HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:33:58 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <l9pv66INNl3a@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Michael Doel) writes:
>|> james.a.parker) writes:
>|>
>|> Perhaps you don't understand what I mean when I talk about our traditional
>|> values system.  I'm not including anything about Jesus Christ being the
>|> son of God, or don't eat meat on the Fridays of Lent, or any other
>|> RELIGIOUS belief or practice.  Our values system is much more fundamental
>|> than that.  Despite what you say, I think there are traditional values that
>|> just about everyone would agree with:
>|>
>|> 	good things:                   bad things:
>|> 	   honesty                       cheating
>|> 	   responsibility                stealing
>|> 	   hard work                     unprovoked violence
>|>            the "golden rule"             promiscuity
>|>
>|> and so on.  Some people will try to put controversial things in one category
>|> or another (e.g. Pat Robertson and the like would surely put homosexuality
>|> in the bad things category), but for the most part people agree on most
>|> categorizations.
>|>
>|> I believe that we as a society usually suffer when things move out of one
>|> category and into the nebulous middle.  There are exceptions of course,
>|> but I don't think that condoning promiscuity is one of them.  You are
>|> free to disagree.
>|>
>I'll disagree.  Why is promiscuity necessarily bad?  It does not violate
>or interfere with others, it is not inconsistent with your list of "good
>things," and it is impossible to define.

While we're on the subject, what *is* promiscuity? The best definition I ever
heard (during an AIDS lecture in med school) was "someone who's had more
sexual partners than I have."

Later,

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Improve the Polls
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:40:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu


There are tons of ways to imrpove polling, but I was thinking...

Instead of polling popularity nationwide, I say put a greater concentration
on states.  Students of the Election process know that popular votes don't
necessarily put the President on top.

In each state, there should be lots of detailed information concerning the
vote. Using this information, calculate a probability that a certain
candidate will win that state.  Factors include the gap between the 
candidates, how committed are the voters, the undecided vote, the
traditional leanings of the voters in that state, the number of 
Democrat/Republican registerd votesrs, the percent of voter loyalty to
a party, the uncertainty factor and many many others.

with this information, calculate:
  Probable # of electoral votes = Sum of (Electoral Votes (particular state)*
					   Probability that candidate will
					   win that state).

270 or greater will win the election.

If only somebody did this for us...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Pornography Platform?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:20:25 GMT


    What is the official Republican stance on Pornography? Is there any
mention of it in the Platform, or official policy statments?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Offended at being called
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:46:50 GMT

In article <17ga7uINN816@agate.berkeley.edu> 
gemmell@drum.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Gemmell) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Why not add "obesity" to discrimination clauses?  Or how about
>> "ugliness" or "smelliness"?   Fat, ugly, and smelly people face 
>> far more overt job and housing discrimination than homosexuals.  
>> And unlike homosexuals, they can't hide their handicap. 

> With the possible exception of fat people, I don't think that 
> there are so many people from these categories who are being hurt.
> In other words, let's deal with the most important problems first.

But there are many fat, ugly, and smelly people being hurt by
job discrimination.  Suppose a fat and ugly person wanted to 
be an airline attendant or a salesperson at a department
store.  They probably couldn't even get an interview.  But a
gay person could.  I don't think you can support gay rights
legislation without also supporting fat and ugly rights
legislation. 


>Pete


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Bush: Jets fly in 24 hours
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:56:13 GMT

Bush intends to start shooting Iraqi aircraft in 24 hours.
I guess he saw the poll report in the NYTimes this morning.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:09:07 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Fonts of Wisdom
 <STEINLY.92Aug31175430@topaz.ucsc.edu>
 <1992Sep2.201439.9800@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>

In article <1992Sep2.201439.9800@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu
(Jules D. Gliesche) says:
>
>In article <STEINLY.92Aug31175430@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu      n
>(Stein
>Sigurdsson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.193504.28134@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>   [anyone want to do, say, Buchanan, Pat Robertson or Mr. Marrou? :-)]
>>
>>Marrou: Kid wants water she can go buy a glass! Or maybe some rich
>>philanthrope type will pay to fix it; if not, we'll round up the
>>neighbours and fix it ourselves, but then no outside weirdos get
>>to drink our water or we'll blow 'em away.
>>
>Come on now...if we're gonna lampoon Libertarians at least give a good,
>typical
>Libertarian answer:
>
>Marrou: I think we need to look at why this fountain is broken. It's because
>this is a fountain paid for with stolen taxpayer loot and maintained by an
>unresponsive, dictatorial government. Now, if we PRIVATIZED all the water
>fountains in America - then the owners would have a vested interest in
>making sure they worked, and the increased competition amongst water fountain
>services would assure that this little girl could always find a working one
>to drink from.
>
>Hmm...kinda makes sense in way....:-)

People without money - well, they go without water.

Makes sense in a kinda *sick* way....;->

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                   -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:31:47 GMT


>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
 
>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
 >              For those with short memories, go look at what
 >              the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
 >              He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
 >              they invaded Afghanistan. And then there were our
 >              hostages in Iran. And Cubans in Angola. And Soviet
 >              advisors in Central America. Libya's Qaddaffi was
 >              also openly supporting state-sponsored terrorism.
 
>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
 >              During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
 >                 "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
 >              Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
 >              increase for any state, in the entire history of our country,
 >              all WITHIN SIX MONTHS. He never apologized or attempted to
 >              say why. NJ residents are generally *furious* with Jim and
 >              his party.

Boy you really nailed that one. We should never vote to reelect
a president who presides over a troubled economy or on whose
watch, or who raised taxes although he said he woulnd't.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 06:36:55 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:

> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
> >>  Read "Starship Trooper", by Robert A. Heinlein.
>
> >Were Kohl, Miyazawa and Thatcher elected for their military records?
> >Was Reagan?
>
>   No, they weren't elected _for_ their records, if they have them.
> However, who would you trust more : a slick politician, or a slick politician
> who risked his life for his country?  The military service issue has
> always been strong in the US, for good reason.

Yes, but Bush is by no means slick.  He's a cynical liar, a nasty old man.
While truth has not been a strong character point in many of our politicians,
lying to the point where it insults even the intelligence of the average voter,
the common denominator, is pushing things a bit too far.

>
> >Also, doesn't Heinlein argue that civil/public service should be a
> >requisite for voting, with the military the most honorable?  Clinton's
> >record of public service is not exactly negligible.
>
>   No- only veterans can vote, and only voters can run for public
> office.
>

Actually, Clinton's public service plan is quite close to Heinlein's Federal
Service.  In SST, if you volunteered for a term in the service, they had to do
something with you.  We don't have anyone to fight right now, so Clinton's idea
of covering the college costs for those who become cops or teachers for a while
is quite similar.



|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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:53:25 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep1.003934.5476@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <cluther.715298240@morticia> cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther) writes:
>
> 	[bush should have sent troops in early, deleted]
>
> >If Mr. Bush had done this, he would have been in deeper shit.  Every anti-
> >Bush critter would crawl out from the woodwork and proclaim Bush's total
> >disregard for states rights and federal law.
>
> 	I don't think so. It would be hard to make the charges stick, since
> Bush would be acting soley for the good of the people, as opposed to personal
> or political gain. When he held a press conferance a week later and said,
> "Yes, I made a mistake, but I was so concerned that I was overwelmed with
> passion for the suffering, and decided to forsake protocol in this one case."
> Ronald Reagan could have made that fly without cue card, and so could bush
> if he once ounce of political sense.
>

Sorry, alex.  But as you have demonstrated by your several posts on this
subject, Bush would be attacked for the most ridiculous of charges.  Give
his enemies, such as yourself, a legitimate charge, and you'd keep your
mouth shut?  I doubt it.

Alex, you couldn't be more wrong.  But if your attitude is typical of liberals,
I guess the constitution is something to be spit upon.

"Berlin Wall Falls.  3 Border Guards Killed.  Alex Crain blames George Bush."
	-- me, with a little help from a friend.

>
> --
>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
> The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that
> encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice
> witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: NAFTA IS GOOD ...
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:28:08 GMT

In <1992Aug26.171912.7163@brtph560.bnr.ca> jsimon writes:

>Good points of NAFTA:

>1. By moving the manufacturing base of US & Canada to Mexico,
>   cost of production of goods can be redused so much that
>   US can be extremely competetive in the international market,
>   thus boosting exports and, ofcourse, _profit margins_, _dividends_
>   of American investors.

Ever consider that Canadians (and Mexicans, but I'll let them speak
for themselves) aren't really thrilled with the prospect of "moving"
our manufacturing base (jobs, jobs, jobs, NOT) to the US so you can be
"extremely competative"? Gosh, aren't we just generous with our
economies for the same of America the Beautiful.

>2. On the whole there will be more money flowing into America.

At Canada's expense. Thanks a bunch.

>3. Increase the standard of living of Mexican people, increase
>   the buying power and hence the market and economy of Mexico.

Again, at Canadian expense. We spend 125 years building this country,
and its all gonna be stolen to the Rio Grande.

>Negative Points:

>1. Since 90% of NAFTA economy is that of the US, it makes no
>   sense to have a free trade agreement with a thirld world
>   nation.

Cheer up. In about five years, this free trade agreement will be with
*two* third world nations. One is south, and the other you are
creating in the north.

>2. Jobs lost will be immense. Retraining of workers to do the
>   hi-tech jobs of the future can not be matched to the rate of
>   low-tech jobs lost. It will be costly and the results can not
>   seen too soon. Because, the entire educational, vocational, technical
>   infrastructures have to be revamped and that will take time.

No kidding jobs will be lost. Canada has already lost a ton of jobs to
the states under the Canada-US FTA. Ain't it interesting too that the
Canadian government has *zero* money for job re-training? Nice
planning, guys.

>ONLY HOPE IS that the proponents to TRICKLE DOWN economics ensure
>that the huge profits made will surely tricke down, else
>average middle class Americans, God save y'all!!

Nice to see you're only concerned with middle class Americans. This
deal will affect Canada and Mexico a whole lot more (negatively) than
it ever will the States.

>NAFTA is along the same lines as lower taxes for the rich, capital
>gains tax reduction, S&L and so on....

>                NAFTA _IS_ GOOD FOR THE WEALTHY!!!!!

That's the firt thing in this post that made sense. Perhaps not all
hope is lost yet.

Michael
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3151 alt.politics.clinton:3215
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: woody allen
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:01:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug27.132735.3504@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>In article <26AUG199223341067@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>> 
>> Like any other american, woody allen is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
>> 
>
>only if you're a bleeding heart LIBERAL.

No, only if you believe in the American justice system.

-- 
Ameet A. Raval
    "I can identify with workers that have had a difficult time." -- DQ
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3992 alt.politics.elections:12350 alt.politics.clinton:3954
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <16856B98B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
>And again this silly claim that spending money is going to help the economy!
>We know this is ridiculous for a number of reasons. For one, we know that
>spending doesn't improve education. That's been established by many studies.

Spending money certainly does improve education.  Not spending it randomly -
it has to be spent well, but there are certain badly needed changes in our
educational system that require money.  Many school are understaffed, and the
teachers are often underpaid.  I met a high school teacher who told me that
he has to have all different levels of students in his physics class, because
the school can only afford to have one physics class.  Now don't tell me that
this is a situation conducive to effective teaching.  It's a poor situation,
because you'll either have the slower students in over their heads, or you'll
have the brighter students sitting there bored out of their minds, or both.
The only way to effectively teach the subject is to have different sections
for different levels, and to have that you have to pay the teacher to be
there for more than one class, and to do that you need to SPEND MORE MONEY.
It's so obvious that a child could understand it - but not a taxpayer, or
worse yet, a politician.  Then there's the fact that the most qualified
people are for the most not going into teaching, because they can make much
more money in industry.  In order to get better teachers in the schools, you
need to offer teachers better salaries, and in order to do that you need to
SPEND MORE MONEY ON EDUCATION.  I'm not saying that there aren't reforms
that are needed, and things on which educational costs could be cut.  But we
need to address the serious lack of resources from which many of our public
schools are suffering.  There are basic, obvious problems in our schools that
can be solved by spending more money.

I'm going to try and find an article I read which discussed the Head Start
program, a very successful program that saves society money and anguish in
the long term, a program which has yet to be fully funded.  If anyone else
knows anything about it in the meantime, a post would be welcome.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:13:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug30.221319.2770@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) wrote:
> 
> 
>  Is there a Republican out there willing to defend the appointment
> of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court? He is the judicial 
> equivalent of dragging drunks to the polls on election day, to
> the point of physically helping them pull the lever. He is 
> additionally a slap in the face to African-Americans, by 
> condescenscion. Are conservatives proud of the law he makes?
> Did he ask a question this term? I would be embarrassed to have
> this man defending my ideology.

Define: Qualified.

Was Earl Warren "qualified?"  I don't think he was even a judge.
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Email address needed: Rush Limbaugh
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:01:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <17lup3INN8tr@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>Also, while you are at it, does anyone know the email addresses of
>our President, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Perot, Mr. Quayle, etc. etc. etc.?


The e-add. for Clinton HQ is 75300.3115@compuserve.com
The e-add. for Mr. Quayle is toon.town.com


Stan Knight
This is the .sig that I wrote so I could have a .sig just the .sig of the
Gary Shandling show!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: That darn 128 number Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:00:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.151348.1869@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.181543.2551@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>Reading the same story in multiple places merely demonstrates that
>>it's been printed in multiple places.  That isn't "verification",
>>especially with an incestuous press that believes itself.
>>
>So are you saying you think the story about Bush distorting Clinton's
>tax record ("128" tax hikes) is bogus? Do you believe that claiming
>Clinton raised taxes 128 times was an honest statement for Bush to make?
>And that only the horribly liberally biased media, including the Wall Street
>Journal, are doing the distorting?
>
>Andy, will you believe absolutely *anything* Bush says, or what?

Mary Matalin, that past master of the oh-so-subtle verbal jab,
recently put out another fax defending the 128 number.  Anyone have a
copy?

--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:23:12 GMT

lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:


>Someone else's morals don't have to be imposed. In fact, that's the
>whole point of original poster: people shouldn't impose their morals
>on anyone else. We live in a society, and the main job of society is
>to protect its members both from outside attack, or from other members.
>(When a society starts to protect you from yourself it is starting to
>become a totalitarian society). In your example, society has the obligation
>to stop you because it is protecting its members. It does not have the
>right to stop two consenting people from having sex because no one
>needs to be protected here. Since the sex is consensual, no one's rights
>are being violated. You are free to follow your own morals, as long as
>you don't violate the rights of others in the society. This simple restriction
>is the price to pay to have your rights protected. Which of your rights
>are being violated when someone is promiscious?

Golly gee!  That's it!  A man who sleeps around on his wife isn't
committing adultery, he's merely following his own morals!  And as long
as he doesn't contract and then pass along AIDS to his wife, she should
have no complaints, since he was just pursuing pleasure.

I can see it clearly now, thanks!
John

>Brian Lintz
>lintz@udel.edu 
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush