HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Arkansas
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:45:18 GMT

In article <mjenkins.715215580@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Aug30.224233.3837@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
>
>> Can someone explain to me why George Bush is ridiculing the 
>>Arkansas National Guard? At least I understand a sneering
>>reference to the "leader" of the ANG as ridicule. And also
>>why does he feel comfortable dismissing Arkansas as a "state
>>somewhere between Oklahoma and Texas"? This seems to me to 
>>undignified and unstatesmanlike.
>
>...not to mention geographicaly inaccurate!
 
   And Mr. Bush is the President of the United State, of which Arkansas is
a part, isn't it ?  I find it hard to understand for a President to belittle
part of America he is supposed to lead.  If he can bellittle Arkansas, he 
sure can do that same thing to Massechusette, Maine, Newyork, Ohio, Oregon,
California (that L state !) , and everywhere and what have you.  Funny
in a sense. 
   Then again, maybe he only embraces places like Beijing, pre-revolution
Romania (remember that dictator who had been treated very well by the US 
government ?).  Maybe this president knows the location of ZhongNanHai 
(the headquarter of Chinese communists) better than the geography of US
and Arkansas. 
 

>
>I guess Bush can't make cracks about the Indiana National Guard....<g>
>
>Michael


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: maven@lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Reply-To: maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:34:36 GMT

In article <dhancock.715274872@teosinte>, dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu (Denis Hancock) writes:
> In <Btup5I.B9u@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug31.124201.12832@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
> >>How did President Bush screw up the hurricane relief effort?
> >>
> >>Jeff.
> 
> >Outright leadership failure.  With a Class 4 hurricane coming, do you pre-stage
> >your equipment to react in minimum time for deployment to areas where they're
> >needed?  Do you send representatives of FEMA to stay by the Governors of states
> >which may be affected?  Do you prepare for a major disaster, and then relax
> >ONLY if prompt response is not needed?  With 12 years to control such federal
> >agencies, do you make sure that the appointees are competent and can react
> >appropriately when needed?
> 
> Actually, according to CNN, the equipment was prepositioned, and the troops
> were ready to move BEFORE the hurricane made landfall. What was lacking was
> a request from the State of Florida, which did not come until Thursday.
> 
> It was the job of the Governer to know whom to call and when to call. His
> failure to do so speaks for itself. He claims that "he was told. . . ", but
> he has not identified who it was that told him.
> 
> President Bush can be faulted for many things, but the response to Hurricane
> Andrew is not one of them.
> 
> -- 
> Denis Hancock, Research Specialist              1-314-882-1722 (voice)		
> dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu -or- agrohanc@mizzou1.missouri.edu
> Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia MO 65211 USA
> "Computeri non cogitant, ergo non sunt"

Note: ON MY OWN TIME
What a lame excuse. After visiting Florida and seeing the destruction 
a LEADER would have told the Governor of Florida - Ask me for Federal help
and it will be here tomorrow.  By sitting in Washington waiting for a
request when EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS A MAJOR DISASTER with people having
no food, water, or shelter, the President showed a complete detachment from
reality.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov   Larry Fishbach @ NASA Lewis Cleveland Ohio
"Everything here is my own opinion"   Quoth the Maven "Evermore"
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:50:46 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.  This is from the
>August 31 issue of Time.

>% of black families in the U.S. with incomes
>over $50,000

>1970:  9.9%
>1980: 10.9%
>1985: 12.3%
>1990: 14.5%

>Yep must be tough!

>PSG 

Are these figures in constant 1970 or 1990 dollars?  If not, they are pretty
meaningless.  

Does this perhaps reflect the fact that there are now many more two-income
families?

What would the same graphic for white families look like?

How has the number of families (black or white) below the poverty level
changed?

It's hard to put some spin on it when you don't give us all the facts.  In
any case, why not give credit to the Democratically controlled Congress?  They
are obviously responsible for any changes in the economy.

Dave Bell
belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3827 talk.politics.misc:43286 alt.politics.elections:12211
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 1@vxdesy.desy.de, forbush@vxdesy.desy.de () writes:
>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? :^} 
>
Sounds to me like the Washington Post-ABC News poll taken over a four-day
period (26-29 Aug, I think).  The 56-36 was "likely voters"; the error was
+- 3 or 4 %, don't remember which.  The larger poll, taken of "registered
voters", showed a 19% difference, 55-36.

This is a national poll, and, as someone else posted a while back, what we
_really_ need are state polls.

Btw, the polls that showed 6-8 points difference were done in one day.  As
a rule, multi-day polls are more accurate than one-day polls.  As a generalization,
all polls are worthless.

--f2
----------------
  Bush-Quayl '92
  It's a mistake
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Endangered Species and fertility (was Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov>
	<ART.92Aug29110417@world.std.com>
	<1992Aug30.232749.13992@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.232749.13992@athena.mit.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug29110417@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >Actually, the environementalists are the ones bending the law.  The fact
   >is that the Spotted Owl is not a separate species.  It is a subspecies.
   >The Northern Spotted Owl mates with another owl and produces fertile
   >offspring.  The production of FERTILE offspring the the critical factor
   >in deciding if two animals are of the same species.  The use of the
   >Spotted Owl as an "endangered species" is a sham to preserve the old
   >growth forests.  Now, I am quite in favor of saving the old growth
   >forests, we have precious little left, but make no mistake about it, the
   >use of the spotted owl is a sham.
   >

   Actually, the definition of what entails a "species" has been a subject
   of debate for sometime.  

Yes, for years there was a spirited debate between the "splitters" and
the "lumpers".  Splitters see a new species under every bed while lumpers
are more conservative.  See the classic work of Allan Roush of about 25
years ago on the taxonomy of the grizzly bear.

The general consensus is that a species is a
   group of animals that mate and reproduce IN THE WILD.

Care to cite an example?  In the wild many fishes from different genera
mate and produce fertile offspring.

  There are many
   examples of different "species" that can mate and produce fertile
   offspring when they mate in captivity, etc.

Cite some examples.

  However, if they do not
   mate in the wild they then represent entirely separate gene pools.
   These separate gene pools are then separate pockets of diversity in the
   biological kingdom.

I don't know where you get your information from but this not correct.
The separate gene pools provide the source of speciation but do not
define it.  The issue of species is one of genetic uniqueness of two life
forms, not how close they happen to live to each other.

Besides, even with your definition my earlier statements still stand
because the Spotted Owl matings are indeed taking place in the wild.
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: President Bush
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 18:10:22 GMT


 Is there a Republican out there who can tell me that the 
"no new taxes" pledge was not a cynical manipulation at best
and a lie at worst?

Vote this year. It matters.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why is there Federal Disaster Relief?
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:28:43 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

> Edward J. Branley writes:
> >kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
> >
> >>
> >> The point is this: I don't see how the risk of having your house blown
> >> down by a hurricane is that difference from the risk of unemployment,
> >> illness, or even unwanted pregnancy. No one seems to question aid to
> >> hurricane victims (which I support), yet the same logic applies to these
> >> other cases. What am I missing?
> >> ---- Kevin.
> >
> >What you're missing is that a hurricane is an act of God in the eyes of many
> >a Republican and insurance company.  In the eyes of 'Rubbers' Bush, you can
> >re-trained and get another job, you can not get sick (or stay at a job that
> >health insurance), and you can not have sex.  God, however, chooses where
> >hurricanes go (except the ones that Pat Robertson has been able to deflect b
> >sheer force of will), so it doesn't fall with the other things you've
> >mentioned.
>
> As near as I can tell, Disaster Relief is primarily a political sop for
> the incumbent to prevent the "He don't care" reaction. The problem, as
> near as I can see, is that people who suffer isolated Acts of God are
> left out to dry. For example, when the Midwest was hit by a monstrous
> wave of tornadoes in 1974, my family received housing aid for a year.
> But when a single tornado flattened a lot of buildings on my wife's
> family farm: nada.
>
> `
> --
> Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.

You've done an effective job of summing it up.  What's ironic about Bush is
that he did an excellent job on the 'caring' issue, getting down there (FL) and
here very quickly after the storm.  Then he blows it by not having someone from
the campaign stomp on the bureaucrats and make sure that things flow properly.
So, he ends up looking like a caring incompetent.

As far as your wife's family situation, that sort of situation tends to be more
of a private sector thing.  Down here, people respond quite quickly to help
tornado victims, and insurance covers such acts (at least down here--I can't
speak for the Midwest).  Federal assistance is really needed when there's
*nobody* who can lend a hand to help out victims for miles, because everyone is
a victim.  That's the situation in FL right now, which is why the army is
needed.



|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: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front.....
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:59:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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

Tell me, what is the color of the sky in your world? "eradicated the gangs"?
Last information I received was that only the Crips and Bloods had laid
down their arms (on their own initiative) and have been at peace with
each other since the L.A. riots. The hispanic gangs appear to still be
just as violent as prior to the riots. Bush has done little more than
ignore this highly volitile situation.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:00:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug31.224936.2433@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
]>>(And before anyone comes back on Clinton's draft record, at least he has a
]>>reason: he opposed the war.
]>
]>Would you care to elaborate on this?  If he was opposed to the war, then
]>why did he join ROTC?
]
]Er, so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam to fight a war he didn't want
]to fight?

What it means is that he intentionally
defrauded the government (ie, all of us) to save his neck.  If he had
been simply motivated by anti-war motives, he could have been a CO
or gone to prison. If he simply wanted to save his neck, he should
have tried something that didn't involve fraud.

]I believe a fair number of people ENLISTED in the army to avoid going
]to Vietnam: the military prefered to send draftees over there, and if
]you entered the army willingly, they'd send you to, say, Europe.
]
If so, these folks were mighty dumb, because the army would happily
have sent them to Vietnam. After all, sending motivated (ie, volunteer)
troops to VN would seem a GOOD thing to them. Also, volunteers
were for a longer enlistment (3 years min) and as such were more
cost effective to send to specialist training. VN needed LOTS
of specialists.

]Clinton worked for Sen. Fulbright when he was at Georgetown, and
]concluded the war was wrong long before he went to Oxford.
Uh huh.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3331 alt.politics.elections:11860 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3092 talk.politics.guns:20283 talk.politics.misc:42601
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:04:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <PA146008.261.715017540@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> >Let me explain the intricate inner-workings of the gun "black market".

> >1)  Get into a van.
> >2)  Drive to Florida
> >3)  Buy several score of assorted fire arms

>      Felony number one.  (And probably two since you'll have to forge
> a Florida ID.)

> >4)  Load them into said van.
> >5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and

>      Felony number three.

> >6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).

>      Felony number four.     

> >It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
> >QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.

>      Perhaps they would affect *this* avenue. 

But why the hell would you concede that?  You just SHOWED how FOUR 
laws "restricting the legal sale of arms" DIDN'T affect a damn thing.
Why should five, or eight, or 22 do any better?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2577 alt.politics.clinton:2661 alt.politics.perot:1333 alt.politics.elections:11342 alt.rush-limbaugh:3873 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4771
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: School choice: comments and questions
Summary: Comments and a questionnaire
Keywords: School choice, comments, questions, Bush, Clinton, politics,
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:36:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

First comments:
A lot of people have been saying that the Bush plan to give vouchers to
all parents to send kids to their choice of public, private, or
parochial schools will result in a more segregated, class-oriented
education system with the richest people getting the best teachers and
education environment and the poorest getting the shaft.

I am a product of both private and public education (private: grades
kindergarten-4 to 8th grade and now college; public 9th to 12th). First
of all, the "white flight" that is being cited so often I don't believe
will happen to the apocalyptic extent that everyone of the boo-birds say
it will. The private school I attended had only 200 students total
(present 300) for all ten (now 11) grade levels. I have never heard of a
private elementary or secondary school with a student body of more than
500 (although I could be wrong, particularly in larger cities). With the
added monies, I don't think that these schools can accommodate every
child whose parents wants him/her to attend, nor will they have enough
money to expand or enlarge the school, hire new teachers, expand
administration, etc. There are typically much more capacity for public
schools (some of the largest can carry 2000 to my knowledge). What will
result is that not everyone's choices can be accommodated, but the
selection process will be much more tighter and competitive to these
private schools. Everyone else would have to settle for their next-best
choices. That's how I see it working. Offer your opinions to my
statement.

Now, for a questionnaire: assume you have one child of school-age.
1.	What interaction would you like to have with the child's teacher
or teachers? What interaction would you like your child to have?

2.	What do you look for in selecting a school
(academically/athletically/socially)?

3.	What is the degree of trust you want to put into your school
regarding the health and safety of your child?

4.	How does the school discipline its students (from academic
dishonesty to roughhousing)?

If anyone wants to add any more questions, go ahead. Subgrouped
questions are admissible too. (Anything for discussion.)

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:27:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.220420.11509@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.201932.4100@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>>>Who is tearing families apart?
>>Hmm. Well, let's see, where to start?  An example, pointed out recently
>>could be Hillary Clinton, likening marriage to slavery, and stating that
>>children should have the right to divorce their parents.
>
>	Pure quotation out of context.
>
>	Hillary Clinton does not seem to consider herself Slick
>Willie's slave :-)
>
>	About kids suing their parents, I think she was talking about
>cases in which parents are seriously abusive.

You think wrong.  Children *already* have rights when they are
abused. Rights to protective custody and rights to legal representation.
Courts can and have made these determinations in the past and present.
 
The cases Hillary Clinton was considering have to do with other
things, like "cosmetic surgery, abortion, ..." and other choices
a child might contemplate.  She wants to expand the scope of
litigation to cover choices a child might make in contravention
with the wishes of non-abusing parents.
The "abusive" parents aspect is a deliberate red herring to
deflect the issue.

Both Clintons are well-beloved by trial lawyers. Having lawyers further
stick their noses into the workings of families is yet another
solution-by-litigation that has done more harm than good in the
many areas we have tried.

It's like saying we don't need tort reform because lawsuits only occur
with "serious abuses" in liability or medical malpractice.
Well, the bill for litigation is $300 billion in this country,
and with the lawyers Clinton & Clinton, who are anti-tort
reform(*) and pro-litigation, it will further increase.


Pat

(*) Clinton killed a tort reform proposal in Arkansas in 1987.
This fact was touted in a fund raising letter for Clinton that
was sent to memebers of the American Trial Lawyers Association.
Clinton also opposes the kind of tort reform favored by Bush and Quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton