HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:33:02 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 17g856INN9up@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>A NY Times - CBS Poll of 903 registered voters shows that Bush has lost
>his post-convention bounce remarkably fast, even for someone with Bush's
>ability to screw things up.
>
>The current standings in their poll are:
>
>Clinton: 51%
>Bush:    36%
>...
>The race for '92 is over!!! GOP '96 aspirants, start your engines.

However much I wish you were right, I still think that the polls today 
mean virtually nothing.  Note that Bush pulled almost even with Clinton
by the end of the Convention.  Look at how much of Clinton's backing
evaporated within just a few days.  The amount of "hard" support for
both candidates--i.e. the people who are absolutely determined to vote
for their chosen candidate--is at about 20% of their supporters.  Clinton
has the majority of the wobbling voters.  And we haven't even seen the
nasty mudslinging commercials that will come out after Labor Day.  The
campaign has hardly begun.  Only the opening shots have been fired.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: pro-live/Hillary inconsistencies
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:17:57 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>:Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clintons support of legal
>:rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
>:legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
>:party is promoting?
>:Methinks it is.

>Depends on what rights you think Hillary is advocating. If you think Hillary believes
>that children should have the right to sue their parents because they "suffer" from
>what is essentially slavery, then perhaps not. If you think that the Republicans are
>chiding Hillary for putting the legal rights of children over the parents, then
>it does look inconsistent. It's in the way you look at the picture that the Reps are
>trying to show, whether or not your interpretation correlates with theirs.

I don't think that the she is putting legal rights of children over the
parents. I think she is trying to put the legal rights of children AT THE
SAME LEVEL as those of parents. A mother has the right to sue
for divorce if the father is abusive. But if the system fails the child,
the kid has no legal recourse and must suffer. Contrary to Rich Bond's statements,
we're not talking about not having a Nintendo or taking out the trash. We're
talking about being chained to a radiator and beaten or starved as a 
disciplinary measure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (talk.poli.misc user)



			
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43628 alt.politics.clinton:3974 alt.politics.bush:4010
From: harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen)
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194525.13117@menudo.uh.edu> inde788@Elroy.UH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.085725.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <550HqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>> 
>>>> In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>> >Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
>>>> >explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe as next President of the United States, he owes it to the residents to
>>>> see the damage directly himself? Just a thought.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
>>> 
>>> According to AP, he (Clinton) was invited by Chiles.  Maybe Chiles figured that
>>> if Bush got his photo-op, Clinton was entitled to his.  Clinton remarked last
>>> week that he felt it was better for him to stay away.  I guess that, given how
>>> useless Bush is, at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> |Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
>>> |Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
>>> |3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
>>> |Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
>>
>>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
>>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
>>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
>>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
>>nail on the head with the issues either...)?
>>
>You are missing a point, we will have a president who can atleast
>hit the nail on the head with the issues 50% of the time than a president
>who can even try hitting a nail on any issues.
>
>-Ashish.
>

Sure, Clinton can TALK about the issues, but what has he done to show that
he can or will deliver on what he "promises"?  Any candidate can just say what
the "majority" of people want to hear, but that doesn't mean he/she will act
on it.  I'm just tired of politicians saying one thing and doing another.

Harvey



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41799 alt.politics.elections:11524 alt.politics.bush:2821 alt.politics.clinton:2940
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:18:13 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

[Guilty name ommitted]
>>
>>> The paper (Sacramento Bee) reported that the 1990 US Census reported that the
>>> average wage in the USA had declined since the 1980.  This average wage is
>>> in real numbers, not adjusted for COL, inflation, taxes, military in/exclu-
>>> sion, or any other voodoo.  That means that regardless of the numbers of
>>> people who lost jobs, or who found them, or who used to work part-time and
>>> now works full-time, or vice-versa, THE AVERAGE WAGE HAS DROPPED during the
>>> Reagan-Bush era.
>>
Excuse me? Adjusting for inflation is "voodoo"? Tell me, if your income
goes up 20%, and inflation is 30%, will you be out celebrating your raise?
 
You can't look at dollar amounts exclusive of the worth of a dollar! You have
to consider what a dollar will buy. A realistic analysis shows that average
wage earner did better under Reagan.
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:50:21 GMT

In article <64928@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>Excuse me, but do any of you people (oops, there goes my chance for
>being elected...) ever read anything besides Usenet?
>
>Bush *DOES* pay state taxes in Maine.  Most of his tax returns are
>publically avaiable, and if you would bother to go to the library,
>you could get this information.  Start with back issues of _Money_.
>
>He's a lying idiot, but his record as a taxpayer contains nothing
>questionable.
>
>--Tim Smith

He pays state *PROPERTY* taxes, since he owns land there...but the
issue is his reasoning behind declaring his legal residence(even
though he spends less than a week a year here) Texas. The reasoning
behing calling him a tax dodger is because there is no state *INCOME*
tax in Texas, wheras there IS onew in Maine(where he spends MUCH more
than a week a year)...That is the issue at stake, not whether he
pays taxes or not, but what kind of bullshit, "i'm rich, so I can
do this" tax shelters he uses....
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Party of Fiscal Responsibility (was 10% of my Taxes to Debt)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:24:18 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

> Of course,
> Soc Sec rates will rise to over 10%, too.

They're at 15.3% now.  Projections I've seen say a FICA rate of about
30%-35% by the year 2020, but any projections are subject to any of a
raft of initial assumptions.

> The only solution is massive, across the board cuts in governemnt spending,
> turn Soc Sec into a needs based program, reduce the payroll tax, eliminate
> most entitlements, etc.  Reduce the number of employees on the govt
> payroll, etc.

It seems to me that a number of people in both camps this year would
support such action.

I find it interesting that both Steve and I agree on the steps that
need to be taken, though we disagree on the best strategy to bring
this about.  I contend that no one would be worse than George "Let's
Pander to Everyone" Bush and hence will be voting for Clinton on the
assumption that united government will force the Democratic Party to
take fiscally responsible action (since they won't be able to continue
the current blame game).  He contends that Clinton would be even worse
than Bush.

I have to wonder how big the constituency is for fiscally responsible
actions along the lines proposed in Perot's fiscal proposals.  Does
anyone know if any polling has been done along these lines?  It seems
clear to me that none of the current parties is catering to the
viewpoint of people who support such reforms.   (And, to head off the
usual flood of email messages encouraging me to convert to
Libertarianism, let me point out that 1) I am quite happy with my
current religion and 2) the Perot proposals allow for a significantly
higher level of government regulation than Libertarians like.)

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43601 alt.activism:15894
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:14:49 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep3.014259.25853@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	On PBS last night, even with a pro-Canadian bent, the show on 
>>health care underscored the radical differences between the US and 
>>Canada.
>>
>>	Lack of procedures, waiting lines, lack of funds are driving 
>>people south to get care at US facilities.
>>
>>	It's great to spend less, but it's not worth dying over.
> 
> Even though this show is a couple of years old at least, CNN's recent
> focus series in early June didn't say much more that needed to be said
> outside of the facts.  The only "radical difference" is that basic
> medical coverage is universal (yes, we have private insurance, too,
> for non-medical stuff).  Even Canadian conservatives like the Fraser
> Institute have come out with updated (and favourable) figures for our
> system because Americans have been running amok with their old data.
> bigger than Canada and would likely have more stuff ...
>... 
> If we're such a socialist gulag, check out "Forever Knight" (Toronto,
> with occasional location shots in NYC in case viewers catch on; CBS)
> or "The Roundtable" or "The Heights" (Vancouver; Fox) ... hey, coulda
> fooled me! (-;
> 

	I knew Gary would jump in, fearing that Canada was being smeared :).

	The whole, entire point is that the Canadian style health care would
not work here in the US.

	The US system needs reform, but the Canadian model isn't it.

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pork Barrel Politics
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:27:29 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Aug25.172749.15547@hemlock.cray.com>, 
dadams@cray.com said:

> At least Vin Webber has the character to step down.  Jerry Sikorsky,
> now there's a man with no shame.  Jerry decided to run again and
> hope the voters would forget and forgive.  Jerry wrote bounced
> checks for more than $109K if I remember.  This was many times more
> than Vin Weber's $35K if I remember Vin's sins correctly.* Seems to
> me that Jerry gives the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) party in MN a
> black eye.  He would have helped the DFL out by stepping down like
> Vin did.
> 
> I hope they throw the bum out!  

Um, I hate to ask this, but what is there in Sikorsky's actions for
which he needs the voters' forgiveness?  As I understood it, the act
of bouncing a check off of the House Bank didn't cost any taxpayers
anything.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: The Morality of Minimal Requirements on Health Insurance Payments (was: National Health Care)
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:12:42 GMT

In article <BtKMnK.9nx.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.232017.6291@brownfield.glv.com> brownfield!jbrow (Jim  
Brownfield) writes:

[stuff deleted]
> 
>    Whether its 51% to 49% or 90% to 10%, its still theft.  When you
>    have a system where people can opt out on the payment side as well
>    as the service side, you will have a moral system.
> 
> Is a national health insurance plan less moral than general taxation?
> forced military service? gun controls? seatbelt regulation?
> minimal auto insurance requirements?
> 
> I'm not arguing with you; I am just trying to understand your
> viewpoint.
> 
> --
> Stewart M. Clamen

I feel that all the above things are immoral.  However, I grant that argument  
that at least some general taxation is needed currently for national defence  
(although I think the country could be defended better with a lot less money).

The reason I'm arguing so vehemently against national health insurance is that  
I think it will eventually have exactly the opposite effect that the proponents  
claim.  In the long run, it will lead to poorer health care for everyone, and  
by the increase in taxation (theft), it will also hurt everyones' standard of  
living.  I prefer correcting the problems that government regulation and  
monopolistic protection have caused as opposed to introducing more control (and  
problems).

I generally do not believe the argument that you can help society by forcing  
individuals - at gun point - to give up their earnings.  While many of the  
modern day American liberals criticize American conservatives (correctly) of  
wanting to force their morality on people, the liberals are guilty of the same  
thing.  Their forced morality is just different and usually involves taking  
your property to make *them* feel better.

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43080 alt.politics.clinton:3672
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: GOP headquarters burned!
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:51:31 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>This appeared in soc.motss:

>In article <1992Aug25.034038.23932@spdcc.com>, anon@spdcc.com (Forwarded Anonymous Posting) writes:
>> 	A Republican Party headquarters in South Pasadena, California,
>> was burned early Sunday morning.  Arson is obviously expected, since
>> a fuel lighter was seen on the site.  On the side of the GOP building
>> was grafittied: "GOP = " and the swastika sign.  Sounds like it was both
>> a good and bad deed for whoever did it.

>Does anyone else find something sort of disturbing about this?  The
>vandals in question equate the Republican Party to Naziism -- and
>engage in a very Nazi-like tactic -- burning out a political 
>headquarters.

I find this very disturbing.  One can't preach tolerance and go around burning
political headquarters.  I also found it disturbing that a member of the 
Republican National Committee praised some Republican youth hooligans who
disrupted a Democratic news conference in Texas by shouting, waving signs, etc.
People should not interfere with other parties get-togethers.

>What next?  Are the gay activists going to organize something called
>the Lavender Shirts, and see how much blood they can spill by 
>attacking their political opponents with clubs?

It's possible. This country just seems to be going to the dogs, with every-
one looking out for their own special, narrow interests rather than whats 
good for the entire nation.

Daniel at UIUC     "uh, is this French 102?"
		   "NEIN, zis iz NOT french vone o two!"

-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:08:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.163020.15993@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>By this reasoning, a newborn baby sucking on its mother's breast is 
>(technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.  
>

A lot you know about newborns, Dougie-Pooh.

Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42872 talk.abortion:34051 alt.politics.bush:3521
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:36:54 GMT

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.163341.16290@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

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

>This assumes, of course, that the unborn is just a scum sucking parasite
>stuck in the mother's womb sucking the life out of the mohter, and therefore,
>we should have the right to terminate that parasite.

This statement is not correct.

                 -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42483 ca.politics:7149 ba.politics:4835
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 28 Aug 1992 04:59:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu



># 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.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Others have posted here that NAMBLA only marches in the SF
gay parade.  Evidently Clayton does not believe it.  

Joan V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Christian Coalition
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.154315.17751@terminator.cc.umich.edu> clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider) writes:
>In article <BtLK25.DBw@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>>
>>This now from Bush's "coalition partners":
>>
>>Feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
>>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, do you have a reference for this? Although with the hideous swerve
>to the religious right that the Repubs have made, I wonder just how long
>it will be before we have a theocracy in this country (a la Heinlein's
>'If this goes on...'

Today's NY Times.  It was a letter from, I believe, Pat Robertson.



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41386 talk.abortion:33036 alt.politics.bush:2559
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Trivia Question Time, for consistency....
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:10:09 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
] In article <1992Aug17.164120.1727@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
] >Just to let you know I am pro-life after eight weeks and believe
] >in this for non-religious reasons.  I believe the pro-life stance
] >meaning the belief that life has intrinsic value of its own, even
] >in the womb (human life at that), is logically consistent and 
] >DOES NOT require a religious theology.
] 
] Thanks you very much for your comment!  Life is special, and 
] religious or not, female or male, short or tall, fat or thin, blonde
] hair or black hair, we need to stand together after all the attempts
] to divide.


I presume then that BOTH of you oppose the Use
of Military Force to provide humanitarian aid
in both the former state of yugoslavia, as well
as in somalia, and other states currently
facing 'ethnic cleansing' by the current warlords
in control of the food distribution systems.


Heavens, but the notion of the "Superiority of Life"
being such a First Principle would prevent any use
of military arms, as such tend to KILL people.....

ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43045 talk.politics.mideast:19432 misc.headlines:6113