HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: Republicans controlled the senate for 6 years, not 2
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:08:40 GMT


Hey, I just wanted to correct something....  

vigneswa@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>After two years of Reagan rule,in 1982, PEOPLE went to voting booths and
>sent a Democratic controlled Senate.

Sorry, but we had a documented posting a while a go which listed off the
rep/dem populations of the senate through the eighties and the republicans
controlled it between 1980-1986.  

If you have another document which claims different, by all means post 
it and we can move this issue back into uncertainty... but for now,
the only documented post on this issue said 6 years not 2.

		John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Priorities
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:25:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.162758.20912@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.015725.5123@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>>Perhaps part of our domestic agenda could have included making the US 
>>>less dependant on foreign oil. 
>>
>>I agree.  But it takes lots and lots of time to make a proper transition
>>from oil to some other form.
>>
>>>Then oil prices could skyrocket all they 
>>>want with minimal effect on the US.  Instead of getting away from oil, 
>>>however, GB earmarked the majority of the transportation budget for 
>>>building and improving roads and highways.  
>>
>>I have no complaint with what GB did.
>
>But, if you agree that the US should become less dependent on foreign oil,
>how can you possibly agree with GB on this point?  Public transportation is
>much more energy-efficient and yet Bush was diverting money from public
>transportation to build more roads for more cars.  What you are saying
>simply doesn't make sense.
>

Can you provide information saying he "diverted" the money "from" public
transportation to build "more roads for more cars?"

Nothing is wrong with keeping our roadways in tip top shape, safer, and
perhaps making traffic flow better.  Fuel can be saved by having cars move
more quickly.  I believe the optimal speed for the best fuel consumption
is about 55 mph.  Also, with less traffic jams, yo may get less pollution.
Cars which have to stop and go and stop and go use up a lot more fuel than
constant driving.

Also, roads don't necessarily have to be in cities.  There are many smaller
areas around the country where public transportation is NOT the way to go.
Farmers still may have to get from one place to another via car or truck. 
In many places, public transportation is less efficient.

It is, however, probably more efficient in big cities.  But the problem 
is, local government often puts huge roadblocks in terms of public 
transportation.  We have a BART system here (Bay Area Rapid Transit, rail)
which wants to expand and go places.  But the problem is, places like
Marin County and San Mateo County resist the idea of the train going
through their county.  I would Love to have it go to those places.  But
it isn't.  Public transportation to those places would probably take me
from 45 minutes to 2 hours.  At this moment, better roadways helps a lot.
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Crisp's Gestapo/Plan (Was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:36:22 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <17j5p1INNngq@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
> ... Clinton's proposed "National Police Force." 

For the 18 kazillionth time:

	Clinton has *not* proposed a "National Police Force".

	This is a proposal by the Crispy Critters of
	{talk|alt}.politics.{guns|clinton|bush|bizarre}.

	The Crispy Critters have stated publicly that their
	sole reason for posting is to vilify Clinton by lieing
	about him and his proposals.

	Sane people who would like to find out what Clinton
	*is* proposing would do well to ignore the Crispy
	Critters and read what Clinton *is* proposing instead.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "Age and treachery will always conquer youth and skill."  - Anon.        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:09:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.013414.27680@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.000959.29147@adobe.com> 
>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>> President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
>>>> The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
>>>> collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
>>>>
>>>> President Bush does not support funding of research which involves the
>>>> use of fetal remains from elective abortions, because this might have 
>>>> the effect of lending legitimacy to abortion, and helping to encourage
>>>> abortions.  
>
>>> Yep, you and Bush are 100% right.  Why, just the other day, one of my
>>> female friends said to me:  "There needs to be more fetal tissue for
>>> research.  I'm going to go out, get knocked up, wait 8 weeks, and then
>>> have an abortion.  I just love that wonderful feeling I get when my
>>> cervix is being dilated."
>
>I did not say anything about women getting intentionally pregnant to
>donate fetal tissue.  That is your strawman.  
>
>The existence of fetal tissue research which uses the remains from 
>elective abortions may help to alleviate a pregnant woman's possible 
>misgivings about obtaining an abortion, thus encouraging abortions.  
>It may also help to legitimize abortion. 
>
>> One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
>> research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
>> of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
>> same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
>> to correct the flaw in utero.  
>
>This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
>experimental stage.   
>
>> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger


 There is a private research going on now and it has progressed to the 
 point where the above DID happen.  It is not complete nonsense.  It is
 within reason to believe that they would include in their research a 
 fetus that faces certain death after being born.  Think of it this way,
 AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.200952.28208@adobe.com> 
kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

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

> There is a private research going on now and it has progressed to the 
> point where the above DID happen.  It is not complete nonsense.  It is

Fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage.  Yes, there
have been some successes, but there is NO widespread program of fetal
tissue transplants.  It is complete nonsense to believe otherwise. 

> within reason to believe that they would include in their research a 
> fetus that faces certain death after being born.  Think of it this way,
> AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs.

AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs, and the government funds
the RESEARCH needed to develop those drugs.  Likewise, the Bush
administration supports funding of fetal tissue RESEARCH.


> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
>        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
>         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

  "Government is too big and spends too much."
   -- George Bush, speaking at the Republican National Convention
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Joke, j-o-k-e:  more!
Date: 29 Aug 1992 04:33:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.190750.18703@news.columbia.edu> js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>4. Show me a pro-lifer, I'll show you someone who supports the death penalty!

Not true.  I am sure there are lots of people out there who are pro-life
when it comes to the unborn, the criminal, the elderly and the sick.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3811 alt.politics.homosexuality:5637 alt.politics.elections:12228 alt.rush-limbaugh:4180
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:28:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

> Reread Bill Bennets speech at the convention. Family Values means relying on
>your family members and surrounding neighbors for support, counsel and guid-
>ance and not expecting a big government socialist program to cure all the
>problems you have. It also means establishing a set of traditions or values

However, there is nothing wrong with pooling resources for the benefit of
the entire society.

>within your family which you think are important. 
> These values can vary from family to family but must be based on a foundation
>of ideals. These ideals can be very simple. Don't steal, murder, use racism et

Thats not exactly true.  Stealing is okay if you are the government and you 
are stealing property that may have been purchased with drug money or may
have been used to transport drugs - even though you don't have a shred of 
evidence.

And murder is okay if it is done by a member of the Armed Forces, and if
the victim is someone the government has decided should be murdered.

Thank goodness, I don't think the government has come up with an exuse for
racism, but I'm probably wrong about that one.

Anyway, the point is, there really is no foundation of ideals.  But the
government pretends that there is.

c>etc. The family unit can pass its value system along with is fortune down to
>succeding members. Eventually the family becomes economically secure and might

Yes, that value system is, work hard, do what you're told, keep your nose 
clean, mind your own business, pray that a beaurocratic screw-up doesn't
end up screwing up your life, lay low, be homogenous, 
and hope that your retirement and social security benefits will 
be there when you get old.

What kind of life is that?

>even free itself from the bondage of labor. They still will have to pay taxes
>though. At least for now.

So everyone's goal is to be filthy rich?  I don't think so. 

Bill Bennet should run a workshop on Family Values for the GOP.  If this is
the official definition of "Family Values", you and Bennet seem to be the
only ones who know it.

Bush/Quayle seem to be making up the definition as they go along.  However, 
even though you don't seem to see this, one message rings loud and clear:
the only families that are acceptable are 2 parent, heterosexual, families.
Every other type of family has been denounced by Bush/Quayle.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH OF NAZIS!!!
Keywords: aliens, clones, stollman, reagan, bush, clinton, invasion
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:43:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <n1ln#0c.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>
>I am Gary Stollman, the person who pulled the toy gun on Tv Consumer
>Advocate David Horowitz on live television at the set of KNBC in 1987,
>forcing him to read a statement on the air about how the CIA and aliens
...
[major weirdness about aliens, clones, Reagan deleted]
>-- 
>Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN

	Please let this be a VERY bad joke!  If not, this fellow
REALLY needs help.  Anybody who's read the postings on sci.research
by V.I. Fabrikant just before he started shooting people knows what I
mean.

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3041 alt.politics.bush:2954
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Priorities
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:27:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug26.015725.5123@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>>Perhaps part of our domestic agenda could have included making the US 
>>less dependant on foreign oil. 
>
>I agree.  But it takes lots and lots of time to make a proper transition
>from oil to some other form.
>
>>Then oil prices could skyrocket all they 
>>want with minimal effect on the US.  Instead of getting away from oil, 
>>however, GB earmarked the majority of the transportation budget for 
>>building and improving roads and highways.  
>
>I have no complaint with what GB did.

But, if you agree that the US should become less dependent on foreign oil,
how can you possibly agree with GB on this point?  Public transportation is
much more energy-efficient and yet Bush was diverting money from public
transportation to build more roads for more cars.  What you are saying
simply doesn't make sense.

Peter Lauren.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:11:04 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
 <5144@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <25AUG199215571543@gergo.tamu.edu>

In article <25AUG199215571543@gergo.tamu.edu>, dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
says:
>
>In article <5144@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
>writes...
>}In article <1992Aug25.160219.6206@rock.concert.net> black@jazz.concert.net   b
>(Ro
>Black) writes:
>}>Bush said: "Under Clinton's health plan, you won't be able to choose your
>}>own doctor."
>}>
>}>The Truth: This is simply a lie. Clinton's plan offers all citizens the
>}>normal choice of doctors. It will also cut down on health care costs by
>}>taking on the insurance and drug industry giants.
>}
>}Reality:  What happens when, as is the case with Pennsylvania's medicare
>} program, doctors refuse to accept the limited fees the government program
>} will pay and simply refuse to see patients that are covered by government
>} plan?
>
>Revoke their licenses. Any doctor who is in the field just for the money
>should not be allowed to practice medicine, and refusing to see a patient
>because of their coverage defies the oath. Now, this assumes that the fees
>suggested by the program are at least somewhat reasonable from both sides.
>I would also hope that any such plan (from either party) would ensure that
>the doctors would not be able to recover lost high-margin profit by increasing
>their fees to other patients.

Or you do what Medicare already does.  It rewards physicians who accept
assignment with faster processing of claims,  largers yearly increases
in their fees, etc.
In spite of the fact that PA requires all physicians to accept assignment
It still has a higher physician/pop. ratio than the national average, and in
fact, that ratio has been increasing at a rate faster than the national avg.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3052 alt.politics.bush:2969 alt.politics.elections:11601
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Responsibility: The Dirty Word (was Re: Insulted by...
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:56:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Aug26.042808.17937@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

>I took issue with the previous definition of family values and sought to 
>show just how gays might be construed as antifamily.
>And here was the beginning of my very first post, in which I tried to show 
>how homosexuals may be antifamily only in the sense that "family values" are 
>something which must be taught within the family, and a family with
>a stably married mother and father is best able to accomplich this task.
>
>

I take issue with your "best." It's an only, since you think any other
configuration is a "threat." This is not a flame. Now, i think you've
never explained why (except by quoting "innumerable studies" in your
original post) you think that a stable married mother and father is
best able to accomplish teaching of family values. I see family values
as caring for your family, and respecting and understanding choices of
your relatives (and maybe "family values" could here extend to
friends, although i would call it something different.)

A lot of bs has been done trying to show the relationship between the
absence ofa father and the social unadjustment of boys, the same with
mothers and girls but i think that it's looking at causal relationship
backwards, for people growing up in unstable households (and not 1
parent ones as they try to say) with a alcoholic father or an adduict
mother or any other disruptive elements in it will be more likely to
be fucked up. 1 paretn has little to do with this.

Does Murphy Brown have a boy? (i never watched it) if she does, he is
more likely to be fine than if he's in a poor crime ridden innercity
stable archetypal mother-faher-grandma-grandpa family.

>Jude Federspiel

Benjamin Renaud

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Novak, Charen, Limbaugh: What do they have in common?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 03:08:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.194842.2019@ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>
>
>   Man, every time I listen to these dweebs I wonder how big those
>redwood trees up their asses are.  
>

My, this does provoke a very vivid image :-).

================================================================================

"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: crips's letter on clinton's gov't takeover
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:03:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.205730.4716@athena.mit.edu> jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger) writes:
>Andy Freeman writes: 
>>The measures proposed can't affect criminal access because they don't
>>affect sources criminals use
>
>A good point.  This hadn't occurred to me, but it makes sense.

Hold that thought.

>>We get to decide whether [Clinton is] lying or stupid, but does it
>>really matter?
>
>I don't think Clinton is lying or stupid, but perhaps just has a
>different opinion than you on the issue.

Remember "can't affect criminal access because they don't affect
sources criminals use"?  That's not a matter of opinion.  Either it's
true, or it isn't.  If it is true, then Clinton's "I support the Brady
Bill because I want to reduce crime" is either a lie or it's an
example of his stupidity.

>The point you make is a good one, and if you care enough, I suggest
>writing him a letter about it.  What could it hurt, right?

It's his campaign.  If he's not clever enough to get useful information
about his positions....

>So maybe I'll think twice next time before I say I favor gun control.

There's nothing wrong with favoring gun control.  I do and so does
everyone (yes, even the NRA).  However, I oppose gun control that
doesn't provide more benefits than the costs incurred.  In evaluating
a given proposal, I look at the experience with similar measures.
If you think that's a reasonable standard and approach ....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:33:10 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep3.040531.1597@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>
>This shows pretty conclusively that under a democratic president who would
>have vetoed decidedly _fewer_ democratically-pushed bills, our debt (and 
>deficit) would be MUCH bigger.  Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten all of 

That's poor reasoning.  Proposal and revision are normal parts of any budget
process.  In any case, this is not a comprehensive outline of the budget,
only a list of new spending (and we don't even know what the money is being
spent on).  Maybe the same people wanted to cut other things to compensate
for the projects they proposes, but they couldn't, because the Republican
would veto such a budget.

To make any meaningful statement on spending patterns in Congress, you have
to look at the whole picture, not just one little fragment of it.  This list
you've shown us really isn't very meaningful without a great deal of related
information.  Though it might just show who's coming up with the new ideas
needed to get this country together.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh