HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 20:20:53 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.

While I agree with you in some respects, there are more than one kind
of reactionary and you seem to represent one of them...me, I'm somewhere
between liberal and libertarian.

>Like, Duh.  Think about it.  Who gets pregnant unintentionally?  The Poor.

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.

>So, now we have created a criminal.

Sorry, nobody CREATES a criminal.  I think that public education needs to
be supported but, when you say that some thug couldn't help himself, that
he had to off an old couple when they caught him burgling their apartment,
I think you've reached  the height of absurdity.  

>He is well armed because all you Right Wing Gun Loving Hillbilly Rednecks
>think that any moment now America might turn into Nazi Germany if we have
>any sort of gun control.

OK, Ace, riddle me this:  which gun control laws in the US have done
anything to prevent criminals from having guns?  Waiting periods are
a means of gratuitously harassing innocent citizens.  Background checks
I don;t mind, as long as refusals can be appealled and no records are kept
of who was checked.  Licensing schemes and registration are sheer idiocy.

Not all people who like shooting sports are Right Wing Nuts.  I've been
a registered Democrat for 12 years and I also like guns.  Imagine that! :)


>Our Tax Dollars now have to go into larger police departments, who are more
>likely to beat the shit out of people because they are scared to death
>of all those fully automatic machine guns that you Field&Stream types need
>for hunting those savage deer.
>Our Prisons are out of control.
>And now, at the other end of the spectrum, the bunch of you want to implement
>the Death Penality.

I'm also moderately for the death penalty, so long as it's only used to
punish the most violent criminals.  Sorry, there are some people so fucked
up that they should be removed from existence.

On the other hand, I also feel that the War on Drugs has given the
police entirely too much power.

>Well.  Glad I got that off my chest.  By the way,  Clinton is a complete
>DipShit, and I am not seriously gonna vote Libertarian.  I guess I may
>try to stay in Europe.  
>
>Flame On, Rednecks!

Silly nit.

    don


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Organization: nope
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.035743.10649@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>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%
>
>These nominal figures or not?  If they are nominal, then these numbers
>just mean that inflation has pushed the incomes not, without real
>gains.

Since have a pretty good idea of the inflation in the 70s and 80s,
there was LESS inflation in the 80s, we can't assume that these gains
are explained completely by inflation.  Maybe the 70s inflation pushed
a lot of Black families up to just under the $50k line and the 80s
inflation happened to push them over, but that argument requires data
that hasn't been presented.

>From Newsweek's review of Andrew Hacker's _Two Nations_ (3/23/92), "A

Wowsers!  We're quoting book reviews instead of the books themselves....

-andy


--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:31:23 GMT

In article <p55k61g@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> 
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

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

>> 	Now, you respond, 'Aren't they just a blob of cells?' Sure.
>> In the same sense that you are.  What is it that makes killing
>> so horrendous in our eyes?  Is it the act in and of itself?
>> [.. deletions ..]

> The Constitution still (thank God) contains enough undiluted provisions
> to keep *any* religious group from forcing its beliefs on the public
> at large by force of law. Somehow, Our Man Dan has never understood that...

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

There are many good arguments against abortion which are based on 
secular thought.  Come over to talk.abortion sometime and you'll 
find them. 

>Don Coolidge


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: Offended at being called a racist and hatemongerer!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:04:44 GMT

If you say that you agree with Buchanan's views, I will call you a gay-basher
and a hate-mongerer.  If your views are as you expressed them, I will not.

Dave
belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (Russ "Random" Smith)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:18:41 GMT

In <1992Aug23.070115.3144@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <8322@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>

>>I don't know of any overweight people who are going around demanding
>>federal subsidies for their habits.

>I've seen fat folks on food stamps.

Apparently you are under the confused impression that it's the low-fat health
foods that are easily obtainable by those with low or no income.

Au contraire.

-- 
Russ "Random" Smith
+----===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===-----------russ@okstate.edu--------+
|  Godfather of the Random Gang; Diplomat of the Brotherhood of Evil MUDders  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3426 talk.politics.misc:42777 alt.politics.clinton:3454 alt.politics.elections:11927
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 30 Aug 1992 05:09:26 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.225303.8298@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

You know, sometimes I think reading Usenet is a new form of "Call My
Bluff". Specifically, speaking of the restrictive covenant on Bush's
property, Freeman writes

>"Cute" is an apt term for the quality of the NYT's coverage.  The NYT
>knows that such covenants are not legally enforceable.

This is true.

>Moreover,
>neither the seller nor the buyer can remove them

I believe that this is *false.* It is possible, as I understand it, to
petition a court to have the covenant stricken out and such petitions
are granted. Do you have evidence otherwise? Chapter and verse, please.

>and they're quite
>common.

This is a meaningless statement, being so heavily qualified.

>Given that such covenants are legally meaningless albeit
>indelible evidence that the property was once owned by a racist, what
>does bringing them up tell you?

That Bush didn't overcome the inertia to have it legally removed.

andy
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why is there Federal Disaster Relief?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 13:55:04 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Aug25.155055.24811@Princeton.EDU> 
kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
> 1. Why don't all Florida residents have full private insurance for this
> sort of risk? Shouldn't the wonder of free markets allow them to be
> fully insured?
> 2. Won't disaster relief create a "dependency" relationship between
> recipients and the Fed Govt - people will continue to live in Florida
> despite the hurricanes because they know the Feds will always bail them
> out.

Not only that...I forget what the name of the program is, but the Feds 
have been subsidizing insurance for beachfront and coastal residents for 
years "to encourage development" which would otherwise be too risky or 
expensive.  Well, it worked.   There are now beachfront homes along most 
of the coastline, and the government subsidy has grown to enormous 
proportions and the government has a problem.   They'd like to drop the 
subsidy, but the homeowners and developers are saying,  "Hey!, you 
promised us affordable insurance if we would build here.  You can't back 
out now"  

This is just but one good example of what happens when the government 
tampers with free-market economics.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3883 alt.politics.elections:12253 alt.politics.clinton:3844
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 22:44:06 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

russ@math.okstate.edu (Russ "Random" Smith) writes:

> In <1992Aug23.070115.3144@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) write
>
> >In article <8322@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM
> >>
>
> >>I don't know of any overweight people who are going around demanding
> >>federal subsidies for their habits.
>
> >I've seen fat folks on food stamps.
>
> Apparently you are under the confused impression that it's the low-fat health
> foods that are easily obtainable by those with low or no income.
>
> Au contraire.
>
> --
> Russ "Random" Smith
> +----===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===-----------russ@okstate.edu-------
> |  Godfather of the Random Gang; Diplomat of the Brotherhood of Evil MUDders
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, remember last summer when the folks who make Ultra-Slim Fast were giving
away their product to the homeless???




|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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:00:45 GMT

In article <gDo9PB5w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> >The problem is that there is no extension of the plan past the first year.
>> >The OMB has no long-term goals for the budget outside of Gramm-Rudman.
>>
>> Until year 1 is started, why should they plan as if it was in place?
>> The plan hasn't been started, so it is rather silly to act as if it has.
>
>That's essentially one of the problems with the Bush administration.  The
>attitude is 'well, we don't need to think about that now, because it's not
>going to happen.'  Lack of planning is irresponsible, particularly on fiscal
>matters.

Nice twist, but that's not what's happening.  "What next" should be
based on what's been done, whether or not that was a good idea.
Branley thinks that Bush should plan as if he's gotten his program
enacted, when it hasn't been.

>> >If we move away from borrow-and-spend, we stop writing checks agains the
>> >future.  Faced with the prospect of more taxes or less spending (borrowing
>> >removed from the equation), the voters will be forced to allow politicians
>> >to make tough choices.
>>
>> That's all well and good, but Clinton is even further from that than
>> Bush is.
>
>At least Clinton has a plan.  George Herbert Walker Bush is a cynical liar who
>cannot be trusted to provide even basic ideas for running this country.  I'm
>ready to take the chance on the unknown commodity, given how repulsive the
>incumbent is.

Wowsers!  Branley thinks that Bush is aimlessly wandering around on
the edge of a cliff, but prefers Clinton, who's promised to run off
that cliff.

"He has a plan" doesn't imply that the plan is GOOD; no plan IS better
than a bad plan.  Notice what Branley admits about Clinton's plan.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush taking the credit for the fall of communism? (was Re: Clinton blunder)
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:37:44 GMT
	<5cLDqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA

In article <5cLDqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
-> 
-> To sum it up, it's sort of the converse of taking credit for the fall of
-> communism.  In the case of communism, he takes full credit for something that
-> many people contributed to.  In the case of hurricane relief, he gets the
-> lion's share of the blame for the slow federal bureaucracy.

	When did Bush take credit for the fall of the USSR?  I
remember him implying that Republican ideals prevented war until the
USSR fell under its own weight.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Republican Platform 1992: where is it?
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:52:52 GMT

In article <BtLsJ9.KrC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>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
>
>--

Speaking of the next election....My sister said she saw this on a local
TV station, but since I have not seen it anywhere else, I don't know 
whether to believe it or not....

What she said happened was, is that Qualye said that he planned to run
for president in the 94' election, and was looking forward to it...

think: there is no 94' presidential election....I don't know if it is
true or not, because I figured that the major networks would jump all 
over a Quayle-ism like that....anybody else here of this?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3125 talk.politics.misc:42230 alt.politics.clinton:3186 alt.politics.elections:11698
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
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: 27 Aug 92 12:36:17 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug27.004404.27203@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	While we are on the subject of abstinence, do those who
> recommend it as the _only_ legitimate form of sex (if no sex can be
> called sex) wish to practice what they preach. That is, have they
> stopped having sex with their spouses? If they haven't, then by their
> own teachings, they needlessly endanger themselves and their spouses.

Loren,

Those encouraging abstinence aren't saying anything about spouses doing
the same because it would be silly to do so.  We're not suggesting
abstinence as a form of punnishment that we're unwilling to take ourselves.
Abstinence is being offered as both a practical and responsible way to
avoid getting pregnant and STD's.  Obviously, within a monogomous
marriage, STD's aren't a problem (unless they were brought in to the
marriage).  If the couple is interested in avoiding pregnancy, they
can use some form of birth control (recognizing the chances of failure)
or they can practice abstinence.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Fred Malek
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:48:36 GMT



 Wasn't Fred Malek forced to retire from George Bush's 1988

campaign because of his participation in unsavory political

activities? 

-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:49:44 GMT

In article <Btps3J.9EE@wsrcc.com> wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
>I think we are missing the point here.  The initial statement was: "It
>seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have QUITE
>an impact on the _illegal_ market."

So?  The evidence provided doesn't address that point.  The responder
got to choose between addressing the point actually made or the
supposed argument.

>Aren't most criminals' guns stolen or purchased second hand or through
>strawman purchases?  Certainly if one STOPS all legal manufacturing,
>sale and ownership of guns then the criminals' ready supply via this
>channel will dry up also.

Yes.

>This has to effect the illegal market.

Not necessarily.  There are NO domestic sources of cocaine and
diversion from legal suppliers is negligible, yet the illegal
availability is nearly universal.  (I'm sure that there's some place
in the US where cocaine isn't readily available, but that's just
because most everything possible happens in the US.)  There is
negligible diversion from legal manufacture of a number of other
drugs, yet illegal manufacture is adequate.

Criminal use in the US doesn't require many guns; a couple of plane
loads/year would do.  That isn't much, not by drug-trade standards or
Prohibition standards.  The MINIMUM effect on the illegal market
necessary to provide ANY benefit is way beyond anything we've ever
accomplished.

Remember, out of every 100 guns in the US, one or two are owned/used
by criminals.  Getting rid of 90 of those guns is unlikely to provide
any benefit, because it will get rid of the wrong guns.  That's why
this approach to gun control has NEVER worked in the US or anywhere
else.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2935 alt.politics.clinton:3020 alt.politics.perot:1347
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:59:54 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug24.215544.27554@watson.ibm.com> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>I know TNR is biased. They're somewhere on the political spectrum
>between National Review and The Nation, probably just a bit left of center.
>That happens to agree pretty well with my bias, which is why I subscribe.
>I'm not subject to any delusion that it makes them a font of objective
>truth. They are, on the other hand, a well-regarded political magazine, much
>like NR, moreso than The Nation.

AAACCCKKK! You're saying the National Review is better regarded than The Nation?
Sure, Cockburn is trash, but The Nation as a whole, anywhere even near the
demagoguery of the National Review?

I've never known an NR not to scream smug anal pseudo-intellectual neo-fascism.
Are we talking about the same magazine?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2971 talk.politics.misc:42030 alt.politics.clinton:3055 alt.politics.elections:11602
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
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 17:26:55 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.

<1992Aug25.201028.3001@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
> Why do you exclude abstinence?  I'll admit that if you do have sex, using
> a condom is the best way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disaese.

A quick nitpick.  Condoms are the best way to prevent disease due to
"exchange of bodily fluids".  There are other far more effective
ways of preventing pregnancy.

|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush