HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:47:10 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

> In article <5iNaqB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> a.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> >I've been watching CNN this afternoon, listening to Gov. Lawton Chiles and
> >other Floridians, while watching scenes of the aftermath of the hurricane an
> >the continuation of relief efforts.  What struck me about the whole discussi
> >with Chiles is that there must be a lot of angry voters in South Florida rig
> >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 militar
> >in providing help.
>
> Once Gov. Chiles asked for help from the military (only he can ask) the
> military responed within 24 hours.

Right.  So that means that Bush's going down to FL last Monday was just a
photo-op?  Does this mean that Bush is really that shallow?  I can't possibly
believe that Chiles didn't ask for help last Monday.  That's ridiculous.  This
whole issue of 'asking' is a smoke screen to cover a slow federal assistance
system.

That's 100% Bush's fault.  If nobody else, his campaign people should have
realized how important getting stuff down there is to willing FL in November
and should have sat on the bureaucrats.  They didn't, and they left their boss
holding the bag.



|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:3871 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3309 alt.politics.elections:12247
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Keywords: brainless linear bastards
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 13:00:17 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:

> In article <qe4gqB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
> >
> >> Now then, we've been doing well at keeping abortion off this group.  As we
> >> as we ever do, anyway.  So let's attempt to keep our inane, blithering,
> >> worthless generalizations off the group, too, since all they really do is
> >> cause others to believe we might be shitsuckingly ignorant knuckledragging
> >> buffoons.
> >>
> >
> >You mean, we'll all start acting like the Bush/Quayle campaign or his Dannes
> >Himself? <g>
> >
> And, by a strange coindence, the way
> Clinton/Gore/Perot/ItDoesn'tMatterShitStillStinks are acting.
> 
> birdman
> 

Aren't you the guy that just posted an article telling someone else to keep 
their blathering off the net?  To quote you 'shit still stinks,' so why 
don't you join him?



|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:3273 tx.politics:4534
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:50:40 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Aug23.143243.26021@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:

[...]

|>> The Repubs make me feel that anyone who isn't financially prepared to
|>> take care of whatever family they wind up with is irresponsible and

Certainly people who have kids they can't afford to take care of _are_ being
irresponsible.  But of course, they can always go leach off of Uncle Sugar...

|>> wanting to live in a welfare state.  Sorry, I'm getting windy. Bye.

Wind is what usenet is all about... fun, ain't it?

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Progress might have been all right
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   once, but it went on too long."
possibly represent its position.	|     -- Ogden Nash

Christian H. L. Moller
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: gemmell@drum.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Gemmell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Offended at being called
Date: 26 Aug 1992 16:07:26 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: drum.berkeley.edu


>In article <17ekb6INN23p@agate.berkeley.edu> 
>gemmell@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Gemmell) writes to Mark Taylor Evert:

>>It seems to me that you make an effort to be fair to people in your
>>own life and I have no doubt that you would directly  harm 
>>someone on the basis of their being gay.  However, there are
>>a lot of people who would.  I don't understand why you would
>>not grant gay people the same legal protection from 
>>discrimination that is granted to blacks, women, religious minorities,
>>etc.  Why not add the term "sexual orientation" to discrimination
>>clauses?


In message <1992Aug26.013636.16635@ncsu.edu>
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Why not add "obesity" to discrimination clauses?  Or how about
>"ugliness" or "smelliness"?   Fat, ugly, and smelly people face 
>far more overt job and housing discrimination than homosexuals.  
>And unlike homosexuals, they can't hide their handicap. 

>Give me a good reason to support gay rights legislation.

>Doug Holtsinger


Gay people do experience discrimination at work on the basis 
of their being gay which is completely unrelated to their ability
 to perform their job.  Under the current federal law, employers 
may deny them promotion or even fire them solely because they are gay.  

BTW, including a reference to sexual preferrence in non-discrimination
clauses would grant straight people protection against
being fired because they are straight, if say their boss had 
something against straight people.

With respect to the reference to fat or ugly or smelly people,
I don't think it's right to discriminate against them either and
if a person is fired on one of those grounds and it is
unrelated to their job performance, this is also wrong.  With
the possible exception of fat people, I don't think that 
there are so many people from these categories who are being hurt.
In other words, let's deal with the most important problems first.


Pete





Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Subject: Bush breaks the law (was Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:10:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.151633.8704@raider.raidernet.com> tob@raider.raidernet.com (Tom O. Barron) writes:
>In <1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>>>>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
>>>>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
>>>>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>>>>broken the law.  
>
>[ Spotted Owl example deleted ]
>
>How about the Bush administration's high-handed treatment of Haitian
>refugees in international waters?  What right does the U.S. Coast Guard
>have to force anyone in international waters to go anywhere?
>| Tom Barron          |  tob@raider.raidernet.com   |   ENVOY Corporation     |

Or how about Dan Quayle's "Competetiveness Council" which explicitly 
guts laws made by congress?

Or the recent ruling which declares it legal to hunt down people who
are living in a foreign country and to ignore the extradition treaties
signed between the U.S. and that country? I guess this is only above
international law.

Then of course there are all the accusations (I don't know which are true
and which are not): about the october surprise, about Iran-Contra, 
(say anyone remember Hasenfus?  shot down over Honduras (I think) bringing
arms to the contras (about '82 or so) who said he had explicit orders
from the Vice President of the U.S. (GHWB).)  

david redish
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.211321.15128@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>    The major problem faced by this country is a work force which is largely 
>unskilled and has relied for years on low skill - high pay jobs which are
>becoming increasingly scarce due to foreign competition.  Clinton wants to
>"invest" in the infrastructure of this country by giving people jobs
>building roads and bridges for a couple of years.  

If you think this is all that Clinton wants to do in the way of economic
policy you are sadly mistaken. Of course, there are many who simply don't
want to know what Clinton will do, because they have already made up their
minds to oppose all of it anyway.

I'm not sure why you put the word 'invest' in quotes. If infrastructure
improvement isn't 'investment', what is? Or perhaps you are suggesting that
government spending, by definition, cannot be investment?

Actually, Clinton's primary economic idea is a long-term plan to improve
the skill level of the American workforce, primarily through education.
Clinton recognizes that only a highly skilled workforce - along with a
first-class infrastructure - can provide a country with the sort of
competitive advantage that is needed in the global economy.

Why, for example, has Germany continued to prosper, even as its labor costs
rose above those of many competing countries? The answer is: a skilled and
efficient workforce (and well-paid, too). And yes, I know that Germany is
having problems right now, but most of that is a result of trying to
assimilate the former DDR.

If you don't like Germany as an example, take Japan, another country whose
labor costs are comparable to ours, but which is also doing reasonably well...

>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3074 talk.politics.misc:42180 alt.politics.clinton:3141 alt.politics.elections:11670
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:36:12 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <23025@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:
} } 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.
} >...
} 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.

Fascinating!  Legend has it that the US is responsible for toppling
governments all over the world.  Why isn't the Soviet Union among
them?

BTW, I believe that the demise of the Soviet Union was largely its own
doing.  But the notion that the US played no role in that is naive.
--
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3826 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3288 alt.politics.elections:12207
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Keywords: brainless linear bastards
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 07:04:49 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:

> Now then, we've been doing well at keeping abortion off this group.  As well
> as we ever do, anyway.  So let's attempt to keep our inane, blithering,
> worthless generalizations off the group, too, since all they really do is
> cause others to believe we might be shitsuckingly ignorant knuckledragging
> buffoons.
>

You mean, we'll all start acting like the Bush/Quayle campaign or his Danness
Himself? <g>




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.185934.15283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>Few of the "teen" pregnancies are due to ignorance or inaccessible
>birth control, let alone failures.  They're the natural consequence of
>sex by people who WANT to get pregnant or don't care whether or not
>they do.  Unless someone is proposing some sort of mandatory birth
>control (norplant?), birth control policy can't affect that.

There he goes again, presuming to know who "WANT[s] to get pregnant"
and who "do[es]n't care whether or not they do."  Without having
known people in the circumstance of needing an abortion, either in
his family, circle of friends, or professional work, Andy knows the
hearts of teenage women who get pregnant. He KNOWS they are
irresponsible and uncaring.

Using this logic, one could equally say, "Republicans who oppose
abortion aren't really concerned about the fetus; they really
secretly WANT to control other people's sexual lives, and they GET
OFF on making women miserable."

But that would be a cheap shot, wouldn't it?

-- 
Ameet A. Raval
    "I can identify with workers that have had a difficult time." -- DQ
From: ckirby@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Charles E. Kirby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: The Right to Discriminate? (was Re: Offended ...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:46:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: JPL

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu  writes:

>  The majority of people in this country find male homosexuality 
>  repulsive.

All the more reason for protection from discrimination

>  If I own a business and choose not to hire someone because they 
>  have sex with animals then I am discriminating against them for
>  something they do.  If I choose not to hire them because they wear 
>  checks with plaids it is because it is something they do.  
>  It is my business, my capital at risk, my life (basically) and my 
>  livelihood that is on the line.

And if you choose not to hire  someone because they are black, or a woman,
or over 50, or handicapped, then you are discriminating.

Your argument is more fundamental than whether or not you should be
able to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, it is whether or
not you should be able to discriminate in general.  I don't know how anti-
discrimination laws distinguish what size or types of business must
conform, but there is some methodology.  This is  true for the recent
attempts to ban gay discrimination (religious organizations and companies
smaller than a certain size were to be exempt).

> Why should the government be able tell me how to run my business.

Because, as you pointed out, far too many people hold the same bigotted
views that you do.  As an individual you are free to be as bigotted as
you want.  When businesses, on the other hand, start to deny individuals 
their civil rights, the government can and should step in.    


-------
These views do not necessarily reflect those of my employer
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush vs. Congress
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:42:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <178hgoINN7p2@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:

   I think Bush's strategy of going after Congress is a very good idea.

I have to agree with you here.  The latest polls show Clinton's
lead has widened to 15%!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2838 talk.politics.misc:41818
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican Platform 1992: where is it?
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:05:37 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:

>where is the republican platform? there must be a loyal republican out
>there somewhere who can figure out how to use a scanner. why haven't we
>seen the platform yet? is it too scary to show people?
[...]

I hear it is 85 pages long. What we really need to find is a Democrat
who wants to expose (what many would consider) the fanaticism in the
Republican platform.

Have you noticed that none of those platform comparison articles
mentions the Mexican fence or our JudeoChristian heritage?

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.180940.20441@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug28.225637.23448@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.eu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.224316.8107@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanfor.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>>IMO, the president should call D.C. home for tax purposes.
>>>
>>>If the same applies to the vice president, then this requirement
>>>means that no president/vice president can run for reelection.
>>>
>>>In other words, Bush's texas residence DOES have election eligibility
>>>reasons.
>>
>>Er, why?  Neither President nor Vice President are tied to any
>>district.
>
>Why?  Read the 12th amendment.
>
>The president and vice-president are required to be from different
>states and DC is considered a state when it comes to electing
>presidents.
>
     There is no prohibition from President and Vice-President being from
the same state.  It only disallows Electors from voting for *two* people
who are from their state.  (Electors from Texas couldn't vote for two
Texans, for example.)
     This would only mean that the D.C. Electors (How many do they get,
anyway?) couldn't vote for both the President *and* the Vice-President
assuming they won the district.

>-andy

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: forbush@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: New poll results 
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:58:58 GMT

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...
> 
>

I really wonder what the demographic and regional samples
are for the different polls that are taken. Am I the only
one, or did anyone else notice that one poll has a
consistent 6-8% difference while the other has a consistent
20% difference?

Maybe the poll with the 20% difference was taken in Miami? :^} 

 
--
 Mike Forbush
 
 forbush@panofsky.desy.de

 El Salvador is a democracy so it's not surprising that there are many voices
 to be heard here. Yet in my conversations with Salvadorans... I have heard a
 single voice.
       -- Vice President Dan Quayle
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bosnia
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:10:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

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 a
> 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 involved.
> 

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!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu
Subject: woody allen
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:34:00 GMT

Before i start ignoring the increasing references by the republicans
about woody allen illustrating the dangers of the lack of things like
"family values" in our society i just want to say one thing independent
of my possible political affilations or leanings.
Like any other american, woody allen is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.194653.23927@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>That's funny, I always thought it was the democratically-controlled
>House that wrote the checks.

And then Bush signed them...

No but seriously look at the budgets Bush submitted to congress, would
things be wonderful today if each one had been passed with 0 changes? 
I doubt things would be any better.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush