HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <n=jntqf.howard@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>
>No kidding... If knowledge was common, Mr. Borden wouldn't have said something
>so FUCKING STUPID.  Here's an invitation, Mr. Borden...why don't you come
>down to the projects a few blocks from my apt. and we can ask the welfare
>mothers there if it bothers their concience that their kids are wasting good 
>tax dollars.
>
Okay, you've gone too far.  For your information, I did not say that all
welfare mothers are wasting tax dollars on their kids, I did not say that
most of them are, I said that SOME of them are.  There are SOME welfare
mothers out there who are not taking care of their children.  And for your
further information, I did not advocate cutting off welfare payments to
people.  What I said was that I'm in favor of gradually weaning people off
of welfare in a gradual, humane way.

Did you read my original post?  It really doesn't sound like you did.  I
happen to think that you're the one who is "so FUCKING STUPID".  You see
a few words that you don't like, or think you don't like, and you don't look
at the whole thing to figure out what the overall meaning is.  Maybe you're
not capable of it.

I apologize for having briefly stooped to your level in that last paragraph.
I welcome responses from intelligent individuals who may have more information
than I have.  I read those responses, I think about them, sometimes I make
counter-replies defending my original point of view, and sometimes I change
my mind and agree with them.  The kind of "knee-jerk" reaction that you gave
is useless and disgraceful.  (I'm just as liberal as you are, Mr. Berkey.
But I am not a "knee-jerk" liberal, and I think that people like you damage
liberal causes through your inability to discuss them rationally.)

    - David Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3571 alt.politics.clinton:3569 alt.rush-limbaugh:4125 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4938
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:30:23 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

I was totally amazed that there was a delay in getting federal aid to
florida, and it's convinced me that GHWB is flat out incompetant.
Here's what I figured would happen:

	Hurricane Andrew is on its way to florida. GHWB makes sure that
	the pentagon is ready to act on a moments notice.

	Andrew hits. Florida is devistated. GHWB interrupts his campaign
	and flies to the disaster area immediately, gathering damage info
	as it comes in. Arriving in florida, GHWB shows massive concern
	for the suffering, and promises immediate federal troops to 
	help out.

	As soon as the damage reports are coherent, GHWB is on the phone
	to the pentagon, dictating orders. Responsibility is delegated,
	and troops begin to trickle in on monday night, in time for the
	11pm news, if possible.

	GHWB circles through on wednesday, making sure that everything is
	okey-dokey, shopwing his concern, and leaving his phone number in
	case they need more help.

	GHWB casually mentions his concern for florida at a few news 
	conferences, and sucessfully demonstrates to the american people
	that he is "The Domestic President (TM)".

I was amazied that this didn't happen. GHWBs strongest liability is that
he is perceived as being uncaring about domestic issues. The disaster
was a made for TV oppertunity to get scads of great publicity on his most
problematic issue. If GHWB, a career politition, is so out of touch that 
he can't grasp this, he diserves to be roasted on an open fire.

This gaff could cost the GOP florida, a major player with many electorial
votes, and GHWB has noone to blame but himself.

-- 
                               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: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:55:04 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

> In article <1992Aug30.221319.2770@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freene
> >
> > Is there a Republican out there willing to defend the appointment
> >of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court? He is the judicial
> >equivalent of dragging drunks to the polls on election day, to
> >the point of physically helping them pull the lever. He is
> >additionally a slap in the face to African-Americans, by
> >condescenscion. Are conservatives proud of the law he makes?
> >Did he ask a question this term? I would be embarrassed to have
> >this man defending my ideology.
>
> Is there a Democrat out there willing to defend the "borking" of
> Supreme Court nominees?  Robert Bork was an exceptionally qualified,
> though conservative nominee, and the left attacked him with
> McCarthyite tactics.  So instead of getting exceptionally qualified
> conservative nominees, the Republicans have been putting up
> nominees who it is impossible to bork, but who are less qualified.
>
> Gerald

Talk about a non sequitor.  What does the 'borking' of Supreme Court nominees
have to do with the judicial qualifications of Clarence Thomas?

I wouldn't call Scalia, Kennedy or Souter unqualified.  Conservative, yes, but
hardly unqualified.  Thomas, on the other hand, is weak any way you look at it.
He's also the source of yet another Bush lie.  Bush had the unmitigated
audacity to stand before the nation and say that Thomas was the most qualified
man to sit on the Supreme Court.  This is patently untrue.  He may be the the
most qualified black Republican to sit on the Court, but that would then give
the lie to the rest of GHWB's ramblings about Thomas.  You know, the bit about
how race had nothing to do with the appointment?

So, instead of deflecting the issue, how about we go back to the original
question:  can you (or anyone else) defend the Thomas appointment?



|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,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:29:57 GMT

I've never understood why people think condoms should be available in
washrooms and from school nurses etc. under the guise of "people may
be too embarassed to go buy them in a drugstore."

Lets get this straight: a teenager is apparently too embarassed to buy
a condom in a drugstore, but not too embarassed to get naked in front
of a girl/boy he/she probably just met, and have sex together?

If you're too "embarassed" to buy the condom, you should be more
embarassed to have sex.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2991 alt.politics.clinton:3071 alt.politics.perot:1350
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Date: 26 Aug 1992 18:14:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

In article <1992Aug26.160835.23854@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:


>>
>>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
>....


There is alot more at stake here, not rather Bill or George lies more.

This whole thread doesn't matter, what matters is who has the will
and policies to move this country in the right direction. 

I say that person is Bill Clinton.

Timothy B. Reynolds 

Clinton/Gore 
Campaign 92'

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bullshit (was Re: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front...)
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:37:49 GMT
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI

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

I'm sorry, I just cannot let this one go...

What kind of drugs have you been taking, Vicky?? Or are you just 
spreading bullshit for the GOP?

Gang violence has spread rapidly in L.A. especially since the riot. 
In fact, last weekend (or the one before) was the bloodiest in L.A.
history with a dozen or more murders. 
 
George Bush stop gang violence? HAHAHAHHAHA
 
George and his kind are the CAUSE of the conditions which breed such
violence.
 
The racist GOP fosters opression of minorities and opposes any real 
advances in civil rights. Those people in L.A. are in such desparate
straits that it isn't even funny. 45% unemployment for black males, 
poverty like you've never seen before, violence that continues to 
escalate are just some of the problems.
 
I know. I have a friend there and was out in L.A. visiting a month 
ago. I saw things, talked to people. It just re-enforced my support 
of Bill Clinton and Al. Gore.
 
John Palmer

----
CLINTON/GORE in '92 
Our Nation cannot survive another 4 years of Republican
Facism.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Jobs
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:28:30 GMT


	Hello. I have a question for you people employed in the private
sector out there, or those who have been employed therein.
	When you got your degree, assuming you got your degree, and assuming
that degree was intended to prepare you for the job you are now in,
would you say that that degree has fulfilled or been necessary in your
ability to function properly, i.e., to do your work?  From my few
experiences most of the people who go into the 'Real World' find that
from what they learned in post-secondary education, only a very
small amount or none is used.  In many cases the knowledge which is
actually relevent to their work was never mentioned in college.
	Obviously if your job is purely technical or research oriented
the school experiences would give you at least the facilities to
communicate with your co-workers to some degree.  However, businesses
survive and grow by improvising, by finding niches and new solutions.
Textbooks which are even months old can be lightyears behind current
industrial goals.  The knowledge which one learns in college can thus
very quickly render one obsolete, and thus dangerously unemployable,
or at least the advantage of a degree lessens.
	What if everyone were to go to college, and get degrees? Business
would standardize its level of technical ability at the level of the
graduating students; successful businesses would go further.  Through
competition, schools would have to remain on the cutting edge of business
methods.  And what if, like the formation of an ox-bow lake, that business
's market suddenly dries up?  Does the student's highly technical and
involving degree suddenly mean nothing?  If everyone gets a degree,
then it certainly seems like it would.
	Clinton wants everyone to be able to go to college.  But this doesn't
seem to  me like it would help the college graduate so much as hurt them,
by dropping the value of having a degree.  And the advantages of a college
education in business is truly dubious at best.  After all, the booming
pre-depression and post-WW2 periods were created by people with even
less governmentally sponsored education than is available today.  It
was even conceivable for someone to go through a nice lifestyle
without a high-school diploma.

				J. Wagner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: To Stan Knight
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:26:48 GMT

In <2383@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>In article <mjenkins.715433773@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>>Could I please have your e-mail address? I have a reply for you, but I
>>want to e-mail it, and "stank@perrault.unet.com" doesn't seem to do
>>it. I always get the mail returned. I don't want to retype the whole
>>message for purposes of posting it.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Mike
>I'll galdly discuss anything you want and I agree our current discussion was
>getting a bit too long for the net. I'm not sure where you got the above
>e-address but the one that will work is:

>                     stank@herb.net.com

>I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for net address. Problem is, I accidently deleted the e-mail
file. I've got it saved...I just need to figure out how to get it back
to my elm from emacs. (Its all too confusing!)

Mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:15:18 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

          [delete] 
>conservative, and an excellent writer, and a quick look at any of [Will's]
>recent output will explain why Rush Limbaugh was a speaker at the convention,
>and George Will wasn't. From Wednesdays Washington Post:

>	"When George Bush's campaign slithered through Georgia, Rep Newt
>Gingrich rose to the challenge of lowering still furthur the tone of it."

>	Make no mistake, Will is a dyed in the wool conservative and loyal
>member of the GOP. It's just that, as he put it "Today honerable conservatives
>feel the sort of fury felt by honerable conservatives 40 years ago when
>Joe McCarthy was giving anti-communism a bad name" ... " serious people
>flinch from being associated with the intellectual slum that is the Bush
>campaign, with its rifraff of liars and aspiring ayatollahs".

>	It's good stuff. Will is a regular contributor to the Washington
>post, and occasionally the NYTimes prints his stuff (but not often). For
>the dittoheads out there, maybe it'll help you grasp the difference between
>Rush Limbaugh and somebody who puts content over entertainment.

>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services

Go George Will!  Although I'll skip his baseball stuff, I gladly read his
columns.  The Republican Party needs to dump all of the right-wing gutter types
like Robertson and those quasi-journalists Limbaugh and Buchanan who just say
anything to see their name in print/on air.

The GOP could be a really great, all-American inclusive party if they just got
rid of the kooks.

Too bad I'll have to vote for Clinton this year.  Maybe if they lose this 
election they will learn.


Daniel at UIUC      "uh, is this French 102?"
		    "NEIN, zis iz NOT French vone o two!!"
-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:20:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug31.203044.17201@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu
(alex) wrote:

Alex, what the hell is your point? That the president should violate the
Laws of the United States so he can look good to you and me?  I don't think
so.  If anyone fucked this up, it was the Governor of Florida.  He has a
National Guard, he has a phone, he didn't ask until Thursday.  That's HIS
mistake, not Bush's.

--
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!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2859 talk.politics.misc:41879 alt.politics.clinton:2969 alt.politics.elections:11545
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:05:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

} I really get sick of hearing Bush claim that he is solely responsible
} for the downfall of communism just because it happened on his watch.

>Suppose one used that same logic to claim that the economic problems of
>the US would have happened whether George Bush were president or not.
>And that it is wrong to claim that Bush is solely responsibile for them
>just because they happened on his watch.  What would be your response be
>then?

>I am no big fan of George Bush; I do believe that much of the economic
>problems are his doing.  It just seems you are making an argument that
>cuts both ways.
--
>David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com

WRONG!!! Bad logic.  The Soviet Union and other affected countries are 
not part of the United States.  They are influenced more by world economics,
world politics, and their internal situation.  WE ARE NOT THE WORLD!!!
(Though some republicans would like to claim we are.)

However, I agree, GB is not 100% responsible for the US economy.  Frankly,
he is hardly responsible at all.  Reagan is primarily to blame.  Bush's 
biggest affect was in not doing anything about it and letting Reagan's
"voodoo economics" (to quote George himself) continue.  But George's lack
of action is as bad as doing the wrong thing.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bosnia
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 16:14:32 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> In article <HV9BqB7w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:
> > But that's just a prediction, not a crisis.  Bush believes in government as
> > 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 involv
> >
>
> You know, for anti-military types, you folks like to use it a lot.  And
> when be became bogged down in Bosnia with 75,000 dead, you'd blame the
> president, right?
>
> Buttheads.
> --
> 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!

Non sequitor.  Get in the game, sport.  Hurricane relief has very little to do
with Bosnia.  The people I was referring to were the folks left homeless after
natural disasters in this country.  These are people that are victims of other
disasters FEMA has botched.   Now, take your rifle out of your mouth and pay
attention.




|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|
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Radio idea (family values)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:57:06 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
"howeird@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com writes:
""I wrote:
"""On the radio this morning (WMAG-99.5FM Winston-Salem) a caller had an idea
"""regarding the recent emphasis in the elections on "family values."
""Isn't it amusing:

""Ronald Reagan has a son who, against daddy's wishes, became a ballerina, 
""George Bush has a son who was indicted for taking part in shady banking 
""deals, and these guys are preaching to >us< about family values? 
"
"To say nothing of Reagan's daughter, who had her tubes tied to avoid
"bringing any more Reagans into the world...

I don't know how Ron Reagan taking up ballet has anything to do with
family values. Hershel Walker also took up ballet while he was a part of
the Dallas Cowboys. Ballet does wonders for muscle flexibility. Plus you
meet LOTS of babes! :)

Do you remember ...
Jimmy Carter's brother?

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3735 alt.politics.clinton:3719 alt.rush-limbaugh:4158 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4971
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:00:03 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Aug31.163023.23747@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>I was totally amazed that there was a delay in getting federal aid to
>florida, and it's convinced me that GHWB is flat out incompetant.
>Here's what I figured would happen: ...
>
>I was amazed that this didn't happen. GHWBs strongest liability is that
>he is perceived as being uncaring about domestic issues. The disaster
>was a made for TV oppertunity to get scads of great publicity on his most
>problematic issue. If GHWB, a career politition, is so out of touch that 
>he can't grasp this, he diserves to be roasted on an open fire.
>
>This gaff could cost the GOP florida, a major player with many electorial
>votes, and GHWB has noone to blame but himself.

And he certainly has someone to thank that it wasn't worse.  You may recall
that his first reaction to the news in Florida was to head for Kennebunkport,
and he had to be talked out of it.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244     ----------------------------+
| ... one of those cliches that are always lying in wait to fill a vacuum in  |
| the brain.		- H.W. Fowler					      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3436 talk.politics.misc:42791 alt.politics.clinton:3461 alt.politics.elections:11930