HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:59:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <l97g3hINN2un@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Tell me, if it wise not to be overweight, how overweight should we allow
>people to become?  I suggest we legislate mandatory dieting at 25% above
>a government set "ideal weight."

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


-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Are You Better Off Than 4 Years Ago? Maybe
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:23:13 GMT

Barbara Bush asked the "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
then went on to answer yes. Her rationalization was that we don't have to
worry about a nuclear holocaust now.

Maybe we are better of in that sense. Maybe we are not.

She is right if she meant the probabilty of nucler winter, of human
extinction, of the destruction of all civilization is less. That is almost
certainly true.

However, if she meant that I am less likely to die in a nuclear explosion,
the answer is almost certainly no. Before Bush there was a nuclear
standoff, with both sides having many thousands of nucler weapons. Now
there is one super power with some less thousands and ex USSR Republics
with some less thousands of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation goes on
unabated. So the probability of total nuclear destruction is down. The
probability of a smaller nuclear war (though much larger than Hiroshima 
and Nagaski) has gone up and is still going up.

World War I started in Sarejevo. There is some probabilty of World War III
starting there again. World War II started in Germany largely as a result
of German economic disaster after WW I. The losers of the Cold War are in
economic disaster. There is some probabilty of WW III starting as a result
of these economic disasters.

This is not to say that I want to go back to the cold war. Rather it is to
say that it is doubtful that we are safer now than we were before Bush took 
over. We could be much safer if he had a clear vision of new world order
instead of only rhetoric.

Nuclear proliferation is just one small example. The ex USSR has declared a 
moratorium on nuclear testing. France, the country that sunk the Rainbow
Warrior to continue nuclear testing. Now they too have declared a
moritorium. Yet Bush and his cohorts the British continue nuclear testing.
He justifies this with very lame excuses. The real reason is that Bush is a 
wimp. He doesn't have the guts to stand up to the corporate intersts that
want to continue tests. If he stopped US nucler tests, he and was as good
at peace making as he was at war starting he could get a world wide
moratorium on nuclear testing.

Am I better off now than I was 4 years ago. Maybe.

Will I be better off 4 years from now. Maybe. It depends on wether we elect a 
President who has the vision to lead us into the next century without
nuclear proliferation, without nuclear testing, with converting swords into 
plowshares. I guess you know who I think that person is not.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer




Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Subject: Re: School Choice (and political questions about the issue)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:41:15 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <Bsu9BI.Ioz@cgl.ucsf.edu>, brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:
> 
> There is a very small difference in the test scores of public and
> private schools.  I've examined 5 completely separate studies and each
> report that there is no important difference in test scores when you 
> equalize everything execpt for the private or public status of the
> schools. 

This contradicts most of what I've read and heard on the subject.  I would
like to find out more; would you provide pointers to the 5 studies you
mentioned?  I would like to read them myself.

> You are assuming that a private schools is a for profit organization.
> The free market model assumes that the motivation of private
> orgainziations is the rational pursuit of maximizing profits.

Not necessarily.  The free market model assumes that an important goal of
schools is to attract and retain students because schools with few (or no)
students do not prosper (or survive).  The profit motive is not required.
In fact, private schools are not even required: one could imagine a choice
system (i.e., market system) based only on the government-run public schools.

John Wilkes  <wilkes@apple.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1254 alt.politics.elections:10337 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2381
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:48:04 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.bush, duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
>What he did not say was if his granddaughter chose
>freely with no regret to have an abortion, he would still support her
>in the same way.

What does this mean?  What does "support" mean?  Would he
drive her to the clinic?  Would he loan her the money?
If it was illegal, would he fly her out of the country?

Wasn't there a follow up question?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:39:04 GMT

In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>a Republican Senate.

No, it didn't.  The Repubs had a senate majority for TWO years of
those EIGHT years, not the six years that Luck asserts.  Maybe things
would have been no different if the repubs had the senate for six
years, maybe they'd have been worse, but there's no way to know
anything more than "it happened with a repub president and a demo
congress".

The House has some responsibility, and all spending bills must
start there.  How long has it been Democrate controlled?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1992 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2601 alt.politics.clinton:2166 alt.politics.elections:10812
From: elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:48:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na

In article <1992Aug12.214808.18006@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
|> In article <2A895785.11232@ics.uci.edu> duke@ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
|> 
|> > However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
|> > decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
|> > like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
|> > his brain is showing through
|> 
|> Bush's statement reflects the reality of legalized abortion on demand
|> in this country.  Women can obtain abortions for any reason, during
|> any part of their pregnancy, all the way up to the point of birth,
|> and there's nothing that Bush can do to prevent his children or
|> grandchildren from getting a legal abortion.

Doug Holtsinger, whoever you are, this second sentence is a LIE!
Repudiate it this instant!

|> His only real choice today is to allow his children and grandchildren 
|> to decide for themselves.  I can't imagine any loving parent would reject 
|> their children because they made a decision which the parent did not approve
|> of.  If Bush said that he would not support his children in their
|> decision, then the press would likely jump all over him for not
|> promoting "family values".  
|> 
|> >Duke P. Hong
|> 
|> 
|> Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2263 alt.politics.clinton:2330 alt.politics.elections:11064
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Are You Better Off Than 4 Years Ago? Maybe
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:11:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug20.172313.25158@aero.org>
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Will I be better off 4 years from now. Maybe. It depends on wether we elect a
>President who has the vision to lead us into the next century without
>nuclear proliferation, without nuclear testing, with converting swords intopl

Oh, you poor little frail thing!  I would love to know how your choice, whoever
that might be, will reduce the problems you whined about.  Namely, nuclear
weapons in the hands af a fragmented Soviet Union.  Call out the Arkansas
Militia (chortle chortle chortle).

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 05:25:08 GMT

kasvand@ccrs.emr.ca (Tony Kasvand) writes:

>       Who is Bush?

We don't really know.  All we know is that he seems to be willing to
do anything, **ANYTHING** to keep his present job, an occupation in
which he seems to be far past his "Peter Principle."

George Bush truly is a man of conviction.  He has one conviction and
that is that he really *deserves* to be president of the United
States.  In his opinion he was born to the job, like royalty, and
doesn't want to let anyone take that away from him.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush f**** up!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:55:12 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <2A895785.11232@ics.uci.edu>, duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
|> In the first part of the question, he replied that if his grandaughter
|> came sobbing saying that she had done a terrible thing, then he would
|> support her (as would any parent of a drunk driving teenager that killed
|> someone for example).  What he did not say was if his granddaughter chose
|> freely with no regret to have an abortion, he would still support her
|> in the same way. This situation was not brought up.  I think the media
|> has screwed up in twisting what he said to what they though or wanted him
|> to say.

   It sounds like (IMHO) if it was HIS grand-daughter, the choice would be
up to her.  If it was anybody else's daughter,grand-daughter... that
it is up a bunch of old, right-wing fascists to decide.  I think that
Bush has finally shown us that he WILL do anything to get re-elected,
even do a little flip-flop on abortion.  If Roe vs. Wade falls, abortion
will only be accessible to the rich and those who live near the border!!

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | I deserve respect for the things I did not do. | 
|(jdahl@rchland.ibm.com) |                                                |
| IBM, Rochester         |     -- Vice President Dan "the Man" Quayl(e)   |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not Dan Quayle's or IBM's.

"They got the guns, but, we got the numbers..." - The Doors - "Five to 1"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2547 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2874
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: A were-libritarian speaks on innoculations.
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:42:01 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <92235.141453JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Aug22.055327.21185@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu
(David
> A perfect example of this is the contagious disease eradication program
> in the U.S.  When I was a child (*long before Reagan/Bush!*) I was
> innoculated for the various childhood diseases (smallpox, measles, mumps,
> etc.).  Most of these had been almost wiped-out in the early 80s.  Now,
> they're making a comeback.  I recently heard an interview with several
> families in public health clinics that said, in effect, they had come
> several times to get their kids innoculated but had waited in line until
> closing without being helped.  And, they couldn't come back because they
> couldn't miss any more work without losing their jobs.  So, the kids
> would go without if they didn't get helped *that day*.  Keep in mind
> that they were interviewed in line, in the clinic.

   There is a way around this problem.  Here in Ames Iowa any kid that needs
innoculations can get them.  Period.  The line is about 30 minutes long at its
worst and they keep records about which shots etc. happened when.  The
innoculations are done in a church and funded by a huge patchwork of
contributors.  They are fairly well immune to politics.  I found out about them
from my kid's perdiatrician who told me to go there for innoculations _in spite
of the fact he could have billed my huge group insurace plan umpteen dollars
for doing it himeself_.  This means that middle class blokes like me use the
service and become contributors, which in turn ensures adequate staff and
funding.

   Why the local medical structure has decided to encourage public health at
the expence of their own pocket is left as an exercise; since I'm a math
professor this is double talk for "I can't figure it out, can anyone else?". 
In any case, the last twelve years have turned me into a were-libretarian. 
When the moon is full I go out an encourage local solution of problems because
I can't trust the Feds.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:57:24 GMT

  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

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1776 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2534 alt.politics.clinton:2041 alt.politics.elections:10672
From: esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:11:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a Democratically-controlled 
>Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.  
>

Given that a Republican President (make that two Republican Presidents) and
a Democratically-controlled Congress has demonstrated that they cannot keep
a lid on spending, the author may have a point here.

However, the last Democratic President and Democratically-controlled
Congress did a far better job at controlling spending (at least, with
regards to the deficit) than either of the last two Republican presidents
with Democrat Congress.

alan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1381 alt.politics.clinton:1820 alt.politics.perot:1251 rec.humor:25963 talk.bizarre:25770 talk.politics.misc:39362
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:22:21 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


in article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu 
(James Barrett) says:

>It's like Bush's answer on Dateline NBC last night, where he reiterated
>Quayle's opinion that an abortion should be the choice of the woman, as
>long as it's a relative of his.  Bush has shown again and again that he
>thinks he's above the law.

Uhm, at this stage, getting an abortion _is_ the choice of the woman.  
I don't see how this is thinking one's "above the law".

-- 
    Brice Dowaliby         |    I don't speak for them. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:56:15 GMT

In article <26544@life.ai.mit.edu> 
elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Bush's statement reflects the reality of legalized abortion on demand
>> in this country.  Women can obtain abortions for any reason, during
>> any part of their pregnancy, all the way up to the point of birth,
>> and there's nothing that Bush can do to prevent his children or
>> grandchildren from getting a legal abortion.

> Doug Holtsinger, whoever you are, this second sentence is a LIE!

No, it's the truth.  The Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which
legalized abortion on demand in this country, does not permit the
states to prohibit post-viability abortions which are necessary
to preserve the mother's "health".  But the definition of "health" 
given by the Court is so broad that women can obtain abortions 
to preserve their "emotional", "psychological", and "familial" 
health, thus effectively legalizing abortion on demand all the 
way up to the point of birth.


Doug Holtsinger

"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
 -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2141 talk.abortion:32453
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Subject: Holtsinger theory of abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:05:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Aug15.183112.7445@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <FOX.92Aug15120641@graphics.nyu.edu> 
> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

> > Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
> > the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
> > the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
> > third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
> > is a human being.

| In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
| out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
| process.  This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
| "well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
| to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 
|
| Doug Holtsinger

   So, Doug, from your reasoning above, it is obvious that you
would accept a procedure in which the fetus is removed intact
and then given a bottle of milk with which to feed itself. In
this procedure, no one will harm the fetus, so no one is a killer.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2040 alt.politics.elections:10859 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2623
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:06:52 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.170303.1@vthvax.tamu.edu>, joel@vthvax.tamu.edu writes:
|> 
|> I can see how an abortion (and a waiting period) would seem like a
|> nuisance for someone who has no respect for unborn life.  I think a 24
|> hour waiting period is small when compared to the importance of the decision.
|> 
|> Instead of focusing on the hardship to the mother, why not discuss the
|> real questions?  Who's life is it?  Who's rights are being violated?
|> The child is the only innocent party and it's the childs rights that need to
|> be protected by law.
|> 
|> Don't bother with the unviable tissue mass argument.  It's a joke.
|> 
|> 
|> Joel Hammond

Dear Joel,

There are only two possible rejoinders for your thoughtless posting:

1) Take it the hell to talk.abortion where it belongs. This is supposedly
   all about Our Hero, Mr. Vice President (though even I stray from time
   to time).

2) Ah, I see, you get to define all the parameters and boundaries
   under discussion, and nobody else's opinions matter because they're
   based on false (by your fiat) assumptions. 

   Right.

   Religious convictions, though persoanlly important for many, if not
   most, of our citizens, are not scientific fact. Your opinions, while
   religiously consistent, fall far short of being scientific gospel. And
   they most certainly are not my opinions. Scientifically speaking, they
   are at best unverifiable, and at worst demonstrably flat wrong. And, 
   fortunately, despite the best efforts of the current and immediate past
   administrations, the Constitution still forbids the establishment or 
   recognition of a State religion (by only 5-to-4, at last count).

   So please stuff those opinions back where they came from, and try to
   talk repeatable, verifiable science when you're discussing biology.
   The pablum you're spouting ("...no respect for (unborn) life..." 
   "...real questions...""...the child...") are not facts, despite your
   belief that they are. They're just buzzword-stuffed agitprop.

   In return, I'll make sure that when I'm discussing religion, I keep
   quantum mechanics and other physical evidence out of bounds. Deal?

- Don Coolidge 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1568 alt.politics.elections:10572 alt.politics.marrou:778 talk.politics.misc:39692 talk.politics.theory:3670