HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:02:56 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <farenebt.714789787@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>I just saw a little note in the Wall Stree Journal saying that Bush
>>>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>>>whose life sentences he commuted.
>>
>>>So hey, folks, does anyone know what the deal is?
>>
>>Sure, it's another example of the kinder, gentler nation that 
>>George "pro-LIFE" Bush has in mind.

>What does "pro-life" have to do with it?  Rape isn't a capital crime
>so we're not talking about death anyway.  (It is reasonable to be
>pro-death penalty and anti-abortion.  The only inconsistent
>combination of abortion and death penalty positions is pro-abortion
>and anti- death penalty.)

Whoops. I must apologize. I misread the statement as saying he commutted
their DEATH sentences instead of LIFE sentences. I do apologize for 
the mistake.

Now, anyone have a crowbar to help me get my foot out of my mouth?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL				"READ MY LIPS -- NO NEW IDEAS."
CLARKSON '95	     			  ---George Bush's apparent motto	
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?		

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: George Will & the Bush campaign
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:07:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.105752.17214@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>Minneapolis Star Tribune, Wed, Aug 26, 1992, p24a:
>
>	BUSH CAMPAIGN AWASH WITH LIES
>	By George Will (the Washington Post)
>
>
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect


The media is having a lot of trouble covering this campaign, with the
notable exception of George Will. After the 1988 campaign, many in the
media swore that they would never again allow themselves to be manipulated
the way they were by the Bush campaign that year; the idea was that,
without being biased, the media would be a 'truth squad' that would
simply report the truth or falsity of the various claims and charges
made by the campaigns.

As it happens, however, the Bush campaign has figured out how to elude
even this policy of neutrality, by making 'liberal media bias' an issue
in itself. The media is afraid of writing anything critical of the Bush
campaign, for fear of being accused of 'liberal bias'. As everyone knows,
Ronald Reagan has made 'liberal' one of the ultimate dirty words in
American politics, and to be though a 'liberal', whether correctly or
not, is the kiss of death.

Many thought that, after 1988, campaigns couldn't get any worse. Well,
they can, and have.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42459 ca.politics:7135 ba.politics:4833
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:07:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug27.005248.28756@udel.edu>, carroll@bugs.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <11875@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ]In opposition to child molestation, yes.  Now, you can find a few
# ]straights out there who don't have a problem with adults having
# ]sex with children.  But I can say with great certainty that nearly
# ]all heterosexuals agree that child molestation should be a criminal
# ]offense.
# 
# First of all: I'm a heterosexual, and you sure as hell don't speak for
# me. Whether I agree with you or not, I would _never_ allow you to
# speak as my representative.

Hang on, read what I wrote.  I say that I speak for nearly all
heterosexuals in saying that child molestation should be a criminal
offense.  Do I represent your views on this subject or not?

# Second of all, even as a non-member of the homosexual community, I can
# say with great certainty that nearly all homosexuals agree that child
# molestation should be a criminal offense.

You wouldn't know it from reading soc.motss, or watching gay parades.

# I even think that I can speak for the vast majority of human beings
# and say that _any_ kind of abuse of children, physical, sexual, or
# emotional is utterly repulsive.
# 
# || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     || "Humanity isn't a physical description,

Perhaps you care to explain the "erotic" poetry that occasionally
appears in soc.motss glorifying torture and rape of children?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Warren Rudman for President? (was George for First Lady?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:34:49 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics

In article <Aug.26.10.35.11.1992.25632@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>I've been interested in the "lead or leave" initiative headed by
>Rudman and Tsongas.  Maybe, if we're lucky, we might see the emergence
>of a Fiscal Responsibility Party made up of the responsible, centrist
>elements of both current parties.

  Is this the one where they are asked to "sign the pledge"?  If so
  it's just more idiotic PR posturing.  The people who should be made
  to sign such a pledge are the voters!   Those are the people who reward 
  politicians for bringing home the bacon, getting involved in foreign
  wars, "doing something" about this crisis or that, but who refuse
  to pay for it with sufficient taxes.    Any "pledges" that don't
  involve the voters are bogus.


---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Keep the gridlock locked!
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:15:28 CDT

In article 11037@kadsma.kodak.com, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
|In article <1992Aug26.114848.23180@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:
|
|>Maybe voters want government to be in a gridlock.  Just maybe that is
|>our way of saying that we really don't want more laws.
|
|There is some truth to this idea. The problem is, the steering wheel is
|stuck with the car going in the wrong direction. I refer here to the fact
|that the Fed. Govt. is running a $200billion+ deficit that is costing you
|and me big money, and the only way to stop it is for the same Fed. Govt.
|to do something about it.
|
|If we're going to have permanent gridlock, at the behest of the voters, let's
|at least get the budget into balance first!
|

Here we have a case where if we throw the incumbent out we get a big 
spender who will undoubtedly continue to increase the defecit.  If we 
keep the incumbet he will undoubtedly increase the defecit.  We are
past the point of no return.  I don't believe the promises of reduction
on either side.  But I doubt the democratic ones the most.  They have
prommised the most spending.  First they say it will be paid by a reduction
in military spending.  Then they prommise to keep the military strong.
I can't see where the reduction is going to come from, if not my pocket.
That is not what I want.  I say keep the gridlock!  Try not to let them
do anything.  Shut the whole thing down!
  


---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: A State monopoly on morality
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 16:57:37 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: na

In article <12100@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >It prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a homosexual.
    >(Actually, because it doesn't define sexual orientation, I
    >don't see how a day care center could refuse to hire a guy
    >wearing a North American Man-Boy Love Association T-shirt, or
    >someone with a history of rape convictions).

One of the most disturbing trends of laws like AB101 is the hidden effects.

Specifically, the slow growth of the State to "monopolize" morality.

I believe that each individual must be responsible for his/her own
morality, including its definition. Of course, most people do about
zip mental effort in this area, preferring to watch Ren & Stimpy or
some other visible sign of cultural decay, but, it is still an
individuals decision.

The concept of Freedom Of Association (FOA) is that is provides a means of
justice. We need this if we are to decrease the coercive mechanisms of the
State.

For example, the criminal that raped a 15-year old girl and then cut off
her arms leaving her for dead was paroled a few years back. So many
communities refused to accept him living in their environs that he was
forced to live in a camper on the grounds of San Quentin. (He was
a nice guy too -- upon release he sued his victim claiming he was innocent
and that she defamed him!!!).

One trend that is showing a small but growing set of signs (alarms) is the
concept of criminality and the meanining of a completed prison sentence.

I.e., he/she has paid their debtr to society and thus, you. Mr. Employer,
can not deny him/her work on that reason.

Felons -- the next EEO class.

However, it is just not felons. As Clayton poses above, it would be
legitimate to deny employment (at a day care center) because someone is
wearing a shirt with a political statement concerning a legitimate
political lobbying group.


We need to resist the growing encroachment of the State in monopolizing
morality. Moral decisions are up to each of us as individuals, and a key
to making moral decisions is Freedom Of Association.

Note that this includes the somewhat unpopular (mostly with ya-hoo brains)
position that coercive voting is immoral. Coercive voting always infringes
upon FOA.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42122 talk.politics.theory:3881 alt.politics.elections:11648 alt.politics.marrou:922 alt.politics.bush:3039 alt.politics.clinton:3110
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:05:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <REB.92Aug25165414@cssn06.ssc.gov>, reb@cssn06.ssc.gov (Bob Blair) writes:
> The issue of vouchers like so many that George
> Bush champions is really a bribe to his faithful followers.  It is a tax
> decrease for people who currently have children in private and parochial
> schools masquerading as an "educational improvement" program.  There is no
> solid evidence that it would increase educational quality.

Before you make such statements, take a look at what is happening in
Massachusetts, under the rather libertarian (small L) governor, Bill
Weld.  He championed a school choice program for public schools that
had similar effects: a parent could choose to send a child to a school
in a neighboring town instead of the town of residence, and the state
would transfer their per-student amount of school funds to that school 
from the local school.

A number of towns' school systems immediately all but caved in under the
exodus.  It caused a lot of them to wake up, believe me.  They no longer
had the monopoly power to deliver poor education to their captive
townspeople.  

Did it increase educational quality?  It's too early to tell whether 
the school systems that are hurting will compete effectively.  They may 
instead actually cave in.  

However, it sure increased the quality of the education of the people 
who took advantage of the choice.  If the losing school systems have to
forge regional agreements with their more effective peers, or even simply 
go out of business and shuttle the remaining students off to neighboring 
towns, schools, the students still win.

Note also that this program affected ONLY public-school students, so
the criticism of "tax breaks for parochial school parents" isn't even
an issue.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43278 alt.politics.elections:12202
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: Wed,  2 Sep 92 03:34:09 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Aug28.170408.1712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
  <1992Aug28.192135.6033@meaddata.com>
  <1992Sep1.152133.25112@linus.mitre.org>

> 
> Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
> the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
> while he slept?
> 

Los Angeles, less than six months ago?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:33:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.214329.7494@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <p2huf1c@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>---
>>|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>>|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>>|be held accountable for your actions. 
>>
>>And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
>>way of discharging that accountability.
>>
>
>Yes, abortion is a way of discharging that accountability.  Or another
>way of putting it is abortion is flaking out.
>

Gee, if abortion is "flaking out" of your responsibility to the unborn, then
surely isn't ADOPTION "flaking out" of your responsibility to the BORN?
Both options allow you to avoid situations in which you can't handle.  IMO,
getting out of a situation in which you can't cope IS being responsible.

>Responsible, I disagree with. Giving blacks in the early 1800s food and
>shelter, and some things to do can be construed to be responsible.  Slavery,
>in fact, was also legal.  Yes, enslaving someone was a perfectly legal,
>and responsible way of discharging the accountability.  But is it right?

Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.


Jennifer

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42781 ca.politics:7240
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:52:34 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <11981@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Straightspace is for straight people only.  Please pay attention
>when you are told that homosexuals aren't welcome, and stop trying
>to use your control over California's state government to impose
>homosexuals into straightspace.

Since when was talk.politics.misc declared straight space? Perhaps
you can dig up the charter.

>If AB 2601 is signed into law, I suppose it be appropriate to send a 
>contribution to Oregon's Yes on 9 campaign -- a little 'tit for tat'
>response to oppression imposed here is to let homosexuals experience
>it on the other end.  (But I'll feel guilty about the contribution.)

And since religion is already protected in California I suppose I
should start a campaign to require teachers to teach that Christianity
is immoral and wrong. 

-- 
>>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: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:33:46 CDT


In article <1992Aug28.144510.26149@tamsun.tamu.edu>, fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> |> In article <1992Aug27.220758.879@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
> |> 
> |> >The Soviet Union collapsed because of extensive internal corruption.
> |> >This occured partly as a result of very widespread cynicism which
> |> >essentially provoked an everybody-for-themselves attitude.  The same
> |> >thing could happen here.  For example, we have a tax dodger for
> |> >president.
> |> 
> |> 	How is Bush a tax dodger?
> |> 
> |> 	I've never heard _that_ one before.
> 
> Haven't you heard anyone who calls a low tax state home is a tax dodger.  Bush a long
> time resident of TEXAS (becoming TAXES with liberal Democrat ann richards) pays
> less taxes because he claims Texas to be home.

But Bush no longer owns a home in Texas.  He spent *three nights* in the Houston
hotel room he rents.  (The hotel even rents out the room when Bush does not
stay there.)  When Bush sold his Texas house in 1981, he claimed on his taxes 
that his Kennebunkport house was his principal home.

>                                                 If we carry this argument through
> Clinton is a tax doger to because he lives off of ( i mean in) Arkansas instead of claiming
> NY home.

The difference is that Clinton lives in Arkansas.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42779 talk.bizarre:27962 ba.politics:4887 ca.politics:7238
From: spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:19:04 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato Computer Centre

In article <11996@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> This is what I expect though from liberals -- trying to justify
> a clearly crazy person with a deadly weapon.

Which crazy person with the gun do you mean.  The Chancellor, the Activist, or
yourself?


              /\                                                             
   /\    /\/\/  \/\/\      /\  /\/\        /\                /\            /\  
__/  \/\/            \/\/\/  \/    \/\/\/\/  \  /\/\/\/\/\/\/  \/\      /\/  \ 
A 117 part secret message from Simon Travaglia\/spt@waikato.ac.nz \/\/\/
  /\          /\University of Waikato, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
\/  \    /\/\/  \/\/\      /\  /\/\Ph: 064-7-838-4008/\  /\  /\    /\      /\ 
     \/\/            \/\/\/  \/    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/  \/  \/  \/\/  \/\/\/  \ 
The Generalized Thermodynamic Law (Systems Theory): The things we see more 
 frequently are more frequent: (1) because there is some physical reason to 
 favor certain states or (2) because there is some mental reason.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.desert-storm
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Bush giving up? (Colin Powell)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:01:38 GMT

In article <183sd4INNdr3@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>It's a great (and ironic) tragedy that Bush appointed Powell,
>passing up more qualified soldiers, just so he could have more
>people of color as appointments.

  It may just be media hype, but my understanding is that Powell
is very capable and an excellent choice.  My reading of "Commanders"
by Bob Woodward certainly reinforces this. 

>I won't go into the case of Richard Darman, a man beneath contempt.
>
>Bush has been getting *BAAAD* advice, and unlike Reagan, doesn't
>have a strong enough set of beliefs in his inner core to set
>his own course in opposition to the political winds (all this
>"following the polls" is one of the greatest jokes in history,
>like a president can lead by following the whims of a mob :-)
>Kind of like the way the French emperor blundered into the
>Franco-Prussian War (falling into Bismarck's cleverly laid
>plot).


  I certainly agree about Darman.  From my readings
in US News & World Report and _The Economist_, it seems to 
me that Darman could be the single biggest reason Bush doesn't
win.  It was Darman that kept talking over Boskin telling
Bush not to worry about the economy because it was 
"coming back."  This led Bush to try to ride out his Gulf War
popularity until the election rather than making a good case
for himself and working hard to at least appear like he
was doing something for the economy.  (There is always some
doubt in my mind about how much a President can do short term
for the economy.  Particularly with high deficits.)

  Just my opinions.

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: an565@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gregory Grosshans)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: need e-mail address for bush/republicans
Date: 2 Sep 1992 14:20:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an565@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gregory Grosshans)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc8.ins.cwru.edu


Does anyone know if there is an email address for Bush or the 
Republicans?

Please respond via e-mail to my address.  
Thanks..

Gregg            

-- 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc