HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 9 Oct 1992 20:09:23 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct9.144937.16119@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.033429.21854@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
....
>
>I legitimately claim my parental authority - I also realize that it is my
>job to maintain it with *my* children, but *LAWS SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO
>UNDERMINE MY PARENTAL AUTHORITY*. Period.  To do so only makes the job of
>a parent more difficult - resulting in more children with problems...
>-Paul
>--
>---

And if you truly have parental authority, no law can undermine it. Your
children will come to you for guidance on all things no matter what the
law says.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: syee@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: 9 Oct 92 04:39:31 GMT


Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding

In article <Bv90sJ.C3F@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
>escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
>successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
>California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
>and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
>English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
>even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
>century was to escape oppression.


I have one simple question.
If you're trying to "...escape from an oppressive government.", how are you
going to escape from this "oppressive government" when they're funding this
project?

Keep searching until a group of private corporations get together and fund a
majority of this project.


					syee@ics.uci.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8395 alt.politics.clinton:9376 alt.politics.elections:15834
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:44:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


 
> 
> But you forget that along with that Governor's salary, Clinton gets room
> (the Governor's mansion) and board (fine dining every night).  I thought it
> was estimated that these and other perks came out to over $100,000 a year.
> Bush gets perks also, so I think it can be said that neither of them can be
> considered paupers.
> 

Don't forget Hillary's salery which I heard is over $200,000!

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:12:25 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1b3goqINNepe@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) said..
>>bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) wrote:
>>
>>>  *    Bush's latest attack on Bill Clinton for a trip he took 23 years
>>>  ago is a pathetic attempt to divert the American people from the
>>>  worst economic record in 50 years.  It is a sign of pure
>>>  desperation.
>>
>>I would like to know why you call it an "Attack" when he was answering a
>>question about how he felt about this incident.  He *was* asked the
>>question, after all, and he *did* answer it from the heart.
>>
>>You people act as if Bush just stood up and announced this by himself.  He
>>didn't even bring it up, King did.
>
>This is patently false.  The Bush/Quayle re-election campaign has been 
>sending out "attack fax"es about this issue for about a week, practically
>begging for journalists to pick up on it.
>
>Furthermore:  James Baker, George Bush, Bob Dornan, and three other
>Republican congressmen met, at the oval office, Tuesday morning (48 hours 
>*before* the larry king show) to calculate a strategy for making this
>into an "issue". 
>
>To say "he answered it from the heart" is ludicrous.  He rehearsed and
                                 ^^^^^
>rehearsed and rehearsed that statement.
>

  Before we start drawing any unwarranted, absurd conclusions ..
Do we have any reliable evidence that George Bush has one of these ??

:-)

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:26:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush

In article <Oct.8.15.59.13.1992.8416@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) wrote:
> 
> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> >In article <92281.231404RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
> ><RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> 
> >I agree with Bush: protesting your country from another country is sleezy. 
> >Lying about it is worse.
> 
> (I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes...)
> 
> Why is it sleezy?

To me, it smacks of cowardice.  Here's a man who squirmed out of the draft,
didn't publically fight the draft because he wanted to remain "politically
viable" and yet he can find the time to travel to the USSR protesting the
country he wants to lead.

Add to this that he refuses to come clean about it, letting bits of
information trickle out, and you get, in my view, sleezy.
--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8222 alt.politics.clinton:9118 alt.politics.elections:15669 talk.politics.misc:50342
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Parental consent (was Re: I'm surprised!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:56:58 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <AVFRBB2C@cc.swarthmore.edu>, mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>
>For those of you that consider parental consent laws to be appropriate,
>consider the following scenarios:
>
>Your parents will disown you if they find out your pregnant.
>You would rather risk a back alley abortion than risk telling your parents.
>You would rather commit suicide than risk telling your parents.
>Your parents are physically abusive.
>Your father IS the father of your child.
>
>Many of the biggest opponents of parental consent laws are parents of now
>dead teenagers who had illegal abortions or committed suicide...

Such things are tragic, but they don't justify destroying parental rights. 
Luckily, all of the parental consent laws I've heard of have allowed a judge
to determine when the consent requirement can be bypassed, i.e., many of the
above scenarios.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ych@cs.utah.edu (Yuan Hsieh)
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:00:51 MDT
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: usa

In article <5991@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>VII. Drinking game. For the next Presidential debate, for every time
>Bush says "tax and spend" all Democrats must drink a beer; for every
>time, Clinton says "invest" all Republicans must drink a beer. Have fun.
>And program your VCR.

Ha, a better game would be to guess how each candidate would respond to a
particular question.  For example, if you are a democrat, and you guessed 
Bush's answer, all republicans in the room must drink, if you can't, all
non-republicans must drink.  Double, if you can guess the irrelevent answers
to the question.  Triple, if you can guess the one-liners.

Try it, it's amazing how easy this game is, at least for the first debate.

-Y'

Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 21:29:19 -0400 
From: Quan vi Luc <ql00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Too Close for Comfort

Just wanted to say it's getting way too close for comfort.  Bush better
pull it off in the end.  Anyone else out there with immense trepidation
about having a Democrat in the White House, especially B*** C******. 
Can't bear to write it 'lest it be true.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:27:26 GMT

Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85 years in 
prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what the 
"Republicans did to me".

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:25:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.132415.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> > 
> >  I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
> > does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
> > could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.
> 
> Let's be serious, the defeat couldn't be as bad as the Carter defeat. A defeat
> so bad that Carter was stupid enought to concede before the polls close on
> the west coast!!!!
 
It will be _much_ worse.  If the networks bother to make predictions like
last time, they'll project Clinton around 6 p.m. Eastern (if not 6 a.m :-)
).  Seriously though, Bush will make Carter look like Reagan ... or 
Carter will make Bush look like Mondale ... or something.  It's not
unreasonable to project that Clinton can get around 60% of the popular
vote.  Talk about mandates.
 
*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re:Simon Booth comes out pro-choice (NOT!)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:47:16 GMT

Simon was flamed by Brian Kendig. He obviously missed Simon's point, but, goes
on to say 'have you been talking to the walls again' or something along those
lines. This comes from a guy who originates from "Starfleet Headquarters" Not
that I don't like Trek, but come on! If you're going to acuse Simon of being
out of touch with reality... you could watch a tad less T.V..
Disclaimers. Disclaimers


"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
 a Fools heart to the Left."
                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
--A far better lesson

		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Chemistry/Northwestern Uni
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:25:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.141037.18904@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>,
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
> 
> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>  
> 
> >Yes, folks, it's the old "If you ain't with us, you're agin us" ploy.
> >"Anti-War" in the milieu we're talking about was clearly "anti-Vietnam-War,"
> >not necessarily opposition to all wars under all circumstances.
> 
> Did not Clinton write an article or some other such paragraph where he
> denounced "war"? I recall some time back a controversy where he said no,
> he didn't write it, yes he did write it, and yes he did write it but was
> only referring to the Vietnam War.

Any sane person should denounce war.  War is the most dehumanizing, cruel,
and unjust obscenity that man has ever created.  This is not to say that
all wars have been unnecessary or that no set of events could combine in
the future to necessitate a war.  The fact remains, however: A denunciation
of war does not constitute "opposition to war in all circumstances", and to
hold that against Clinton is the height of absurdity.

cmh
Vote, dammit!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:57:28 GMT

In article <1bffnhINN3jo@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:

>This is very misleading; you failed to mention the $140 billion of 
>spending -cuts-.  

Largely because I don't for a moment believe he can or will do that.

>Also, the $150 billion in deficit reduction is over 
>the next four years.

He says he will cut the deficit in half over 4 years. That means that
either spending goes down by $150B per year (at the end of 4 years) or
taxes go UP by $150B per year.

But let's take Clinton at his word. According to you we get:

   1.  $150B  (new spending proposals)
   2. -$140B  (spending cuts, assuming that ever happens)
   3. -$150B  (promised deficit reduction)
   4.   $15B  (new taxes)
       ------
Total:  -$125 billion

Clinton still needs to come up with $125 billion per year for his plan
to work. So either he leaves the deficit where it is or he raises all
our taxes.

Since he refuses to explicitly say (without leaving himself an out) that
he won't, I assume he plans to raise all our taxes.

But even that won't work. In the past 20 years or so, Congress has spent
$1.25 for every $1.00 in new taxes. You can't balance the budget by raising
taxes.

>>any cursory examination of his economic program would show that it is a
>>house of cards.

>I'd bet you haven't read it.  

Sorry but I have.

>If you had, you never would have quoted the numbers above.  

Oh I agree that Clinton doesn't come right out and admit that for his
program to work he needs to jack up taxes. All I did was to think for
myself and run the numbers myself.

>You _trust_ them [Bush] to tell the whole story?)

No more so than Clinton. Bush however understands the fundamental
problem: govenement spends too much and any money we give only makes
it worse. Look at his freeze proposal and you will see numbers which
hold together much better.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9389 alt.politics.elections:17132 alt.politics.perot:2243
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:13:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct14.232555.8850@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.132415.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>> > 
>> >  I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
>> > does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
>> > could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.
>> 
>> Let's be serious, the defeat couldn't be as bad as the Carter defeat. A defeat
>> so bad that Carter was stupid enought to concede before the polls close on
>> the west coast!!!!
>  
> It will be _much_ worse.  If the networks bother to make predictions like
> last time, they'll project Clinton around 6 p.m. Eastern (if not 6 a.m :-)
> ).  Seriously though, Bush will make Carter look like Reagan ... or 
> Carter will make Bush look like Mondale ... or something.  It's not
> unreasonable to project that Clinton can get around 60% of the popular
> vote.  Talk about mandates.
>  
> *********************************************************************
> the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
>                the spoken word is a jacket too tight


I don't know where you were, but in 1980 I lived in NY. We went out to 
dinner and when we got home the election was already done. 6 am????

You must be thinking 1976.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8259 alt.politics.clinton:9170 alt.destroy.the.earth:665
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:45:27 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1b23tkINNqk9@cs.ubc.ca > mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler) writes:
 >In article <1992Oct7.124505.25930@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
 >|> In article <1992Oct6.162127.3657@sci34hub.sci.com>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes:
 >|> >In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
 >|> >
 >|> >>     A.  Man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.
 >|> >
 >|> >Famous last words......
 >|> 
 >|> Truer words were never spoken.  We probably could destroy most of the larger
 >|> life forms if we honestly tried, but nobody has been able to describe in any
 >|> detail a scenario in which all life forms including bacteria and viruses
 >|> would be destroyed.  And even then, as long as the planet is intact, there's
 >|> no reason to believe life couldn't happen again.
 >|> 
 >|> No, if "destroy the planet" means "make the planet unihabitable by man", then
 >|> I agree we have that power.  But that's certainly a convenient definition.
 >
 >Whew! we can all breathe easier knowing that our little buddies the
 >bacteria and the viruses are going to make it!
 >
 >Yes, it's so convenient that all us bigger life forms just happen to
 >be around right now. Kind of like one big 7-11.
 >
 >-Roland

I see my the context of my statement has been pruned.  The original
"test question" talked about Bush's failure to protect the spotted
owl.  I'm sure that the potential death of a few owls will lead to
planetary disaster.       

At least some people have figured out what "destroy the planet"
means if taken literally :-)  Seriously though, short of total
nuclear war, name something else that would render Earth
uninhabitable.

Pollution you say?  Let's take smoke.  The oil well fires in
Kuwait were supposed to cause widespread destruction -- nope!
I just saw a piece on the (liberal) TV stating that the
smoke from those fires only affected a small area.

How about the Exxon Valdez (sp?) spill in Alaska.  There are
more fish in the area now than before the spill.  How could
this happen?  Nature takes care of itself.

The examples are countless.  Does this mean I don't care
about the environment.  Does it mean Bush doesn't care?

Nope -- I care very much, but that doesn't mean I go around
saying "the sky is falling".  I recycle, use a fuel efficient
car, use fuel efficient appliances, use recycled products,
conserve water, and plant trees.  I read my news online whenever
possible rather than buy newspapers.

I don't go around telling people that a few owls or squirrels
(ref: the Mount Graham telescope project) should stop us from
undertaking projects.  I don't tell people that building houses
on a few acres is going to destroy the environment.

David Shackelford
Conservationist
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: martin@lyra.cis.umassd.edu (Gary Martin)
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense 
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:24:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.171009.9733@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:


   Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?

Did anyone else have a good laugh when Bush brushed his nose with his
fingers while talking about cocaine?  A friend I was watching with called
it a Freudian slip!!!



--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Martin@cis.umassd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Chemistry/Northwestern Uni
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:02:14 GMT

In article <BvvyFr.L0o@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
wrote:
> 
> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> 
> :   In regards to point 2), during the eighties Reagan claimed an enormous
> : number of jobs were created.  The Democrats continuously hammered him
> : saying that most of the jobs were low wage.  BINGO!  The same thing has
> : been true of the economy in Arkansas.  Who wants tremendous job growth if
> : the jobs will all pay minimum wage?  
> 
> Having a low paying job is certainly a helluva lot better than not having
> a job at all.

That depends on how low that job pays.  As I understand our current (fucked
up) welfare system, in many cases one is better off staying on welfare
because it pays more than a minimum wage job.  Not because one is too lazy
to work but because on welfare, one might actually make ends meet.  (Try
supporting a family of four or more, the car which gets you to work, etc.
on $4.15/hr.)

cmh
Vote, dammit!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9181 alt.politics.clinton:10462
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: FROM BUSH HQ
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:28:27 GMT

loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb) writes:

>This is a test of the Bush auto-posting network.
>
>If this had been an actual post, it might have said
>something interesting.

Oh, come on.  We're smarter than that, Eric.

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8510 alt.politics.clinton:9521 alt.politics.elections:15959 alt.rush-limbaugh:7026 talk.politics.misc:50690