HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:09:56 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
: From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
: >We don't have any major ideological parties at all.  Instead, we have
: >two centrist power coalitions with no unifying principles other than a
: >desire to win elections.
: 
: Both parties are committed to defending the American status
: quo, which includes the capitalist economy, the constitution,

given the abuses of the fourth, fifth, sixth, fourteenth, first, and second
ammendments condoned, perpetrated, and encouraged by members of both the
democratic and republican parties, i hardly agree that both parties are 
committed to defending the constitution...

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1493 alt.politics.marrou:773 talk.politics.misc:39546 alt.politics.elections:10531 talk.politics.theory:3664
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:00:10 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Aug10.160947.21020@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.062523.5464@infonode.ingr.com> fitz@infonode.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:
>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>

>>
>>An alternate premise: the government says I must spend $xxx for
>>education.  Since it is my money, I decide the type of education I
>>spend it on.
>
>And the poor don't get educated at all.  GREAT system.  NOT!
>

I sometimes ask myself why people think that things always
have to be one way or the other.   Why cant we have a system
of educational tax credits, and if there are some poor kids
who fall into a crack, hand them a voucher.

>
>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

"Expecting safety from a system which was designed to suit the requirements
of the senators whose districts were home to various would-be Space Shuttle
suppliers is ridiculous."


--Al Date
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:01:15 GMT

In article <8322@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>

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

I've seen fat folks on food stamps.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:33:07 GMT

Barbara Bush asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
She weasled out of that question by talking about changes in XUSSR.

My answer is NO.

I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.

I eat out a lot. It costs me a substantially larger percentage of my income
than it did 4 years ago.

I drive around LA a lot. It takes a substantially larger percentage of my
time than it did 4 years ago. I read the news. In spite of the Willie
Hornton ad there is a substantially greater amount of crime in it than
there was 4 years ago.

I like to be able to relax in nature. There is substantially less clean
nice nature than there was 4 years ago. I don't like to worry. I spend a
substantially greater percentage of my time worrying about ozone holes etc.
than I did 4 years ago.

I like the women that I know to have the same opportunities, freedoms and
choices that I have. Their choices are substantially less than they were 4
years ago. Not incidentally, the Reagan Bush Supreme Court have reduced my
freedoms as well and will go on doing so for many more years.

Though I lead a life style that Clayton Cramer and the Religious Right
would probably approve of at least as far as sex and drugs are concerned,
I am substantially more at risk of aids than I was 4 years ago.

No! I am not better off than I was 4 years ago.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Congress "above" the law?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:13:25 GMT

In article <BD.92Aug14084801@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>You know, I keep hearing this (mostly from the pig, Rush Limbaugh), and I 
>wonder if it's accurate (it might be, but I wonder).  I had thought the 
>reason for this is that Congress is Constitutionally exempt from them, since 
>the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and separation of powers limits the 
>influence of the Executive Branch over Congress.  
>
>Anyone have a clue what the real story is?

I don't know about federally, but this is true at the state level in Oregon
but only when congress is IN SESSION.  Last year (or maybe two years ago),
OR state congressman Caloury (Ted?) was pulled over for exceeding the speed
limit on OR highway 217.  He said that since congress was in session, he was
exempt from this particular law.  Never mind the fact that he was 50+ miles
AND travelling AWAY from (state capitol) Salem.

The police officer simply waited for congress to adjourn, and served him with
another ticket, which he sheepishly paid.  An officer has up to 60 days or
something to serve a ticket for a violation which she (in this case) has
witnessed.

It doesn't seem particularly unlikely that the federal congress has this
same perq.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:29:37 GMT

In article <388m8yl@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>
>Or could both these posters be Quayle in disguise? (ASIDE:  I never knew
>that he could hook his GameBoy into the Usenet system.  Must be the powers
>of the Veep.)
>

Dan Quayle is S P E C I A L.  In every modern sense/euphemism of the word.

--
But this is.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1435 alt.politics.elections:10481 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2433
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:14:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.193158.23440@natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes...
>In article <Bsxoy6.Fv8@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

>>Do we really think that if his granddaughter murdered someone that he would
>>support her choice?

>Interesting how you changed 'support her' to 'support her choice'.  Its not
>the same.  He could easily support her even though he finds what she did
>to be morally wrong.  If his graddaughter murdered someone I think he would
>support her (i.e. visit her in jail, help her when/if she got out).  He could
>still think that she deserves the punishment that she gets.

Oops, wrong choice of phrasing...  Even so, given that the president favors 
the Death Penalty for first-degree murder, you'd think that consistency would
demand the same for his granddaughter.  Unless, of course, he doesn't believe
that abortion *is* murder...

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:09:23 GMT

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

We know that Bush lies.  If that's such a horrible thing, why do the
Clinton supporters insist on doing so as well.  If you can't make your
argument without distorting Bush's positions ....

I watched the interview.  Bush said only that if one of his relatives
exercised a legal choice, he wouldn't abandon them afterwards.  He said
nothing suggesting that he'd approve of that choice or support it.

If Clinton's children did something legal that he disapproved of, do
you think he should abandon them?  No?  Then why is Bush wrong for
doing the exact same thing?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2080 alt.politics.elections:10894
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:40:32 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug18.170303.1@vthvax.tamu.edu> joel@vthvax.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.174311.2402@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

[my blah blah blah about waiting periods deleted]

>
>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.

Well, that is the argument.  If you chose to dismiss it, fine.
I won't change your mind.

The question is whether the rights of the woman, who is undoubtably
a sentient, independent entity, should be subservient to the fetus,
which is questionably sentient, certainly not independent from the
mother.


--
But this is.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:54:21 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University


   Correction noted.  The S&L deregulation happened during a democratic
administration.  The failure to correct the mistake was bi-partisian. My
apologies to any offended Republicans.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1266 alt.politics.marrou:729 talk.politics.misc:39146 alt.politics.elections:10344 talk.politics.theory:3627
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:36:37 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Chris Waldron) writes:
|> In jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >Nick Szabo) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Most school funding is local or state; that is the best level on 
|> >|> which to implement voucher systems (and elect Libertarians!)
|> >
|> >For a voucher system (or preferably a tax credit system) to work
|> >I think that funding has to be at least at the state level.  Otherwise
|> >you run into the problem of low funding in poor areas, high funding
|> >elsewhere.  In addition, it would be easier to establish a 
|> >tax credit system where taxes paid for education are more
|> >normalized. 
|> >
|> You have funding now at the state level.  Funding for education in a number of
|> states is through property taxes and the level of educational funding is not
|> equal.  People in states like Texas and Tennessee have sued the state because
|> of the inequible funding.  The voucher system will not work because it does
|> nothing to address inequible funding of education.  There are a whole host
|> of reasons to the problem of education in this country and the voucher system
|> will only exaserbate the problem.

the humor in all of these discussions is that they start over the gross
inneffiency of the public schools.  Much of that inefficiency is due to the
requirements placed upon them by state and local government to justify
receiving their government funding.

If we had a voucher system,  private schools would have to duplicate the 
reporting and administrative problems of the public schools, just to
get the money.

If we say that private schools don't need to have the reporting and
administrative overhead, lets just drop it in the public schools as well.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1532 alt.politics.clinton:1910 alt.politics.perot:1274 rec.humor:26076 talk.bizarre:25947 talk.politics.misc:39622
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: 14 Aug 92 12:26:13 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


avik@icase.edu (Avik Banerjee) says:

>a president doesn`t have to be above the law, he can change the
>law so it wont be broken.

No. he can't.  The Pres doesn't have law-making powers, but he does have 
the job of executing them, hence "Executive Office".  I don't know the 
precise wording, but I think the swearing-in oath says something about 
upholding the laws of the country...
-- 
    Brice Dowaliby         |    I don't speak for them. 
(bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu)  |    They don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:57:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.215615.3496@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <26544@life.ai.mit.edu> 
>
>> 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.

Where the hell have you been?????????  Roe v. Wade has been
more or less overruled in Casey and Webster.



--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2326 talk.politics.misc:40932 alt.politics.elections:11118 talk.politics.theory:3767 misc.education:3180
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,misc.education
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:51:45 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Aug17.053150.11871@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:

>
>Education arguments are full of BS positioning on both sides.
>
>Let's let a major city or county get rid of their public schools as
>an experiment.  We'll find out whether the private market will be capable
>of educating the populace from those regions.
>
>We can already see where educational experimentation has proven new
>paradigms for schools, but people ignore them!  For example, 
>"artificial free-market" competition between co-existing schools withing
>one public school building has shown to result in improved schools.
>Any school district unhappy with educational results could do this.
>
>I don't believe that the U.S. would be be able to educate all of its
>kids by eradicating public education.  But I'm not sure.  There is only
>one way to find out, try it.
>

We already did.  It was called the 19th Century.  The literacy rate
was fairly stable at 90% throughout the century, in spite of the
addition of millions of impoverished immigrants, many of whom 
didnt speak a word of English.

The Lancaster Schools are an interesting historical 
example of innovative education accomplished at low cost.  
The basic idea was that the older kids
learned how to teach certain subjects to the younger ones.  This
reduced the number of teachers required.  Of course, the public
schools wont have any of this, as they are run by the NEA.

Public schools did not become universal and compulsory until
the early 20th Century.  Prior to that time, public schools were
the exception rather than the rule.  


--Al Date
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1806 alt.politics.clinton:2052 alt.sex:26847 talk.politics.misc:40083
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Date: 17 Aug 92 04:44:48 GMT
	<1992Aug17.000240.26535@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


 glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>And there are laws against prostitution. 
>
>And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
>(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
>that did not exist when such laws were enacted.

Then I'll give you the medical reason that did exist at the time. 
Syphilis.  Until the advent of penicilin in the 20th century, syphilis
was as deadly a disease as AIDS is today.  There was just as much
medical justification to pass the laws then as there is today.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Organization: Houston, TX
Distribution: na
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:00:51

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 >>
 >> The situation we have today is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-
 >> demand.

 >This is not true.  The situation we have today is that there are *no*
 >third-trimester abortions performed in this country for other than serious
 >medical reasons.

Maybe the demand is low.  8^)
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2112 alt.politics.elections:10928
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:34:20 GMT
	<1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug19.023629.14030@news.columbia.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug19.023629.14030@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
<   In article <1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:\
<   >
<   >Why is abortion the only choice worthy of respect?  After all, we
<   >believe pro-choice advocates who say say "we don't like abortion, but
<   >it isn't our decision to make", so why doesn't that apply to other
<   >choices she might make, choices that said advocates may not like.

<   Such as?

	Such as the woman who *chooses* to keep and bear a
	firearm for self defense?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Abortion (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:47:50 GMT


You are crossposting this to every group EXCEPT where it belongs:

talk.abortion


PLEASE TAKE THE ABORTION DISCUSSION TO:

talk.abortion
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:17:50 GMT

In article <oneil.714340431@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
..
>I doubt if I'm going to be able to pay tuition this fall, given that in 
>the last four years, tuition rates have gone throught the roof!  And I'm 
>currently working for someone with substantially less education than I
>have at a boring, repetitive part time job.  I can't afford insurance rates.
>
....
>
>Sexual harrassment against women seems to be an Olympic sport anymore.
>SIGH!  I don'te even want to talk about this one.  Grrr!
>
...
>
>Sharon O'Neil
>oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
>

It makes me extremely angry when I read things like this and when I
think of the young people I know who are having such a hard time. Much
more angry than my concerns for my own well being. 

This is the first time in the history of our nation the next generation 
is worse off than their parents.

I know that I can't honestly totally blame Bush and Reagan for this.
But IMO they are more responsible than are the Democrats in Congress.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1999 alt.politics.marrou:825 talk.politics.misc:40422 alt.politics.elections:10825 talk.politics.theory:3719