HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:29:27 CDT
From:         the annoying will inherit the earth <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      comments on polls

Hi, y'all:
After surviving that unique nightmare known as "late freshman advising and
registration" this morning, I had an interesting chat with one of my
colleagues who was actually a delegate at the 1968 and 1980 democratic
conventions.  Neat stuff.  Anyway, he said he'd stayed up late last night
to watch whatever call-in show CNN was offering.  He says most of the
callers were folks who were switching from the Republican to the Democratic
ticket.  If anyone else watched, is this what happened?

     Well, the conservative wing seems to take the acceptable parts
     of republicanism (Balanced budgets, small government, etc) and
     fuse them with Retro-religious wierdness, such as the whole
     useless "family values" bit, the two-faced "more openness, except
     if you are dark, female or queer," and the "War on Crime," which
     has provided us with more prisons, all of which are overcrowded,
     without really hitting the root of the problem. I can see why
     people wish to jump ship from the "Reagan revolution."

He also said that a poll (ABC maybe) shows Hillary Clinton's approval
ratings up something like 10% since the start of the Republican convention.
Anyone know if this is right?

     Roles are changing, and if people accept another Elenor (sp?)
     Roosevelt- type in the White House, more power to them.

Thanks!
Kerry

     Dave
     t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
     "Still you want to run away
      and cry when they call you a bitch"
           -Flag With Hank, "R R Bitch"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:53:52 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

>My apologies regarding the Welk/Liberace thing.  Yes, Rufus, I was
>thinking of Liberace.
>--Julie "at least I didn't blame it on the cue card" W.

  But, of course, you still blame Bush for his mistake, eh?

                                   -Tim
From: CARROLL@SCC.BITNET (Roger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Republican Convention - Night 1
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:08:25 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Well...I just have to offer a few comments about last night's convention...

Mean spirited!  That's the only way to describe it.  Instead of "bring us
together" it's "tear us apart".  "Let's take back our country" from the
homos, the blacks, the hispanics, and those with no "family values".  All
in the name of "we're Americans and they're not".

By the way, does a woman with two children and a deceased husband have NO
family values??  Or how about Bush's daughter who divorced her husband?
I guess it was wrong, but he'll love her anyway.

I found it interesting that Pat Buchanan would blast the Demos for saying
so little about foreign affairs at their convention.  But, it seems the
Republicans hardly ever mention domestic agendas.  Oh well, maybe it was
because it was "Foreign Policy" night.

------------------------------------
   Another in the series of topical George Bush quotes...
   ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)

"I put confidence in the American people, in their ability to sort through what
is fair and what is unfair, what is ugly and what is unugly."

      - Bush defending himself against charges of negative campaigning, November
        1989.
                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  Voice : (602) 423-6182                 Bitnet   : CARROLL@SCC.BITNET       +
+  FAX   : (602) 423-6200                 Internet : CARROLL%SC@MARICOPA.EDU  +
+  Scottsdale Community College, 9000 E. Chaparral Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85250  +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      I have yet to meet a person wanting their tombstone engraved....
                 "I wish I had worked harder at my job!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:04:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Slips of the tongue

peter,

everything about bush scares me.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:30:09 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the vanilla coalition
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              20 Aug 1992 11:21:49 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFOR D.EDU>

On Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:21:49 -0700 Andy Freeman said:
>>Throwing a tantrum and saying "It's my ball
>>and you have to let me pitch or I'll cry and go home" is not leadership.
>
>A majority in Congress can block anything.  Therefore, they can just
>say no, but if they do, it is the president's fault?

You can bet now that any cooperation needed by Candidate Bush won't be
given.  The Democrats know he's on the brink of disaster and not much
short of a mistake on the part of the Gore/Clinton ticket will prevent it.

I'm not faulting them, just pointing out that unless he can single-handedly
bail out the economy by E-Day, they know doing nothing will help their
party's candidate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:49:59 EST
From:         Scott Adams <SADAMS@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      In your heart, you know he's right. (NOT!)

To steal another old campaign slogan:
In your guts, you know he's nuts. (Bush)
That is a little more accurate.
Scott Adams
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:27:04 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: About Buchanan

MacPhil:

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

And you replied:
>Okay, that's a total figure. But how much are those 2% paying now?  If
>the increase is nominal, then it supports my concern(s).  As an example,
>if those 2% are now paying $50 billion and changing their rates increases
>it to a {total} of $70 billion, then from the perspective of the
>federal budget, it's not all that much...

Now that I have the article with me, I see that I didn't get it quite
right.  According to Reich, "Were the federal income tax as progressive as
it was in the late 1970s, the top 2 percent of American earners would have
paid about $72 billion *more* in federal taxes on their 1991 incomes."
(emphasis mine).

Unfortunately, Reich doesn't say exactly how much the Clinton plan will
raise taxes or precisely how much revenue will be generated.  He talks
about a $200 billion investment in education, training and infrastructure,
and says it'll be financed by said tax hike plus cuts in defense spending.
He also says that the tax hike will be ". . . less than a quarter of the
tax windfall granted America's highest earners by Reagan and Bush."  That
sounds like Clinton isn't planning on returning to the 1970's rates.

I don't know if that helps :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:22:20 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      sleeping disorders

 This is without a doubt the most boring and uninspired convention, of ANY
 party, that I have ever witnessed.

 I wish I had the NO-DOZ concession as this fiasco.

 One bright spot, Bill Bennet.  This man has heartfelt convictions upon which
 he is willing to take a stand.  That is just the opposite of Bush and serves
 to highlight George's biggest weakness.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:54:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      RNC-second night...

God, man, I wish I was able to see the first night....
Pat Buchanan AND Ronald Reagan???!!?!?
Anyway, I saw part of the second night and the only speaker that
impressed me was the Gov. of Massachusetts (was his name Wend? I
don't remember).  He said he believes in awoman's right to choose
very forcefully and didn't seem scared to say it.  This shows that
the republican party is the true party of diversity.
They don't silence opposing views the way the Dems did to Gov. Casey.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:18:55 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Logic Vigilante

An impending logic crisis in the Rockies calls me away.

Try not to commit any fallacies during the coming week.

Your Aspiring Czar,

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:14:51 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      apologies for the last post, and maybe even a little politics,
              too

just reread what i sent a minute ago.  sorry for the typos.  i really
*must* learn to use the editing capabilities of the vax.

george bush, what a goof.  (yes, that is indeed spiteful ad hominem attack.
go on, let me have it, you know you want to.)  doro could have an abortion
and keep her brother neil company in jail, right?  ...and he'd still
love and support her.  how *touching*.  as i have said many a time,
though, this issue does not directly impact folks like george bush's
progeny, or dan quayle's, or me.  the pro-life movement is hopelessly
naive if they think the criminalization of abortion will *stop*
abortions from being performed.  the wealthy women who want one will go
out of the country to have one.  they will get them, feel sick in a
foreign country for a while, and come home.  the middle-income women
who want one will go out of the country to have one, feel sick for a
while, and about half of them will come home.  the lower-income women
will have them, right here in these-hyere yoo-nited states, and about
one in six will make it home.

i guess george is happy leaving women with hobson's choice.  fine.
if he's elected, that's the way it is.  mandate of the people, and all that.
doesn't keep me from feeling sad about it, though.

hey, how 'bout those serbs?  anyone here got any brilliant solutions on
that one (val is hereby instructed to be quiet...i wanna call on
someone who doesn't have his hand up in the air)?  apparently panic has
agreed to recognize bosnia, even if his constituency does not.  strange
days indeed.

i must say that i am looking forward to this whole houston thing, as
our fearless leader might say.  fireworks!  inside the astrodome!
and everything!  it will be so neat!  everyone will be so impressed!
you think that the balloon-drop was cool in the garden, huh?! well, this
will show who's got innovative thinking!  and the candidates' wives will
speak!  that'll show women what's what!  and jim baker will be there!
and pat1 and pat2!  and babe buchanan!  we can win this election!
we can have four more years!  there's a new wave sweeping america!
we can win the war in vietnam!  i once knew a kid who ate thirty
packs of poprocks and drank a coke and his stomach blew up!  the check
is in the mail!  and of *course* i still respect you!!!!

oh, and i have a question for kerry stephenson:  how do you feel about
the idea that existence precedes essence?  just wondering.

                     * * *anneliese "look for the seal of kristevan purity" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:43:50 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Polling Methods (was Re: Some REALLY interesting numbers)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Missy:
>FYI:
>
>Houston Chronicle poll of 2000 voters nationwide, just published
>this morning:

[boring numbers deleted]

>   According to the pollsters at their news conference, there hasn't
>been much movement within independent voters (maybe they're waiting
>to see what Ross does.)
>
>   I would add here that, from the press conference I saw (in which
>they explained their methodology, which I have never seen a
>"regular" pollster do before--ABC, NYT, etc), this poll is very
>carefully done.  The pollsters were polling from before the
>convention until last night (Wednesday), which is very different
>from the way most polls are done.

Ah, here we go. Polling methods.

All sorts of things affect (effect ?) poll results. For instance, if
you go round in the daytime on a weekday knocking on peoples doors to
interview them, you are likely to get more unemployed people, which is
likely to favour the Democrats in the response.

The most effective poll I saw was in the Sunday Times in the runup to
our General Election. They interviewed the typical 1000 or so people,
and then went back to the same people for three weeks. This showed
that, even when the poll figures stay the same, there is an incredible
amount of fluidity in individual voters' intentions. As much as 10-15%
of the sample would move from one party to undecided to the other
party over a couple of weeks, matched by people going the other way.

After the election (the result of which all the pollsters got wrong)
they went back to find out what had happened. The most significant
thing was that all the undecideds had gone one way. But there were
also a lot of people who had switched parties very late.

So beware of polls.

Dunstan
From: T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET (the atom bum)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: A reply to the second night at the Asstrodome
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:02:29 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

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

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

Well, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you factor
in the catalytic converter and a number of scrubbers for smokestacks,
I would generally say yeah. We are far from having clean air, however.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"I am not a crook"
    -Richard Nixon
"I am an environmentalist"
    -George Bush
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: just testing send function
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:02:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL

well, i replied.
now lets see if i can send.
looks like it- someone let me know if this gets thru.
thanks
linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:07:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Homosexual Behavior

Missy writes:
>Homosexual behaviors are, definitionally, sexual activity between
>two (or more) people of the same gender.

Okay-- to clarify, what is "sexual behavior?"  Intercourse?  French
kissing?  Heavy Petting?  Please be more specific.

--Julie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @ Mother: "Is it a boy or @
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @   a girl?"              @
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @ Doctor: "I think it's a @
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   bit early to start    @
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   imposing roles on it, @
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @   don't you?"           @
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @  --Monty Python's THE   @
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @    MEANING OF LIFE      @
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:44:14 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: fresh fruit for rotting vegetables

>bill bennett definitely gave the best speech of the night.  why, you ask?

  The rest of the speeches must have been *horrible*, then.  I tuned
in to catch the ex drug czar in action, and after he said the words
"family values" ten times in the first three minutes of the talk,
I gave him the ultimatum.  One more time, and I'm out of here.
Either the telepathic links were down, or he was doing his 5-year-old
kid routine, cause the next words out of his mouth were "family
values."  I threw something at the TV and left.

  I didn't check the papers this morning to see if my abrupt
exit caused him any distress, but the republicans are in real
desperate circumstances if that was the best they had to offer.

                                      -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:50:22 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      ^!

  gary,

   does ^ have anything to do with frop?

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:02:47 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

>They were DEFINATELY not his!  and let me just add that the "central
>scrutinizer" drank many more broo-hah hahs than anyone else.  And
>you would be appalled at the things he told us about YOU.

I'm glad to see there is more evidence - Scrootie and Oandy came
to my house once and in the morning over *1,000* beers were missing
from my refrigerator.  Oandy and I, honest about our vices, could
account for about 18-22 between us.  Scrootie, however denied
drinking the remaining ones that were gone.
"How the ones that were gone could remain, I'll never know"

Steve

*Vote Y's Guys*  1-800-4NO-GOVT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:12:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality
              20 Aug 1992 12:28:00 -0400 from
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE>

Julie:

What, exactly, makes you think of Quayle as "dangerous"?

Just wondering.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:06:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality

> Anybody else notice that *every* committee of the Republican National
> Convention is made up of one man and one woman from each state,
> and one delegate each from the Virgin Islands and Guam?
>
> Party of *true* equality, folks.
>
> In your heart, you know it's right.

Equality!  We want equality of opportunity, not equality of results!
This sort of un-American quota system is what is eating away at our
competitive position in the world's markets.

Seriously, I thought the Republicans hated quotas?

And, which sex is missing in the Virgin Islands and Guam?  Do they
have to commute to reproduce?  So much for the island paradise bit.

Best,
Peter

> --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 07:57:16 -0500
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      George Bush on abortion

George Bush being interviewed last night by NBC's Stone Phillips as
transcribed by NBC and appearing in today's New York Times:

Q:  Mr. President, how would you answer the question that was put to
    Vice President Quayle by Larry King, if your granddaughter, let's
    say, came to you and said, in a few years, I'm pregnant, I want to
    have an abortion?

A:  I would talk her out of it, try to.  But I'd do it--let me, let me
    rephrase it for you.  If my granddaughter said I've done something
    terrible, I've robbed, I've stolen something, I'd stand by her.  I
    think that's what the Vice President was saying--didn't, didn't mean
    he condoned the act.  But he said he'd stand by his child.  Of course
    I'd do that.  My granddaughter, my son, my daughter, whoever it is.

    We've done that all our life as a family.  Not going to change that
    now.  And so I, I think that's what, what Dan Quayle was talking
    about.  It got a little out of sync in the translation.  But do I,
    would I support my child?  I'd put my arm around her and say, if she
    were trying to make that decision, encourage her not to do that, but
    of course I'd stand by my child.  I'd love her and help her, lift
    her up, wipe the tears away, and we'd get back in the game.


Q:  So in the end a ---

A:  That's the way life is.


Q:  So in the--so in the end the decision would be hers?

A:  Well whose else's--who else's could it be?  I want her to comply with--you
    know, I'd like to be able to influence for, for the belief I have.  You
    see, I'm offended by one million, 500 thousand abortion.  I'm offended
    by that lack of respect for life.  So I'd try to say these values, but
    your question was if she went ahead and did it, what would I do.  I think
    I'd say I'd, I'd love her.

-- END OF QUOTED MATERIAL --

Isn't Bush's "Who else's could it be?" answer an articulation of the
Pro-Choice position?  Does Bush think, by saying he's offended by one
million abortions, that Pro-Choice advocates are happy that there are
so many abortions?  Isn't one of the few pieces of common ground between
the Pro-Life and the Pro-Choice sides that both sides wish that there
were fewer abortions (as Mario Cuomo pointed out in an Op-Ed piece a
week or so ago)?

Saying that he can't see who else but the woman can make the decision
about whether to have an abortion seems a long way from his speech at
the Knights of Columbus.


...Rick
From: U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET (Carl A. Lahetta)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: I ho I ho It's Back to work I go
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:36:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> Date:         Mon, 10 Aug 1992 09:58:49 EDT
> From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
>
> Carl,
>   Congratulations on getting your new house all fixed up!  When is the
> virtual housewarming?

  Sunday, September 6, 1992.  All are invited, bring a lawn chair :-)

>
> Evelyn

Carl--------+