HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dedek@meaddata.com (Mike Dedek)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:21:35 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug28.170408.1712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug28.155024.19609@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >|> 	How is Bush a tax dodger?
|> >|> 
|> >|> 	I've never heard _that_ one before.
|> >
|> >	Although Bush has a 18 room house in Maine, his official residance
|> >is an empty lot in downtown houston (33'x150'). He does this to avoid
|> >paying any state income taxes. (Maine? Thats his vacation house)
|> 
|> In that, he's just like any other govt official stationed somewhere
|> else.  He's just like Congress critters who "live" in their home
|> district only to maintain election eligibility.  (My critter doesn't
|> own squat in "his" district and may not even rent more than a mail
|> drop.)
|> 
|> Of course, when Bush does it, it's different than when a Demo leader
|> in Congress does.
|> 
|> -andy
|> --
|> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
|> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Well, I don't know about that.  Congress lives in their home district to
maintain election eligibility, but they have to live in that home district
regardless of tax liability.  Bush doesn't have a "home district".  Although
he hasn't actually lived in Texas for some time, he maintains a hotel room
and empty lot _because Texas has lower taxes_.  Maine or Conn? would more
likely be his state of (actual) residence.  Now, I'm sure that wasn't the
only reason - Texas has many electoral votes and calling it home no doubt
help him there.  IMO, the president should call D.C. home for tax purposes.

-Mike

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:41:36 GMT

In article <78791@ut-emx.uucp> swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum) writes:

> Obviously Mo has missed the point of talk.abortion.  I don't read
> the newsgroup myself, but I read alt.flame, which seems to be an alias
> for talk.abortion anyway.  As far as I can tell, talk.abortion has absolutely
> nothing to do with changing anyone's feelings or even having rational
> discussions.  It is for ranting and raving.

There's currently some discussion in talk.abortion about creating
a moderated abortion newsgroup that would serve alongside with the 
existing unmoderated newsgroup.  See the thread entitled "Proposal 
for a moderated talk.abortion newsgroup". 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3008 talk.politics.misc:42066
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican Platform 1992: where is it?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:38:24 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug26.115934.20901@nuchat.sccsi.com> lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.210436.19397@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
>>where is the republican platform? there must be a loyal republican out
>>there somewhere who can figure out how to use a scanner. why haven't we
>>seen the platform yet? is it too scary to show people?

   Will you stop this banter!! Like I'm sure the VP or Pres goes
to the grocery store to pick up some ice cream!! Get real!!
I think you'll find that most highly elected officials don't
really know what the "common" man knows!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                    | " ... and speaking of Sen. Kennedy,
Idaho National Engr. Laboratory  |   How many other 60 year olds do you    
c/o School of Nuclear Engineering|   know that still goto Florida for 
    Purdue University            |   spring break??"  
(208) 526-4050                   |                   Pat Buchanan
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3079 alt.politics.clinton:3147 alt.politics.elections:11676 talk.politics.misc:42187
From: conradp+@CMU.EDU (Conrad Poelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:24:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 25-Aug-92 Put some spin on
this... Paul S Galvanek@pitt.edu (233)

> Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.  This is from the
> August 31 issue of Time.

> % of black families in the U.S. with incomes
> over $50,000

> 1970:  9.9%
> 1980: 10.9%
> 1985: 12.3%
> 1990: 14.5%


> Yep must be tough!

> PSG 

Such statistics are utterly meaningless without adjusting for inflation.
 Are they adjusted for inflation?  If so, this is indeed interesting. 
If not, then it in fact reinforces the common belief that blacks are
worse off than they used to be, given that inflation between 1970 and
1990 was almost certainly more than 50%.

--Conrad
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3228 alt.politics.clinton:3288
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: woody allen
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:24:16 GMT
	<1992Aug27.132735.3504@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Aug27.132735.3504@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:

   In article <26AUG199223341067@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:

   > Like any other american, woody allen is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

   only if you're a bleeding heart LIBERAL.

Yeah, Woody was bad, so vote for Bush!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:21:33 GMT


Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
while he slept?

Value comparison:  Which is more important to you?
1. Having a good job tomorrow?
2. Having a tomorrow?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:57:43 GMT

In article <5147@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.  This is from the
>August 31 issue of Time.
>
>% of black families in the U.S. with incomes
>over $50,000
>
>1970:  9.9%
>1980: 10.9%
>1985: 12.3%
>1990: 14.5%
>
>
>Yep must be tough!

These nominal figures or not?  If they are nominal, then these numbers
just mean that inflation has pushed the incomes not, without real
gains.

From Newsweek's review of Andrew Hacker's _Two Nations_ (3/23/92), "A
white family making more than $50K is three or four times more apt to
consist of a husband making $75K and a nonworking wife; in the
'equivalent' black family, Hacker notes, 'the husband is likely to be
a bus driver earning $32K, while his wife brings home $28K as a
teacher or a nurse.'"  From the same book review, 32.5% of white
families make over $50K.  37% of black families earn under $15K, while
14.2% of white familes are in that income bracket.  Median income in
1990 for black families is $21,423, while median income for white
families is $36,915.

Yep, times are tough.


--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3674 alt.politics.clinton:3669 alt.rush-limbaugh:4148 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4961
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:18:45 GMT
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1992Sep1.003934.5476@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <cluther.715298240@morticia> cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther) writes:
>
>	[bush should have sent troops in early, deleted]
>
>>If Mr. Bush had done this, he would have been in deeper shit.

Bush COULD have had it both ways;   he could have been on the air during the
height of the storm and announced; "Elements of the 103 Airborn (etc) have
been put on alert, and are poised waiting for the second the Governor asks 
for them."

He could have repeasted that daily, putting 100% of the blame on the gov..


So why did Bush wait?  Well, heck, anybody knows that the plight of the
homeless is only a liberal news media ploy,  and that the homeless
are really responsible for thier own problems.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3421 alt.politics.elections:11920 alt.politics.clinton:3447
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:12:30 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>       YOU LIVE IN METAIRE AND YOU CALL SOMEONE ELSE "PREPPY?"
> I have known many intelligent students who like to view the world in
> a realistic light.  When they go to work, they notice what the workers
> wear and they find that suit and tie is the 'work uniform.'  They do
> not think that there is an intrinsic value in disturbing this business
> etqiuette.  If they go to the convention of a party for which they
> hold admiration and respect, then if they dress as what they perceive
> to be respectful I see no deceit.  These students are people who want
> to move forward and make a life in this world, not destroy it.
>       Maybe you should talk to some of these 'white bread' 'preps.'
> maybe then you will see what it is like to have hope in the future.
>

So, tell me, do you include that chapter of the Hitler Youth (oh, excuse me,
Young Republicans) that charged the doors of the building where Ron Brown was
holding his press conference during convention week in Houston 'intelligent
students' also?  Give me a break.




|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|
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: Fri,  4 Sep 1992 13:04:59 -0400 
From: "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Michigan remarks
	<1992Sep4.012818.5121@midway.uchicago.edu>

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

X-Andrew-WideReply: netnews.alt.politics.bush
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: via nntppoll with nntp; Fri,  4 Sep 1992 01:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Path:
andrew.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!jvnc.net!darwin
.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchi
news!usite-next.uchicago.edu!sug6
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Michigan remarks
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:28:18 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <kedcv5200Uh7A6zKQs@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael J. Keating"
<mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>While I sympathize with the people of Michigan, especially the
>autoworkers, something Bush said has immensely troubled me.  Bush is
>vehemently against Clinton's plan to make it mandatory for engines to be
>more fuel-efficient in a few years.  Bush claims that this will have a
>negative effect on jobs, and that he would fight against any such moves.
> It seems ironic to me that the president of the nation that has been
>such a producer of ideas that bettered the quality of life is now
>fighting against standards (that could be implemented yesterday if not
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for politics) that represent the natural process of achievement. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


  Is this true?  I really don't know much about this and the
politics have only served to confuse me further.  What would it
take to get our cars to an average 40 mpg.  I've heard it said
that we would have to adjust to smaller cars, but then I've heard
that disputed.

  If it is true that this could be implemented yesterday, why
hasn't the car industry done it?  It seems to me that a more
fuel efficient car would sell better.  Why must the government
step in?   Why would it cost jobs?  Wouldn't a more fuel-efficient
car sell better and create more jobs?  Is it really that expensive
to build a more fuel-efficient car?  Why hasn't competition given
us more fuel-efficient cars?  Is it because Americans just don't
care about fuel-efficiency? (Certainly our inability to adjust after
the first oil shock in the 70s would indicate this is/was true to
some extent.)


  A lot of questions.  I hope someone has the answers. :-)



Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke

I'm not positive on this, but here is what I understand to be the
relationship.  Bush will not work towards making greater fuel efficiency
mandatory for a few reasons.  First, he does not want to rock the boat
for the oil industries.  A feul-efficient car consumes less gas, driving
prices and volume purchased down because of less demand.
Also, I believe that the companies that can make these engines are not
the ones which currently employ the most workers.  If these engines went
on the market, competition may wipe out the job market for workers at
other plants.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong, so I can
understand more fully!
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Family Values in the first place? (short)
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:14:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <185ljvINNknr@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Martin Guerrero) wrote:

> If anyone has that speech or any speech concerning a Democrat echoing
> the sentiments of our VP concerning Family Values, please kindly post
> it on the net.  I'd like to know because I heard about it on the radio.
> 
> This Democrat, I believe, made this speech about 20-30 years ago.
> 
> Was it Hubert Humphrey?

Yes, it was.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: GB's Foreign Policy Record? Gimme a Break!
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:42:17 GMT

Re: your comment on rather having Bothe Clownesident than Bush...

....uhhh, wasn't that Reagan? :)

Michael
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3025 talk.politics.misc:42097 alt.politics.clinton:3097 alt.politics.elections:11639
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
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: 26 Aug 92 20:21:42 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Michael Doel) writes:
|> Peter Nelson) writes:
|> > 
|> >   We are?   We are seeing decreases in some drugs and increases in
|> >   others.  Also note that nature does not provide a built-in incentive
|> >   to stick a needle in your arm (i.e., it doesn't come naturally) but
|> >   sex is another matter.   I'm not objecting to a "just say no"
|> >   campaign; I just don't see any evidence that it works in terms
|> >   of pregnancy and STD's.  Whereas condoms, if used, demonstrably 
|> >   reduce the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission.   
|> 
|> A couple of points:
|>     1. I assume that the built-in incentive of sex (i.e. the thing that makes
|>        it a "natural" act) you talk about is reproduction.  That certainly
|>        isn't the motivation young kids use when having sex.  They have sex
|>        for the same reasons as for drug use, namely it feels good and it
|>        can help them fit in with a crowd.  Thus, I consider this to be a
|>        spurious argument for saying that a "just say no" campaign wouldn't
|>        work.
|>     2. You haven't seen a "just say no" campaign work for pregnancy and
|>        STDs because it hasn't been tried, at least not on a large enough 
|>        scale.  I've seen a couple of commercials talking about the dangers
|>        of sex, but almost all of them encourage condom use instead of
|>        abstinence.

We have seen extensive "just say no" campaigns, and they have not worked.
They are called Catholicism, Souther Baptism, Quakerism, etc.  They have
terrible records a stopping teen age sex and pregnancy.

|>     3. You say, "Whereas condoms, if used ...".  Thats a pretty big if.  I've
|>        seen lots of stories (one on 20/20 a couple of weeks ago) that
|>        demonstrate that people still aren't using condoms all that often,
|>        even though they know the dangers of unprotected sex.  I think that
|>        convincing people to use condoms is just as difficult as convincing
|>        them to abstain.
|> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:18:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.225012.5750@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>This is true. But it is also in the best interest of the media to voice
>the opinion of mainstream USA. If the media starts to tell the people 
>what they don't believe then people will switch the channel to find
>a media outlet that is more credible. 

This explains why news programs are such a huge fraction of programming.

This explains the success of Hard Copy and various imitations.

News programs are ratings driven, just like any other form of
entertainment.  Spectacular beats accuracy every day of the week.
(The popularity of 60 Minutes' hatchetjobs don't depend on their
accuracy, as Audi will tell you.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3630 talk.politics.misc:42998 alt.politics.clinton:3628 alt.politics.elections:12048
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
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: 31 Aug 92 21:46:52 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.203730.5166@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

> You didn't answer the question!  Not everybody is a member of your
> church.  So to repeat:   What are you proposing we do TODAY about
> 14 and 15 year old kids who are having sex and producing babies?          
> If you were emperor what specific steps would you take?
Peter,
I was attempting to provide information about what my church did in
response to your statement that "the church" isn't doing anything.  I
pointed out that I couldn't speak for all churches, but only speak from
my own experience.  Furthermore, I never claimed I wanted to be emperor.
If you cannot tell that I advocate abstinence from my earlier postings,
there is no point in continuing this discussion.
> The anti-condom, anti-sex-ed crowd keeps making the pointless
> statements: "In *my* family . . . ";  "In *my* church . . . ".
> We're not talking about *your* family or *your* church -- we're
> talking about all those millions of kids out there who don't HAVE
> families or other sources or moral guidance, and who are busily 
> having sex and making babies and getting STD's.   What are you
> proposing we do about that?   
I've already stated that we should encourage abstinence in the younger
kids.  What more do you want?  And I happen to feel that my family and
my church are very relevant to my viewpoint.  Apparently, since you feel
condoms are a panacea here, your viewpoint is that abstinence is a
non-solution.  Since you won't allow this as a solution, no further
discourse is warranted.

But, speaking of not answering the question, in my last post I asked you
what YOU are going to do about the large percentage (by your own
admission) of kids who don't wear the condoms you've given them.  So
just specifically what are YOU going to do about all these millions of
kids?  And while you're at it, what about the 1 in 6 who used their
condoms and still got infected?  

I'll be waiting for your answer.
John
>                              

>---peter
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3227 alt.politics.clinton:3287
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Reflections on this evening...
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:31:39 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> In article <qeN1PB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >The Congresscritters aren't lame ducks like the CA assembly
> >(remember, most of them can't run for re-election because of the term limits
> 
> That's a bad thing to remember, because it isn't true.  They can
> all run this November and most of them are.
> 
> >Our distinguished House and Senate at the national level would never have le
> >the situation deteriorate to the point it has in CA.
> 
> Why wouldn't it?  A huge hunk of the House used to be in the CA
> legislature and they've done this before.  Are representatives from
> other states really different?  (CA state senators represent MORE
> people than CA House members, while the assembly critters represent
> fewer, so it will be tough to make a "congress critters represent too
> many/few people to let that happen on a national level" argument.)
> 
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Ok, I didn't realize that the CA Assembly had one last time at bat.  I still 
think the lame duck argument holds since their careers are cut off after 
this election.

Congresscritters are a different breed.  There's a lot of money that can be 
made being a Congresscritter.  Retiring Senators are leaving Washington as 
multi-millionaires.  These guys will fight each other, but they'll never let 
things get so far out of hand that the national term limitations movement 
will actually pick up steam.  They've got a much more vested interest in 
preserving their careers.  The careers of Assemblycritters in CA are 
essentially over. 


|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|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections