HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The President
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.164734.17788@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
> If this group is only to be sly winks and chuckles about the
>Bush Administration it will not be very interesting or important.
>I would be interested in hearing considered opinions from
>Republicans. I cannot believe that thoughtful Republicans and
>conservatives, will stand by and watch the highjacking of the
>Republican Party by the religious right and the debasement of
>the Presidency by lies and innuendo.

No Republican here (sorry :-), but in regard to the influence of the
Religious Right, would the R's have won in 1980 without them?  I
believe the fundamentalists were included in Buckley's New Right
(under the all-encompassing umbrella of anti-Communism), and were an
integral portion of Reagan's coalition.  The fundamentalists would
perhaps argue that they were the decisive edge in that campaign.  What
we may be seeing now is the R's coming apart at the coalitional seems,
now that Communism is dead: the New Right was more or less defined by
their enemy, and may not be able to exist without it.  The evangelists
are perhaps more visible now as the various factions of the R's fight
it out.

There was an article in The New York Review of Books a week or two ago
called "The Captive," which detailed Bush's early political career in
Texas.  Garry Wills, the author, argued that Bush's political fortunes
were tied with the more extreme Goldwater wing of the party at that
point, even if his sympathies were with the old, Wall Street moderate
Republicanism of his father.  Wills argues that his fortunes are still
tied with the more radical elements in his party, and he will probably
go down with them (my memory is a bit fuzzy on the article, though).


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:51:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.171214.4188@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.134252.12999@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>]
>]... Why must we tolerate stupidity?  There are degrees of intolerance, too. 
>]It's one thing to *want* to knock some sensibility into people, and another
>]entirely to try it, or dismiss them as unworthy of contempt.
>
>This is so amazingly arrogant as to require no further comment.

How so?  Please explain.

>As has been mentioned before, Christians do no burn witches or conduct
>crusades.

Historically speaking, yes they do.  They haven't recently, but the jury's
still out on whether this reflects a fundamental change in the lengths to
Christians will go, or the coincidental lack of an opportunity/need to go to
extremes.

>ALL religions, including atheism, convert "heathens."

Wrong.  Firstly, because atheism isn't a religion.  Secondly, because even if
you define atheism to be a religion, it isn't organized, and most atheists
simply don't try to talk people into not believing in Santa Claus, er, God.

>Most (but not all) Christians don't dump on those that don't share their
>beliefs.

I don't know about that.

>]I think his point is that "God" is the guy with the big stick, and that
>]Christianity offends him because it requires its believers to delegate their
>]will to "Him" and refrain from critical examination of its tenets.
>
>Look, if he believes in God, he can resent what he is told. If he doesn't
>believe, then what is his beef? I don't think it is the religion he
>is reacting to, it is the behavior of a few of its adherents.

Again, I can't speak for Bill, but perhaps what he resents is that the
religion has the effect of taking over the minds of its adherents.

-- 
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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: nope
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.193530.27047@Princeton.EDU> bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.164454.8174@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Certain subpopulations in the US won't use free pre-natal care and
>>have habits that are associated with infant mortality.  (That isn't to
>>say that ALL members of those subpopulations do this, but that certain
>>subpopulations are far more likely to fit this model than the
>>population as a whole.)  The general population isn't much like that.
>
>You are so right; they are *just* not our kind, dear.  :-( :-(

They aren't my kind.  My kind takes care of themselves.

>Who are you referring to as "certain subpopulations" and "general
>population"?  If you can't be explicit about the categories you are
>thinking in, could this be because you are subconsciously ashamed to
>be trafficing in racial/ethnic stereotyping?

I didn't mention race because it doesn't appear to be a factor.
Unless Ravel has evidence that it is, we know who the racist is
in this disussion.  (If he does, then he'll get to argue the
"it isn't racist to point out racial differences" point.)

>>It isn't obvious what to do about this.  Should we have social workers
>>round up pregant women for pre-natal care and monitor them?  Should we
>>pay them if they "do the right thing"?  Should we punish them if they
>>don't?
>
>Andy, I thought the discussion was about high infant mortality in the
>US.  I am a US'er.  So are you.  So are the infants and parents
>affected by the high mortality.  Who is "they"??

I'm discussing this issue as someone concerned about the problem,
they've demonstrated that they aren't.  Thus, it is unreasonable to
think that they'll take measures to solve it.  Yes, "we" are all
americans, but that's not all that relevant in this case.  (We all
breath too.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Republican Platform 1992: where is it?
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:04:36 GMT

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?

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Bosnia
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:46:44 GMT


In November 1991 I read in the New York Times that a bloodbath
in Bosnia-Herzegovina was expected. Perhaps President Bush's
intelligence sources are not as good as mine, but surely by
June he could have a clue that something was wrong. The war
that we fought for oil, end to nuclear proliferation, or jobs,
jobs, jobs (I forget), is now (re)escalated to overflights of
Iraq to prevent slaughter of innocent civilians. Surely, 
someone in the Executive Branch could consider the possibility
of applying this solution to a similar situation.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3157 alt.politics.clinton:3221
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:18:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.181439.22388@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> wilson@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.203548.12739@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
>This VP was probably generated by a buggy politician.
This cascade was probably started by a bored student.

_________
_/__\_._| christopher s. kush / birdman@nwu.edu / (708) 467 2067
_\@_|_._| computer systems / programming, industrial research laboratory
___/____| 1801 maple avenue, evanston, illinois 60201 - 3135
__/_____| mesg y; cat /core | write root &; mesg n
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3327 talk.politics.misc:42590 alt.politics.clinton:3365 alt.politics.elections:11857
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:16:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

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)

    Bush pays Maine taxes also. But remember GB lived in Texas for
thirty years before moving to DC so he does in fact have a residence
there, just as RR was from Calif, but lived in DC for 8 years!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: DATELINE: the abortion debate is worthless. 
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:05:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.213123.19508@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:
> 
         [nitwit mentions blob of cells for some reason]

       [someone else mentions the constitution in a non nitwit manner]

> Abortion is not a religious issue, it is a legal and moral issue.

   Just like creation science.  Riiiigggghhhhht.  Thats why all those secular
organizations split so neatly on the issue.  See capitalized line below.
  
> There are many good arguments against abortion which are based on 
> secular thought.  Come over to talk.abortion sometime and you'll 
> find them. 

   No thanks.  I already watch some T.V. and cannot aford the loss of brain
cells that would entail.  I did try it once.  It makes broccoli look like a
product of Hersey, Pennsylvania.  NOW...

COULD YOU ABORTION DEBATE NITWITS[1] PLEASE NOT INCLUDE ALT.FAN.DAN-QUAYLE IN
YOUR NEWSGROUP LINE!?!?!?!

Thanks,
Dan
Danwell@IASTATE

[1] in this case "nitwit" means only those abortion debaters that choose to 
interrupt our comedy fest, not all of them.
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:03:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.135803.10046@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>Ya just got to love the thinking behind the reactionary right.
> ...
>... Make sure that kid is
>born.  Don't give a shit about him until he uses the guns you make sure he
>has access to for purposes of crime.  Pour money into the police.  Catch
>that fucker and put him in The Chair.

Nice summary, Ian.  :-S  (look that says "I don't know whether to
laugh or cry.")

-- 
Ameet A. Raval                   Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
email: bongo@splash.princeton.edu                Princeton, N.J. 08542
disclaimer: Mine, they're mine, I tell you!        phone: 609-452-6563
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3979 alt.politics.clinton:3944
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why Family Values in the first place? (short)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 18:30:23 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

I can't seem to post responses!  What can possibly be the problem?

Anyway,

Concerning Republicans and divisiveness in the past 20-30 years.  

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?
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush vs. Congress
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:48:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <FOX.92Aug26074227@graphics.nyu.edu>, fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
wrote:

> I have to agree with you here.  The latest polls show Clinton's
> lead has widened to 15%!

Oh, please. The polls are a bunch of crap.  If polls are so damned
accurate, then why are they so wide in their results?

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Followup-To: find someplace
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:42:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.151956.24054@Princeton.EDU> bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.185934.15283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Few of the "teen" pregnancies are due to ignorance or inaccessible
>>birth control, let alone failures.  They're the natural consequence of
>>sex by people who WANT to get pregnant or don't care whether or not
>>they do.  Unless someone is proposing some sort of mandatory birth
>>control (norplant?), birth control policy can't affect that.
>
>There he goes again, presuming to know who "WANT[s] to get pregnant"
>and who "do[es]n't care whether or not they do."  Without having
>known people in the circumstance of needing an abortion, either in
>his family, circle of friends, or professional work, Andy knows the
>hearts of teenage women who get pregnant.

Racist Raval is babbling again.  I spent a lot of time talking with
pregnant teens and have talked with others with similar experience.
True, this experience doesn't include rich pregnant teens, but ....

I didn't have any interest in their feelings or plans about abortion,
so I can't comment on that.  Maybe that's why I didn't.

>He KNOWS they are irresponsible and uncaring.

I don't "know" that.  I didn't even say it.  Raval thinks it would be
irresponsible for a teen to intentionally get pregnant.  Raval thinks
it would be uncaring for a sexually active teen to not care about
possible pregnancy.  It may be for society, but it isn't necessarily
for the people involved.  (Raval confuses his interests with theirs.)

I used to think that these people were making bad decisions; when I
communicated that, it's amazing how their stories changed to fit my
preconceptions.  (They were pregnant, not stupid.)  When I tried
listening to them without judging them, their decisions and reasons
made a lot more sense for them in their situation.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:56:56 GMT

dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
: 
: Wow!  My opinion of organized religion just took a large leap
: towards the positive end of the spectrum...

I agree!  I take back all the terrible things I have said here about
Moderate/Liberal Christians tacitly condoning what's going on in
politics today.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:58:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.115837.4255@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> Intercourse is a private act; purchasing condoms is not, it's often public. 
> In a small town, it's hard to keep such a thing secret.  People should have
> the right to keep their personal matters private.  Distributing condoms
> through a school nurse under guaranteed privacy helps encourage their use by
> those predisposed to both having sex and using condoms.

Let me get this straight.  The small town druggist can't be trusted to
maintain his customers' privacy, but the small town school nurse can?
Spend any time in a teachers' lounge lately?

Besides, many small towns are lucky if they can even afford a school
nurse, or even classroom supplies.  They sure don't need the expense
of a new program which duplicates the function of the corner drugstore.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:52:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep3.142355.6464@news.columbia.edu>,
rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) wrote:

You people are really getting out of line here.  I have a friend in Florida
who said that he was listening to Chiles on the radio when he said "We
don't need Federal Troops, everything is under control."  Then the people
went "What??!?" It was *then* that he requested troops from Bush.

Get your damned facts straight.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3846 alt.politics.clinton:3814 alt.politics.elections:12230 talk.religion.misc:15410
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: GOD, GOP, and the KKK
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:57:59 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

No kidding - this is why this whole issue of "family values" scares the shit out
of me.  It basically means the government is going to try to repress society in
whatever whimsical ways it wants, claiming that it's for our moral betterment.
We already have enough laws that restrict the way we live our lives (for
example, it is *unlawful* (ie you can be taken to court by the Commonwealth)
in Virginia to have sex under any circumstances than the following:

	*Heterosexual
	*Missionary Position
	*Lights out
	*Shutters drawn (most people don't even have these)

This is none of the government's business, and this is the sort of a future we
can look forward to with either party now that it's an "issue" - watch out
Americans, here comes the great moralizing government forcing you to scramble
for shelter unless you want to have an abortion, which is of course a good
family practice that everyone over the age of 12 should have at least once a
year, even if you're male.

Seriously though, the government is manipulating things as usual - I think it's
more than a little convenient that abortion solves a huge part of the homeless
children problem - as I've said before, the government (and the Republicans
especially) couldn't care less about a woman's right to choose.  They just want
a simple solution to a problem they don't want to spend money on.  Like our
Dear Governor Wilder (who *shall not* be re-elected, let me tell you), who
cuts far more than $200 million from the 14 Virginia public colleges and then
turns around and then wants to spend $10 million on a stadium for the Redskins
football team [appeasing the masses again - are politicians manipulative enough
for you?  This is why I support the "one doubly-long term of office and no
possibility of re-election" policy - then the politicians can't get re-elected
and will stop trying to win votes with these petty politics that are so short-
range that if we are heading off a cliff, they'll try to apply the brakes when
their front wheels start to go over].  Someone please save our poor corrupt
republic!  Just for once, an intellectual in the White House!

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok)
Subject: REPUBLICAN PLATFORM WANTED
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 27 AUG 92 09:37:47 PST


I am not sure if the Republican platform has been posted here before, but I do
not recall seeing it.  Can someone please post it or send it to me in email?

Thanks in advance!

Charles

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:45:43 GMT


>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death

There is nothing simple about abortion. If you believe it is 
ending a human life then it is murder and the privacy afgument
is irrelevant. If it is not a human life then government has no
grounds to interfere in it. The two sides talk completely past
each other and no common ground can be found. This is the sort
of divisiveness that the Bush campaign is exploiting, and it
frightenes me enough to see the President pitting one group of
Americans against another than I have registered to vote for the
first time since 1976.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3611 alt.politics.clinton:3610 alt.politics.elections:12040
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:08:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <5147@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>% 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!

How interesting.  Is that $50000 in constant dollars or $50000 in dollars that
are affected by inflation?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4110 alt.politics.marrou:1048 talk.politics.misc:43815 alt.politics.elections:12452 talk.politics.theory:4047