HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:30:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep1.234352.25038@u.washington.edu>,
jrdobbs@milton.u.washington.edu (J Robert Dobbs  Esq.) wrote:

> How 'bout that Free Market paradise, Great Britain?  Thatcher's legacy
> is the longest recession since WWII. I don't have the figures handy,
> but they are significantly worse than most countries in Northern Europe.
> Also, be skeptical of "low" unemployment rate in the US and UK in "good"
> times, since they only apply to a fraction of people who are involuntarily
> without jobs.  Other countries provide more of a safety net to their
> workforce, therefore they have more people getting unemployment benefits
> (as opposed to turning to crime and extreme exploitation).

My point exactly: we are going better than they are doing, bud.

> Any of the horribly "socialist" countries in Europe (Netherlands, Sweden,
> Germany) have significantly stronger middle classes and far less violent
> crime than the US, in good times and bad.  Its amazing how many Americans
> know they live in the best country in the world...without having even
> talked to foreigners (let alone having traveled outside of N. America).
> Having seen many of my friends suffer from not being able to afford
> medical insurence has made me capable of voting for a Democrat, even one
> who claims flag burning should be illegal.  Maybe that's what it takes
> to get the Bubba vote in AmeriKKKa. To say Clinton wants to "emulate"
> other countries is a misnomer; he'd be considered moderate-right in most
> of Europe or Canada.

If you'd let schools teach children morality (like they do in those "other"
countries) we may be able to make a dent in that crime thing.

See, people in other countries believe in "Personal Responsibility."  They
believe that YOU are where the buck stops.  They teach their children to
respect their elders.  They teach their children to respect other people
and think of those people when doing things in life (unlike here where it's
"Be What You Are").

Besides, we don't riot at Football games.  <g>

--
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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:49:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.171952.8926@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

	[a better scenerio from GHWB's standpoint, deleted]

|> This is exactly what was planned, but we must be aware that some politics
|> was going on with the governor of florida (who just happens to be a
|> democrat) that prevented Bush from sending the troops in.

	I want to go on record as saying that I do not believe that the
Governor of florida deliberately let hundreds of thousands suffer in order
to assist Bill Clintons political campaign. I realize that you didn't say
it, but your notation suggests that you are implying it.

	That said, I think it's irrelevent. If the president had violated
the law and sent the troops in early, the political remifications would
have been nil, vs. waiting for the governers call, which carries the
obvious consequences. The fact stands that bush had a great oppertunity
to show himself as sympathetic to domestic issues, and he blew it.

	It doesn't matter whos fault it was, GHWB could have saved the
day, and declined. It's his loss.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush vs. Congress
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:35:42 GMT
	<FOX.92Aug26074227@graphics.nyu.edu>
	<athos-260892094924@athos.apple.com>
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <athos-260892094924@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

   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?

I suppose it is because $s = \sqrt{\over{\sum^{N}_{j=1}{(X_j - a)^2}}{N}}$.

:-)
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:46:41 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Christian Moeller, you said people who have more children than they can
afford are irresponsible.  What if you can afford one more child, but you wind
up with twins (not ridiculous, it happened to my son and his wife). What
if your method of birth control fails; what if, what if, you know, 
"accidents" do happen and often to people who are NOT irresponsible.

It's dangerous and unfair to make such broad generalizations.

	(Yeah, this is fun; but I wish I knew how to "nest" stuff
	like a lot of you seem to do!)


		Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:30:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.155825.16995@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>
>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?

Correct, or he/she is in serious doo doo.  The public can require its
employees to keep such information private, but has no such control over
businesses selling condoms.  But then, I don't see why the condoms couldn't
just be distributed in the boys/girls bathrooms along with information about
the hazards of sex, alternatives, other sources of information, etc..

>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.

Firstly, many private charities have offered to supply the condoms to the
schools free of charge.  Secondly, the meager expense of a few condoms would
be well worth it to the public in reduced teenage pregnancies and STD's.  To
argue that we can't afford to distribute condoms is very shortsighted.

-- 
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,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.130822.8001@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.190745.10678@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:

...I would be strongly opposed to presenting
>a positive view of promiscuity from an ethical standpoint though.  To do
>so would undermine our values system.

	Why's that?

	Explain why having sex with lots of different people is
EQUIVALENT, yes, EQUIVALENT to (let's say) beating people up just for
the fun of it.

	_I_ don't consider promiscuity to be morally wrong, any more
than I consider Russian roulette to be morally wrong.

	And why is it ONLY abstinence or promiscuity out of marriage?

	What about sex between unmarried lovers?

	Or does Richard Doel classify that as "promiscuity"?

/Loren
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bosnia
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:14:52 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:

>
> 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

His intel sources are just as good as yours, since the NYT was referring to a
CIA National Intelligence Estimate.  CIA predicted back in 1990 that Yugoslavia
would breakup within 18 months of their estimate.

But that's just a prediction, not a crisis.  Bush believes in government as a
response to crises.  Lots of people have to die, starve, go days without
drinking water (as in South FL) before GHWB figures it's time to get involved.




|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3129 alt.politics.elections:11702 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3018
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Aug26.202053.29661@igor.tamri.com>, by donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin):
> 
> Silly point:  all kinds of people get pregnant unintentionally.  I'm
> completely pro-choice; I even support the idea of paying for abortion
> with public funds.  I also feel that abortion is an ugly thing bit it
> HAS to remain legal and available on demand.
> 

Abortion is an ugly thing?  The Gulf War was an ugly thing.
Yugoslavia is an ugly thing.  Colonoscopy is an ugly thing.  What's
your point?  Medical procedures are icky?

And my unscientific opinion is that there is one major cause for
unwanted pregnancy: ineffective birth control.  Contributing factors
to why birth control is ineffective are 1. Imperfect implementation by
women and men, and 2. Methods that are less than perfect even when
effectively implemented.

I don't even regard abortion as a "necessary evil."  It is a medical
procedure, & one that women employ as an absolute last resort.  It is
a vicious, unfounded, cynical republican conservative myth that there
is an army of women out there that "got drunk, got laid, got pregnant,
got scraped." without a second thought.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Arkansas
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 22:42:33 GMT


 Can someone explain to me why George Bush is ridiculing the 
Arkansas National Guard? At least I understand a sneering
reference to the "leader" of the ANG as ridicule. And also
why does he feel comfortable dismissing Arkansas as a "state
somewhere between Oklahoma and Texas"? This seems to me to 
undignified and unstatesmanlike.
####
1
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3647 talk.politics.misc:43017 alt.politics.clinton:3646 alt.politics.elections:12065
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:49:36 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug31.211048.6672@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.180554.17290@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>
>>(And before anyone comes back on Clinton's draft record, at least he has a
>>reason: he opposed the war.
>
>Would you care to elaborate on this?  If he was opposed to the war, then
>why did he join ROTC?

Er, so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam to fight a war he didn't want
to fight?

I believe a fair number of people ENLISTED in the army to avoid going
to Vietnam: the military prefered to send draftees over there, and if
you entered the army willingly, they'd send you to, say, Europe.

Clinton worked for Sen. Fulbright when he was at Georgetown, and
concluded the war was wrong long before he went to Oxford.

--
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"
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The domestically prudent Bush
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:29:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <mjenkins.715012814@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca
(Michael Jenkinson) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Aug28.130358.8691@acd4.acd.com> jjs@iedv7.acd.com ( James J. Song       ) writes:
> 
> >Whenever American people need government help, Bush is always prudent.
> >He waited until LA rios was dying down before sending in troops. Now he 
> >waited again to send help into Florida. I guess he just would like to save 
> >a few days spending.
> >___
> 
> Read the excellent article/exerpt in last week's Time from the new
> book "The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush". It will put your
> observation into context.


Christ, give the man a break!  He waited for the governor to ask him for
troops, and now they are there.

If you think YOU can do a better job, go for it.
--
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!
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:06:16 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

> From article <qLPcqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, by elendil@mintir.new-o
> [..]
> >
> > 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
> > 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
> > Judiciary committee did such a poor job handling the Hill thing that the re
> > of the Senate had to back away from opposing him.  It was just plain dumb.
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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

Well, then you get into a definition of 'better judgement.'  If you come from a
state with a large black population, like here in LA, or Alabama, etc., and
that constituency supports the nomination, it's a tough decision.  Of course,
given the Anita Hill situation, many Senators were faced with a decision of who
they were going to piss off.  Vote for Thomas, you offend women.  Don't vote
for him, you risk offending blacks.  Vote for him, you lose the support of
pro-choice folks.  Don't vote for him, you risk the outrage from the pro-life
side.  Talk about being caught between a rock and hard place.  So many people
had such diverging opinions as to whether or not Thomas should have been
confirmed that one large constituency or another was going to be upset.  A
lawmaker truly trying to reflect the feelings of his state was in a real
quandry.



|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
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:12:00 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%

Did the article also mention the total *number* of black families in each
of these years (i.e. -- did the number of families increase or decrease in
that time)? What about accounting for inflation -- making $50,000 in
1970 is a lot different from $50,000 in 1990. Did the article happen to
remark upon similar "statistics" for other racial minorities, or even for
white families? How about the positioning of the "poverty level" in each
year and the percentages of families (for all groups) beneath/at/near this
level? And the kicker -- how did they define a "family"?
It's quite frustrating to see people post numbers thinking that those figures
reveal all. To imply that Bush is a strong economic leader and should be
re-elected because a set of non-descript numbers indicates at first glance
that a single group of people may have improved financially due to Bush's
reign in office is rather hasty of you. Never trust statistics, especially
those from the other side, simply because you can never be sure what info
was left out -- as I've suggested above. 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: rmmchlsk@leland.Stanford.EDU (robert michalski)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:34:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.181137.27002@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

stuff deleted

>But many welfare recipients don't care if they can adequately care for
>their children.  Not most, but many.  And the amount varies greatly from
>state to state.  In some states it is enough.  In some states it's zero.

stuff deleted

>It's common knowledge that many women on welfare choose to have more
>children for the purpose of getting increased welfare payments.  These
>are mainly inner-city inhabitants, who don't plan on using much of that
>money to care for the child, but are glad to take the money.  Such people
>are often seen driving expensive cars, wearing expensive clothing, etc.
>Of course it's not all welfare families that do this, it's probably not
>even a majority of them, but it's a frequent occurrence, and it is common
>knowledge.
>

stuff deleted

>   - Dave Borden
>     borden@m5.harvard.edu

     I'm not convinced.  Do you have any evidence to back this up besides
anecdotes and "common knowledge" (Who knows how much absurdity was once
"common knowledge"?)?  Do you know of any surveys that indicate what percen-
tage of "welfare mothers" have an additional child to pick up the extra
$60 or so a month?

Rob
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3364 talk.politics.misc:42638 alt.politics.clinton:3394 alt.politics.elections:11882
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
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 18:04:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.220758.879@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>
>>The Soviet Union collapsed because of extensive internal corruption.
>>This occured partly as a result of very widespread cynicism which
>>essentially provoked an everybody-for-themselves attitude.  The same
>>thing could happen here.  For example, we have a tax dodger for
>>president.
>
>	How is Bush a tax dodger?
>
>	I've never heard _that_ one before.

Some folks believe this because Bush claims Texas (no state income tax)
as his home and doesn't
pay state income tax in Maine. I don't really know what his Maine tax
status is and frankly, I'm not sure how he gets away with this Texas
resident stuff. Someone told me he cast his vote in Houston during the
1988 election. He owns a plot of land in Houston and stays in the
Houstonian Hotel when he's in town. This, however, would not qualify him
to pay in-state tuition at a state university. I'm not sure he could
get a Texas driver's license without a permanent address here.
Again, someone once told me that the Maine tax people were trying to
get his tax status reviewed so they could collect some back state income
taxes.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:01:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <BtxI4F.H40@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Jewell) wrote:

> Tell me, why would he have to submit a request BEFORE the federal machinery
> was put in motion?  Why wouldn't it be staged and ready to go when it became
> obvious that part of the United States was about to be run through a very
> large garbage disposal?  Why didn't george react to the Governor's request
> by putting one phone down and picking up another to the Commanding General
> of the troops involved and just saying "Go."  Why didn't george have a man
> standing next to the Governor with a battery-powered radio with satellite
> dish to establish communications?  (My people use on of these to contact
> a field researcher in a bloody Toyota in Central Africa.)

The troops *were* ready.  Moving Troops DOES take some time, ya know.  They
were there within 24 hours of the request.  What do you people think,
troops can be dispatched at a moments notice?
 
> The only reason I can think of is that he doesn't have a grip on anything 
> but the election, much to the detriment of the Southern United States.

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?

--
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