing roles on it, @
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @   don't you?"           @
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @  --Monty Python's THE   @
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @    MEANING OF LIFE      @
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:03:32 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Political browsing

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

> KAT,
> You have my permission to cross post from my postings out of
> context.

Wouldn't that be kinda hard?

And please don't answer, "Not for you."

--KAT :-)
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (j.b. cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Part two of a Night at the Convention
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:38:30 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

These are some questions/points I have after hearing Reagan's
speech:

1) He too talked about freedom and "individual liberty"
and yet doesn't support this for all people(gays/lesbians,
women, etc)

2) He said that America is number one and the best in terms
of economy, et al.  A question I have is that if we are
so great, surely with our 200+ years as a country, neither
Germany nor Japan could have caught up much less have over-
taken us in 40+ years.

3) Do we really have cleaner air than we did 20 years ago?

4) Who is Reagan to comment on Clinton's values? or anyone
elses other than his own?

5) I think that if that if the history and what not were
closely examined, we would see that we never really lived
under the threat of nuclear annihilation.  It was more
propaganda coming from our government to convince the
American people that ridiculous military spending was
necessary than a real threat.

6) He condemned Democratic rhetorcial smoke, well, where's
the substance in his speech?

7) Should the US take on the "Crusade of Democrasy"?  I don't
think that the average citizen supports this.  Remember
Vietnam?

8) "We need to be equal in the eyes of each other."  Give me
a break.  Why aren't women, gays/lesbians, etc not equal in
his eyes?

9)  Whose fault is it that millions of Americans don't live
in American standards?  Recall his economic policies?

10) Just what is the "shining city on a hill" toward which
we are moving?

These are just a few thoughts.

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:23:55 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      The Spin Doctors

Subj:   Re: Tonight on all 3 networks...The "Spin Doctors"

>>>I urge you all again, watch CSPAN and ignore the spin doctors on the
>>>Big 3 networks.  The party is not what it is being painted as.

>>The "spin doctors" are not at the networks, Missy P 2 B.

>If I'm going to listen to spin doctors, I want to listen to those
>OPENLY affiliated with the candidates.  (I really like James Carville
>but dislike both Matalin and Stephenapholous, and not just because I
>can't spell their names.)

>-andy

You must have adored Lee Atwater!

On another note, I have missed some of the action from last night regarding
Bush's indication/hint/promise/whatever regarding a NEW cabinet.  Is he going
to do this?  How many are to go?  Who are they?  Who are rumored replacements?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:45:00 EDT
From:         more noise please <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: siege mentality

Carl feels himself under siege:
>The Democracts engineered the welfare system that
>awards single parents and does nothing to encourage poor families to stay
>together.

I hear you, Carl.  I was awarded a single parent a few months ago, and still
have no idea what to do with him.

>The Democracts and like minded liberals want the gov't to
>pay for artists who produce pornographic crap that is bent on tearing down
>society's norms, mainly those that seek to preserve a sense of order and
>morality.

If they were really interested in doing that, I'd be a registered Democrat.

>And there is more.  In schools it is alright to celebrate Halloween,
>the most holy day for Satanists, students cannot pray but they can do yoga and
>TM and practice with the Ouija Board.

You forgot the horrific satanic ritual of giving out those stale candy corns
instead of cool treats like "Sweeties".

>How's that for a seige mentality?

Well, you've got the mentality, Carl.  One of these days, you may even get an
actual siege.  Hang in there. :D

>Carl---+

So far, the Republican convention has been rather lame, but they're still
slogging through the b-speakers.  Maybe the gipper will pick things up...

Gary W. "666 licks to the
  center of a Tootsie Roll    "The great and direct end of government is
  Tootsie Pop" Olson           liberty.  Secure our liberties and privileges,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   and the end of government is answered.  If this
78 days and counting down...   be not effectively done, government is an evil."
           - Patrick Henry, Speech against the U.S. Constitution, June 25, 1788
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:25:05 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      netiquette, croquet, and other odd sports with frenchified names

somebody tell carl that you've gotta tell the listserv, not the list, when
you wanna get something done.  as a matter of fact this would probably be
a good time to tell everyone that again, since i myself have just gone
through miles and miles of red tape since i told someone to sign me off this
list be telling the listserv & listowner to do so (my old account, what a
mess....but i digress....)and said person apparently did not do that.

actually i have nothing to say about croquet and other odd sports with
frenchified names (not to be confused with frenchfried names).  actually the
reason that popped into my head was the fact that my interviewee today
asked if i knew where he could get a croque-monsieur.  q's, glorious q's.

um, okay, so i heard that the republican platform passed, in its anti-abortion
sort of form, with little or no resistance.  apparently the resistance
movement (ah, i have pictures of bogart, bergman, and rains floating
through my head..."listen, schweethaaaaht...at least we'll always have
griswold...") knew they were fighting the juggernaut that is the pro-life
cause.
in retrospect, i really think that barbara may have been put up to her
statement on "the woman's right to choose".  good way to swing back the
majority of republican voters who are wishy-washy on the issue and who were
terrified by the gung-ho stance that seemed to be shaping up.  as a matter of
fact, this is the case with my sister, who had said that she had not been
going to vote for bush, but when she heard what babs said, decided that
"well, he sleeps with this woman who is opposed to complete restriction...okay,
"well, he sleeps with this woman who is opposed to complete restriction...okay,
   why not?"  i have no intention of responding to the (as-usual) inflammatory
comments made by ms. stephenson on abortion and my own relative intelligence
and morality as a woman.  but i will say that i think this platform plank was
not all that good an idea, politically.  both sides have their extremists,
extremism is not really all that good an idea in most things, and well,
this statement of intent is a little more extreme than i think most americans
are gonna wanna hear.

i will share with you an emily litella story, only it involves the same sister..
   amy called me a few days ago, and wanted to know why we should all care what
the polls say about the election.  why should they have any bearing on anything?
   why should we care?  shouldn't we make up our own minds?  and shouldn't they
   be more worried about their own country, anyway?
sigh.  i weep for the youth of our nation.

running off to edit out segments of tape that use the word "impacted" in their
houston coverage,
                  i thus remain,
                                 * * *anneliese "capital gains tax cut now!"l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:35:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: About Buchanan

MacPhil:
>But as has been asked time and time again, just how large a tax base do
>the rich pose for someone like Clinton?  I cannot show specific numbers
>but I really believe there is a *very* large difference in terms of
>taxing the rich for the purpose of paying their fair share and taxing
>the rich in order to raise revenue.  Clinton's cry is "make them
>pay their fair share" which I cannot disagree with once he defines
>'rich' (anyone over minimum wage?) but once he finds out how little
>is returned after that action he'll have to turn to everyone else...

The most recent TNR has an article by Robert Reich that addresses these
questions.  If you're interested, I'll post a summary.  From what I can
remember just now, Clinton is proposing a modest increase in taxes on the
wealthiest 2% (their rates would still be lower than before the cuts of the
80's) specifically in order to finance investment in education and
infrastructure (Reich argues that human resources and infrastructure are
the best things to invest in because they don't cross borders).  Overall,
Clinton's proposed tax hike is *one* among several mechanisms to boost
economic growth -- it's not meant to "cure" the deficit in and of itself.
And that hike is accompanied by various types of tax cuts (investment tax
credits, a cut in the capital gains tax, etc.).

For what it's worth, the one number I remember is this:  if the wealthiest
2% were still paying the same rates they were before the 80's cuts, their
taxes in 1991 would amount to about $70 billion (or maybe it was million --
I'll have to check).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:33:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Is (Barbara) Bush Pro-choice?

>*Now*, can we say for sure that Barbara Bush is pro-choice?

i had always understood that babs was pro-choice. i thought it was
common knowledge.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:03:08 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality

 *** Resending note of 08/20/92 10:53

 >Rufus:  You can't be serious.

 >Well, then again, in 1964 people thought that the idea of Reagan as
 >Governor of California was an absolute joke, and we ended up stuck
 >with him as President.

 >I guess I'd best not underestimate Quayle (yeeks)

 >--Julie

 Julie,
 Your reaction to the possibility of Quayle as presidential material is
 typical of one based upon the character assassination techniques of the
 media.  You should work to become more analytical and discerning of the
 *information* you are fed by these bastions of liberalism.

 I would be much happier with the Republican ticket if the roles were
 reversed.  Whether you like him or not, Quayle has backbone.  The lack of
 which is one of Bush's major flaws.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:51:05 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RNC-second night...

Speaking of a diverse Republican party, did anyone else notice
how many blue-eyes there were in the audience?

Also, what about the fact that dissenting placards and the like
were not allowed on the floor.

Json
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:01:50 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on abortion
              12 Aug 1992 14:13:28 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

When I said  they "extend forgiveness," the "they" I was referring to
is prolifers.  The *opportunity* for forgiveness can be extended by
human beings, but the forgiveness itself comes only from God.

For those who continue to insist that Bush is prochoice, if that is
what you think, and you are prochoice, go ahead and vote for him,
then.  Or do you find Clinton and Gore's formerly prolife/now
prochoice positions somehow more reassuring?  Remember:  when
Gore wrote that letter to a constituent declaring his commitment to
reducing the number of abortions in America, the subject under discussion
was the (gasp) Human Life Amendment, which I thought most of you were
opposed to.  So vote for Bush, if you think he's so prochoice.  At least
we'll agree on *something* then.

What would I do if my daughter said she was contemplating killing her
2-year old daughter?  I would do everything possible to stop her.  At
the moment, that means I can get the authorities to do so.  At the moment,
Bush does not have that option with the act of abortion, and he knows it.
The question was not asked as "If abortion were illegal and......"  It was
asked as a hypothetical under real-world current conditions.

---Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU