HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 1992 18:53:59 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Bush Extramarital
	<kLJRqB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>

To my statement
> 2.  All he wants is raising the top 2% (he says aloud).  Part of his
> class warfare, nail the rich approach to politics says that he taxes the
> hell out of them.  His divisive techniques have worked so far (due in
> part to the GOP's lack of an adequate response), and most people want
> that tax.  By the way, the top 2% goes down to 77,000 - that includes
> many of our parents and friends - Clinton isn't just soaking the rich.


Edward Branley responds

>Your statement would then support the original contention, that Clinton's tax
>increase is a minority point of view.  Thanks for that support.

Clinton is behind class warfare, a popular cause.  Most people don't
know that 2% includes people like us - and the media isn't telling
anyone.

I'm not offering everything as Clinton's pandering, merely pointing out
flaws in Clinton's beliefs, agenda, character, position with the press,
etc.  I merely felt obligated to respond to the flagrant bending of
facts used to claim Clinton didn't pander.

Bush does flip-flop.  So does Clinton.  So you really can't count on
either to necessarily do what they say.  But assuming they are telling
the truth about their intentions, it would be idiotic to elect someone
like Bill Clinton.  It almost looks like he is trying to destroy the
country.

>One last point:  Bush's extra-marital flings have never been disproven, so I
>wouldn't go throwing too many stones while standing in a glass house.

Bush's extra-marital fling allegation is unworthy of note.  This whole
thing started from a footnote in an unimportant book pointing out that
some dead guy thinks this happened.  His evidence - a picture of Bush
leaning forward across a five foot wide table to talk to his secretary
in a room full of foreign dignitaries, and then the fact that the slept
in adjoining suites that night.  Gennifer Flower's evidence:  videotape,
audiotapes of telephone conversations, friends who she talked to at the
time, etc., etc., etc.  The fact that the allegation against Bush came
up at all (and not even from the woman who it was supposedly with, who
denies it!) is proof of the press's liberal bent.  It was especially
tasteless given the setting in which the original question was asked. 
That reporter should be shot.

Erik Witte    ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:12:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /etc/organization


In article <1992Sep1.221503.15330@Princeton.EDU>
elliott@leda.princeton.edu (Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>
> What does the phrase "family values" mean? Literally, it has _no_
> meaning; however, it serves as a signal that "It's US against THEM."
> (In this respect it's much like Hitler's phrase "white culture".)

Or like the "gay rights movement"'s term "straights".

These analogies to the holocaust are dangerous.  With respect to the
"gay community" (and I use the term loosely) in this country, there are
no concentration camps; there are no death camps; the leadership is
*not* actively encouraging people to hunt down and abuse/kill
homosexuals.  There is simply no basis for comparison.  The use of
analogies such as the above is offensive, and only generates hatred; it
does nothing to cure it.

People have been killed in minor brawls and large wars over their
beliefs for many thousands of years.  This is neither good nor unusual,
and there is no reason to expect that it will stop, even (or perhaps
especially) through legislation.

Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
girlfriend.  While none of these is truly acceptable, the source of the
problem has nothing to do with homosexuality; it has do to with low
tolerance for someone else's views or lifestyle, or in the latter case,
selfishness and (usually) insecurity.

Any doctor can tell you that you cannot cure a disease by attacking the
symptom(s); you must attack the disease itself.  In this case, morality
itself is diseased.  How do you propose curing it?


Anyway, I'm rambling.

-- 
 \   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:

>Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
>the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
>the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
>girlfriend.

"Not in MY town."

>While none of these is truly acceptable, the source of the
>problem has nothing to do with homosexuality; it has do to with low
>tolerance for someone else's views or lifestyle, or in the latter case,
>selfishness and (usually) insecurity.

Gosh darn, then.  Well, the next time I get my bones broken for
wearing a READ MY LIPS t-shirt, I will simply be glowing in moral
superiority over my attackers.  They'll never come near MY hospital
bed again, no sir.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:03:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.231302.27732@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>I don't believe he meant to imply that every single person would
>become an addict; rather, that many more people would. Of course the
>word "many" is a slippery term, but it's safe to say that a
>significant number of people who would otherwise not try drugs would,
>which would most likely increase the number of addicts. 

I don't think that is "safe to say"; it certainly isn't obvious and it
may not even be true.

We now have near-universal availablility of many recreational drugs,
so it is absurd to say that the WoD keeps people from getting drugs.
Therefore, its only possible benefit is in discouraging use by people
who would otherwise become addicts, and then only if they don't become
addicted to something else.

Does it actually do that?  In particular, do the CRIMINAL sanctions
do that?  Where's the evidence that there are lots of people who
would become cocaine addicts, but don't because they're worried
about being punished, and aren't addicted to anything else either.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5151 talk.politics.misc:45134 alt.rush-limbaugh:4692 alt.politics.bush:4910 alt.politics.elections:12978
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:39:00 GMT
Organization: The Rift from Here to There

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
|> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
|> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
|> this knowledge?

Didn't see it, didn't hear about it until I read your post.

The media has a very pro-Clinton/anti-Bush tone to it which pisses me off to
no end.  HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A FAIR JUDGEMENT WHEN THE PRESS WILL NOT
REPORT ALL THE FACTS?  I mean, just because Bush told them where they could
put their pencils and notepads during Desert Storm... :-)

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:34:46 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

: Another point, what exactly is a redneck? I have my stereotype but you guys 
: are arguing about something that neither seems willing to define. Until
: you do define your version of "a redneck", the debates is nothing more
: than apples vs oranges.

Well, from what I've been told, the term 'redneck' originally referred to
a (farm) field worker of European ancestry, the idea being that this
person spent most of his or her day time hours bending over in the
fields, developing a nasty sunburn on the back of his neck.

[Before continuing, there is a disclaimer/apology for this next
paragraph at the end of the article....]

Now, IMO, the stereotype conjured up when talking about 'rednecks' is:
A rather large white man in the south, who drives an older model
pickup truck, wears baseball caps, and listens to country music.
This person's favorite major league baseball team would be the Atlanta
Braves, and he would consider himself to be "just a good ol' boy."
The stereotypical redneck would be named 'Bubba.'  He would be
an avid supporter of the NRA, and would most likely be very conservative
in his political and societal views.  The stereotypical redneck would
use chewing tobacco on a regular basis, and the impression of
the chewing tobacco container would be noticeable in the pocket
area of his well-worn jeans. 

Now, that was just my vision of what the term 'redneck' conjures up.
This is not intentionally meant in any way, shape, or form, as
a statement of my opinions on any of substances, organizations, habits,
etc. mentioned above.  In the above paragraph, it was not my attention
to offend anyone by terming him/her a 'redneck.'  Anyway, "redneck-ness"
is probably more a state of mind than a function of one's interests
and habits.  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5514 alt.politics.homosexuality:5998
From: edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:29:34 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1992Sep15.121227.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>In article <edjans01.716570007@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>, edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
>> You note that natural and unnatural lust are sinful according to Scripture.
>> Does this eliminate (in your opinion) the possibility for a consenting, 
>> monogamous, intimate relationship between two persons of the same sex?
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> -- 
>     I have been trying not to overtly include my *personal* opinion
>in this discussion -- I've learned that the only thing immoral in
>these newsgroups is to talk about personal morality.  However, I
>was trying to present a more traditional interpretation of
>scripture -- whether anyone believes it right or wrong.  Let me
>say this: when trying to interpret scripture, it is important to
>look at *all* relevant passages before any conclusions can be made
>(which is why I included the passage from Jude  An

>     C. Perttunen

A noble and valiant response!  It would be nice if the Radical Right could 
learn the same lesson (i.e., shoving their morality down others throats).  Alas,
it will probably be the case that we will have to put up with the Jim/Tammy
Bakkers, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertsons, and Jimmy Swaggerts with their Yankee
Doodle Yakkee.


My next question to you is this:  What sort of experience or background to you
have in Scripture Interpretation?  Just out of curiosity . . . Are you a 
literalist or do you take a more "Catholic" approach to Scripture, reading the
text and looking at the historical, fictional, and contextual views?

Dave

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing                     | "What we call the beginning is often the end
Electrical Engineering Department|  And to make an end is to make a beginning.
University of Louisville         |  The end is where we start from . . ."
                                 |  -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 14:28:32 GMT

In article <B2jDr*xX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Sep03.223737.13040@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:
>
>> In article <qMQBr*0W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >      explain how a President can get a totally HOSTILE House leadership to
>> >do the right things?  The single most important goal of Speaker Foley and
>> >friends for the past four years has been to get the President out of office!
>> >How do you "lead" people like that?
>> 
>> 	Are you saying, then, that unless we can be sure a Republican
>> Congress will become reality, that we shouldn't vote for Bush, since,
>> after all, you say he can't lead our current pack? 
>
>No, of course not.  Someone has to restrain Foley and Company.  One thing is
>certain - Clinton won't!

	According to you, neither Reagan nor Bush can, and according to you,
they've proven that assertion. Now, why should I want to vote for Bush? He
can't get any of his programs passed, anyway, right?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:00:25 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.002402.23739@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.
>|> 
>|> I most certainly did, Alex.  It was in direct reply to the topic we were
>|> discussing and most directly aimed at that very post you had written. 

>	No, you didn't. You made the comment in response to a post where
>we were arguing over the semantics of "adopting" a pln vs. "constructing"
>a plan, and it's still not clear to me what, exactly your point was.
>Something about how it doesn't count to have experst agree with you if 
>the ideas arn't soley yours.

The statement I made with regard to your double standard was based on the
post I commentied on.  You were saying something like, it doesn't matter
if Clinton skews the truth his way, because I agree with him and I think
Bush should burn in Hell for breathing today.  

It's pretty hard to argue that I didn't present evidence of your double
standard when all you have to do is look at the thread.

>	Furthurmore, I followed up that post with a detailed explanation
>of my position, which you declined to comment on. If your truly felt that
>this is an example of my hypocracy, that weas the time to drive the point
>home, and you chose not to.

Well, somebody else beat you to your point I guess.  I responded to
another post before I read yours.  Yours was just more of the same, so
I decided you could probably just read the other post.

>	You can't play the same strategy on offense and defence, you end
>up stomping on yourself.

All this free advice!  If you keep giving this stuff away, us dumb
conservatives might just start winning a few arguemnets with you, Alex.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 16:42:33 GMT

>>I fail to see how the restructure of health care (12% of GNP) within 100
>>days could be in any way helpful for the American economy.  If you can
>>not see DEPRESSION labeled on his plan, you must be near sighted!

>Please clarify.  It's not as if 12% of the GNP would suddenly vanish

More or less.  Does he not want to do away with existing health insurance 
companies?  Inaddition he will totally reshape the existing health care
system.  Do you not see how even a slight manipulation of something so
huge can reprocussions throughout the world?  These reprocussions will
not be positive!  It will have a negative effect!

Further do you think it is fair to have 75% income taxes.  Do you think
that will increase incentive for people to work?  Do you realize we have
the most efficient health care system in the world.  If someone wants
to see a doctor -- they can.  People from Canada and Europe come over here
for superior health care, not to mention availability.

Let me leave you with one last thought:
  When has the government ever done something efficient?

  NEVER!!!!




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Misc (was: SC rally
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:17 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Mike Best writes:

         [on the read-my-lips promise]
>
>It's funny, the conservatives are mad at him for raising taxes (and breaking
>that promise) and the liberals are harping on the tax increase but for
>reasons that escape me.  Obviously this is what they want so why aren't 
>they pointing out what a good thing it was for the country?
>
I believe the bone of contention is with his and Reagan's smug 
assertion during their campaigns that they would never, never, ever,
under any circumstances raise taxes. The ridicule stems from the 
disingenuous promise.

      [On Nicaragua]
>
>A good question, are they in general better off to be free of
>totalitarianism or would you prefer them to live the life that
>demonstratably has failed in most parts of the world (socialism).
>Freedom is preferable to squalid equality.
>
Undoubtedly, the lives of many Nicarguans are better now than under
the Sandinistas. Most are probably better off now than under Somoza 
as well.

       [on the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case]

>>As for you logic on calling Hill a liar, it is simply not there.
>>In my office we had a sexual harrasment case in which the person
>>being harrassed was too scared to say anything about the person
>>doing it because he was her boss and ran right over people. However,
>>he got caught red-handed by someone who saw him come up and
>>fondle her when he didn't know they were watching. The girl was
>>lucky she had a witness or she would be gone and not him.
>
>I couldn't care less about your example.  It has _absolutely_ nothing
>to do with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.  This is the point, you
>are applying the behavior of others in your judgement against Thomas.
>What you have said is that because you have knowledge that sexual
>harrassment happens therefore Thomas is more than likely guilty.
>
>Can someone make an unsubstantiated statement to harm someone else
>in this society?  This is what you are defending, not wether sexual
>harassment happens - that's a no brainer.  Smear tactics are not 
>worthy nor honorable, and what goes around comes around.
>
Hill had corroborative testimony read into the record after the
public hearings were closed. Glory, honor, and praise all around...yes? 
Is Thomas qualified to be a Supreme Court judge? Very debatable.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4223 alt.politics.bush:4234 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5128
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Date: 6 Sep 92 21:50:01 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Thus saith adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams):
> Thus spake cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu: 
> 
>>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
>>
>>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>>     you toil on it forever!'"
>>
>>Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
>>Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
>>statement?  I would be interested in hearing.

> 
> 	Actually, his statement is perfectly accurate.
> 
> 	That IS the first instance of pollution in the Bible, is it not?
>

     I've been waiting for such a response.  I believe this is one of
the problems of the MILITANT environmentalist movement (not us 
ordinary let's-reduce-the-pollution people): they are all afflicted
with tunnelvision.  In the Cain and Abel passage, a murder occurs,
but unforunately Gore focuses in on the 'pollution' (if you can
even call it that).  In the northwest, we have loggers losing their
jobs because of the focus on the spotted owl.

 
> 	He is NOT however stating that it is either true or that it
> represents the first instance of pollution among humans!
> 

     The chapter in Gore's book in which this passage occurs is
entitled "Environmentalism of the Spirit."  This chapter quotes
many Bible verses, and tries to show a relationship with his
environmental ideas.  So, I was by no means trying to take something
out of context.  He does believe this to be true (from the context,
although there is no sentence after each passage he quotes saying 
"I believe this too").  
     I would highly recommend this book to both liberals 
and conservatives.  The liberals will probably finish reading
this book in a 'Gore-asmic' state, while the conservatives will
probably be frightened by the idea of a Social-Democratic
Global Marshall Plan.

     C. Perttunen