HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:19:20 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep9.041119.25288@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>I'll bet you hold him responsible for this year's bad weather, too. I don't
>know about you, but I don't put my faith in ANY government official to
>improve the economy. The best official is one who would get as much government
>as possible OUT of the economy, and Bush is more in that direction than
>Clinton.
>
I know this "keep government out of the economy" is the key point to
the republican ideology, but.....the examples of Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc.
seem to indicate that there can be a very close relationship between the
government and the economy and things can work out very well. I think this
phrase is like a mantra...if you say it enough the economy prospers. I don't
think anyone has a definite idea of what they mean when they want "government
out". I think it is a total fiction to imagine that somehow government, "the
economy", and society are separate entities, especially in a world that is
increasingly without borders. While "true believers" say this in terms of
the federal government, what of state and local governments?

When I talk to people about this face to face, it always comes back to taxes.
As long as they are not taxed, the government can do what it wants to someone else...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David James Hahn)
Subject: Re: Bush giving away money
Originator: hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:52:50 GMT

From article <3719@faatcrl.UUCP>, by jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan):
> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:
> 
>>I don't have exact facts (I would like to know if anyone can confirm this),
>>but I vaguely remember someone on CNN mentioning that the military has been
>>in favor of closing Homestead for several years. Also, I believe that this
>>is the second time Homestead AFB has been severelly damaged by hurricanes.
> 
>   Not true on both counts.  Homestead was never even considered for closing.
> And, the last time a severe hurricane slammed into south Florida was well over
> 45 years ago.  I think the Keys were harder hit that time.
> 
>   -jack-

If I heard correctly, the Senate voted not to put any money into 
rebuilding Homestead despite The President's promise.  Difficult situation,
ya know?  Those people have nothing right now, and will have less than
nothing if this is true.  The question is, would it be worth rebuilding?
There are plenty of other fully operational bases that can do the sam
job (DEA use, etc...) without the incredible cost of rebuilding it.
So, in my mind, it would be an indirect way of giving its employees 
money (giving in the sense that it needn't be done).  Like I said, a
tough situation for any president.

				Dave

-- 
			     David Hahn
 		   University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
		         hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cma851@huxley.anu.edu.au (Brenton LeMesurier)
Subject: Re: Australian Farm Supports (Was: Bush is a mother fucker)
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  9 Sep 92 01:07:08 GMT

dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:


>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my I believe that while Australia does not have
>price supports for grain, it has rather hefty price supports for wool 
>(which makes political sense in a country with more sheep than people).
>The support takes the form of a government set minimum price for wool.  If
>the market price falls below the minimum, the Australian government buys it
>for the minimum.
...

    That used to be roughly true, but the system has been abandoned now I
believe, when prices stayed chronically low for a long time and the
stockpiles got too big.  I would also add that, back when the system was
working better, it (reputedly) did not involve dumping.  The idea was
meant to be that wool was bought at auction when prices were low and
then sold when they were better.  In theory the sell price was as high
or higher than the buying price and so the process just averaged out
fluctuations in the supply/demand relationship, not involving any direct
subsidies as when a goverment resells at less than its buying price.  If
so, that is not much different to a revolving loan system to help
farmers survive the notoriously severe cycles of the farming business
(certainly in Australia with its cycles of drought).

   How well it approximated this ideal, I do not know.

-- 
Brenton LeMesurier
Centre for Mathematics and Its Applications, ANU
GPO Box 4 Canberra 2601 AUSTRALIA
Phone: (61) 8-249-3829, FAX: -5549
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:50:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep9.191920.23650@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.041119.25288@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>I'll bet you hold him responsible for this year's bad weather, too. I don't
>>know about you, but I don't put my faith in ANY government official to
>>improve the economy. The best official is one who would get as much government
>>as possible OUT of the economy, and Bush is more in that direction than
>>Clinton.
>>
>I know this "keep government out of the economy" is the key point to
>the republican ideology, but.....the examples of Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc.
>seem to indicate that there can be a very close relationship between the
>government and the economy and things can work out very well.

  Hold it, hold it . . . *I'm* the one around here who usually cites
  Singapore, et al, as examples of successful Big Government economic
  policy that most free-market fanatics on the net are blissfully ignorant
  of.    Just for that, I'm going to mention a strong counterexample:
                               
  Fans of Clinton/Gore high-taxes/government-investment/government-mandated
  worker-retraining/national-health-insurance would learn something by 
  looking at western Europe:  The average EC unemployment rate is currently
  9.5%.  At it's recent *low* in the 80's it got down to 8.3%!   In the 
  US, in what is one of the worst recessions in recent history it's "only" 
  7.8%.  (source: Business Week, current issue)  
                                               


>When I talk to people about this face to face, it always comes back to taxes.
>As long as they are not taxed, the government can do what it wants to someone else...

  When *I* talk to people about this all I hear about is "jobs".   In fact 
  all over the world now, from Australia (11% unemployment), to Europe, to
  North America, and even to Japan, where unemployment this year may hit 
  (gasp!) 3.4% (double what it was last year), EVERYBODY is worried about
  jobs.   Kinda makes you go "hmmmm".


---peter



Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:01:05 GMT

In article <farenebt.716238644@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>Another point, what exactly is a redneck? I have my stereotype but you guys 
>are arguing about something that neither seems willing to define.

Wanna bet that Farnell wouldn't ask this question if the insult in
question was "nigger"?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:12 alt.politics.bush:4230 talk.politics.misc:43998 alt.politics.clinton:4217
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 6 Sep 1992 18:56:58 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Sep6.081835.25466@ucc.su.OZ.AU> jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU 
(Jason Haines) writes:
> Yes, Bush has bought farmer votes with the mortgages of Australian 
farmers,
> who produce wheat more efficiently than american farmers, but cannot 
compete
> with grain sold below cost by virtue of subsidies.
> 
> George Bush can go to hell.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jason Haines - System Operator, MacInTouch BBS (02) 743-5997 (TeleFinder)
> jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
> 
Gee, and there are those that criticize Bush for not doing enough to 
protect American workers.   

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Bush giving away money
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:29:04 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

thorson@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Bill Thorson) writes:

>  Why did he offer to rebuild Homestead AF base?  I would seem
>a likely base to put on the list of base closings.  I was suprized
>that nobody in the media thought of this.  We should have an
>rule that all bases destroyed by volcanoes, hurricane, or
>earthquakes should be put on the list of doomed bases.

  Offer?  Milatarily, the answer is:  Can you say "Cuba"?

  Financially, the reconstruction will produce jobs and generate an
economy where it's drastically needed.

  It's actually a good move, not pandering like the farmer bailout and
building of planes is.

  -jack-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:54:52 GMT

Re: Bush is a mother fucker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've noticed that this subject line has been with us for awhile. How
about this instead:

Re: Bush is a father

Same content, and saves bandwith (seven characters!).  ;-{>
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: clark@netcom.com (Sue Clark)
Subject: Re: Bush about to get pasted for Family Leave Bill.. Yay!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 15:49:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:

>bmarcum@world.std.com (Bill Marcum) writes:

>>I don't know if it's fair for Florida to get more aid than California, but
>>what does their not having a state income tax have to do with it?  Everybody
>>pays federal income tax.  Incidentally, Florida doesn't seem to have any
>>trouble meeting their payroll without an income tax. :)

>  It's not really a question of fairness, Florida just happened to get "lucky"
>by having a disaster hit when the incumbant is in a weak reelection position.
>I doubt Bush would have been as generous if he was leading Clinton by 15 or
>20 points in the polls.

>  The lack of a state income tax means that there is little available state
>aid, so residents are entirely dependant on federal aid.  Sure, they pay
>federal income tax as does everyone else, but that's no excuse for a state
>not being able to fend for themselves either.

>  What's going to be interesting is how Bush handles Kaui which got hammered
>by a hurricane as severe as Andrew was...

>  -jack-

It looks like more of the same.  He's just opening up the federal
checkbook and passing around money for all.

And, before anyone flames me, yes, I do feel sorry for those people.
I'm glad they're being helped.  It's the president's phony kinda, caring
attitude that I'm not happy with.  I think we all know if this had
happened 2 years ago he'd be proposing they sell off Oahu to raise funds
for rebuilding.

Sue
-- 
-----------------
Sue Clark
clark@netcom.com
From: echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Bush is a mother fucker (was Re: Bush is a .....)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:18:41 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <88115@netnews.upenn.edu> sal@touch.cis.upenn.edu (Marcos Salganicoff) writes:
>Hey!
>
>Let's keep our political discussion without expletitives and have a little
>net etiquette here. If you are a good debator, you can get your disagreement
>across without resorting to 7th grade bathroom language!
>
>Grow up, man,
>
>Marcos

Yeah, if you are a good debator you can do that.  However, sometimes you
hate someone so much that you just want to call him a motherfucker.  As
in this case.  But as always there's some puritanical prig that sticks their
nose in and overreacts to something silly like that.  Saying something like
motherfucker proves nothing but the depth of vehemence involved in your
statement.  Saying "Bush is a motherfucker" is basically equivalent to
saying "I dislike him a whole big lot."  Only with a little more pizzazz.

So you grow up, and quit getting your hackles raised because someone uses
language that makes you blush.

-- 
  //          ---<--@                     -Echo
\X/                                        The Potato-Salad-Eatin' Fool.
INTERNET: echo@ucscb.ucsc.edu              AT&T: (408) 427-9814 home
                                                 (408) 431-5387 work
"It's a Man Ray kind of sky."

Paul Reed Smith is a god.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:10:44 GMT

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.142439.878@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>   > 
>   > On a serious note, Dr. I really would appreciate it if you would provide
>   > us with some objective data showing how or where the National Review has
>   > allowed its admittedly editorial bias to interfere with the facts.  After
>   > all, you are a DOCTOR, and therefore a man of science, which implies
>   > objectivity, so I'm sure you would be happy to supply these facts.  Or
>   > are you just blowing your DRate out your ass?

That's rather stupid. The big difference between a doctor and a redneck
is not necesarily intelligence but capacity and desire to learn. A doctor
must have the capacity and desire to learn about a specific thing. A doctor
is not automatically smarter than anyone else but rather he is simply more
specialized in one or a few specific areas. A PhD simply implies that the
person took the initiative to specialize in one area. I fail to see
how the word DOCTOR implies objectivity. Ask DOCTOR C. Everett Koop for
an objective analysis of the tobacco industry.

I never heard Dr LaFave flaunt his degree in any way. 

>   I don't have debates with rude, uncouth individuals. When you can return
>   to civility, I will return to this debate.

Good idea. 

Another point, what exactly is a redneck? I have my stereotype but you guys 
are arguing about something that neither seems willing to define. Until
you do define your version of "a redneck", the debates is nothing more
than apples vs oranges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Australian Farm Supports (Was: Bush is a mother fucker)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:18:41 GMT


Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my I believe that while Australia does not have
price supports for grain, it has rather hefty price supports for wool 
(which makes political sense in a country with more sheep than people).
The support takes the form of a government set minimum price for wool.  If
the market price falls below the minimum, the Australian government buys it
for the minimum.  My references are at home, but I thought that the minimum
price was so high last year that it resulted in huge overproduction by 
Australian shepards, with the govt. of Oz forced to buy and then "dump" 
the wool onto the international markets.  Awful nice of the down under 
taxpayers to help pay for my sweaters last winter.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Strong currency, strong whiskey, and strong typing
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Bush giving away money
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:29:14 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:

>I don't have exact facts (I would like to know if anyone can confirm this),
>but I vaguely remember someone on CNN mentioning that the military has been
>in favor of closing Homestead for several years. Also, I believe that this
>is the second time Homestead AFB has been severelly damaged by hurricanes.

  Not true on both counts.  Homestead was never even considered for closing.
And, the last time a severe hurricane slammed into south Florida was well over
45 years ago.  I think the Keys were harder hit that time.

  -jack-
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Bush about to get pasted for Family Leave Bill.. Yay!
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:53:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

avery@netcom.com (Avery Ray Colter) writes:

>Well, speaking for the Golden State, he was not nearly so generous after
>1) The Earthquake, 2) The Oakland Hills Fire, and 3) The South Central Riot.
>Combined, these three disasters caused roughly the same damage as the Florida
>hurricane, but we Californians were told we'd get 75% of the rebuilding money
>from the government, IF AND ONLY IF we devoted the other 25% without fail.

  The OpEd pages in New York City are also complaining about this largess from
Washington for the people in Florida.

  There's no denying the need for aid down there, but to suggest that a state
that does not have an income tax to rate the same level of, and in this case, 
more, government aid then a state like California is ludicrous.

  -jack-


Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:02:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.165324.13352@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>Unlike our national TV networks, the National Review does not claim
>to be unbiased. It is unabashedly a conservative magazine. That does not,
>however, mean that facts published there can be so easily brushed
>aside. The presentation is conservatives and the selection of facts
>may have a conservative bias, but the data itself is apolitical (ie,
>whatever facts they choose to present tend to be correct - even if
>they may be incomplete).

	Perhaps, but incomplete facts can often be even more misleading 
then straight lies, because of the presumption of truthfulness. One could,
for example, take the national census data, filter it, and provide evidance
for virtually any concept, thanks to the volume of "facts" to choose from.

	Marilyn Quayle was not misquoted at the GOP convention, but she
is quite concerned that her comments are being taken in the wrong context
(See her article in NYT editorial page, Sept 9 or 10). The "facts" are
clear, but obviously there is some question the accuracy of their perceived
meaning. The "facts" in the National Review and the New Federalist should
be viewed with the same suspicion.


-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pswanson@room.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:58:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.041119.25288@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
[stuff about Bush's give aways to various groups deleted]
>
>Gee... I could've sworn I heard Clinton promise the same sorts of things
>to the farmers the other day. Let's face it, while Bush is trying to move
>towards a freer market, he is as captive to political forces on this issue
>as is Clinton. Bush ain't perfect... he's just better than the alternative.

I thought that the day after these Bush antics Clinton should have made the
following statement:

"In light of Mr. Bush's most recent anoucements I just wanted to remind
everyone that *I* am the Democratic nominee for President."

Paul.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:36 alt.politics.bush:4504 talk.politics.misc:44383 alt.politics.clinton:4572
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:32:18 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <ART.92Sep9113120@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
> In article <ayrn6jp.jmoody@netcom.com> jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody) writes:
> 
>    Well the point is actually not who "started" farm subsidies...there were 
>    good reasons for them then etc that we can debate some other time ....but
>    whether or not Bush, the great free marekteer, used the promise of $7 billion
>    dollars in subsidies to try and blatantly buy the votes of Americas farmers.
> 
> The liberals have made a career out of buying the votes of the poor with
> my money.  All the liberals moan and groan about Bush being insensitive
> the poor and now, when he takes a page out of the liberal catechism and
> they howl again.  I guess they're upset about his stealing their tricks.
> 
>    Evidence is, based on sudden reversal of a previously held position, that he 
>    is up to his usual tricks of promising ANYTHING that will get him elelcted.
> 
>    The economic evidence of the declining wealth of the American worker, evidence
>    which Bush says he doesn't accept, should get him ousted, but this kind of thing
>    may keep him in power.  Heaven help us if it does.
> 
> He shouldn't accept it because it's not true.  See the August 31, 1992
> issue of The National Review for a complete discussion of this; a
> discussion containing more numbers and analysis than most people care to
> sit through.  But, read it carefully and see the liberal lies exposed.
> 
> 

The National Review....now there is an unbiased source....NOT!

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:13:39 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
	<BuD7sq.K08@apollo.hp.com>

Of course Bush is a mother fucker.  He's got kids.  Let's keep the
language civilized, allright?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton