HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>Also remember that you don't have to worry about the Soviets 
>pushing the button in the middle of the night and obliterating the world.

Why is it that this argument comes up consistently when B/Q supporters
speak?  "Read my Lips" :-) the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern
Bloc countries would have happened whether George Bush were president
or not.

I really get sick of hearing Bush claim that he is solely responsible
for the downfall of communism just because it happened on his watch.
My scoutmaster predicted, in 1977, that the Iron Curtain would fall
before the turn of the century.  It just so happens that it decided
to do it in 1989, and Bush was lucky enough to be in the passenger's
seat along for the ride.

And now, for something completely different:

I watched a portion of Bush's speech at the RNC last night, and he
made some stupid remark about our precious energy supplies being safe
and Saddam Hussein now being kept "prisoner in his own country".  Like
that's really an accomplishment.  Gee, golly it would just be soooo
terrible to be kept prisoner with a 172,000 square mile area as my
cell which has a Palace where I have to spend most of my time.  Give
me a small break!!!!!  Saddam Hussein lives a cushy life when you
compare it to the rest of the people of Iraq.  He gets the best food,
and other supplies while the rest of the population barely scrapes
by on the garbage that he throws away (and they'd better like it or
else he'll kill them).  Oh yeah, Saddam has it rough.  Bush dropped
the ball on the Gulf war.  Everybody (well 92%) was behind him on
that one and he fucked it up.

  bills

These are my opinions.  They may or may not represent those of the
employees and officers of Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.  I am fully
responsible and accountable for the content of this article.
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: VERSYSS Incorporated, Torrance, California
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:39:27 GMT

In article <24957@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>My opinions are mine. It's harder to work 'em out than just be told what
>they are by a 2000 year old book. But it's worth it.

You value something a lot more if you had to work hard to attain it, and
by that measure, something that is shoved down your throat there's no
reason to value at all.

Keith

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: avik@icase.edu (Avik Banerjee)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: ICASE/NASA Langley
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:00:27 GMT

a president doesn`t have to be above the law, he can change the
law so it wont be broken.

            ___ __    _ ______  __
           /   || |  / /| || | / /
          / /| || | / / | || |/ /
         / / | || |/ /  | || |\ \
        /_/  |_||___/   |_||_| \_\
  		@icase.edu
-----------------------------------------------
|"Only the insane have strength to prosper.   |
| Only those that prosper judge what is sane."|
-----------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:36:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.102333.26658@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>
>   No, but if he _truly_ beleived abortion to be murder (and make no
>mistake-- by the "pro-life" crowd's argument, it would be _first
>degree_ murder, planned over a period of days and targeting an innocent
>human being), I would expect some reaction other than "I would support
>her in her decision."
>

I know many people who describe themselves as 'pro-life'.  NONE of them would
support crimial charges against a woman who had an abortion.  They want
abortions to be illegal, they would punish doctors, they want to make it
very difficult and dangerous to get an abortion but they don't consider
abortion to be first degree murder.

Some of the more extreme pro-lifers may want prison terms for someone who has
an abortion but I think they are a tiny minority.

>   "Loving parents" (YES, those are sneer quotes) reject gay children
>every day.  Why else is the suicide rate among teenagers FIVE HUNDRED
>PERCENT HIGHER when the teenagers are homosexual?  Makes ya wonder...
>There's a lot that "loving parents" will put up with.  "Loving parents"
>I know were VERY "understanding" when their son KILLED someone because
>he was driving drunk.  They weren't so understanding when their
>daughter told them she was a lesbian... they kicked her out of the
>house.

Your definition of "loving parents" is much more inclusive than mine!

>
>   Come to think of it, I know a _very_ catholic set of parents who are
>putting their daughter through college, all expenses paid, even though
>they know she's had at least one abortion.  Their son, on the other
>hand, has been a pariah since his eighteenth birthday, when he came out
>to them.

Sounds like they continue to support their daughter doesn't it.  I assume
the "_very_ catholic" means they are pro-life.  And they aren't even very
"loving parents" based on their treatment of their son.

>
>         Elf !!!
>-- 
>Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
>elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
>elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:22:07 GMT

In article <19184@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.135215.16132@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>}
>} Yes, wealth is created.  But who gets it?  Not the bulk of the people
>} who 'created' it, by any means.
>
>That is usually what happens when the wealth is taxed away.

Fine.  Eliminate taxes and the bulk of it STILL doesn't go to the
people who 'created' it.  Happy?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2229 alt.politics.elections:11024
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 20 Aug 92 09:57:35 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug19.154801.21805@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug19.023629.14030@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>]In article <1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>]>
>]>Why is abortion the only choice worthy of respect?  After all, we
>]>believe pro-choice advocates who say say "we don't like abortion, but
>]>it isn't our decision to make", so why doesn't that apply to other
>]>choices she might make, choices that said advocates may not like.
>]
>]Such as?
>
>The choice to take drugs. Are all pro-choicers anti-war-on-drugs?
>Is Clinton? Is there a certain hypocricy here?
>
>The right to keep and bear arms.
>
>The choice of whether to keep your income or have the government give
>it to someone else.
>
>The right to enforce a contract (there is a 3 day waiting period on
>loan contracts, for example).


Take some classes in contracts, and consumer law before you start
sqwaking about right to enforce contracts.  The 19th C.
conservative Supreme COurt had this belief that freedom of contract
is in the constitution; it isn't as Justice Holmes wisely and
eloquently pointed out in a dissent (famous case, cant remember name).
The Sup.Ct. was just reading their political preferences into
the constitution (just like today :-)  )

But anyway, pro-choice people could think the War on Drugs
was silly -- but I am afraid it is politically unpopular;
it is now a litmus test that the Reps. can use since they have
lost the Red Menace and being strong on defense.






Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:29:26 GMT

In article <23582@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:

> If it is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.  If it is
> murder, then it is murder if his relatives do it.  The inconsistancy
> demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the thinking.

No, it demonstrates that Bush is a loving parent who would
support his children and grandchildren no matter what they did. 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1787 alt.politics.clinton:2045 alt.politics.perot:1296 rec.humor:26202 talk.bizarre:26278
From: wilder@mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:22:08 GMT
    <1992Aug16.221031.5752@news.columbia.edu> <388m8yl@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In <388m8yl@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

|In article <1992Aug16.221031.5752@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|>In article <BD.92Aug15103702@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
|>>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|>>
|>>>Am I the only person to notice that "Senator William Clinton" is an anagram
|>>>of "Win mental clitoris loan"?
|>>
|>>Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?
|>
|>The junior senator from the state "between Texas and Oklahoma."  What, you
|>haven't been keeping up with the news?
|>

|Now I see the humor in this thread.  There are idiots on the net that
|don't know the difference between a SENATOR and a GOVENOR.  I think the
|confusion is due to Clinton's and Quayle's looking slightly alike and due
|to their both being from fairly unimportant states (i.e. Arkansas and Indi-
|ana).

|Or could both these posters be Quayle in disguise? (ASIDE:  I never knew
|that he could hook his GameBoy into the Usenet system.  Must be the powers
|of the Veep.)

I'm not *positive*, but I think Elizabeth (the second of your "both
posters,") was *joking*.  Granted, smileys make things easier for the
humor impaired, but they're so damn...inelegant.

On the other hand, maybe YOU were joking, too.  If so, I'd say you need
smileys more desperately than Elizabeth...

Nah.  People don't call people "idiots" for fun.  Comparing them to
Danny is bad enough.  Lighten up, already. 

--
================================================================================
| Jeff W   uk06666@ukpr.uky.edu | Meddle not in the affairs of cats, for they  |
| Wilder   & wilder@mik.uky.edu | are subtle, and will piss on your cyberdeck. |
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:13:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.224946.12105@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In any case, while Bush was talking about family values, where is his
>support for children?  Why is our infant mortality rate one of the
>highest in the industrial world?

Because certain US subpopulations have third-world infant mortality
rates and one can pick countries that don't have those subpopulations.
(The US isn't a nice uniform "industrial" country.  It is a unique
geographic collection of first, second, and third world communities.)
We know that pre-natal care is the difference between 3rd and 1st
world infant mortality rates.

Interestingly enough, some of those communities have FREE pre-natal
care available; the rates continue to be high because it isn't used.
Should Bush be send in troops to make sure that it is?  No?  Then what
should he do to reduce infant mortality in those communities?  The
relevant care is FREE; should he bribe them to show up, penalize them
if they don't, both?

>Why do so many children live in poverty?

Because single-parent families are poor.  Did Bush chase away the
other parent?  (Govt does go after parents that don't pay child
support.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:53 GMT

In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
> the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
> a Republican Senate.

That's funny, I always thought it was the democratically-controlled
House that wrote the checks.


>"None of us really understands what's
> going on with these numbers."
> -David Stockman, Reagan's OMB Dir.

 ``A lot of the talk about immediately balancing the budget is
   economically screwy.''

   -- Derek Shearer, Clinton's economic advisor

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:12:02 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug7.095223.1108@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
>>We don't have any major ideological parties at all.  Instead, we have
>>two centrist power coalitions with no unifying principles other than a
>>desire to win elections.
>
>Both parties are committed to defending the American status
>quo, which includes the capitalist economy, the constitution,
>and the position of active American involvement in the rest of
>the world. These are ideological positions. A party with "no
>unifying principles" would be neutral about capitalism, neutral
>about the constitution and neutral about American world power.
>
>>And likewise, American leftists sometimes mistake the Republicans for
>>a party of the Right, because they have never seen a real Right
>>party...
>
>In what way is the Republican Party not a right-wing party? In
>what way does it attack the existing balance of power and
>wealth in the USA? If it does not attack these things, but
>always defends them, it is an orthodox right-wing party.
>Perhaps the problem is that you have never seen a real centrist
>party ...

I, for one, agree with the original poster, and not with your rebuttal.  Le
Pen's National Front party in France is a good example of a true right-wing
party.  The Republicans here resemble much more the European center-right
parties.
-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	 tls@panix.COM
  "Oh, you have wounded me!  I have very few prejudices, actually.  The
biggest problem is that I am intolerant of fools.  That is why I have
such a low tolerance level for Libertarians."  -- Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2357 alt.politics.elections:11151 alt.politics.clinton:2439
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 00:35:16 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush Interviewed On Atheism

From Free Inquiry v. 8 #4 (1988) (page 16)

"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush.  The Republican
presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for
Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential primary:"

   Reporter for the American Atheist magazine, Rob Sherman:
        "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
        atheists?"

   George Bush: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.
        Faith in God is important to me."

   RS: "Surely your recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
        Americans who are atheists."

   GB: "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
        nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

  RS:  "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of
       state and church?"

  GB:  "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not very
       high on atheists." --GALA Interim
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2511 alt.politics.elections:11287 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2853
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:57:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
=I'm pretty tired of George's whining about Congress.
=
=Get this George, the Congress is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
=President.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?
=If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
=it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
=If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
=it probably ain't.

He did say in his inaugural address that "the American people didn't
send us here to bicker." He did compromise: the Budget Deal of 1990. He
has compromised: the Civil Rights Bill of 1991.

If there is disagreement, sometimes it's because the program is badly
conceived, but the deliberations will not solve the problems that the
program proposed is intended to solve. If you told me to write up a
resume for you and I procrastinated and procrastinated, even forgot to
do it by the time your needing a resume became critical, your problems
would not be solved. We might agree that getting this resume done was
very important, but I could say I couldn't get my printer to work or
decide which word processing program or which computer to do your resume
on. Sometimes, confrontation gets things done. 

=Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are supposed to have
=carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Republicans 
=just can't seem to stand that.  They keep trying to end-run around
=the system.   That's what "school choice" is about, a method of
=circumventing seperation between church and state.  That's what
=Iran-Contra (and Watergate too for that matter) was about, you
=guys just can't stand to work within the system, you have to find 
=ways to work around it.

No, Republicans can't stand that decisions that should be made by
families are being subverted or superseded by the "authority" of the
government. School choice gives more options with regards to where the
parents believe would be a better learning environment. Many parents
currently do not have the choice to send their children from a school
filled with crime, drugs, or gangs; this plan allows for that.

=Congress bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
=majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately,
=this country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so 
=easily.

Doesn't agree with us about what? Congress is about as popular as a trip
to the dentist! Government itself is perceived very suspiciously by most
Americans.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:32:55 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug17.150549.11119@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
]My anti-christianity, to the degree it exists, is based on their belief
]that their rules apply to all people, not just Christians.  I say "to the
]degree it exists" beacause not all Cristians are like this, but it isn't
]some fringe minority that hold these beliefs.  The frequency with which
]laws are proposed that harm homosexuals, or that control the lives of
]non-Christians shows that it is common.  I am especially upset by claims
]to a "Christian America".  I think they actually believe that the founders
]wnated it that way!  Historical revisionism at its worst.  

Well, lots of laws are proposed by non-christians that control the
lives of everyone. Oh... you mean "moral laws" - Some of these you can
blame on the fundies, but a lot of them are just plain popular
due to cultural beliefs (which doesn't mean that I agree with them).
I also do believe that the founders wanted a Christian America, but
were reasonable enough to make that the choice of each individual
rather than to allow laws to enforce it. The Constitution was, after
all, crafted by a highly christian group of people, and yet they
were able to keep their religion out of it.

You arguments are good ones for distrusting extremists of all stripes
(after all, lots of liberals want to tell ME how to live), but not
for being "anti-christian."

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1876 talk.politics.misc:40201 alt.rush-limbaugh:3683 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4580