HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:22:28 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

: 	The Family Values plank is not a base for legislation but is
: an attempt to sway the mood of the country with promotion and
: leadership.  Family values is the ethical responsibility toward
: caring, raising, and supporting children that you were involved in
: creating.  What can possible be wrong with that?

So that's what "Family Values" is supposed to mean?  This is the
first time I've really heard a definition of that term.  I personally
don't have a problem with this definition.

What bothers me about the "Family Values" plank is how some of the
Republicans at the national convention were reacting to the idea.
I'm talking about the folks who were cheering and holding up "FAMILY
rights, not GAY rights" signs, and the anti-choice folks.  C-SPAN
did some rather...interesting camera work during that part of the
convention.

I'm sorry, but I don't like the threat that gay, lesbian, and bisexual
people may be discriminated against simply because they happen to be
"different."  Are there people out there who haven't yet learned
that homosexual and bisexual people (usually) don't _choose_ to be
gay/lesbian/bi -- they just are?

: 	One reason I think people have such a hard time with this is
: because the news tends to throw the term around and leave the
: definition to the individual.  A good imagination can come up with all
: kinds of bad things it could mean.

I agree that this confusion may be the result of poor or biased reporting
by the news media.  It would not surprise me in the least.  If someone
has a copy of the text of that part of the Republican platform, I would
really appreciate it if they would post it.

However, I still feel that Bush's attempt to make "Family Values" an
issue this election may just be his kowtow-ing to the ultraconservative,
fundamentalist Christian section of the party.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'm Dan Quayle, who are you?"
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu				-- D.Q. at a Hardee's
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			"I'm your Secret Service agent"
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- the answer he got
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:14:37 EST
 <1992Sep9.154458.20950@umbc3.umbc.edu> <1992Sep9.234713.4022@desire.wright.edu> <cornell.716140362@vivaldi>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <cornell.716140362@vivaldi>, cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 
>>	Actually Bush has always been voodoo on economics.  He hasn't done a
>>thing to continue Reagan's supply side economics, much to his detriment. 
>>Although he has gotten some of that ol' time religion for this election.
> 
>>	But then again, a draft-dodging philanderer isn't the answer, either.
> 
> The reason it isn't the answer is because it has nothing to do with
> the question.

	Would I trust a person who broke a lifetime committment to their spouse
with a four year committment to me?  Nope.

	Would I trust someone who had convictions, but seems to have been
afraid to stand up for them?  Nope.

	Would I trust someone who deliberately lied about Tsongas' record to
win Florida?  Nope.

	(I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame.spelling
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:38:06 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
: 
:    I'm sorry to interrupt but the use odf one biased source to prove the bias
:                                       ^^^
: Jezus, Doktor, I thought your spel tzchecher was between yure erz.  I
: wish I wuz a Dahktr 2.  Then I'd bi az smard as u.

Folks, can we stop the spelling flames, please?  I personally consider this
flavor of flame a sign of single-digit IQ's.  Really, now; this is all
very childish and petty.  In fact, y'all are beginning to stoop to the
level of the politicians and the media!

(0.5 of a :-)
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'll have to check with my 
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 Dad."  -- Dan Quayle before 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				running for the Senate
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		"Go ahead; you won't win."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle's dad	

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:08:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.033301.7789@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.190043.7426@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>>>I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
>>>dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
>>>spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
>>>that dodged the draft?
>>>
>>>This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
>>>runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
>>>very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)
>>
>...
>>anti-war movement.  In any case, to simply label as unpatriotic those
>>who disagree with you verges on blind nationalism.  "America, love it
>>or leave it?"  And one may think that someone who would not go lightly
>>into war would be better for our country.
>>
>>>LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
>>>	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
>>>	   and believes homosexuality is normal.
>>
>>I'm sure that we could come up with something equally as charitable
>>for you.
>
>	Well, to be fair, this guy just did get out of the Marines.
>While the USM may be the sharpest spearpoint in the world, they don't
>train their men in critical political thought, and I don't blame
>them.  Also, there's a certain high, I'm sure, to being in combat,
>doing the job, and getting out safe.  A couple of guys I knew who were
>in the Marines definitely did some thought recalibration when they got
>out, but it took a few years.  All said, I've still got to give the
>D.S. troops credit for a sharp job.  Too bad they were reined back.
>Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
>rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.

	What? You would send him to his death so you could carry
the head of Saddam Hussein, alienate the political world and
give his seocnd-in-command the post of leader? You sound just
like the John F. Kennedy that got us into the Vietnam War.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:07:01 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep8.014705.18480@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.205113.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>
>>     If you're a fan of science fiction, there is a book that you
>>would probably love reading: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance."
>>No cable is necessary!
> 
> I suppose the obvious reply would be that the Republican Platform
> verges on fable & fantasy, or at very least surrealist literature.
> Perhaps with a Lovecraftian twist here and there?  No cable necessary,
> but a barf bag is recommended.  (though I believe someone noted that
> he'd like to have a copy of the platform because he ran out of toilet
> paper)
> 
     I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak 
stomach.  You see, it's printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's
terms, it's printed on other people's old garbage.  You may think
it's funny to use the Republican Platform as toilet paper, but it
is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from
old toilet paper.  Recycling is definitely a tacit theme of this
book -- his solution to the environmental problem is basically
recycled Marxism.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5602 alt.politics.bush:5269
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Spotted Owls and The Stanford Band
Date: 15 Sep 1992 23:22:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu


Well, I'd just like to thank the Stanford Band (was that a year ago?) for
sacrificing themselves (one  game suspension) for a great cause: making fun
(whoops!  Gotta be more PC next time) of the "great concern" some people
in the Northwest have for the spotted owl.

May fellow Ber(zer)keleyites pardon my saying so.
:)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.194524.21473@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

|> What has this statement to do with *anything* I said above?  If you are
|> implying that I have the same double standard, I'm going to have to 
|> ask you to show me one of my posts that support it.

	Why? You didn't do that for me, Chip.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: cweyand@boi.hp.com (Chris Weyand)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:50:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
	<1992Sep14.005113.16938@cs.uoregon.edu>
	<1992Sep14.185735.24146@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
Organization: HP Boise Printer Division R&D Lab

In article <1992Sep14.185735.24146@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

   >> I'm beginning to hear this line more and more from liberal pro-legalizers and
   >> it saddens me.  Legalizing drugs and then giving the gov't complete control is
   >> a perverted idea in my mind.  The government has no business being in the
   >> business of selling drugs.  

   Ok. So let's do away with the FDA.  

Good idea!


   Medication is curative whereas narcotics offer no such purpose (except in 
   rare cases).  Such self-mdeication is costing the US untold amounts of 
   wealth and productivity.  It's pretty hard to concentrate on building a 
   car when you see fifteen wheels.

So your contention is that were drugs legalized then everyone would become an
addict?  Is alcohol causing a horrible productivity problem?  Maybe some 
problem but I don't think it's destroying the country by any means.

   No man is an island.  Self-determination, like any right, involves a set of
   responsabilities.  These can be dictated by public policy, though the rights
   themselves would remain inalienable.  As such, the right to self-determination
   would be constrained to work within the public's best interest.  This means
   no drugs and no crime.

We clearly differ vastly on this point.  You apparently believe that society 
has rights superior to those of the individual.  I don't support this idea.
The fact that we are given the right to own guns involves responsibilities, 
the right to drink alcohol involves responsibilities.  These activities pose
no less of a danger to others than do illegal drugs.  The US Constitution is
all about limiting the powers of government to infringe upon individual rights
not the other way around.

   Self-medication is not a right.

In other words, we do not have a right to control our own bodies.  While 
currently true this is dead wrong in my opinion.

   C. Armour-Kidson
   cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca


Chris Weyand
--
Chris Weyand
Hewlett-Packard Company
cweyand@mail.boi.hp.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hiding? Who's hiding? was CRISP: WHY ARE YOU HIDING?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:11:48 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <#ymnhcd.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to rumors, I am not hiding. I just have very little to add to
> this inane "newsgroup". I have said what I have to say, have heard the
> abuse and other illogical and rectally extracted comments from the 
> liberals, queers and other dregs of society that support the buffoon 
> from Arkansas. 
> 
> You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. In short
> I have attempted to highlight the dangerous policies being espoused
> by the DumbOCrats, and if you folks don't listen, believe or agree,
> what else can I do?
> 
> Have fun with your circle jerk!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
> (415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax
> 
> A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
> the populace should be afraid of.
> 
> 

Nasty, mean-spirited, hypocritical, pompous, vacuous, insulting drivel
like this is
why you will never convince any thinking human being of anything.

Take a hike Crisp.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Novak, Charen, Limbaugh: What do they have
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 2019@ctr.columbia.edu, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass () writes:
>   Man, every time I listen to these dweebs I wonder how big those
>redwood trees up their asses are.  

You forgot to add in Sununu, Cal Thomas, and Bob Dornan. :-)


---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4840 alt.news-media:1235 alt.politics.elections:12804 alt.politics.bush:4661
From: marken@aero.org (Richard Marken)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:35:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <7ytnd5b.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>	Either the role of the state is to protect us from ourselves, or it
>is not. If it is, then alcohol and tobacco should be added to the list of
>schedule one drugs and prosecuted as major felonies. If not, than it's time
>to legalize ALL drugs and spend our money on education and treatment instead
>of prisons and enforcement.

Wonderful post. How long will we have to continue to suffer as a society
from these idiotic, hypocritical, crime producing laws? It's such a relief
to know that there is at least one sane person out there. Unfortunately,
things won't get much better until about 51% of the people come to their
senses about this. They finally did catch on about Prohibition. But I 
am not optimistic that people will EVER wise up about DRUG laws. AH well; 
just have to keep watchin' yer parkin' meters. Too bad Clinton can't 
publicly advocate doing the right thing, like FDR did.

Regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5617 alt.politics.bush:5288 soc.rights.human:3498 alt.society.civil-liberties:691
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Pursestrings
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:00:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.040944.2455@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> I have a question-
> 	Which body of government 'controls the purse strings?'
> 	Who then, in fact, is responsible for the 'legislation'
> 	which costs us so much?
> 
> 	Would it not be the job of the executor to 'beat-back' that money-
> hungry mob?  And isn't Bush the one ready and willing to beat back
> those porkers?

So when is he going to start?
-- 

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.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Quayle Now Expert on Homosexuality
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:20:20 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

: Now, before I get charred here, let me say that while I believe
: that the approach taken with affirmative action programs in
: this country is wrong, its goals are worthwhile.  Flame away.

Didn't the Supreme Court say a while back that Affirmative Action
is theoretically a Bad Thing, but it is currently the best option
currently availible to bring about the reversal of discriminatory
practices in the workplace?

Personally, I think that Affirmative Action shouldn't be necessary.
Hirings (and firings) should be done race, gender, religion,
age, and sexual orientation - blind.   Hopefully, one of these
days people will be able to honestly do this. 

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:21:30 GMT

In<lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen):
>Jason Nadrowski) writes:

>|> Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
>|> this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
>|> "how are you going to pay for this stupid plan!!! There is no way!!! HOW!!!"
>|> & then asking Clinton or Democrats..."This excelent plan of yours how did
>|> you ever come up with it?"

If this ever happened outside your imagination, it might be interesting.
I'd be pleased but shocked if a reporter ever asked an intelligent
question like "How are you going to pay for this?" or "Do you really
think your 'check-off' plan will be effective when (1) it would require
cutting spending which you refuse to specify and (2) it would require 80
years to eliminate the debt if EVERYONE took advantage of the option?"

But reporters don't do that.  Actually, the conservatively biased press
reported that George Bush's speech promised tax cuts for everyone,
without mentioning that they were conditioned on unspecified spending
cuts which George Bush has never been willing to make.

>You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
>the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  

Sigh.  Maria Shriver is the wife of the George Bush supporting,
anti-family valuing 'actor', Arnold Schwartzenegger.  

The democratic VP candidate is Al Gore, whose wife is Tipper Gore, best
known for her crusade for warning labels on record albums.

>That's like expecting Buchannon to be impartial.

Main difference: Pat Buchanan is a commentator, NOT a journalist.  To
expect him to be impartial would be stupid, since he never pretends to be.

He's also a draft evader, BTW, and someone who wants a government run 
religious crusade in America.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:00:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
>My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
>station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
>have expected them to.
>
>Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>for president!".
>
>The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
>
>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons). 

  Well, they DID run this story on NPR's Weekend Edition, and NPR has a 
  reputation for being liberal and pro-Clinton.

  But as I've already said, newspaper editors are free to print just
  about whatever they want - freedom of the press and all that.   

---peter


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: AT.PLC@forsythe.stanford.edu (PCURRY (415)723-0730)
Subject: duplication?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:56:22 GMT

People Who Understand the Nuances of UseNet:

I seem to see identical (or at least REAL similar) postings on
alt.politics.clinton and alt.politics.bush here at
.forsythe.stanford.edu.  Or have we a fault here at
.forsythe.stanford.edu?  Is there some double posting going on?
Need we do this?  What's up?

                                         Phil