HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:45:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.155024.19609@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>|> 	How is Bush a tax dodger?
>|> 
>|> 	I've never heard _that_ one before.
>
>	Although Bush has a 18 room house in Maine, his official residance
>is an empty lot in downtown houston (33'x150'). He does this to avoid
>paying any state income taxes. (Maine? Thats his vacation house)
>
>	He has stated, in writing, that after he is done being president,
>he intends to build a house on the property and retire there. In the 
>meantime, he spends an average of 4 days/year in a hotel in texas, or
>rather did until the hotel declared bankrupcy earlier this year.
>
>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services


Apparently the Bush property is also subject to a 'covenant' that makes
it illegal for Bush to sell of give the property to a member of a racial
minority. Source: NYT, week of 8/24, Schanberg column.

Cute, huh?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: jbs21045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joe Sterbenc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Abortion
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:29:38 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Two points:

1) When a baby is conceived, it is one cell. Akin to plankton. To call a cell
   a human being is stretching reason to support an emotional prejudice,
   as if you were calling an acorn an oak tree. The
   day before birth, the baby is fully formed in every way. To call this baby
   inhuman or not-yet-human is equally illogical. Somewhere between these 
   points, a baby "becomes" human. There is great debate as to where. My own
   view, although I'm not unequivocal, bases the definition of life on the
   current definition of death: cessation of normal brain activity. Life, then,
   could be the beginning of normal brain activity. This is normally pegged
   by medical researchers as around three months.

2) If you grant, for the sake of argument, that a baby is human from the moment
   of conception (or even ejaculation), abortion is still a just practice in
   many cases. I will paraphrase an essay describing this later. I personally
   believe that it is the right of all women (with or without spousal consent)
   to evacuate any baby from her body at any time. If the baby is viable at
   this time, then it is moral to preserve its life while doing so. If the baby
   is not, then there is no such moral imperative.

Fire away....
-- 
============================================================================
Joe Sterbenc - jbs21045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu & joe-mama@uiuc.edu - U of Illinois
	How many more days will I have this darling account?
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:14:10 GMT

In article <17u0j8INNa2o@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>What a joke! Freeman started by claiming that Bush left the restrictive
>covenant on his home because it was impossible to remove.

No, Freeman started by claiming such covenants are a non-issue unless
Bush owns property with one.  He pointed out that they're legally void
and ignored by everyone.

When we see Democrats hounding Democrats over such covenants, we'll
know that "Bush owns property with a racist covenant" isn't partisan
whining.  Until they do, hounding Bush over it is merely yet another
example of how Democrats have become their caricature of Republicans.

>Now Freeman claims that Bush left it on as a memorial to American
>racism, like the Germans have a museum about the camps.

Not even close.  I'm claiming only that failing to eradicate
vestigates of racism doesn't have any meaning by itself.  The
"meaning" comes from the intent.  The Germans have an intent and so
does Bush, but that doesn't imply that they have the same intent and I
never suggested that it did.  Lazarus is "misreading" because he
realizes he has to deflect attention from his partisan whining.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:32:20 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug22.140136.22032@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) said:
]
]> Too many people in our society are anti-religious, for reasons that
]> I truly don't understand.
]>
]> Yes... I know of the excesses of the bible beaters, and I have
]> indeed read about the Spanish Inquisition. These are no excuse for
]> the hostility or even hatred for anything related to Christian
]> religion (which seems to be the main target). An odd phenomenon! I
]> guess it is part of the general trend to believe that anything that
]> is traditionally american is ipso facto wrong or bad or stupid.
]
]Speaking for myself, I am "anti-religious" for two primary reasons:
]
](1) It offends my sense of intellect to see people believe in alleged
]facts for which there is and can be no proof.  I want to take these
]people by the lapels and shake them and shout "Are you fucking crazy!
]How can you _believe_ this stuff?"  Stupidity bugs me.

Is this or is this not intolerance? I'm sure that a lot of Christians
fell the same way as you. Why not look at the good side of their
(presumed) delusion: for the most part they attach it to communitarian
values which make them good citizens.

](2) More importantly, it looks to me that if everything that these
]Christian-type religious people believe is true then this God person
]is _the_ all-time major-league #1 asshole of the universe (let's face
]it, the Christian God is not exactly an advocate of individual rights
]and self-determination), yet they all seem to support his claim to be
]the rightful legitimate ruler of everything.  If there really _is_ a
]God, I want him put on trial for crimes against humanity...
Sigh.

]
]Perhaps John Moore can understand this: some of us Americans don't
]like being told that we have to do what somebody else tells us to do
]just because he's got a big stick to hit us with if we disobey him.

Yeah. Neither do I. So f**king what, Bill?

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Aug26.045511.19175@athena.mit.edu> <BtLItq.E54@apollo.hp.com>
	<1992Aug26.191428.24590@den.mmc.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.191428.24590@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug26.045511.19175@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>> The schools are a poor excuse for a father and a mother but in
>> the absence of the real thing what does Federspiel suggest?  
>You've hit the nail on the head.  There isn't a good substitute.  But
>its very unpopular to advocate "traditional family values", isn't it?

This is extremely irrelevant, as "traditional family values", at least
according to the people who are proclaiming them the loudest, explicitely
exclude giving your children a clear, consistent, and realistic message about
sex, but cling to the ideal of innocent virgins (of both genders) learning
everything they ever need to know about sex in the first 15 minutes of their
wedding night.

>Maybe what we need to be doing as a society is rebuilding the
>institutions which encourage families rather than tearing them apart.

Who is tearing families apart?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
  "Rock and Roll adolescent hoodlums storm the streets of all nations."
                            -- William Burroughs, _The Naked Lunch_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:42:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.192400.15892@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com
  (Mitch Sako) writes:

> George Will is a member of the cultural elite and the intelligencia.
> He is an enemy of the right.

Interesting.  From this I glean that only the culturally deprived and ignorant
have the proper qualities to play along with the right.

But we knew that.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same distance |
|  from the sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures where there  |
|  are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, that means there is |
|  oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."                            |
|    -- Vice President James Danforth Quayle, elite non-intellect, 11-AUG-89  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3623 talk.politics.misc:42993 alt.politics.clinton:3620 alt.politics.elections:12044
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:10:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Aug30.180554.17290@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:

>(And before anyone comes back on Clinton's draft record, at least he has a
>reason: he opposed the war.

Would you care to elaborate on this?  If he was opposed to the war, then
why did he join ROTC?
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:45:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: plague-ether.berkeley.edu

Watch out for Cuomo on the Supreme Court Bench!!!  Of course, voting
for one president will make that possibility much more likely.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Aug25.211735.6176@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<BtMGKw.H6E@newcastle.ac.uk>
	<1992Aug27.184757.15050@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:19:19 GMT

In article <BtMGKw.H6E@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Bush is at least interested in a freeze on borrow and spend, with a
>>move toward a decrease.  While we can argue about how possible that
>>decrease is, Clinton is asking for an INCREASE in borrow and spend;
>>the tax increases won't pay for the increased spending.
>>
>>We've effectively followed the Clinton policy since 1990.  Is more of
>>the same going to to do any better?
>
>So since 1990 the US has been investing in education and infrastructure?

	Here in Virginia about 45% of the entire state budget
goes into education, which is a big chunk of money per classroom.
The problem is not enough money but too many high paid
administrators and too few well paid, exceptional teachers.  When
Governor Wilder finally made some steps toward a better school
system by cutting a whole slew of administrators, everyone
screamed at him for cutting education.  People need to learn that
good education does not come from a good curriculum or a lot of
special programs, but it comes from the teachers on the front
line encouraging kids along with presenting information and
making them realize what they can do.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3282 talk.politics.misc:42518 alt.politics.clinton:3324 alt.politics.elections:11814
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
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: 28 Aug 92 12:53:07 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug27.234117.12779@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.130822.8001@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
> >In article <1992Aug26.190745.10678@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
> 
> ...I would be strongly opposed to presenting
> >a positive view of promiscuity from an ethical standpoint though.  To do
> >so would undermine our values system.
> 
> 	Why's that?
> 
> 	Explain why having sex with lots of different people is
> EQUIVALENT, yes, EQUIVALENT to (let's say) beating people up just for
> the fun of it.

It's not equivalent and I never said it was.  Some things are more wrong
than others.  That's why different crimes receive different punnishments
in our judicial system.


> 	_I_ don't consider promiscuity to be morally wrong, any more
> than I consider Russian roulette to be morally wrong.

Fine, but I still posit that you are in the minority here.


> 	And why is it ONLY abstinence or promiscuity out of marriage?
> 	What about sex between unmarried lovers?
> 	Or does Richard Doel classify that as "promiscuity"?

Abstinence is only spoken of in unmarried terms because there is little
or no reason for married couples to remain abstinent.

Also, my personal definition of promiscuity is of little value.  I
suspect that there are certain behaviors however that a large majority
of Americans would consider promiscuous.   For example, most people would
consider someone who had sex with more than one person in one day to be
exhibiting promiscuous behavior.  Most people (myself included) would
not consider sex between unmarried lovers (assuming an ongoing relationship
here) to be promiscuous.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 1992 18:16:37 -0400 
From: "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Michigan remarks

While I sympathize with the people of Michigan, especially the
autoworkers, something Bush said has immensely troubled me.  Bush is
vehemently against Clinton's plan to make it mandatory for engines to be
more fuel-efficient in a few years.  Bush claims that this will have a
negative effect on jobs, and that he would fight against any such moves.
 It seems ironic to me that the president of the nation that has been
such a producer of ideas that bettered the quality of life is now
fighting against standards (that could be implemented yesterday if not
for politics) that represent the natural process of achievement. 
Greater efficiency engines are only the natural next step in the
betterment of the automotive industry.  Should we ignore advances in
technology to save jobs?  Where would we be today if the wheel's
implementation had been blocked because of a fear that some manual
laborers would lose their jobs?  Bush's sentiments, while sensitive to
the presidential race and to the workers, directly contradict the trend
of human civilization to better itself.  This scares me, knowing that he
is at the helm of the only superpower remaining on the earth. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Subject: Endangered Species and fertility (was Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:27:49 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug29110417@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>Actually, the environementalists are the ones bending the law.  The fact
>is that the Spotted Owl is not a separate species.  It is a subspecies.
>The Northern Spotted Owl mates with another owl and produces fertile
>offspring.  The production of FERTILE offspring the the critical factor
>in deciding if two animals are of the same species.  The use of the
>Spotted Owl as an "endangered species" is a sham to preserve the old
>growth forests.  Now, I am quite in favor of saving the old growth
>forests, we have precious little left, but make no mistake about it, the
>use of the spotted owl is a sham.
>

Actually, the definition of what entails a "species" has been a subject
of debate for sometime.  The general consensus is that a species is a
group of animals that mate and reproduce IN THE WILD.  There are many
examples of different "species" that can mate and produce fertile
offspring when they mate in captivity, etc.  However, if they do not
mate in the wild they then represent entirely separate gene pools.
These separate gene pools are then separate pockets of diversity in the
biological kingdom.

-bert smith

--
Overheard on the net: "George Bush said in 1988 that if I voted for
Dukakis, the economy would go to hell, crime would go up, and the
deficit would grow.  Bush was right -- I voted for Dukakis and look what
happened." 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:27:47 GMT
 <oo94688@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> <1992Aug26.135803.10046@sinix.UUCP>  
 <94615@bu.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0d56@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <94615@bu.edu>
grue@csa.bu.edu (Philip Libin) writes:

> It's really quite simple.  The Republican party is a coalition of
> people who REALLY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER.  The supposed rationale or
> "philosophy" is as follows.
> 
> 	1) Let people do whatever they want.
> 	2) Hold them responsible for it.
> 
> Now this might not sound like a bad program.  In fact, I've always
> tended to like this approach.  If you'll pardon the shallow analogy, 
> it's sort of like programming in C.

This used to be the case, many years ago.  If it was still, I'd
probably be a Republican.  Unfortunately, it's been supplanted with:

 	1) Let large businesses do whatever they want.
 	2) Don't hold them responsible for it.

I'm afraid the Republican's "C" turned to COBOL long ago.
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Re: more predictions
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:28:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Just wanted to fix up a factual error.   A while ago on one of these
lists (I forget if it was the clinton or bush list) someone looked up
the records and posted the actual dem/rep populations of the senate for
the eighties...

In the 1980 election the senate did get a republican majority, and it
became a democratic majority in the 1986 election...  look it up if
you want to, but the person who posted it did have a reference, so it
wasn't just their memory that we were relying on.


	John


(And as a side note, Reagan did have a working majority of the house
for a while there, (though this is just memory, not facts so don't
accept it as truth without corroboration) with the Republicans and the
conservative democrats.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Anti-Bush/Slandering Bush/Songs
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:13:50 GMT

In article <181pndINN14h@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
-> 
-> Yes, it is finally out.  Anti-Bush (in a way) music.  Currently, two
-> Bush songs (taking samples of George Bush completely out of context to
-> the techno beat) are on the air.  Anyone heard of a song called
-> Bushwhack?
-> 
-> Also, since the song (or the other Bush song) sampled George Bush and put
-> his words together to form complete lies like 'aggression is just as it is
-> right,' who would win?   "Artistic expression" or will the libel and
-> slander laws (if it applies) prevail here?
-> 

	Bush may be able to win a slander case, but if any
presidential candidate sued everyone that lied about them, they would
be in court the entire election.  It's part of the territory.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Anti-Bush/Slandering Bush/Songs
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 20:18:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <JASON.92Sep3151350@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <181pndINN14h@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>-> 
>-> Yes, it is finally out.  Anti-Bush (in a way) music.  Currently, two
>-> Bush songs (taking samples of George Bush completely out of context to
>-> the techno beat) are on the air.  Anyone heard of a song called
>-> Bushwhack?
>-> 
>-> Also, since the song (or the other Bush song) sampled George Bush and put
>-> his words together to form complete lies like 'aggression is just as it is
>-> right,' who would win?   "Artistic expression" or will the libel and
>-> slander laws (if it applies) prevail here?
>-> 
>
>	Bush may be able to win a slander case, but if any
>presidential candidate sued everyone that lied about them, they would
>be in court the entire election.  It's part of the territory.
>--
>Jason C. Austin
>j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


I doubt if anyone outside of the bay area has heard Bushwhacked, since it's 
a homemade tape someone gave to a radio station here in San Francisco.

also, slander doesn't really apply since no one ever claims that el presidento
vomito ever actually said what is on the tape... it could be a comedian 
impersonator etc etc etc.  Very hard to attack w/ a slander case.


The song is GREAT, however... the music kinda reminds me of the song 
U2 by Negativland (but more techno in a bubblegum sorta way) and the
samples flow together seamlessly.  I especially like the part that goes

"Try drugs.  Use drugs.  I propose an amendment that would require every
school, every business to employ a policy of mandantory drug use by students
and employees." 

-or something like that.  These words are very funny when it sounds
like good ol' one-term is saying them.

-H
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
"Jesus Christ, How many people does it TAKE to kill the President?"
		-John Dillinger, in _Illuminatus!_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3577 alt.politics.clinton:3574 alt.politics.marrou:956 alt.politics.perot:1372