HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgk@pacersoft.com (Paul Kamp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues (was Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:02:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Pacer Software, Inc.

In article <8fwyjcf@rpi.edu>, blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) wrote:

> Like I said, laws should not be intended to "impose", the should be (to coin a
> police phrase) "to protect and serve..."

Protect and Serve who?  Early in American history the people who had rights
were white male property holders.  It was legal to have slaves though it
was immoral.  Women did not have the vote and were treated as chattel.  Is
there no dimension of morality to our laws?  Of course there is.

Imposing anti-discriminatory practices upon the workplace, clubs, etc does
legislate morals.  It is "morally" right to be treated equally.  And we as
a nation impose this on others who are here.

How do we apply this in our day to day political discussions?  Look at
Governor Mario Cuomo who is "pro-choice" because you can not legislate
morals.  Yet this same Governor will not sign the death penalty bill in the
state of NY because it is morally wrong.  Bill Clinton advocates that we
should go into Yugoslavia because it is morally right to do something to
help those people.  George Bush forms a coalition to go after Saddam
Hussein because it is right.  No moral dimension to out laws or the
actions?  I do not think so.

Paul Kamp
Pacer Software, Inc.
Internet: pgk@pacersoft.com
AppleLink: PACER
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: Joshua Cope <jdc1@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: New poll results
X-Xxdate: Tue, 8 Sep 92 12: 23:09 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: jdc1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:18:26 GMT

In article <16859CF5E.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> David Veal,
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
>few have *heard* of him.  (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4651 alt.politics.clinton:4810 alt.politics.elections:12797
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 14:02:28 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

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

> In article <0FPuqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >
> >Besides, Bush is spending so much time bashing Hillary that his campaign 
> >for First Lady wouldn't be complete without a face-to-face showdown.
> 
> One prime time speaker during the Republican convention mentions Hillary,
> and the press calls the whole convention a week of Hillary bashing.  
> 
> Well, now, it seems you don't have to say a thing about Hillary, and you're
> still bashing her.  Has Bush even uttered Hillary's name?
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
> >>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
> Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
> Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890

One primetime speaker?  How about Bond, Buchanan, and indirectly, Barbara 
Bush and Marilyn Quayle.  You've got Bush surrogates going around the 
country completely distorting her published works.  

As to whether Bush has uttered her name, you're using the classic 
deniability game.  Bush must accept the responsibility for his 
surrogates.  If he doesn't fire them, he agrees with them.  Their words 
are geared to keeping him in the White House, so the buck stops with him.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:46:26 GMT

In article <BuMHwH.1M0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>: Try taking a look at Gore's statement to that the automobile poses
>: a greater threat than the nuke.  
>[...]
>: Ever wonder what your life would be like if they banned the sales
>: of gasoline?

>Yes, we might be able to breathe without choking on air pollution for
>a change!

>Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your fears?
>After all, the auto industry and the oil companies are rich enough
>to buy Congress and prevent either one of these things from ever
>happening to the degree you fear.

Yeah, and the ironic thing is, just a month ago they were arguing that
Clinton shouldn't be elected because of his bad environment record.

It's absurd to claim that Clinton/Gore are suddenly going to pass
legislation outlawing cars, or something.  (BTW, for all you Federalists
out there who are worried about the national government's dictating
things to the states, California has it's own version of the EPA making
the strictest standards anywhere about car emissions -- but the Bush EPA
wants to overrule a state decision [on what authority, I don't know].)

>: The only good thing about Clinton/Gore is that they will bring us
>: to the economic collapse / second revolution that much quicker.
 
>: (Whereas Bush/Quayle will get us there eventually.)

>In a century or two?  That'd be fun...especially considering that 
>Quayle (or is that Quayl?) doesn't think he lived in this century....

Wasn't it James Watt who said we didn't need to conserve because Jesus
was coming in a couple of years, anyway?

>Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
>Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
>Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
>Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
>UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			
>Marrou/Lord in '92

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy -- but that could change."   -- Dan Quayle

-- 
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!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4862 alt.politics.clinton:5091 alt.politics.elections:12943
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:04:48 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep12.055553.4593@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>
>You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>
>Tonight on CNN's Crossfire Robert Novak asked senior Clinton campaign
>advisor Frank Greer point blank THREE times "Will Bill Clinton guarantee
>people making under $200,000 a year that they will not have their taxes
>raised during a Clinton administration?"  He ducked the question THREE
>times when all it required was a simple yes or no.  What's the Clinton
>campaign trying to hide?  Better hold on to your wallet, there's some
>'slick' fingers trying to grab it!
>

And George Bush said he would "never" raise taxes again on Wednesday.
Then, on Thursday, Marvin Fitzwater informed the press that Bush's
comment wasn't meant as a "pledge".  What's the Bush campaign trying
to hide?

John D.
(Wondering why the vice president during the biggest tax increase
in U.S. history and the president during the second biggest tax increase
believes he is the holy protector against high taxes.)
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Congress above the law (Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:42:43 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:

>I suppose that I should have used examples of Congressmen using their
>political office to keep them out of jail, like Congressman Ford of
>the 9th District in Tennessee, who I believe was convicted of tax
>evasion.  I'm not sure, because of appeals, a lot of media whoopla,
>and the number of Ford family scandals, but I think this was the
>case....

I think even this would be hard to demonstrate, or at least to 
demonstrate that Congress Critters do this any more than other 
rich/powerful people do.

One of the neat things about the Michael Milken (sp?) episode is 
that he actually spent time in jail.  That was a real suprise.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5274 alt.politics.elections:13244 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3814 talk.politics.guns:21000 talk.politics.misc:45676
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:18:47 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

nfs@kastle (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

: All you Democrats had better hope Bill Clinton doesn't win in
: November.  The depression is coming, and whoever wins is going to be
: raked over the coals for not doing enough to stop it.  Do you really
: want Clinton to be the next worst thing to Herbert Hoover in the
: public's mind?  Believe me, you want Bush to win - he'll be the last
: Republican president for a long long time.

Now, now, don't you know that they aren't called depressions anymore;
they're called "economically challenged times."  :-)

Actually, I think this is the first good argument I've heard to vote
for Bush this election year.  :-)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Who cares really?  I've always
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			told everybody I don't care if
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			Danny smoked pot.  I think it
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		would have made him a better
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     person really"
						  --Brett Kimberlin, re. Quayle

Marrou/Lord in '92; guarantee your ability to say "Don't blame me!  I
didn't vote for...."  :-)



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4265 alt.politics.clinton:4253 alt.politics.elections:12548
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:04:38 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

[lots of stuff deleted...]

>
>    I don't mind if a politician, even Clinton, changes his mind
> occasionally as long as he can convince me that he is sincere.  As far as
> sacrificing for his personal beliefs, the 'liberal' media has declared that
> a majority of the public, even the Republican party, is pro-choice, so how
> can remaining pro-life help Bush?  If he changed his mind again, I think
> I'd question his sincerity {:^) .  I would like to hear three opinions
> Clinton holds that are in the minority view in this country.  He seems like
> the ultimate poll watcher to me.
>

Ok, how about these.

1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand.  While not
a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.

2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.

3.  He wants to reduce defense spending more than Bush.  Not popular among
both the 'strong national defense' crowd and among all of those General
Dynamics and Lockheed workers in critical states like CA and TX.

The point to this is really not whether or not Clinton holds unpopular or
minority views, but do his majority views constitute pandering?  If he
flip-flops like Bush has done, then the answer will be yes.  Of course, we
already *know* for a fact that GHWB flip-flops and panders.  Clear choice to
me.



|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|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Get ready ('cause here I come)
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:55:34 GMT

In article <18iet5INNrki@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
[...]
> By the process of elimination. George Bush has proved he cannot do
> anything with a Democratic-controlled Congress. The Congress is not
> going to change this election. He expressed no interest in doing
> anything until his political butt was on the line. He has promised
> us real action, after we re-elect him. Specifics to be made public
> later. George Bush is now traveling around the country making Santa
> Claus look like a piker. Don't worry. I wasn't being facetious. 
> George Bush said he would do whatever it takes to get re-elected
> and he meant it literally. It will work too. I'll vote against him
> and you can vote for him, but four years from now he'll be back
> whining about how nothing is his fault, Congress wouldn't pass his
> bills. Why do you look forward to four more years of gridlock?

Because it is better than four years of spend, spend, spend,
tax, spend, spend, spend, tax.

We are better off flustering the Democrats with a Republican
president than letting them spend *everything* we earn.

We would all be better off with a third party in as many 
offices as possible (like the Libertarian party -- as far
as I know, Andre Marrou is on the ballot in all 50 states).

The Republicans are only concerned with protecting the wealthy.
The Democrats are only concerned with giving to the poor.

Between the two of them, the only thing they ever get accomplished
is to tax the middle class to give to the poor.

Screw both parties, vote Libertarian.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5099 alt.politics.clinton:5387 talk.abortion:36460
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:25:26 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <192tovINNah6@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>A long time ago, there was the suggestion that abortion is a means for men
>to control women.  An opposing view held that being "pro-choice" in fact,
>benefits the male.

>Anyway, I found ths brochure recently and because it is interesting, I'd
>like to share it with you as a means of reflecting on the debate several
>weeks ago.

	[Feminists for Life brochure deleted...]

	An absolutely ridiculous caricature of feminist rhetoric, if
you ask me. For example, pro-choice feminists also want there to be no
discrimination against women on account of pregnancy.

	And may I ask why the only three champions of FFL here,
namely, Martin Guerrero, Ron Graham, and Stephen Chaney, are male? As
one pro-choice chant goes:

	4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?

	Furthermore, Stephen Chaney's idea of feminism is a strange
one, since he has called Susan Garvin a "feminazi" and he has
snickered about her having a taste for burning bras. These are
essentially anti-feminist insults, and not what a "real" feminist
would say. It's like someone claiming to be in favor of the civil
rights movement while calling Martin Luther King and other
civil-rights leaders "niggers" and "coons". I think he needs to be
deborged. :-)

	Well, the numbers are clear. Of those who post in
talk.abortion, there is a sizable fraction of women, while there is
only one woman on the other side with any longevity, our good friend
Suzanne Forgach. So there go the "Feminists for Life". They do not
represent the interests of any significant group of professional
women. I wonder why they call themselves that. Do they just like the
sound of the word?

/Loren
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4179 alt.politics.marrou:1056 talk.politics.misc:43928 alt.politics.elections:12492 talk.politics.theory:4058
From: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (William P. Jones)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:10:34 GMT

In article <1685C96E2.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, 
MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes...
> 
>We might also look at the relative policies of the two regarding trial
>lawyers. Bush is pushing tort reform, something Clinton is trying to kill.
>According to a mailing from the president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers
>Ass'n printed in last week's WSJ, Clinton was ready to sign a "Good Samaritan"
>bill protecting providers of emergency medcical care from liability- when
>the trial lawyers were mobilized. CLinton vetoed the bill.
> 
>Even William Greider, who is an unreconstructed Democrat (read his fawning
>questioning of Clinton in the Rolling Stone interview) contended in his
>PBS piece that the modern Democratic party is very much the party of
>lawyer's interests.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
===============================================================================
For a rather different view of Clinton and trial lawyers you might want to read 
the Wall Street Journal of September 8. Tort reform is simply not an issue in 
Arkansas because the state ranks very near the bottom in litigation. 
Malpractice insurance rates are low and the percentage of the population 
engaged in the practice of law is also near the bottom. Now if everything 
Bush/Quayle have been saying about the need for tort reform is to be believed 
the Arkansas economy should be booming. 

I have no doubts that we have too many lawyers and lawsuits but they have less 
to do with America's economic problems than poorly designed products that don't 
match up with the overseas competition.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4339 alt.politics.marrou:1071 talk.politics.misc:44131 alt.politics.elections:12599 talk.politics.theory:4080 alt.politics.clinton:4350
From: blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.164731.8994@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> [lots of good stuff deleted]
|> 
|> >	So what should we do in the meantime? Discriminate against
|> >people with AIDS?
|> >
|> >				J. Wagner
|> 
|> How 'bout treating them like anyone else who has a deadly infectious
|> disease. Naw can't do that.
|> 
|> 				mike

BZZT.

Infectious implies that by standing next to someone with a disease, I can
contract it from them. In the case of AIDS this is FALSE. Too bad, really. I mean
that you couldn't have read this the hundred or so times it's already been posted.

  ==================================================================
  Stephen A. Blythe                |    RPI
  Dept. of Computer Science        |  "where Hell has finally
  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |      thawed out ..."
  blythes@sirius.cs.rpi.edu        |
  ==================================================================

 My views do not necessarily reflect those of the bozos surrounding me.

				"NO MORE
			       BU__ SH__"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Smarter question
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:01:44 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content


stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:

: First assume that there is 100% turn-out on vote day. Now what is 
: the smallest % of the popular vote that could get a person elected?

No guarantees about how accurate all this is (my figures are "preliminary;"
they predate the official release of the 1990 census data and resultant
reapportionment), and this makes an impossible assumption (100% of
a state's population will vote), but just for the sake of argument....

538 electoral votes possible, so 270 are needed to win.

In the U.S., an individual vote is "worth" more in the Electoral
College when that individual vote comes from a small state.  So,
to get the most electoral votes with the fewest popular votes, 
you would focus on the smaller states.

Using this idea, a check shows that the smallest 38 states plus DC
have a total of 256 electoral votes.  Georgia is the smallest state
with 14 electoral votes.  (This leaves CA, NY, TX, FL, PA, IL, OH,
MI, NJ, NC, and VA as the "other" states).  The total population
in these 39 states, plus DC, was estimated to be 105,986,000.  That
means, in this scenario, you need a minimum of 52,993,000 "popular
votes" to be elected President.

According to the 1990 Census, there were roughly 245,836,000 people
living in all 50 states, plus DC.  That would mean, in this scenario,
the theoretical minimum percentage of popular vote a person would
need to be elected President is 21.56 %.

Like I said, there are some unreasonable assumptions made in this
setup, but it should be fairly clear that, in theory, a person
could be elected President with as little as 25% - 30% of the
popular vote.

I sometimes wonder about the concept of the Electoral College.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4351 alt.politics.clinton:4367 alt.politics.elections:12607