HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgk@pacersoft.com (Paul Kamp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Reagan Admin. agrees with Hillary (was: Whatever happened to ...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:16:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Pacer Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep12.042018.18142@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark
Eckenwiler) wrote:
> Not to encumber the debate on Hillary's legal theories with facts or
> anything, but a letter from today's NYTimes makes a point that will
> give the Hillary-bashers cause for deeper concern.
> 
> "When [minor] Walter Polovchak's Soviet emigre parents sought to
> return to the Soviet Union in 1980, he refused and was granted asylum.
> When they sought police help to take him back to the Soviet Union, the
> Illinois courts deprived the parents of custody.
> 
> "On appeal, the Reagan-Bush Justice Department filed an amicus brief
> supporting Walter Polovchak's right to seek asylum, though he was a
> minor."  [The decision is reported at 774 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1985).]
> 
> 
It is also interesting to note that Robert Bork stated that Hillary's views
on this have been greatly distorted.  I saw him on public television, and I
hope I paraphase him correctly, so here goes:

Her factual statement on the legal rights of children are accurate but the
rhetoric she used to describe the relationship only inflames the issue.

So I ask why is everyone making such a big deal about this article?  It
makes no sense to me to personally attack her.  Attack the article with
reason.  Disagree with her conclusion based upon the facts.  Don't attack
her personally without describing how your position would be different.  I
guess it is just easier to attack than to actually think through the
problem and state your own position.  I guess this would only leave you
open to attack yourself.

Paul Kamp
Pacer Software, Inc.
Internet: pgk@pacersoft.com
AppleLink: PACER
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:31:38 GMT

>In article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com>, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>|> Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>|> wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>|> disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>|> never heard the term religious left?

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>A few bits of advice and comment:

>1) This is a.f.d-q. Either charicature terms like "evil minions" have 
>an implied smiley, or both of us have been working too hard.

The loaded language was used intentionally to poke fun at
such language.  The question itself pokes fun at such language.
I guess it's just not funny when it comes from the other side.

Sorry, didn't notice a.f.d-q in the newsgroups.  I only read
a.p.elections.  Actually, I'm unsubscribing to that today; just don't
have the time.

>5) That was actually a fairly impressive collection of smoothly-
>integrated buzzwords. My compliments!

Thanks.  It was easy after reading a.p.e a few weeks. :^)

Roger Collins
rcollins@encore.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: GHWB and atheism
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:52:59 GMT

I've been getting a lot of email from people asking, "did George Bush
_really_ say what you quote in your .sig?"  The answer is yes.  Here's
the relevant section from the alt.atheism FAQ:

------ begin excerpt --------------------------------------------------------

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1988. 
The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal
disaster relief for Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential
primary:

	RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

	GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
	    God is important to me."
 
	RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
	    Americans who are atheists?"

	GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
	    nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
	    God."

	RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation
	    of state and church?"

	GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not
	    very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27,
1989.  It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

------ end excerpt ----------------------------------------------------------

DearOldDoug and other pro-Bush atheists still haven't commented on Bush's
comments.  Hmmmm.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Summary: Stupid, *STOOOOOPID* question!
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:42:27 GMT

In article <oneil.715717643@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>              Why aren't the Republican folk taking advantage of Usenet
>by posting stuff which is favorable to Bush?

Um, because they don't have anything to post?

(Now did I really need to tell you that?)

>oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Yes, I know Paul.)

My condolences.
From: r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco)
Subject: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:27:46 GMT

In article <1685CD866.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
>An important difference is that the parents of private school students
>actually care about their children's education. Unfortunately the poor
>parents who are about their children's education can't do anything about
>about it as they have middle-class liberals to protect them from school
>choice programs.


This may come as a shock but there are parents who send their kids to public
schools and actually care about their education.

Kindly explain to the tax payers on the net why we should give a tax break
to the wealthy so that they can send their kids to private schools.


Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:36:34 GMT

The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
confusing indeed.  I still can't get over
the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
in public.  According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
Is this true?  It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
of the vote with such a wacky belief.  If it's not true, then I wonder
if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.
If so, I shudder.  If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
contact.

Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
anywhere near the Presidency.

Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12580 talk.politics.misc:44090 alt.politics.marrou:1069 alt.politics.bush:4300
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 16:17:28 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:

> In article <1992Sep7.112608.19319@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Hu
>
> [Stuff about how useless opinion polls are...]
> >"won't say" were in fact Conservative voters. Also the
> >Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
> >personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
> >were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
> >Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
> >no-one admits to it".
>
> Oh, please! Labour lost that election because a) their manifesto was a
> wish-list that couldn't possibly be lived up to, b) the unions still
> control the party, c) Kinnock is a born-again loser and d) the Nuremberg rall
> at Sheffield frightened a lot of people. It wasn't a particularly dirty
> campaign, and much of what there was came from Labour (like Hill's threat
> to 'get the wives involved. Good job he didn't: the Tories would have
> increased their majority...).
>
> What we need in PR: get consensus politics back, instead of this
> confrontational bullsh*t...
>

Hmmm...your points are quite interesting.  For all of the folks in the US:

a.  "a wish-list that couldn't possibly be lived up to"
     So far, more farm subsidies, 100% rebuilding of LA and South FL, F16s
     to Taiwan, plus an accross the board tax cut, a capital gains tax cut
     and he's still going to cut spending.

b.   "Unions still control the party"
     This one's a toss-up, given the long-standing affair with unions and the
     Dems, but GHWB's pandering last week to the defense workers last week
     does change the picture of Republicans who don't like labor.

c.   "Kinnock is a born-again loser"
     Substitute Bush for Kinnock.  Of course, 'born-again' in GHWB's case has a
     double meaning, given his shameless pandering to the Radical Religous
     Right.

d.   "Nuremberg rally at Sheffield frightened a lot of people"
     Substitute Houston for Sheffield, and you've got a good summary of the
     GOP convention.

Jeez, if someone would have offhandedly said that the British Labour Party and
the GOP had a lot in common, I would've thought they were in left field.



|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.elections
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:33:20 CDT

In article <1992Sep8.215738.27113@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>Roger Collins writes
>> >William December Starr writes
>> >> Don't private schools generally have a lot more leeway than public
>> >> schools in deciding which prospective students to admit and in
>> >> disciplining/expelling troublemakers and poor students?  If so, it
>> >> isn't too surprising that, all other things being equal, the private
>> >> schools turn out a better "product."
>> 
>> You guys say this as if it were bad.  If some kids can't behave, why
>> should any school let them stay and disrupt the rest.
>
>  This goes back to an age-old educational question:  When your tax dollars go  
>into the school system, what do you gain?  The two typical answers are:
>
>        (a)  Your children receive an education.
>        (b)  You enjoy the benefits of living in an educated society.
>
>Obviously, both answers are correct.  But the interests of (b) are not served  
>by simply throwing out the discipline cases.
>
>Regards,
The interests of (b) are also not served by allowing a few students to disrupt
the education of everybody else.  Maybe separate schools should be created to
deal with the disruptive students.


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Some state polls
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:04:34 GMT

Some state polls I've seen over the weekend:

Indiana  Bush 50%  Clinton 41%
Ohio     Clinton 48%  Bush 38%
Texas    Clinton 44%  Bush 42%
Connecticut  Clinton leads Bush by 4 points according to one poll; I
think it was 42% 38%

I see all these polls as good news for Clinton.  Closer than expected in
Indiana, with perhaps a small chance of actually winning.  Bigger than
expected lead in Ohio--a state which the pundits say Bush must win.
Statistically meaningless leads in Texas and CT, but those are states
Bush shouldn't even have to worry about; the more work Bush has to do to
nail down states like this, the better it is for Clinton.  Given news
like this, I can't figure out why the Bush camp is making itself look so
bad in the refusal to accept the debate schedule and format by the
bipartisan committee, especially since candidates who trail generally want to
debate, the more the better. Could it be they're actually afraid of Bush
going one on one with Clinton?

The national polls continue to swing wildly--the latest poll I've seen
is the NBC News/Wall Street Journal which had it Clinton %49  Bush
%40--a gap which seems about right to me.  And a gap which may hold a
bit of good news for Bush.  But the bad news is that despite all the
polls swinging wildly from 2 pt. Clinton leads to 19 pt Clinton leads,
Bush has yet to get over 42% in any of them.  Suggests he has a lot of
work to do.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12674 alt.flame:12653
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:17:00 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep6.153239.18298@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

>BBC, hoping to see GHWB crash and
>burn in November.

Probably will.  Just hope the democrats don't crash and burn our economy :-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:28:37 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:

:>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
:>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
:>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
:>
:>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES 
:>PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  
: 
:... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
: MORE THAN 5%.

I think the key terms to remember here are "party" and "independent 
candidate."  The LP runs many people for a variety of elected positions
each election.  John Anderson (and Ross Perot, for that matter, before
he wimped out) was just one entry on the ballot.  IMHO, that does not
a party make.  Bruce's statement is still correct.

--
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                                     


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:26:58 GMT

Michael Edelman writes:
>Wasn't it just the other day the Bush administration was condemned for
>taking *two* *entire* *days* to ship a few planeloads of supplies to
>florida? And there, he had to deal with Democrats. Iranians should be
>trivial.

  The government mechanism (and, most importantly, the policy) for shipping the  
relief supplies was already in place.  (What Democrats?)

>If you take the giant leap of faith and accept that the new administration
>was in "a big hurry". What would you have recommended? Waiting another two
>months? How long a delay would it take for you to not see some evil cabal
>at work? What's the critical delay that denotes suspicious behavior?
> 
>So the entire "surprise" case now rests, for the critic quoted above, on
>one damning fact: The arms shipments were made "too quickly".

  We're not just talking about setting up the logistical means of shipping the  
arms to Iran; the issue is the quick reversal of policy that allowed it to  
happen.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New (surrogate) poll - 10 Sep 92
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 21:04:35 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:

> So much for the headliner event.  In the "backup" category, we have
> a default winner:
>
> 20.             The Simpsons    10.2
> no-show         The Waltons     ----
>

Not meaning to be overly picky here, but you *can* catch the Waltons, on the
Pat Robertson Network, excuse me, The Family Channel.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13189 talk.politics.misc:45595
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:37:33 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


 
> Can a Perot candidacy do anything other than help Clinton? Supposedly,
> Clinton's pick of Al Gore was predicated on a three-way race and when
> Perot dropped out all the anchorpundits deemed that Clinton's strategy
> was undercut. That assessment changed when Perot all but endorsed the
> Democratic ticket. Even now, his harshest criticism is reserved for
> the current administration.
> 
> Another good indicator of how Perot would affect the race: all of the
> complaints about his behavior (that I've seen anyway) are coming from
> Bush campaign types.

I don't get it, no matter what Perot does he hurts Bush, how is this
possible. When he dropped out it was said this would hurt Bush, now if
he gets back in it will also hurt Bush????

I'll tell you all what will happen, Perot doesn't matter. Bush will hit
Clinton hard in October (he has gotten an easy ride lately from the press
and Bush), the polls will even out and Bush will win!! I don't believe
the polls as they are now, they are closer. It has been shown over and
over again that people vote different than the polls. The North Carolina
Senate race two years is a good example!! Also have you ever noticed that
the republican and democratic polls are quite different.

Ken
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:14:09 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Sep.11.10.33.24.1992.23584@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <JYM.92Aug31090812@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>>>>> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
>>>>> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
>>>>> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

>>>> Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I
>>>> just love the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to
>>>> pretend that their idol always tells the truth.

>>>=o= Read it again.  The 327 figure is *by* *Bush's* *criteria*.

>>Well, that's where Slick Willie's lying.  By Bush's criteria the
>>number is 78 for Reagan and Bush combined.

>You still don't get it do you?  Bush's people did not come up with
>the number 78.  

Correct.  Some independent research group did.

>Clinton is saying that if you apply the formula
>used by Bush to calculate how many times Clinton raised taxes on
>Bush's record, you would come up with 327.

Exactly.  That is a lie.  According to the independent group, cited
above, and which I am researching in response to someone's challenge,
the total Reagan-Bush record by Bush's criteria is 78.

>Clinton is not saying that Bush raised taxes 327 times.  He is trying
>to point out the flaw in Bush's formula.  

Yup.  And I will agree that that formula is flawed.  But that doesn't
mean that Clinton isn't lying.  He is lying because Bush's formula
gives us a count of 78 for Bush, not 327.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mcmanus@wpi.WPI.EDU (Pat McManus)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:22:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.025452.12913@news.Hawaii.Edu> gerard@caliban.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>|> I note with interest that the *minimum* "neither of these" response
>|> above is 8%, and the maximum is a whopping 14%.  While I'd like to
>|> claim that all of these people are going to vote Libertarian, even
>|> I'm not *that* optimistic.  
>
>Wasn't that ultimate in laissez-faire Presidents, Ronald Reagan, the
>epitome of a Libertarian?
>
 Taking that much of my money and spending it on huge military buildups
greatly exceeding that necessary for defense of our own soil hardly is
Libertarian.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'He who governs least, governs best.' - no attribution
Pat McManus '96 CS..... 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections