HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: RE: A challange to Clintonopiles
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:07:22 GMT

In article <2SEP92.21131191@vax.clarku.edu>
htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
 
  [...the first person to take the challange- with conditions, it seems:]
 
>Hardy-har-har. Nice to see you have a sense of humor, Mr. Edelman. I was
>beginning to wonder. In this election I guess you'd better have one.
>
>Clinton's penchant for trying to make things sound easy is what has kept
>me from becoming "embarrassingly enthusiastic" about him. He has admitted
>to this fault, but he could still stand to emphasize more the tough economic
>choices ahead. He's got my vote, but I'm not a glazed-eyed drum-beating
>supporter with embarrassing enthusiasm.
>
>In any case, I'm not a registered Democrat either, so maybe I don't qualify
>for your "contest." I agree to the terms, with one condition: not only would
>you have to donate $100 to NOW, but you would also have to get a sex change
>and join the Women Republicans league. Ha ha.
>
>-
>Bart "Webb" Tilney              |   "All of life is a blur
>Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu   |    of Republicans and meat!"
 
Sure. But you have to agree to the same terms- except you get neutered and
join the ACLU. ;-)
 
        --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: No Answer from Clinton/Gore to This...
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 23:31:33 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting


To the CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM

========================================================================





                  Response to the CLINTON/GORE Position

			ON CRIME AND DRUGS





Despite the radical differences between the Republican and Democratic

platforms, both parties still agree on taking ever more drastic measures

to fight crime. Neither party will admit the truth: that the War on Drugs is

in fact the major cause of crime in the U.S. Today.



While I am no fan of drugs of any kind, I and many others (Milton,

Friedman, William Buckley, The Economist Magazine, etc.) think that the

War on Drugs is more damaging to society than the effects of legalizing

drugs would be.



Consider what legalizing drugs would do:



Strip gangs of the ability to make money (to buy guns) from drug

sales.



Eliminate the shootings occurring during currently illegal drug sales.



Reduce deaths from comsumption of impure or adulterated drugs.



Make drug sales tax revenue available to fund drug treatment programs for

people with drug dependencies.



Get rid of civil seizure and noknock searches.



Eliminate the violence inflicted on innocent citizens by Out-of Control

Swat Teams.



Provide major relief to court systems and prisons currently completely

clogged by drug-crime cases.



In general, make America a much less violent country, as did the

elimination of Prohibition in the 30s.



The major premise that drugs are dangerous to society is propaganda,

not fact. The relatively benign effects of currently illegal drugs is

thoroughly documented from mostly government sources in Richard

Miller's book "The Case for Legalizing Drugs" (Praeger,1991).






-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: convention review
Date: 23 Aug 92  17:55:00 EST

-> "The Buck Stops Here". Republicans always seem to need someone to
-> blame. That's all you ever hear from them. When things work in their
-> favour, it's GOOD (Reagan/Bush are solely responsible for the
-> collapse of the Soviet Union - yet, the EVIL DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED
-> CONGRESS _CONSPIRACY_ gets no credit for APPROVING the Reagan $4T
-> budget deficit which 'was responsible for the collapse of the SU'.),
-> when things don't it's them damned EVIL Democratic Congress-people! Exactly.  Everything good is the product of the Republican executive branch, while everything bad comes from the "LIBERAL CONGRESS!"  You'd think that liberalism was cahmunism, or something!  Sheesh!

-> "The Buck Stops Here". Republicans always seem to need someone to
-> blame.
With George Herbert Walker Bush, the Buck stops everywhere BUT his desk!!

-> "The Buck Stops Here". Let's face it folks. The Republican Party has
-> become a joke, cow-towing to Falwell and the rest of the TV
-> evangelists. It makes me sick. Buchannan is especially scary. Yep.  But I think Falwell takes a back seat to Pat Robertson in the co-opting of the Republican Party.  I call the Republican Convention "Cotton Comes to Houston", as Cotton Mather's vision for a greater, theocratic America was championed by the likes of Robertson from the podium and several delegates from the floor.  Bruce Morton, on the day before the convention on CBS SUNDAY MORNING, said that Pat Robertson had more delegates at this conve
ntion than at the last one, and Robertson was a candidate in '88.  A "kinder, gentler America"-- if you're a white, male, conservative, fundamentalist Christian, who has beaucoups bucks.

The ones I really feel sorry for are people like William Weld and Tom Kean, the former Governor of New Jersey.  As moderate Republicans, they had to put up with Buchanan and Robertson and company and hang their heads in shame as Republicans.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
Vote Republican-- It's Easier than Thinking!!!

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rkj@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (richard.janka)
Subject: Repulican platform
Keywords: prayer in school
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:15:37 GMT

Hopefully the post-convention discussions have simmered down somewhat.
I have not read the actual Republican Platform, but many of the speeches
referred to the Republicans wanting to reinstitute "prayer in school."
Does anyone out there know what they actually say about this in the
written platform?  I'm not interested in speculation on the real agenda
of the religious right, but what the platform and party leaders actually
say (which may be very different).  Has anyone read the platform?

rick janka
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Scary thought for the day
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:55:42 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


(1) Consider Mary Matalin, George Bush's deputy campaign manager.

(2) Consider George Bush's personal devotion to the related concepts
    of (a) being loyal to one's friends and (b) rewarding successful
    service by one's devoted underlings.

(3) Consider the possibility of Mary Matalin holding a position of
    real power in a second Bush Administration.

And the Republicans tell me that I'm supposed to be scared of Hillary
Clinton... 

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

  "We've barely suited up and the guy's hyperventilating.  Wait till
  we're on the field with him.  The guy's knees are going to buckle."

        -- Mary Matalin on Bill Clinton, Boston Globe, 8-29-92, p.11.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3671 tx.politics:4697
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:19:44 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Aug28.184641.14737@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
|>> Christian Moeller, you said people who have more children than they can
|>> afford are irresponsible.  What if you can afford one more child, but you wind
|>> up with twins (not ridiculous, it happened to my son and his wife). What
|>> if your method of birth control fails; what if, what if, you know, 
|>> "accidents" do happen and often to people who are NOT irresponsible.
|>> 
|>> It's dangerous and unfair to make such broad generalizations.

You're right in that for the sake of brevity, I made a very broad and probably
occasionally unfair assertion.  Of course there will be unexpected pregnancies
and births, and I meant no condemnation of those who, despite responsible
efforts on their parts, wind up with an "accidental" baby.

My condemnation is for people who _deliberately_ undertake to have a kid they
know, a priori, they cannot afford to raise.  People such as the high-school
girl they interviewed on the news a few months ago who had a baby "because all
her friends had babies" and who was complaining that "they" wouldn't provide
free day-care so she could finish school.

I've little patience with those who, by whatever misfortune, live in poverty
and who deliberately worsen their chances of escaping that state by saddling
themselves, and the society from which they expect what appears to be perpetual
relief, with child after hungry child, usually, perhaps always, to the det-
riment of the children themselves.  This, as far as I'm concerned, is a most
pernicious form of child-abuse.


|>> 
|>> 	(Yeah, this is fun; but I wish I knew how to "nest" stuff
|>> 	like a lot of you seem to do!)

This "nesting" is a feature of some news readers.  I use xrn, which, when I do a
"followup" automatically dumps a header, a copy of the original posting, and my
.signature into my Epoch window.  I suspect other news readers (rn?, tin? gnus?)
can do the same thing.

|>> 
|>> 
|>> 		Bye, Judy.

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "There is no passion like that of a
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   functionary for his function."
possibly represent its position.	|     -- Georges Clemenceau

Christian H. L. Moller
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:30:34 GMT

In article <5864@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.070115.3144@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> I've seen fat folks on food stamps.
>
>This is in fact a common condition, that the newly poor gain weight.  
>In fact, there is some name for it.  It occurs because more of the
>person's calories now come from starches, which are much cheaper, rather
>than proteins.  I guess you could call it the "macaroni & cheese syndrome."

Ummm, carbs are easier for your body to "burn off" than protiens. As 
a veggie, I eat a lot of carbs. But if I eat meats and other fat laden
stuff I begin to bulge MAJORLY. My guess would be that many people on
food stamps might be more likely to be fat for a number of reasons, 
depression, alcholism, poor eating habits, etc. etc. 

Although, I see a lot of fat people who aren't on foodstamps too!


>-- 
>
>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...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: woody allen
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:17:31 GMT

In <26AUG199223341067@venus.tamu.edu> lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:

>Before i start ignoring the increasing references by the republicans
>about woody allen illustrating the dangers of the lack of things like
>"family values" in our society i just want to say one thing independent
>of my possible political affilations or leanings.
>Like any other american, woody allen is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Innocent until proven guilty OF WHAT? As far as I know he hasn't been
formally charged with anything, re: sexual assault. He's admitted his
affair with the 22-year-old step-daughter. This thing is so out in the
open, I think we can safely assume that anything he is "guilty" of
he's admitted in his many interviews.

Michael
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Democratic Controlled Congress:  Who should be blamed?
Date: 31 Aug 1992 15:08:23 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Alex [alex@engr3.umbc.edu] writes: >>
>>     A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
>> first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does 
>> whatever the hell they want.
>> During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.

Larry Cunningham [larry@psl.nmsu.edu] writes: >
>   Only for the first two years.  And the House hasn't been in GOP hands
>   in almost forty.
>   Right. So don't blame the Repubs!!
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine,....

Do I miss something here?

After two years of Reagan rule,in 1982, PEOPLE went to voting booths and 
sent a Democratic controlled Senate.  In 1984 PEOPLE voted again for Ron
Reagan, this time with a very  strong majority (electoral college 525:13,
states 49:2, popular vote 58.8%:40.6%).  Then  PEOPLE  voted again for a
Democratic controlled Senate.  PEOPLE keep voting for a democratic house
for last 38 years.  It is not Democrats control the Congress, but PEOPLE
send them to Washington.  Even a stupid can conclude that people approve
whatever their  Congressperson did for them by  voting for him/her again.  
Larry Cunningham tells the  readers not to blame Repubs.  Maybe with his
CORRECT opinion, he wants to imply that "Blame the people".

I happened to listen to Cokie Robert in C-SPAN.  She was a member of the 
panel  which discussed with the  Asian-American Journalists' Association.
According to her, people apparently think that Congress is bad, but their
Congressperson is good.  Also she referred to  the Wall Street Journal's 
regular poll on divided government.  Cokie thinks  that Congress bashing
would work (or is working?) against Mr Bush.

I agree with Alex.  A strong President must be able to convince Congress
to support his plans.  President George Bush, who claims to have grouped
the world under him to fight Sadam, could not be able to convince his own
Congress?  Mr Bush  appeared on TV and requested  people to pray for the
brave soldiers who went to Gulf.  Why didn't he  appear in TV to explain
his plans to  improve America and to request people to press their local
Congressperson(s) to support those plans?

Vicky:
UMass, Aug 31
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:23:32 GMT

In article <ompaeio@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>
>I have a friend with a parrot. The parrot can repeat anything
>you tell it. But that doesn't make it true...nor, of course,
>does the parrot waste effort thinking about what he says -
>he just bounces it back at the source.
>
>Interestingly, the parrot has absolutely *no* feathers...
>
>Don Coolidge 

Is the parrot a native American-born citizen?  Is the parrot
over thirty-five years old?  Hmmm ...


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |   "Winning cures everything."          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |     -- The Fabulous Sports Babe        |
| sieferme@u.washington.edu |                                        |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Offended at being called 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.052423.1035@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Why not add "obesity" to discrimination clauses?  Or how about
>> "ugliness" or "smelliness"?   Fat, ugly, and smelly people face 
>> far more overt job and housing discrimination than homosexuals.  
>> And unlike homosexuals, they can't hide their handicap. 

> So why can't I discriminate based on religion? After all a religious
> person can hide there religion, infact with a bit of deprogramming it
> can even be changed.

You didn't really address my point.  I believe that fat and ugly people 
face more job and housing discrimination than homosexuals.  When a fat
or ugly person applies for a job, they can't hide their appearance
from an employer.  If you support gay rights legislation, then I think
you must also support fat and ugly rights legislation. 

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom.
Discrimination on the basis of religion runs counter to that
principle.  


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3617 alt.politics.clinton:3615 alt.rush-limbaugh:4135 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4947
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug31.163023.23747@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>I was totally amazed that there was a delay in getting federal aid to
>florida, and it's convinced me that GHWB is flat out incompetant.
>Here's what I figured would happen:
>
>	Hurricane Andrew is on its way to florida. GHWB makes sure that
>	the pentagon is ready to act on a moments notice.

 The main problem here is that our great nationalized weather service stated
24 hours before the eye hit florida that the storm appeared to be weakening.
Just a few hours before it hit florida they said that it appeared to be gain-
ing strength again. Later using hind site the weather men said that the Islands
to the east of florida slightly weakened the storm and when the eye got over
the gulf stream it strengthened dramatically. Everyone was surprised by the
damage.  The democrates must be panicking if they feel the need to use natural
disasters politically...

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Barbara Bush - who is this person?
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:41:57 GMT


I've got a couple of questions about Bush, maybe someone can help.

1. Who is that person that claims "she" is his wife?

Could this person be George Washington? Is it his mother? Could George
Washington be the presidents mother? This is scary stuff.

Look at this person, then take a look at a dollar bill. It's strange.

thanks...rich cower
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:27:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <14449@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) wrote:

Hey,

Why not take a look at the unemployment rates, inflation rates, etc of all
those countries your Clinton Man wants to emulate.  I think you'll find
that the US is doing incredibly well in this recession than the rest of the
world.  Go for it.  If you can refute this, I would like to see it.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Hezbollah=Party of God...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 01:12:48 GMT


Hmmm.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:52:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.210515.6149@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.150756.6925@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>>   a) Pleasure is a positive value.
>>   b) It is immoral to deprive people of pleasure simply because you
>>      disapprove of the means of obtaining it.
>
>Let's say I find it pleasurable to find virgins off the street, kidnap them
>torture them break a few of their bones, abuse their bodies, have sex with
>them, and if they have children, molest them too then burn them alive and 
>bury them and pile all the ash in my backyard.
>
>What?  You disapprove of me kidnapping and stealing people of the street?
>How could you!  It is immoral to deprive me of my pleasure simply because
>you disapprove of the means of obtaining it!

The key operating word above is *simply*.  In the scenario you have described,
you have clearly acted immorally (by kidnapping, torturing, etc., these
virgins you have deprived them of the pleasure of not being abused).

Certainly I did not espouse a complete set of ethics in the two points above;
nevertheless they can cover such an obvious attack.

                                         James Parker
                                         jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Woody allen and Family Values
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:18:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.235422.27900@adobe.com> uday@adobe.com (Uday Kurkure) writes:
>
>    Just curious:
>
>    Is Woody Allen a democrat or a republican?


Democrat
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: <None>
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:01:10 -0500
Summary: Pres and his REAL job
Keywords: Constitution
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

One of the problems that I have with Bush blaming Congress is a problem I have
w/lots of Presidents.

The Chief Executive is Commander in Chief, our main diplomat, has appointive
power over the judiciary, and helps to enforce the laws through the agencies
beneath him.

The Pres is NOT supposed to be dictating legislation.  Yes, I know that many of
them have (Dem and Rep).  That is one  reason I am not a member of either
party, and fervently wish for the swift decline of party politics through-out
America.

But one of the things he is supposed to do is enforce laws and regulations. 
(Congress passed them, he signed them [no over-turned veto yet], that's his
job.)  The freeze at the beginning of the year was a clear shirking of that
job.  His heavy handed dictates to Congress (pass it first, then we'll debate
it) are un-Constitutional and un-Democratic.

Please do not get me wrong.  I think that Clinton may try to do the same things
if he is given a chance (although I am a bit heartened when I hear Clinton
admit that the President cannot do everything).  

Where Bush is more to blame than others here is three-fold.
1)  I think he is especially of the blame-the-other-guys variety.  Maybe he
didn't even start it, but he continues it and the escalation of blame goes on
(like in his acceptance speech.  He tells us he's tired of blame in one
sentence, and in the very next one goes on to tell us that the buck stops
womewhere else).
2)  Even in the legislation he wants, he will veto an entire package if part of
it displeases him.  Do you suppose he'll extend that "line-item" bit back to
Congress?
3)  31 vetoes and counting.  Congress has a mandate, too.  Usually, it is by a
bigger victory margin than the one Bush had, and (in the House and 1/3 of the
Senators) is more recent.

Maybe we need to start looking less to the President to exceed his (or her)
Constitutional role.  Let's see how well they manage the beaurocrcay (which is
in their branch), not expect them to legislate in a system that does not grant
them that authority.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton