HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lies
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:33:56 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <oneil.715152146@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>
>>I urge all GOD fearing Americans to write to the Republican party and
>>demand a stand against the forces of evolutionism. Can we expect to remove
>>the scourge of drugs, homosexualism, and secular humanism while ignoring
>>the root of the problem?
>
>Are you saying that God is a Republican?  I don't remember reading this in
>the Bible.  Maybe we're using different translation.

Didn't you get your updated fundementalist bible?

>>Evolutionism attempts to write GOD out of our lives and the world. Read
>>talk.origins to see its true consequences. Our children are taught a
>>Pagan doctrine of a world without GOD as though it was fact.
>
>But seriously, I do beg to differ.  Evolution is *not* taught as *fact*.
>It is taught as a *theory* and a *scientific theory* at that.  Meaning
>that it is taught within the context of the scientific method.

Its also a theory that I am typing on a keyboard right now. You have to be
careful about the way they will interpret the word theory. Evolution is
supported with as much or more evidence than what we normally call fact.
 
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A question on abortion
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:29:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

>In article <1992Sep2.062225.892@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>->     In many states the law can charge a person with two counts of murder if
>-> they kill a pregnant woman.  Over the last twenty years there must have
>-> been several convictions of people charged with this crime. 
               {some good stuff deleted here}

This is amazing ain't it? While the current adminstration says its a person
at conception the IRS won't count it till after the birth. Which means if your
baby is born on 12-31 you can deduct money from your taxes for the whole year.
If the baby is born one second into 1-1 then you have to wait till next year
to get this deduction. I wonder if any of the states that allow aborations
have these type of laws. IMHO there are inconsistencies at just about all 
levels of government and these inconsistencies do nothing but bred contempt.

To borrow a deleted line from Richard: I also have a question that has bugged
me for a long time.
If society as a whole believes the unborn is a person then how come there
isn't a funeral when a mis-carriage occurs? 

Stan Knight
|"Well, it's certainly a sign that it's time to move on."|
|             ---Jose Canseco---(after being traded)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: No new taxes!
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:22:23 GMT


In a previous article, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) says:

>Hello.
>	Someone on the net complained about the 'no new taxes',
>calling it a lie of Bush.  Well, if you had ever had anything especially
>difficult to do, you know that the best outlook is one which ignores
>failure.  That is, 'don't try, do it!'  Bush gave an outlook.
>Does DNA which codes for sexual maturity after full development 'lie'
>if the organism dies before reaching that maturity?  Bush's goal,
>the Republican goal, is 'no new taxes.'  If the Democrats can defeat
>him, if the organism is slain before maturity, then that is unfortunate.
>Do you wish to protect the organism? Do you wish to protect your
>right to not be leached by the government? Do your best, but that is all
>you can do.  To say that the organism did not have the coding for
>'sexual maturity' seems to be the lie, especially when the real liar 
>is the one who prevents it from happening.
>
>			J. Wagner
>
>
 While President Bush hos his perfect veto record intact I hardly
think he can be considered slain.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:31:18 GMT


Joe Sterbenc writes: 

   When a baby is conceived, it is one cell. Akin to plankton. To call a cell
   a human being is stretching reason to support an emotional prejudice,
   as if you were calling an acorn an oak tree. The
   day before birth, the baby is fully formed in every way. To call this baby
   inhuman or not-yet-human is equally illogical. Somewhere between these
   points, a baby "becomes" human. There is great debate as to where. My own
   view, although I'm not unequivocal, bases the definition of life on the
   current definition of death: cessation of normal brain activity. Life, then,
   could be the beginning of normal brain activity. This is normally pegged
   by medical researchers as around three months.


Wow.  Cool.  I agree.  That sounds fair.  Say its alive when the 
brain waves start cause someone is counted dead when they stop.  

Sounds too reasonable for it to actually work...  sigh.

So is there someone from either pro-choice or pro-life extreme that 
doesn't think this is reasonable...  (note I didn't ask if you disagree
(tho I imagine you can point that out too) but do you think it sounds
reasonable?)

	Always trying to be reasonable :)

			John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: af610@yfn.ysu.edu (Ben Hanson)
Subject: Iraq
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:52:39 GMT


I am shocked, *shocked* that there are implications that George
Bushed would use the situation in Iraq for political advantage.
The fact that he waited more than one whole day after the 1990
elections before announcing the increased should clearly 
demonstrate that he would never allow domestice political
considerations to affect his leadership
-- 
Ben Hansen
af610@yfn.ysu.edu
bhansen@oread.cc.ukans.edu
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:50:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Bu082z.CxI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Jewell) wrote:

>  I did 16 years in the Navy, hauling grunts around the world, so I know the
> logistical demands of the situation.  Again, and until you answer the question
> I ask "Why did it take so long to get the troops moving?"  24 hours?  That's
> the time it took Andrew to move from the outlying islands to the coast of
> Florida.  As soon as the weather was clear enough for the choppers to move
> in, they should have been landing.  The Governor should have been able to
> look over his shoulder and say "Tell the President, just in case he hasn't
> been watching CNN, that we've had a major natural disaster here, and would
> he please send help?"  This did not happen through leadership failure, once
> again.

Then you weren't paying attention in class: the President of the United
States offered troops to the Governor of Florida.  The Governor of Florida
said "I think we can handle it with what we have here."  Later, that became
untrue, and he asked for troops and got them.  Read the Newsweek article on
this.

--
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!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Sep1.192826.7537@cco.caltech.edu> <rgwyhtf@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:57:14 GMT

In article <rgwyhtf@rpi.edu> blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:
-> In article <1992Sep1.192826.7537@cco.caltech.edu>, thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer) writes:
-> |> 
-> |> Maybe "issue" was the wrong word, as most everybody agrees that murder should
-> |> be outlawed, but it does seem a moral point.  It is immoral to murder another
-> |> human being (as well as being potentially detrimental to society, as mentioned
-> |> here), thus it is illegal.
-> 
-> A couple of points here:
-> 
-> 1) morals are *not* universal - just take the case we were originally talking
-> about (abortion). This country is divided right up the middlie on this issue.

	Definitely, but every country has a moral background which the
law is based. 

-> 2) Many people have said that it is morally wrong for me to have
-> premarital sex.  I do it anyway. You're telling me that since it's
-> immoral, it's illegal. Maybe I should turn myself in now.  How about
-> this: Some of the US population sternly believes that drinking is
-> immoral. By now, most of us belong in jail for life. In fact, this was
-> tried, and it failed miserably (National Prohibition).

	Both of these things are generally accepted as not being
against the moral background of the country.

	Going back to politics, the GOP family values plank is not
pushing toward laws to enforce some narrow moral view but to promote a
value system that is meant to keep the family together and keep kids
from growing up under unsupportive and impoverished conditions.  Don't
be mislead by the press trying to tie this in with religious
extremists like Pat Robertson, because it is not a religious issue.
Anyone who has been through financial or emotional hardship knows how
important it is to have your family there to get you back on your
feet.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Distortion of facts
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:01:57 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 92Aug28170222@ab20.larc.nasa.gov, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
> [...]
>I have seen a list of 128 new taxes that Clinton has
>signed into law, and I will try to post a copy if I can find it again.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

four days and still waiting.  Even GB & his hench(wo)men can't produce
_that_ list.

--f2
----------------
  Bush-Quayl '92
  It's a mistake
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2995 talk.politics.misc:42051
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican Platform 1992: where is it?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:25:54 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

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?
>>

>As a matter of fact, if the republicans even HAD a platform, which they
>don't, it WOULD be too scary to see....(besides the fact that everybody
>would then vote for clinton)

Personally, I can't wait until 1996: Buchanan vs. Baker vs. Weld vs. Cheny
vs. Robertson.  Should be a lot of fun.

Daniel at UIUC   Ultimate election battle: Bush/Quayle vs. Clinton/Richards
		 vs. Perot/Powell
-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3825 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3286 alt.politics.elections:12206
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Keywords: brainless linear bastards
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:54:41 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <1992Sep2.013918.817@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>Jim Puccio writes:
>
>>Interesting. From this I glean that only the culturally deprived and ignorant
>>have the proper qualities to play along with the right.
>
>From this I glean that liberals comprise the most enlightened, freethinking
>individuals on earth.


Glean anything you want, but you missed Jim's point (and even deleted it).


Peace.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3365 talk.politics.misc:42639 alt.politics.clinton:3395 alt.politics.elections:11883
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
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 18:18:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Loren Petrich, you asked "How is Bush a tax dodger?"

	Many of us in Texas think he's a tax dodget because he maintains
an apartment (or hotel room, or the like) in Houston so that he can retain
residency in Texas; we do not have a state income tax here.  We assume
that there is a state income tax in Maine, because most states have them,
and that is where his home really is.  Anyone know if Maine has a state
income tax?  Anyway, that is why I think he could be a tax dodger.


	Bye, Judy.  

		PS:  Virtue is its own punishment.  (unknown source)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: howeird@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com
Subject: Re: Radio idea (family values)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:26:19 GMT
Organization: HP Research Grants Program

According to eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK):
>On the radio this morning (WMAG-99.5FM Winston-Salem) a caller had an idea
>regarding the recent emphasis in the elections on "family values."
Isn't it amusing:
Ronald Reagan has a son who, against daddy's wishes, became a ballerina, 
George Bush has a son who was indicted for taking part in shady banking 
deals, and these guys are preaching to >us< about family values? 

================================================================ 
Howard Stateman    howeird@hpl.HP.COM  [Not an HP spokesman]
"I have the heart of a little child, and the brain of a genius
                     -- and I keep them in a jar under my bed"
================================================================ 
Anatomically Correct Bulletin Board (415) 8-jovial [Adults only]
================================================================ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:22:00 GMT

In article <athos-020992085859@kip2-59.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes...
}Oh, please.  The man can't sneeze without you people (to use a Perotism)
}calling it an election-year ploy.  If you'd get off his back, perhaps he'd
}be able to actually do his job. 
} 
}Does your boss ride your ass as much as you ride the President's?

Do you only do your work when you know the boss is watching? It's odd how
Bush only now seems to be doing his job when his job is on the line. Anyone
know if Bush upped the federal percentage for rebuilding from 75% to 90% or
100% for any other natural disaster during his term? Sounds like someone who
is just trying to look busy. Walk away or take your eyes off of him, and it's
back to sleep, dreaming of his war games. 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawai.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:19:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.164543.17608@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
|> 
|> >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.

Agreed.

The whole abortion debate is really beginning to irritate me.  I see it
as an excuse on both sides to ignore the real problem - the absurdly
high rate of teenage pregnancies, especially in the inner cities.  It's
a national disgrace.  Debating philosophy while youth self destructs is
like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:39:57 GMT

In article <l9noiiINN7o@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
} In article <19649@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} |> In article <l97ga1INN2un@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
} |> } In article <19469@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} |> } |> In article <exukjb.84.714089276@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
} |> } |> } ... the unchallenged assumption at work here is 'funded by public monies'; 
} |> } |> } accept it, and it is correct.
} |> } |> 
} |> } |> It is the "public monies" part that gets me.  That money is not public;
} |> } |> it is private money that government took by force.
} |> } |> --
} |> } Wrong.  The unchallenged assumption is that there is a public responsibility
} |> } to provide everyone with an education.
} |> 
} |> I challenge that assumption.  Therefore, you are the one who's wrong.
} |> Neener, neener.
} 
} Wrong that the assumption has been challenged earlier in this thread,

Actually it is wrong on two counts.  (1) That the assumtion is
unchallendged, and (2) that these are "public monies".

} Wrong that there is a public responsibility, or

I do not belive in "public responsibility".  It's a term that lets
the people, who are truely responsible, off the hook for their actions.
As long as people believe that, say, education is a "public" responsibility,
they will be less likely to take an active role in their kid's education
themselves.  After all, why should they, when they can just slough
that onto everyone else?

It also adds an undeserved burden onto people who had nothing to do
with them.  If John and Mary Lunchpail have a child together, they
are fully responsible for that child and everything that goes with
it.  They do not have the right to place that burden onto Jane
Briefcase, who may have other plans to do with her life than to see
the Lunchpail's brat educated.

Besides, do you really want the education of your children to be placed
into the tender loving care of people who believe that the height of
culture is video taping a tag-team wrestling match on Saturday afternoon
while they are at a tractor pull?

} Wrong that "neener, neener" pushes the limit of your communication ability.

I don't understand what you are asking here, but that was a childish
remark on my part, and I apologize for it.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3024 talk.politics.misc:42096 alt.politics.clinton:3096 alt.politics.elections:11638
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
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 19:53:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug26.024744.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>One thing that bothers me is:
>  Why is the school, esp. Public schools the one doing the sex ed, and not
>the family where the primary education should be.   We must be careful not
>to get to a point where socialism and communistic ideas take a hold of our
>country.

The public schools have fostered the attitude that education only occurs
there.  There was even a period when elementary school children were not
allowed to take their books home because the parents might tell them 
something different.

What could be more Marxist than the idea that all children should learn
the same?
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:50:23 GMT

From article <qLPcqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, by elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley):
[..]
> 
> On the Senate:  I wouldn't call what happened in the hearings 'gutless.'
> Stupid, maybe, but not gutless.  The whole Thomas confirmation is going to cost
> folks on both sides of the aisle their jobs.  Most blacks weren't impressed
> with him before the hearings began.  However, Metzenbaum and his buddies on the
> Judiciary committee did such a poor job handling the Hill thing that the rest
> of the Senate had to back away from opposing him.  It was just plain dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |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|


So they voted someone into one of the most powerful positions in the US, 
against their better judgement, for political reasons.  That falls under my 
definition of gutless.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush