HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 10:41:31 GMT

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:

> Hurricane hits.  Bush sends troops to Homestead AFB, a federal installation.
> He sends a MASH, field kitchens and food for a division, and a Navy
> construction batallion.  The SeaBees clear the base, the MASH staff sets up a
> hospital, and the food workers get ready to feed storm victims.  He tells the
> Governor that there's lots of stuff just waiting for his people on this
> *federal reservation*.

While a nice thought, did you see pictures of Homestead AFB after Andrew hit?
How long do you think it would take them to clean up that mess and be able
to do what you mentioned above? Virtually every building at the AFB was
destroyed.

>  No violation of states' rights necessary.  Just a
> little caring and quick-thinking by the Bush administration.

Methinks you're more interested in finding something to criticize Bush about
than you are in looking at facts objectively.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4019 talk.politics.misc:43648
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:59:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US


"What is the smallest percentage of the total popular vote someone can
receive and still get elected president?"

<1%.  Here is how it works.  In states totalling 271 electoral votes,
turnout is very, very light.  In those states only 1% of those eligible
to vote vote.  In those states, there are, oh, say five or six candidates.
One candidate wins all those by squeakers.  In the rest of the country
he isn't even on the ballot.

Now, the question turns to eliminating variables.  What if turnout is
mostly uniform?

Ok, suppose Perot were on the ballot in 271 electoral votes' worth of
states.  He wins all of them 35, 32, 32, + or - 2 %.  Thus, with a
mere 1/6 of those who _voted_, which is typically about one half
of those registered, which is less than those eligible, which is again,
less than the total population...

"You don't _need_ to fool all the people all the time, just about
20 million of them once every 4 years!"


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:51:10 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Sep2.003053.22135@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, by tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin):
>>It's common knowledge that many women on welfare choose to have more
>>children for the purpose of getting increased welfare payments.

No, Tom Perigrin didn't say this but what kind of gap toothed chowderhead did?
Was this another 'bait the liberals and duck' post?

Yo Tom, keep the attributions in your follow up so we can send the 'turn you
into an Alan Alda liberal' virus to this guy.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4109 alt.politics.clinton:4079 talk.politics.misc:43813
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:35:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep4.123555.11553@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>The truth is:
>
>	Democrats will raise your taxes, spend more on social programs, increase the size
>	of government, restrict your ability to succeed, punish you if you do succeed and
>	blame you for hurting those who do not succeed.
>
>	Republicans will raise your taxes less, spend less on social programs, increase the
>	size of government slower,  encourage you to succeed, try to reward your success
>	and try to provide a handup not a handout for those who do not succeed.
>
>
>
>That it and thats that.
>
Fortunately, Fred, that's not it. Propaganda pure and simple, to justify nothing more
than GREED....I have republican relatives in S. California and I have heard what they
say in public and what they say in private. They don't give a damn about anything but
their neighborhood and their bank accounts.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3790 talk.politics.misc:43224 alt.politics.elections:12170
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 2 Sep 1992 00:11:36 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <1992Sep1.152133.25112@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> 
|> Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
|> the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
|> while he slept?
|> 
|> Value comparison:  Which is more important to you?
|> 1. Having a good job tomorrow?
|> 2. Having a tomorrow?

I assume you are saying that Bush gets credit for all the good things
that happened on his watch and the Democrats get all the blame for
the bad things that happened.  If it gets votes, do it -- if your
concience doesn't bother you at night.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: A question on abortion
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:10:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.062225.892@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
-> 
->     Since the 'abortion' debate has popped up here from time to time (and I
-> don't want to dive into talk.abortion), I have a question for all the legal
-> types out there:
-> 
->     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.  Has the
-> conviction of the second count ever been taken up the federal court system
-> and overturned based on Roe v. Wade?  If not, and the conviction has stood,
-> why hasn't it been brought to the Supreme Court?
-> 
->     Just a question that's bugged me for a while.
-> 

	Row vs. Wade was a women suing for the right to abort her own
baby.  Trying to apply this to a murderer who killed a women and her
unborn child wouldn't work.  
-- 
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: reb@cssn02.ssc.gov (Bob Blair)
Subject: Re: School choice: comments and questions
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:34:06 GMT


The school voucher "proposal" is one that has many facets.  It is the
existence of a number of different perspectives that this "proposal" can
be looked at that makes for difficulty in resolving whether it is a
good or bad idea.  The two most prominent components are fiscal and
educational.

The proponents of vouchers regard it as a way to improve education and
give arguments about how "competition" improves everything.  I believe this
is a flawed view.  In particular I suspect that the successes of the German
and Japanese economies demonstrates that cooperation (between labor and
management, government and the private sector) is a key element in improving
everyone's lot.  Simply introducing competition into the educational system
can not be relied on to improve it.

Most people who oppose the voucher system see it in a very different light.
The main beneficiaries of a voucher system will be those who currently enroll
their children (with no government compensation) in private or parochial
schools. Vouchers is a way to give a tax break to those who are wealthy and
those who are religious (two core conservative constituencies).  It is not
viewed as an educational program, if anything it will decrease the amount
of available public money for educational (and other) programs.

Often proponents of vouchers argue that the University system which is
competitive should be a model for the lower grades.  This ignores two important
differences.  1) University education is not compulsory - you get kicked out
or don't make it in, you join the workforce.  2) Most Universities do not
rely solely or even dominantly on tuition.  These are likely very significant
and untrue of the lower grades.

                                                  Just some ramblings,
                                                     Bob B
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:26:15 GMT

All this about Christians killing and hating etc. is very interesting. I guess
we all know that the Atheists never persecuted anyone. They never sent
people to siberia, or tortured them for holding different views. They never
put people in mental hospitals because the had different beliefs. It's
only the Christians that hurt others. And you know all Christians are alike.
What a crock!

				mike
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: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:38:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.190745.10678@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>I am suggesting we neither encourage nor discourage promiscuity.  If the risks
>are as great as you suggest (compared to the benefits) then you have nothing
>to worry about in presenting a balanced view without drawing conclusions.

Say it again, Jim!  Let's give our children the information they need to make
the decision and trust them to do it.  Since families clearly aren't doing
this now, we should encourage and aid them.  In the meantime, we should make
sure that each and every child receives adequate sex education--just the
facts, no moralizing.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:00:58 GMT

Min Zhao writes: 

>In article <01GO047HLUTUCIQXXC@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>>       Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA.  President Bush,
>>as promised, eradicated  gangs from LA area.  Members  of various gangs take
>>part in picnics and baseball games together. They no longer kill people, but
>>are in community service.  This is a great victory for President Bush in the
>>decades long war against gangs.  Street War has been won by Republican White
>>House.  People can walk in the streets without any fear of a cross fire.  Mr
>>George Bush, the great President of USA after Ronald Reagan  made LA a safer
>>place to live.  Of course, there are few (gang looking) groups around.  They
>>have "favorite group" status anyway.....
>>
>>
>>Vicky:
>>Aug 24, UMass
>
>         UMass ???    This article looks more like from a 9 year old. Thanks
>to the "Education" president that helped producing such deep thinking mind.


Excuse me, but can we have some civility here?  There's no need
to be insulting.  If you have a comment about the views expressed
here, then express them.  

Please have some consideration for other people's feelings.

	Just a little annoyed at the attitude,
			John
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:42:15 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

> How did President Bush screw up the hurricane relief effort?
>
> Jeff.

How?  That's a difficult question.  FEMA never moves fast to help anyone.
That's a given.  Where Bush screwed up was to bop down to FL last Monday for a
photo-op, but let the wheels of FEMA turn at their regular slow pace.  I don't
think anyone can believe that Bush's meeting with Lawton Chiles wasn't a
request for federal assistance.  All of this baloney about how the state didn't
ask for the federal help until later in the week is silly.

What Bush should have done was sit on top of the bureaucrats, or have someone
on James Baker's staff do it.  Because he didn't speed things up, he gets the
blame.

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.




|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: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: RNC platform please
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:11:10 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <oneil.715491500@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep2.173615.18460@aosg.gsf.dec.com> yackel@ccvax1.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Dan Yackel) writes:
>>>>I dont know if this is the right place but could someone post the
>>>>RNC Platform please???
>>
>>>It's 90 some pages.  Get your own copy by calling (202) 863-8500.
>>
>>True, but if someone at the RNC would take the time to scan it, it would be
>>all over the net in no time!  If you ask me, it looks like they don't want
>>people to read it because the Democratic platform was online in about a day!

>So?  If you ask me, they think that they've got better things to do.
>They may not even know how much distribution on-line stuff gets.

Interesting that you would say this.  The Clinton campaign certainly 
feels that it is important to get this stuff online.  They put everything
out in a day and I believe that they even have their own internet 
connection now.

I certainly feel the Democrats are more grass roots.

>Asking either of us is rather silly.  If you want to know why they
>haven't made it available, ask them.

Why is it silly for the LARGE NUMBER of people who have asked to ask online?
The Democrats got theirs online.  If those were available via anonymous
FTP, then only naturally would we be querying about the Republican platform.

>>Furthermore, does the Republican party /charge/ for copies, given how 
>>thick it actually is?  I don't want any of my money going to the Republicans.
>>
>>I just want their platform.

>Yawn.  It's easy enough to find out.  If it isn't worth checking, it
>isn't worth me telling.

My, aren't you endearing?

But anyway, this group seems to be the natural place to be checking.

Of course, I'm sure you wouldn't want that thing to get into the hands
of the culturally elite anyway.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3149 alt.politics.clinton:3212 alt.politics.elections:11721 talk.politics.misc:42278
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:38:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <oeb2v=q00h5yAtNk1K@andrew.cmu.edu> conradp+@CMU.EDU (Conrad Poelman) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 25-Aug-92 Put some spin on
>this... Paul S Galvanek@pitt.edu (233)
>
>> 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%
>
>
>> Yep must be tough!
>
>> PSG 
>
>Such statistics are utterly meaningless without adjusting for inflation.
> Are they adjusted for inflation?  If so, this is indeed interesting. 
>If not, then it in fact reinforces the common belief that blacks are
>worse off than they used to be, given that inflation between 1970 and
>1990 was almost certainly more than 50%.
>
>--Conrad

Actually, these figures are just simply useless.  Without knowledge of the
error rate, sample form and experiment design, model expectations, if these
are compaired to the population as a whole or to a select subset, -- you
get the idea.

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Organization: nope
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:08:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.151348.1869@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.181543.2551@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Reading the same story in multiple places merely demonstrates that
>>it's been printed in multiple places.  That isn't "verification",
>>especially with an incestuous press that believes itself.
>>
>So are you saying you think the story about Bush distorting Clinton's
>tax record ("128" tax hikes) is bogus? Do you believe that claiming
>Clinton raised taxes 128 times was an honest statement for Bush to make?
>And that only the horribly liberally biased media, including the Wall Street
>Journal, are doing the distorting?
>
>Andy, will you believe absolutely *anything* Bush says, or what?

What is Warner babbling about?  Pointing out unreliable sources
doesn't imply that I believe Bush on a specific issue.  Hint: I made a
general comment about the press in general, after a specific comment
about the campaign activities of a specific publication.

I've publically posted that I think Bush lies.  I then moved on to
other discussions, like whether or not Clinton does, and the
reliability of sources.  Those discussions don't imply ANYTHING about
my feelings towards Bush.

Warner appears to be under the misconception that "Bush is evil" means
"Clinton is better".  It doesn't.  If Clinton can't withstand scrutiny
....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4063 alt.politics.elections:12410 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3357 talk.politics.guns:20548 talk.politics.misc:43716
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:03:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.213123.19508@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:

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

     I can't totally agree inasmuch as one's morality is very often
determined by one's religion, or lack thereof.
     In any case, you do bring up a good point: Because abortion is a MORAL
issue, i.e. it is an issue which concerns an individual's personally held
beliefs, it doesn't make sense to legislate against it.  Ethics can be
legislated, NOT morality.  (By the way, that is one of the reasons I
consider myself to be a truer Republican than King George, Birdman, Smilin'
Patty B., and the rest of the Family Values iconographers.  In the end,
however, the closest thing I have to a party is now the right side of the
Democratic.)
 
> There are many good arguments against abortion which are based on 
> secular thought. 

     Which brings up a point I've been pondering since the GOP platform
committee:  
     What is the view from the religious right/political right wing on in
vitro fertilization?
     An acquaintance of mine went to a fertility doctor who implanted five
(5) FERTILIZED eggs in her.  The doctor said that the success rate for such
a procedure usually ran about 20%, so odds were she would have one or two
kids.  Presumably the fertilized eggs (is the proper term "zygote"?) which
did not "take" were eliminated from her system.  Now under many people's
definition (I seem to remember hearing a lot of "life begins at conception"
language from the anti-choice camp), that is an abortion (actually
several).  In fact, it sounds similar to a RU-486 abortion (and we all know
what a train wreck that issue has become).  
     So, what's the deal?  Are fertility doctors insane nazi butchers just
looking for a way to murder the preborn?  Are they providing a valuable
service which enriches the lives of the incipient families involved?
Somewhere in between?  Let's get a read on this from our anti-choice
counterparts.

> Come over to talk.abortion sometime...

Are you kidding?  I'm stupid, but I'm not crazy.

> Doug Holtsinger

    One last thing: That acquaintance I mentioned is expecting quads! 
Nothin' like beating the odds.  Viva Las Vegas!

cmh
Vote, dammit!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: New poll results 
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:52:10 GMT

Newest poll results...printed this morning in Houston Chronicle of a
ABC poll, or was it CNN or CBS, or whatever...but anyway(I could go get
the paper but I am lazy), the results were as follows.....

Clinton - 56%

Bush    - 36%

hmmm...a 20 point lead....read em and weep...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush