HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:28:11 GMT

In article <athos-020992085859@kip2-59.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <BtxI4F.H40@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
>(Larry Jewell) wrote:
>
>> Tell me, why would he have to submit a request BEFORE the federal machinery
...
>> a field researcher in a bloody Toyota in Central Africa.)
>
>The troops *were* ready.  Moving Troops DOES take some time, ya know.  They
>were there within 24 hours of the request.  What do you people think,
>troops can be dispatched at a moments notice?

 I did 16 years in the Navy, hauling grunts around the world, so I know the
logistical demands of the situation.  Again, and until you answer the question
I ask "Why did it take so long to get the troops moving?"  24 hours?  That's
the time it took Andrew to move from the outlying islands to the coast of
Florida.  As soon as the weather was clear enough for the choppers to move
in, they should have been landing.  The Governor should have been able to
look over his shoulder and say "Tell the President, just in case he hasn't
been watching CNN, that we've had a major natural disaster here, and would
he please send help?"  This did not happen through leadership failure, once
again.

> 
>> The only reason I can think of is that he doesn't have a grip on anything 
>> but the election, much to the detriment of the Southern United States.

>Oh, please.  The man can't sneeze without you people (to use a Perotism)
>calling it an election-year ploy.  If you'd get off his back, perhaps he'd
>be able to actually do his job. 

 That would be a major policy shift!

>Does your boss ride your ass as much as you ride the President's?

 Exactly how is this germane to the conversation?
(BTW, my boss expects me to keep him informed, and up-to-date.  Maybe George
could have a talk with my boss about how to stay in touch with the real
world.  My boss could probably help [my NIECE could probably help George
with this.])
>
>--
>Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
>Apple's)
>athos@apple.com

Larry J

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why is there Federal Disaster Relief?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 06:29:03 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:

>
> The point is this: I don't see how the risk of having your house blown
> down by a hurricane is that difference from the risk of unemployment,
> illness, or even unwanted pregnancy. No one seems to question aid to
> hurricane victims (which I support), yet the same logic applies to these
> other cases. What am I missing?
> ---- Kevin.

What you're missing is that a hurricane is an act of God in the eyes of many of
a Republican and insurance company.  In the eyes of 'Rubbers' Bush, you can get
re-trained and get another job, you can not get sick (or stay at a job that has
health insurance), and you can not have sex.  God, however, chooses where
hurricanes go (except the ones that Pat Robertson has been able to deflect by
sheer force of will), so it doesn't fall with the other things you've
mentioned.

We got lucky here in New Orleans this time.  I've pay for flood insurance on my
house, however.  My house (along with most every home in SE LA) is built to
much stronger specs than in many areas.  Also, many of the folks in FL that are
now looking for that assistance were in mobile homes.  That's another Bush
no-no.  You should be able to afford a home like his in Kennebunkport.  You
know, the kind so big that you have to lie about your legal residency so you
can skip out on property taxes on your primary residence?



|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|
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Please clean up acts
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:21:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep1.131731.6418@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>"if knowledge was common, he wouldn't have said something so FUCKING STUPID"
>(approximate words used in recent post)
>
>Once again, I implore net-users to be able to rise above the petty name-calling


These were my ignomious words, I already apologized to Mr. Borden and now I
apologize to anyone else I may have offended.

-Howard Berkey
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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:3598 alt.politics.clinton:3599 alt.politics.elections:12031 talk.religion.misc:15291
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:29:14 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:

>  "Dozens of religious leaders have complained to the Presidential candidates,
>especially President Bush and the Republican Party, about the injection of
>religion in to the campaign, saying the partisan use of God's name is
>blasphemy.

    Ahh, the "cultural elite" speaks again!   :)

    No doubt Danno will blast them for being out of touch on this one!  
(Remember, anyone who disagrees with the Bush/Quayle team is a godless 
anti-american liberal...by definition.)

   I'll bet those religious leaders even believe in helping the poor 
and living in peace and harmony.  What losers!  They should get a life
and embrace the Republican view of family values... I'll bet they don't
even have kids!    1/2 :)

Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:03:30 GMT

In article <5994@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu alt.politics.elections:10406 alt.fan.dan-quayle:585 talk.politics.guns:25189 talk.politics.misc:52873
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bu.edu!transfer!sw.stratus.com!cdt
>From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
>Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
>Message-ID: <5994@transfer.stratus.com>
>Date: 28 Aug 92 19:04:19 GMT
>References: <1992Aug26.135803.10046@sinix.UUCP> <1992Aug26.225301.24877@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <17hesjINNgqc@agate.berkeley.edu> <94800@bu.edu> <PA146008.261.715017540@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Sender: usenet@transfer.stratus.com
>Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
>Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
>Lines: 31
>In article <PA146008.261.715017540@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>> >Let me explain the intricate inner-workings of the gun "black market".
>
>> >1)  Get into a van.
>> >2)  Drive to Florida
>> >3)  Buy several score of assorted fire arms
>
>>      Felony number one.  (And probably two since you'll have to forge
>> a Florida ID.)
>
>> >4)  Load them into said van.
>> >5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and
>
>>      Felony number three.
>
>> >6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).
>
>>      Felony number four.     
>
>> >It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
>> >QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.
>
>>      Perhaps they would affect *this* avenue. 
>
>But why the hell would you concede that?  You just SHOWED how FOUR 
>laws "restricting the legal sale of arms" DIDN'T affect a damn thing.
>Why should five, or eight, or 22 do any better?

     Let me rephrase:  If legal sales were eliminated, then it is
very unlikely the above scenerio would occur.  That is, making legal
sales illegal would prevent abuses of the system for legally
acquiring firearms.
     
     This, for the most part, is irrelevent, as other sources (smuggling,
theft from police and military) would likely more than make up for the
shortfall, as the war on drugs has shown.  (Demand precceds supply. 
Attempting to eliminate the supply will not eliminate demand, and in some
cases actually increases it.)

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Fall of Communism
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:43:07 -0500
Summary: "anyway"
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

When Bush claims that the Fall of Communism is complete, he isn't quite in
touch with reality.  After all, he is the biggest ally of the despotic Chinese
government, their biggest prop-up against their own corruption.

But when Bush (and Reagen) take all of the credit for the Fall, they are either
willfully ignoring facts or suffers from a severe lack of ability to see them.

1)  The actions of the peoples of countries like Poland, Lithuania, Estonia,
Czechoslovakia, etc, may have had just a little to do with the changes.

2)  The US did almost nothing to support the movements in those countries until
everything was settled.  Maybe it wouldn't have been prudent to move sooner.

3)  Gorby himself has to be given a little credit.  In spite of some mistakes,
he certainly did a lot less of the "rolling out the tanks bit" than Brezhnev or
Stalin would have gone in for in similar cases.

4)  The policy of containment (embraced by every President since the 40's,
including Bush and Reagen) says that Communism will/would fall under its own
weight.

5)  Georgi Asparov (sp?), adviser on foreign policy to several Premiers, claims
that RR's build-up may have actually delayed the fall by giving hardliners a
reason to work harder.  (By the way, if "constructive engagement" is right
w/China, was was the Soviet Union not dealt with that way?  Or, conversely, why
isn't China an "evil empire"?)

6)  Even if the bankrupting strategy should be given partial credit in leading
to the Fall, its aftermath of ruined economies has increased the problems in
that area of the world.  Remember, some of those former republics still have
nukes.  

7)  If you argue "their economies would have been bad anyway", I agree. 
Communism bit/bites.  But then you also have to agree that the arms race helped
make it worse, and you should see that the "anyway" position also applies to
the Fall.

8)  The truth is, neither party can claim full credit.  In fact, neither party
should even try to claim a majority of the credit, because most of the work
wasn't done by us.  

Bush can rightfully be thankful for things like the fall of the Berlin Wall
(although right when it happened he didn't much seem to care).  But this
co-opting of credit shouldn't really go on.







Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3188 talk.politics.misc:42352 alt.politics.clinton:3248 alt.politics.elections:11751
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: 27 Aug 92 18:53:50 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <NEERI.92Aug27184932@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.181455.7405@crd.ge.com> doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
> >In article <NEERI.92Aug26163447@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
> >
> >> People won't like saying they have to give up something they
> >> like in order to solve a problem.  Instead, they say, "lets preach abstinence
> >> so they can have the best of both worlds: health and morality."  That's fine.
> >> But it's blood on their hands every time someone is impregnated or infected
> >> with some sexually communicated disease because of unprotected sex.
> >
> >So every time "someone is impregnated or infected with some sexually
> >communicated disease because of unprotected sex", it's the fault of those
> >who encourage abstinence?  What about the people who chose to have the
> >unprotected sex?
> 
> The important word here is "chose". You advocate policies to *hinder* choice by
> making access to contraceptives more difficult.

I advocate the status quo with regard to accessability of contraceptives.  It
is the pro-condom distributors group is is advocating polices which make
it easier to get contraceptives.  At least, this is true so long as most
schools aren't passing out condoms.



> >People who encourage abstinence are in no way responsible for those who
> >chose to have unprotected sex.
> 
> Suppose that I, as a radical bicycle activist, would decide to encourage
> abstinence from motorized traffic by forbidding schools to educate children
> about traffic lights and about the need to watch out for cars before crossing
> astreet. Would you seriously claim that I were in no way responsible for the
> results of such a policy?
> 
> >People show their values in their actions.
> >If their actions include unprotected sex, then it's certainly not the
> >fault of the people who discourage those things.
> 
> It's not the fault of people who discourage unprotected sex, but it's partially
> the fault of people who discourage teaching about protection.

Show me one post where I advocated that schools not teach about
contraception.  You won't find any because I don't believe it.  I think
schools SHOULD teach about contraception.  I also think the schools
should emphasize abstinence as the best (in terms of effectiveness) way
to avoid STD's and pregnancy.  I imagine that already goes on.  I just
think that a school which then hands out condoms undermines the message
of abstinence.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:52:15 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Aug24132320@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.055327.21185@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>>In a previous article, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>>Because certain US subpopulations have third-world infant mortality
>>>rates and one can pick countries that don't have those subpopulations.
>>>(The US isn't a nice uniform "industrial" country.  It is a unique
>>>geographic collection of first, second, and third world communities.)
>>>We know that pre-natal care is the difference between 3rd and 1st
>>>world infant mortality rates.
>>[...]
>>Also, I was under the misconception that the phrase "second world"
>>referred to nations living under the communist system. Maybe you
>>could give me some examples of communities in the U.S. that live
>>under that system.
>
>I've been told that Berkeley is considered by some as such a community :-)
>
>Matthias

I believe that any resident in the dormitory or student aprtment of a major
public University is in a situation much more similar to life under a
Communist government. The leaders are all appointed by higher ups, and
private enterprise is allowed only to the extent that it does not compete
with the state industries.y. 

Berkeley, of course, is quite similar to many Socialist governments. :)






B
B


Oh and about that triple >>>'d paragraph, nice apology for racism, asshole :(
A
A



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:57:52 GMT

In <4845@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>%foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>%> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>%> >	2) Handing out condoms encourages their use.  Before yelling
>%> >	   "no it doesn't" ask yourself if you think we should be handing
>%> >	   out IV needles in the schools for all the kids to use when
>%> >	   shooting up.  Should we teach them to use the needles
>%> >	   properly so they can avoid disease?
>%> 
>%> Yes of course it encourages their use. The important question is does
>%> it encourage sexual behavior. I doubt very seriously that you can come up
>%> with a valid study that shows this.
>%
>%That's what I meant (that it encourages sexual behavior).  You're right in
>%that I can't quote a study which proves this, but I don't think I need one.
>%It's just common sense.  Do you know of studies which indicate that
>%sexual activity is not affected in any way if condoms are handed out?

>There have been studies done (I can't recall where, but I think in LA
>and NY were the sites) that were mentioned on the network a few times.
>Though no data were presented, the posters stated that there was clearly
>a correlation between the introduction of the distribution of condoms
>and teenage pregnancies among female students. 

COMMERCE CITY, Colo.--As at most high schools across the nation, being
a pregnant teen at Adams City High used to be a social death sentence.

That was before AIDS, safe sex and condoms became household words and
teen pregancy came out of the closet. And it was before this
progressive school in a struggling community became the first in the
state to adopt a controversial teen parenting program.

"Now people won't even look at you twice," says student Lisa Gomez,
17, who isn't a teen parent but has plenty of friends who are.

But people are looking twice at the parenting program. Reason: in the
three years since this high school became one of the nation's first to
hand out condoms, the birth rate has soared to 31 percent above the
national average of 58.1 births per 1,000 students.

Last year, 76 of Adams City students became teen mothers. This year,
more than 100 births are expected. That's left people at this school,
recognized throughout Colorado for its cutting-edge educational and
social programs, searching for explanations. (USA TODAY; 92/95/19)































Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:21:26 GMT

grue@csa.bu.edu (Philip Libin) writes:

>In article <17hesjINNgqc@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:

>>5/6 of the guns used in crimes come from the black market. Please explain
>>to me how laws governing _legal_ sales of guns will affect _illegally_
>>obtained guns.


>Let me explain the intricate inner-workings of the gun "black market".


>1)  Get into a van.
>2)  Drive to Florida

 The start of a possibly OK vacation...

>3)  Buy several score of assorted fire arms

 Ooops, the dealers won't sell to you because you are from out of state.
They are bound by federal law from selling to someone not a resident of
the state they are in. 

 If you could buy you would be reported to the BATF for buying more than
one handgun in a week (7 days). Your plan is falling apart...

>4)  Load them into said van.

 This will require breaking into the gunstore and stealing the guns. It
is just as easy (and more profitable) to break into the local national
guard wharehouses than to drive across several states to break into
small gunstores. The NG wharehouses have full autos, the little gunstore
probably won't and if they do will have very few.

>5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and

 Stolen merchandise across state lines, transporting firearms across
state lines with intent to sell without a federal firearms license...

 You are racking up quite a collection of felonies here...

>6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).

 Good thing you stole them, street prices are much lower than the
prices the dealers charge. If you could have bought them you would
have taken a 50% or more loss on each one (I guess you were planning
on making it up on volume?)...

>Congradulations!  You are now a "black marketere".

 Also a theif, smuggler and tax evader...

>It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
>QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.

 How? You had to steal them (from the national guard, army or police
for the sake of ease) to sell them. How would more laws have stopped
you when you broke so many already?

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

   Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.  -- Euripides

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4022 talk.politics.misc:43653 alt.politics.elections:12375
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:01:06 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

> According to CNN, _core_ support, people who say there is no way that
> they'd vote for the other guy go 43 % Clinton, 29% Bush.  Thus, Clinton
> needs 1/4 of the undecideds, Bush, 3/4.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Sandy
> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
> "No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!

Ouch.  When did you hear this?  I'm not challenging your numbers, I just didn't
realize that the Prez was in *that* bad a shape.

It's interesting to look at the conflicting stats on this race.  With a core
support number that low, combined with his extremely low approval ratings, it
would appear that GHWB is all but out of the race.  Still, many polls indicate
that a lot of the Clinton support is soft.




|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3523 alt.politics.clinton:3525