HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush Declines Debates: WHY?
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:56:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division (LAFS)


Okay, can anyone give me a good reason why GHWB declined the presidential
debates?  I can't believe that this would be in his campaigns best interests.
Debates have come to be expected and are the norm for presidential elections
so what gives?  Is he really that afraid of being exposed as having no ideas?
Are the republicans terrified at the prospect of an unmuzzled Dan Quayle going
off half cocked?  What kind of positive spin can they think they will get out
of this cowardly decision?

Anyone???
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: rdosser@utkux1.utk.edu (rdosser)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:30:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.062022.22088@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>
>At least some varieties of trees do indeed cause air pollution.  The
>Great Smokey Mtns were so named because a prevalent species emits
>a gas that ends up being converted to smog.
>
>SEH

That's true, but it is important to note that that non-destructive
bluish haze that gave the Smokies their name (There's no "e" in Smoky,
by the way. Any Quayle blood in you?) has since been replaced by a
permanent yellowish haze caused by sulfate aerosols from coal-fired
power plants and automobile exhaust, which is a damned site less
attractive, I'll tell you that.
While we've drifted off the subject, the bottom line seems to be that
Danny Boy is the proud heir to the tradition of the Great
Miscommunicator Himself.
From: Ariel.A.Vitali@dartmouth.edu (Ariel A. Vitali)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: This Republican says: Bush is a babbling idiot!
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:54:36 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Whoa!
I should talk about babbling.  I just reread my article.  I guess I
didn't proof it.  However, my opinion still stands.

Ariel Vitali
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: adnan@redstart.icd.ab.com (Adnan C. Yaqub)
Subject: Wanted: Text of Bennett Speech
Organization: Allen-Bradley Inc., Highland Heights, OH, USA.
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:28:47 GMT

Recently someone posted the text of the speech William Bennett made at
the Republican National Convention.  However I missed it and would
like a copy.  Can someone please mail it to me?

Thanks.
--
Adnan Yaqub (adnan@icd.ab.com)
Allen-Bradley Company, Inc., 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Hts., OH 44143, USA
Phone: +1 216 646 4670 FAX: +1 216 646 4484
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:11:29 GMT
	<BD.92Sep12083407@fluent.UUCP> <BuH1Fy.FHv@news.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep13.191230.23082@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Sep13.191230.23082@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

	   [re: rush twisting the facts for political gain]

   >For political gain?  Whose?  He's said several times that he has no
   >interest in running for President, he doesn't want to owe favors to
   >campaign contibutors.  Maybe a lower office, but why campaign nationally
   >for a regional office?  I'm not saying you are wrong, but who's
   >political gain is he doing all this for?

	   Rush may not be interested in running for office, but he's
   sure interested in becoming a Republican party insider. There's big
   rewards available for someone who can be a daily 3 hour commercial
   for the Republican party.

There are?  Care to enumerate these rewards?  If you do don't forget the
supporting documentation.  Of course here's another one of those liberal
claims of nefariousness that will remain undocumented, but somehow
survive as truth.

Given the kind of money Rush must make what other rewards could he want?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: straffin@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ethan Douglas Straffin)
Subject: Re: Anti-Bush/Slandering Bush/Songs
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:33:41 GMT

In article <31lnxyf.howard@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>I doubt if anyone outside of the bay area has heard Bushwhacked, since it's 
>a homemade tape someone gave to a radio station here in San Francisco.

That's what I would have thought, but I have a friend in Texas who
says she's heard it played frequently on the radio.  Not surprising,
really...it WAS the most-requested song on SF's Life 105 for weeks,
and devilish stuff like this travels fast.

>The song is GREAT, however... the music kinda reminds me of the song 
>U2 by Negativland (but more techno in a bubblegum sorta way) and the
>samples flow together seamlessly.

Agreed...I almost went off the road laughing the first time I heard
it.  Hmm, maybe "Tone Deaf" _IS_ Negativland protecting themselves
under a pseudonym?  There's an amusing rumor for the week!

Ethan
-- 
ToriAmosLloydColeSistersOfMercyDepecheModeJudyBatsTribeHeartThrobsCarterUSM
***           ethan d straffin    straffin@xenon.stanford.edu           ***
***                       Get out there and vote!                       ***
REMPetShopBoysChillsChurchErasureWarrenZevonBillyBraggCure Stanford Band :)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4827 alt.politics.clinton:5042 alt.rush-limbaugh:4640 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5293
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush would/will burn for the delay in florida
Distribution: usa
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:11:45 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep11.202818.14845@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.140452.17935@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
> |> In article <mykes.0dl8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
> |>    mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> |> >
> |> >The Bowlen amendment was unconstitutional.  If congress is allowed to make
> |> >laws that restrict or eliminate the presidential powers of foreign policy
> |> >institution, then congress becomes the only branch in government.  A GREAT
> |> >example of spitting on the constitution.
> |>
> |> Would it have been too much trouble to get a majority of those nine
> |> people known as the Supreme Court to agree with your statement before
> |> they broke the law?  The law may have been unconstitutional, but it
> |> is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not the executive branch.
> |>
> It's the Boland amendment(s).  They changed yearly.
>

True.

> For the Supreme Court to make a decision there must be a case or controversy.  I.e.
> a law must be broken and somebody tried for it's violation before the courts will
> rule on whether that law is constitutional.
>

The Supreme Court is an appeals court - the highest in the land.  However, Article III,
Section 2 of the constitution reads:

	The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
	under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
	made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all caess
	affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all
	cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which
	the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or
	more states; between citizens of different states; between citizens of
	the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and
	between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens,
	or subjects.

It seems to me that this case certainly arises under the constutition...

> In the U.S. the federal courts do not issue advisory opinions.

Also true.  Appelate courts do not do this kind of thing.

>
> --
> Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com
>
> It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4788 alt.politics.clinton:5001 talk.politics.misc:44931
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 11 Sep 1992 23:04:15 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Al Thompson) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> 
|>    StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
|>    |> Glenn Story) writes:
|>    |> : 
|>    |> : Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
|>    |> 
|>    |> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
|>    |> write bad checks?
|>    |> 
|>    One more time, and slowly.  No one in congress wrote a bad check.  The 
|>    congressional bank had an overdraft protection program, supported by
|>    it's members.  You can get the same thing from your bank, although they
|>    will probably charge you interest.
|> 
|>    The Congressional bank was set up just for this reason.  It allowed 
|>    congressmen new to washington to draw against upcoming pay to set up
|>    their washingon households.
|> 
|>    I am not saying it was not abused.  I am just saying they broke no
|>    laws, spent none of our money, violated no bank rules, etc.
|> 
|> Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
|> our tax dollars that covered their loans.
|> 
No.  They did not spend our money, the spent their money.   Congressperson
A covered Congressperson B's check.  If you consider that your money, then
you must think that your money still belongs to your employer, even after
you receive it.  Wrong

|>    If you want to bash congress, use facts, not bull-shit.
|> 
|> I just did.

Almost.  Maybe you ought to check a dictionary for the spelling of "fact."
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4501 alt.politics.elections:12690 alt.politics.clinton:4568
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:08:04 GMT

Elizabeth G. Levy (egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: In article <LARRY.92Sep4120809@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
: >
: >Well the polls may show Bush behind, to varying degrees.  Let us not
: >forget how far he was behind Dukakis (God knows how the Dems picked
: >this guy).  Anyway, my prediction:
: >
: >   Bush will win.  He will win big.  The polls mean nothing.  And the
: >   media has less control over us than both they and we think.
: >
: >   Bush will win 38-40 states, and the Democrats will win the Congress.
: >
: >Oooh, this ought to generate a bit of discussion.
: >

Contrary to current preception, Dukakis didn't lose by that much.  If only
four people out of 100 had changed their minds, we'd be discussing the Dukakis
re-election campaign.

More to the point, can you identify any significant block of Dukakis voters
who are going to vote for Bush this time around?  If not, then Clinton starts
with 46% of the vote.  I can think of a lot of Bush voters from 1988 who are
not going to vote for him this year.  If Clinton was a stronger candidate, this
would be a democratic blow out.  I still expect a comfortable victory.  Each
election has it's own dynamic, but it's interesting to note that between the
end of the Republican convention and the election, Bush only gained two points
on Dukakis.  He's going to have to a lot better this time just to make it 
close
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4725 alt.politics.marrou:1114 talk.politics.misc:44829 alt.politics.elections:12852 talk.politics.theory:4128 alt.politics.clinton:4927
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:38:15 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
: In article <3#4y6dc@rpi.edu>, blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:

: > Infectious implies that by standing next to someone with a disease, I can
: > contract it from them. In the case of AIDS this is FALSE. Too bad, really. 
: > I mean: that you couldn't have read this the hundred or so times it's 
: > already been posted.
: 
: So you're telling me that I can't get AIDS from my dentist and that any
: infected dentist has a right to continue his practice without notifying
: any patient?  Same goes for surgeons -- do you think that they have 
: a right to operate on you without letting you know that they have AIDS?

Well, to begin with, you are not going to get AIDS from your dentist
or your surgeon just by standing next to them.  If you are going to
get it from either of those sources, it is going to because he/she 
is coming into contact with your bodily fluids, either by surgery,
an examination, or....  Anyway, I don't think that is contracting
a disease by simply standing next to those people.

Stephen also made no statement that his opinion that "any infected dentist
has a right to continue his practice without notifying any patient."
Be careful where you project your phobias.
 
(And before you flame, I have made no comment whatsoever as to what
my opinions on AIDS reporting for medical personnel might be.)
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I believe we are on an irrev-
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			ersible trend toward more free-
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			dom and democracy -- but that
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		could change."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle	

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:59:06 GMT
 <1992Sep6.023458.8796@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <1992Sep6.054028.5607@news.columbia.edu>  <5149@news.duke.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <5149@news.duke.edu>
eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> Could someone please define how one can "lose" such a fight? Is it:
> a) when fictional character gives humorous retort to which real person
>    does not respond?
> b) when more people will watch fictional character and pay attention to
>    character and not real person [I wonder what that says about our 
> culture]?
> c) when fictional character challenges real person to a debate and real
>    person declines? [No, I'm not addressing Bill Clinton. :) ]
> d) when fictional character will have an entire 30-minute episode devoted
>    to slandering real person?
> e) when more people on the network will pay more attention to such a
>    "fight" between fictional character and real person than the issues
>    that should be involved with political debate?

Easy answer to all - look at the original post:

>In article <1992Sep1.095535.6402@iscsvax.uni.edu> 
>fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
> What does the Vice President do the next day?  Ignore it?  Say, "well, 
> we're over-looking the issues here?"
>
> NO!!!!!!
>
> He's still spending time on it!

That the Vice President and President of the United States of America
can go out in public and spend time expressing their concern about the
antics of fictional characters is how they can lose. The more time they
spend, the worse they lose. It's important, as it shows a level of
frivolousness unworthy of anyone to be trusted with such high office. 

In George's case, maybe it's the halcion talking? Seriously. When he
ought to have been talking about Lithuanians, he was talking about
broccoli! Or the comment, "Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't
they?" at Auschwitz, or "Hey, hey, nihaoma.  Hey, yeah, yeah.  Heil,
heil -- a kind of Hitler salute," to some surprised tourists, or any of
a hundred others. No wonder he's shying away from debating, with his
bizarre syntax: will you listen to the state of this fool's brain?

And Dan's comments on Mars alone show that he really is the idiot most
everyone takes him for. This could have been no slip-up, like '94
instead of '96: this was genuine ignorant foolishness. 

Fiction: made up, not real!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4536 alt.politics.clinton:4621 alt.politics.elections:12707
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:52:07 GMT

In article <axtnckr.gstory@netcom.com> gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:
>
>Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
>
Minimum wage/overtime laws.
Affirmative action laws.

Damn, I'm pissed.  I can't think of all of them.  You see, whenever congress
passes a major national piece of legislation, they always tend to exempt
themselves.  They theory is that if the Executive branch (judical dept) could
prosecute them, and the Judicial branch (federal courts) could try them, 
well then the 3 branches of government just wouldn't be equal would they?

Can we say one of the biggest group of hypocrites ever seen?


-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: This is getting annoying
Date: 11 Sep 1992 19:55:10 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep11.132943.6688@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
> AL AND NORM
> 
> WHY NOT JUST KISS AND MAKE UP 
> OR STEP OUTSIDE
> OR SOMETHING?
> 
> 

I agree. I was very angry when I read Al's postings this morning and may
have over-vented myself. Apologies to the innocent bystanders. I will
now return to my usual laid-back surfer dude self :-)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:05:08 GMT

In article <JASON.92Sep9114044@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>-> 
>-> Real reform would ultimately not cost anything since the elimination
>-> of the waste in the system would pay for the increased coverage for
>-> the poor.  Even if the US were only able to achieve an efficiency
>-> comparable to Canada's, the second most expensive system in the world
>-> next to the US, it would amount to $200 billion dollars in savings 
>-> in private/public dollars.  Americans should be talking about the
>-> health care dividend...not the peace dividend...which is peanuts
>-> in comparison.
>-> 
>-> Real health care reform would also make a huge dent in the federal
>-> budget deficit, improve business competitiveness, labor force mobility
>-> and efficiency, and remove one of the barriers which keep people
>-> from moving off welfare into the workforce.
>-> 
>-> Gerald
>
>	I don't believe either of the Health plans are the answer to
>making Health care more available.  Any doctor will tell you, the
>biggest expense for them is liability insurance due to the
>sue-the-doctor frenzy and the big settlements juries have been
>awarding.  There was mention of this at the Republican convention, but
>unfortunately it has not received the attention it deserves.  

Even with the sue-the-doctor frenzy out there, there is $200 billion
dollars in potential savings in administrative waste even before you
get to the need for reforming the legal system.  The main difference
between what actually gets spent on health care in Canada and in the
US is the wasteful bureaucratic overhead in the US.  If you want
to reform the legal system and go after non-effective treatments
and surgery and unneeded excessive testing, there is even more
money to be saved.

Gerald

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4505 alt.politics.elections:12692 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3484 talk.politics.guns:20741 talk.politics.misc:44386
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:17:10 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

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

>In article <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>>like this, they don't think, they act.  Hang out with some of your less
>>successfully friends and watch how they think.  They _are_ in most cases,
>>the ones that get unintentionally preggers.

>Reality in the US, at least among the young pregnant (7th-9th grade,
>with some high school), is different.

>I used to hang out with them.  Most knew what they were doing; they
>were TRYING to get pregnant.  The others didn't care whether or not
>they got pregnant.

>The ones who wanted to get pregnant thought that having a kid would
>make their lives better.

>-andy

You hung out with
7th  grade girls who wanted to get pregnant because they thought it would
make their lives better?

Is this, strictly speaking, honest?

You honestly believe that education is not a factor in the difference
between teen pregancy rates in urban Chicago and the suburbs of Seattle?
What is the reason for the huge disparity?