HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Friends and family
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:51:20 -0500
Summary: this isn't MCI!
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I am interested in putting a little light on the "I vote for the man I would
want to be close friends with or have in my immediate family".

Let's look at the family part first.

1)  Of course, we don't CHOOSE our families, so it's not much of a question of
want.

2)  The patriarchal attitude of 'the President is the moral leader of our
country' is part of the reason why we seem to have moral drift.  The President
is hardly qualified to be our moral leader, anymore than he (someday she?) is
automatically qualified to be our starting power forward for the 96 Olympic
 basketball team.

3)  My grandfather is a great guy, and I wouldn't trade him for any other
grandfather.  However, I disagree with his politics enough that I sure don't
want him as President.  Why then would I want the reverse?

Okay, so maybe the President should be my buddy

1)  How many people can honestly say that they have no friends who are not a
little bit messed up?  Maybe your friend is well-meaning, but accident prone. 
Maybe you have friends who are warm and kind people, but not great achievers.  

2)  Personally, I'm not too sure that I want anyone with strong political
allegiances as my close personal friends.  While I am interested in politics, I
dislike the current political parties enough that I can't really say of any of
my friends that they are real "party people".

3)  I think that Charles Barkley would be really fun to have as a friend.  I
base this on his public persona (which is all most of us have for the
candidates, too).  I don't want Charles to be President, though.
On the other hand, he can be starting in the 96 Olympics.

Friendship is based on all kinds of things that are irrelevent to public
office.  Friendship may be based on similar tastes in music or books or crs, on
proximity in residency to another person, in working together at the same job,
etc.  None of them are remotely connected to qualifications for the White
House.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:25:09 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <19649@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
>Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
>Date: 24 Aug 92 17:47:04 GMT

>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.
>--
>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

Just for the record, I did not mean (though my words could quite reasonably 
be construed as meaning) that "public monies" should be sunk into public 
education. I meant that that is precisely the unchallenged assumption, viz, 
that there is a public responsibility to provide, etc. Of course, I don't 
think there is any such responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:06:10 GMT

In article <qVLqPB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>
>>   Did anyone else notice all the young, college-aged, enthusiastic people
>>   at the Republican convention last night?
>>
>>   I seriously doubt they are all delegates.  The guys are clean-cut,
>>   nerdy-looking and mostly wearing blue-blazers, white shirts and ties.
>>   The girls are very attractive (in a country-club sort of way) and
>>   could be models for milk commercials.
>>
>>   They seem to be leading the cheers and providing much of the enthusiasm.
>>   They are very photogenic and are often captured in the television shots
>>   of the convention crowd.  There are a lot of them.
>>
>>   Are they ushers?  Hosts and hostesses?  Young-Rebulican cheerleaders
>>   brought in to fill space and put life into the cavernous Astrodome?
>>   ==
>>
>>   Bob                                               Seattle, Washington
>>
>
>If they're running Houston like they did here in New Orleans in '88, those kids
>are ushers, gopher, flunkies, otherwise known as volunteers.  If it were a
>science fiction con, at least they'd get a t-shirt, but those young-Republicans
>hardly get a thank you.  You've pegged their role in the show:  filler for the
>TV cameras.  The real delegates can't be bothered with  anything but the two or
>three speeches in the evening, so they let the kids come in and look important.
>It doesn't do much for the image of the GOP, however, since they're all so
>preppy and white bread that it's obvious what's going on.
>
>
	YOU LIVE IN METAIRE AND YOU CALL SOMEONE ELSE "PREPPY?"
I have known many intelligent students who like to view the world in
a realistic light.  When they go to work, they notice what the workers
wear and they find that suit and tie is the 'work uniform.'  They do
not think that there is an intrinsic value in disturbing this business
etqiuette.  If they go to the convention of a party for which they
hold admiration and respect, then if they dress as what they perceive
to be respectful I see no deceit.  These students are people who want
to move forward and make a life in this world, not destroy it.
	Maybe you should talk to some of these 'white bread' 'preps.'
maybe then you will see what it is like to have hope in the future.

					J. Wagner

>|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
>|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: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: NAFTA IS GOOD ...
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:27:52 GMT

In article <mjenkins.714857288@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
|> [stuff deleted]
|> 
|> Again, at Canadian expense. We spend 125 years building this country,
|> and its all gonna be stolen to the Rio Grande.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^

Correction: Rio Bravo del Norte.

-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2807 talk.politics.misc:41774 alt.politics.clinton:2928 alt.politics.elections:11506
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
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: 25 Aug 92 18:57:25 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <1992Aug25.172031.29145@crd.ge.com>, doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>    3. You say, "Whereas condoms, if used ...".  Thats a pretty big if.  I've
>       seen lots of stories (one on 20/20 a couple of weeks ago) that
>       demonstrate that people still aren't using condoms all that often,
>       even though they know the dangers of unprotected sex.  I think that
>       convincing people to use condoms is just as difficult as convincing
>       them to abstain.

Okay, so we we agree condoms work, more or less.  So how do we encourage
people to use them?  Well, someone very close to you once said:

>	2) Handing out condoms encourages their use.

Bingo!

>So are you saying that those in the media would put their own financial
>interests ahead of public health?

Oh my god!  Say it isn't so.

>I thought that's what Republicans are always being accused of.

Yes, it's called "greed".  Very pervasive problem.  Just Say No To Greed.

>I thought those in the media were the "sensitive" types who put public good
>ahead of their own self-interests.  It seems that if that were the case,
>they'd be willing to sacrifice a few bucks to help stop the spread of AIDS and
>teen pregnancy. 

You *do* live in dreamland, don't you?

>I don't think you need a degree in psychology to conclude that you're
>now more likely to do act S.  When the risks (pregnancy, STDs) of a
>beneficial (it feels good) act (intercourse) are reduced, people will
>be more likely to do the act.

As one who enjoys act S and dislikes unwanted pregnancy and STD's, and who
would like to reduce incidence of pregnancy and STD's among teens, I must say
I agree with your argument in favor of distributing object C's.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4002 alt.politics.clinton:3963
From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:57:23 GMT

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.
>

Why do you think he keeps a small apartment in Texas that he visits once
a year?  Gary Trudeau exposed his specious Texas residency for the purpose
of avoiding taxes in a series of Doonesbury cartoons.  He even published
a form which you could send to some Texas department which would establish
your Texas residency so you could avoid taxes too just like George Bush.
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Keywords: Dan Dan, he's our man if he can't dither, Georgie can
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:38:25 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>But on a more serious note.   Doesn't the whole issue indicate that Danforth
>may be more than a little bit of a light-weight.  (and please, I am actually
>looking for some proof to the contrary, not bad jokes or knee-jerk defending of
>him).
>

I have no idea what to do: the issue sounds like a valid one...the sky could
be falling, there may be Communists in the State Dept...etc. But making 
a Big Deal about it is just fighting the Tar Baby. But if you're stand-offish
like Dukakis was about flag waving, it's worse. I either posted (or dreamed
I posted, which is very sick) that having run on the flag in '88 and
Motherhood in '92, one can only look forward to the Republican's running
in '96 on the Apple Pie Platform. Hopefully, the real issues of the day
will make this whole Murphy Brown issue nugatory come October.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:32:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Sep1.225210.993@nuchat.sccsi.com> lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>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...

Errrr excuse me but don't you mean READ MY POLLS(and weep;-)


Stan Knight
|This is the .sig I wrote so that I could have a .sig just like the .sig on|
|the Gary Shandling Show.                                                  |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jjs@iedv7.acd.com ( James J. Song       )
Subject: The domestically prudent Bush
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:03:58 GMT

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.
___
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front.....
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:51:37 GMT

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.
 

 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Subject: Re: Jeff Kemp?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:52:09 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <180uj1INNq29@agate.berkeley.edu>, by martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero):
> 
> Anyone know who Jeff Kemp is?  If so, is he still active, and if he
> is, then where?

He is a NFL quarterback.  He was with Seattle for a long time, then he
was picked up by the Eagles last year when all the rest of their QB's
were injured.  He was cut this year by the Eagles in favor of David
Archer.  For my money, I'd call this a bad decision.  (Kemp has been
a good backup for many years, with many teams.  Archer is a WLAF 
has-been.  Atlanta was a long time ago.)  Right now, I believe, Kemp
is unattached.

Bill Nolte
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:36:15 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

I've been watching CNN this afternoon, listening to Gov. Lawton Chiles and
other Floridians, while watching scenes of the aftermath of the hurricane and
the continuation of relief efforts.  What struck me about the whole discussion
with Chiles is that there must be a lot of angry voters in South Florida right
now.  Angry voters who have their Congresscritters down there with them
pitching in to help.  It's going to be hard for the President to duck
responsibility for the slowness of the response time of FEMA and the military
in providing help.

This means that Bush and his surrogates are going to have to spend more time
and money in FL than they had planned.  They've all but conceded CA to Clinton,
and this new requirement in FL now means they've probably already lost Texas,
since Clinton is leading there and they're going to have to re-direct resources
to FL.

With CA and TX gone, they've got to fight for FL.  I don't know if that's going
to be even possible, however.  Of course, given the way FEMA handled things
after Hugo in Charleston, all those people in South FL may not have homes or
voting places by November...




|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:4117 talk.politics.misc:43826 alt.politics.clinton:4084 alt.politics.democrats.d:2
From: dm@think.com (dave mankins)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:02:20 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: wingit.think.com

In article <1992Sep4.194642.3183@genome.wi.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>BUSH BACKPEDDLE ON DEBATES A DISSERVICE TO AMERICA
>September 3, 1992
>
>     George Bush is hiding under the table when
>it's time to put the issues on the table.
>
>     With Labor Day approaching and the President's
>men now rejecting the proposal of the bipartisan
>Commission on Presidential Debates

They ought to hold the debates in the original format anyway.  If
George doesn't show up, they can have a chicken sitting in his
chair to cluck out his response for him.

-- 
david mankins (dm@think.com)
			Gregor Samsa awoke one morning to find himself 
			transformed into an enormous software defect.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Gender
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:08:26 GMT

In article <l7bnvbh.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Note followup to talk.abortion.
>
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
>>In article <7ybncfp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>As for unborn son/daughter, I might point out that it isn't necessarily
>>>either.  "It" would be more appropriate for the early stages, as no sex
>>>organs have developed.  (and for the pedants out there, sexuality and 
>>>gender are not determined solely by genes)
>>
>>Please explain yourself.  The ENTIRE individual is defined at birth.  
>
>Incorrect.  One's genes are (generally) determined at conception.  Physical
>

WHOOPS!  BIG BOO-BOO!  What you said is absolutely right and that's what
I meant.  Thanks for reminding me.

>One's gender is not solely determined by whether one has an XX or XY 
>chromosome pair.  As examples ...
>
>One genetic disorder blocks receptors for male hormones.  As a result,
>such a person will appear to be female externally (and will probably
>have been raised as a female) but will be reproductively neuter and
>genetically male.
>

If you hvae female traits in a male body, you still are, genetically speaking
male.  All this is determined at conception.

>And what about those who have one gender physiologically and another
>behaviourally?  Who are one sex but behave, dress, and percive themselves
>to be the other.
>
What is important, in gender pertaining to abortion, is that the
genetics of the person is defined at conception.  

>More examples, but rather off topic.
>
>>>>Killing the elderly because they burden us and our systems is also an
>>>>after-the-fact correction.  Getting rid of immigrants after flooding
>>>>our shores can also be construed to be an after-the-fact correction.
>>>>
>>>>I have nothing against 'correcting' someone with AIDS.
>
>>I did not say anything about exterminating people with AIDS.  Please, I ask
>>you, do not slander me.  Didn't I say that once a person has AIDS, I want
>>lots of care and compassion for them no matter how they got it?  
>
>My mistake.  
>Your comments (quoted above) implied that "correction" = "killing"
>
>-- 

That's fine and thanks.

But if your original comment used this point to suggest that my pro-life
perhaps is not really "noble," then can we say the opposite now?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:30:36 GMT

In article <25w0PB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
-> kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) writes:
-> 
-> [lots of stuff about Clinton, Lincoln and the media deleted]
-> 
-> >
-> > Oh, Christ on a Crutch... I should have know you were going to froth on
-> > about Liberal Revisionism.  It's hardly that uniform:  witness the media
-> > that clicked its heels and goose-stepped along during the Gulf War, and
-> > the media that destroyed Gary Hart's Presidential aspirations.
-> >
-> 
-> Agreed.  It also seems that many of the radical right (and mainstream
-> Republicans too) have forgotten the media that help contribute to the
-> destruction of Jimmy Carter's Presidency in 1980.  Remember these lines:
-> 
-> 'And that's the way it is, day 130 of the hostage crisis in Iran'
-> 
-> Every night, Walter Cronkite and CBS news reminded us that Carter had big
-> trouble.  Every night the media imflamed the situation just tha much more,
-> making *anyone* other than Carter a desirable President.

	No matter what the political bias, the news cannot ignore a
major world event.

-> 
-> The media doesn't show bias in favor of Democrats.  It shows bias against
-> incumbents.  A sitting President is a much easier target than a moving
-> candidate.  It's easier to bash Rubbers Bush for screwing up the hurricane
-> relief effort because it happened on his watch.  Just as Carter received the
-> blame for starting the hostage crisis by letting the Shah in, Bush gets blamed
-> for mixed signals to Iraq.

	It doesn't favor Democrats, it favors liberals.  Take some
time to watch CNN and read the newspaper.  There is a definite left
tilt even when election politics is not involved.  The bias is not
obvious since they are supposed to impartial, but it shows itself in
what stories are selected and what angle is taken.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3438 talk.politics.misc:42793 alt.politics.clinton:3462 alt.politics.elections:11931