HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lies
Date: 30 Aug 1992 16:21:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu


Respectfully speaking, I don't think science and religion necessarily
have to clash.  So in the scheme of things, it is possible for 
Genesis, God, and evolution to co-exist.  What God makes, science aims
to understand.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Subject: Clinton blunder
Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:25:32 GMT


Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:


According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
                                                               
"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
but still led the nation to war".                                 
                                    
                                           
It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
reads:                                                                 
                                                  
"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
company."                                                          
  ~


Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!  

Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
Clinton's personal political cause, right?  

Send Bill back to school!  
   
----
-- 
Michael
From: gemmell@drum.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Gemmell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Offended by being called ...
Date: 26 Aug 1992 20:08:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, 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





Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3390 talk.politics.misc:42664 alt.politics.elections:11894
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:56:37 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug28.224316.8107@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.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.



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3143 alt.politics.clinton:3201
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: woody allen
Date: 27 Aug 1992 13:27:35 GMT
Organization: i represent myself

In article <26AUG199223341067@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
> 
> Like any other american, woody allen is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
> 

only if you're a bleeding heart LIBERAL.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3934 alt.politics.clinton:3906
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Why Family Values in the first place? (short)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 07:01:15 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu


You know something is strange in American society when our politicians
have to remind us of Family Values.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3535 alt.politics.elections:11987 alt.politics.clinton:3538
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:28:56 EDT

In article <1992Aug30.185712.4999@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <4VVBqB8w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> In article <gDo9PB5w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
>>>>At least Clinton has a plan.  George Herbert Walker Bush is a cynical liar w
>>>>cannot be trusted to provide even basic ideas for running this country.  I'm
>>>>ready to take the chance on the unknown commodity, given how repulsive the
>>>>incumbent is.
>>>
>>> Wowsers!  Branley thinks that Bush is aimlessly wandering around on
>>> the edge of a cliff, but prefers Clinton, who's promised to run off
>>> that cliff.
>>>
>>> "He has a plan" doesn't imply that the plan is GOOD; no plan IS better
>>> than a bad plan.  Notice what Branley admits about Clinton's plan.
>>
>>So, Freeman would have us wander around in the desert for another four years.
> 
> If the alternative is to run off the cliff, yes.  I do prefer stagnation
> to a quick disaster.
> 
> Branley seems to believe that "Bush is clueless" implies "Clinton will
> do good".  It doesn't.  As bad as Bush is, we could do worse.  Branley
> argues that Clinton will do more of the things that Bush has done
> wrong.  Branley prefers the sure thing, running off the cliff, to the
> random chance of wandering aimlessly around at the top of that cliff.
> 
>>Freeman fails to realize that Bush's blaming of Congress is going to get
>>nowhere.
> 
> No, I assume that that's true.  Then I listen to Branley tell us what
> Clinton's plan is, that it is the worst mistakes that Bush has made,
> only magnified.  Clinton will get his way on this with Congress,
> because it's their plan too.
> 
> While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
> "right off the cliff" aim.

Andy, please explain to us just *what* Clinton's plans are and why these
plans are similar to walking "right of the cliff". I am willing to 
bet that you don't know the facts and just suck up all the Republican
lies eagerly...

> 
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

I want to say something rude here but will abstain...

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Put some spin on this...
Organization: Clark University
Date: 26 AUG 92 21:41:38 GMT


In a previous article, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) wrote:
>% 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!

Why don't you be fair and include % of blacks living in poverty?

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:04:17 GMT

In article <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.  


   How about the way that his administration continues with efforts to have
   the Endangered Species Act legally "re-interpreted" to support his
   position on logging in the domain of the Spotted Owl?  This appeal has
   been rejected twice by two seperate high courts that have realized that
   the Act is funtioning in just the way that was intended:  to keep men
   like Bush from _bending_ the laws when the law dosen't suit them.

   Do you need more?

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.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:12:38 GMT

Keywords: huh?

In article <1992Sep2.175645.829@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.161349.24795@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>header.
]>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
]>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
]>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
]
]Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
Yes... see American Spectator - they have a complete quote (I don't
expect you to believe their non-quoted stuff).

]children deemed responsible by the court should be able to sue their parents
]over matters that can significantly affect their future, e.g., child abuse,
]surgery to repair a hair-lip, ability to stay in highschool, etc.  I also
]understand that her position is now standard practice and well within the
]legal mainstream.

If so, it is a sad statement about our legal system.

-- 
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
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:47:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <BLLDqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:

> > 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.

Hello?  Hello?  The Governor of a state has to FORMALLY ask for help.  That
means he doesn't just walk up and say "Hi, help."  He has to submit a
request.  When he did that, Bush sent troops within 24 hours.  The system
was designed that way so that states kept *some* degree of sovereignty
(sp?).

--
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
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.001855.16389@athena.mit.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.233003.12488@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>Is there a Democrat out there willing to defend the "borking" of
>>Supreme Court nominees?  Robert Bork was an exceptionally qualified,
>>though conservative nominee, and the left attacked him with
>>McCarthyite tactics.  So instead of getting exceptionally qualified
>>conservative nominees, the Republicans have been putting up
>>nominees who it is impossible to bork, but who are less qualified.
>
>Just becuase one is an exceptional constitutional scholar does not mean
>that one must be confirmed to the Supreme Court.  Bork had very strong,
>and highly public, views on how to interpret the Constitution.  His
>vision was not compatible with the majority of the Senate.  
>

(Note: I'm opposed to Bush, and holding my nose and hoping Clinton
wins...I would much prefer Kemp or Tsongas). 

I would much rather have Bork on the court who is a much more
reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful justice than Thomas, Rehnquist,
Scalia, and Kennedy.  What was done to Bork by the left was
unconscionable.  Even if you don't like Bork's views, they are
clear and reasoned and would have raised the level of the legal
debate on the court.  The Courts decisions would be clearer and
more reasoned not matter which side prevailed because of that.
Instead, a bunch of mediocrities are ending up on the court, that
can hardly be good for the Court.  I'd support Bork for the Court,
and I'd support Tribe for the court for much the same reason.
It is better to have excellent people than mediocre people on the
Court.

>Now the nomination of "Stealth" candidates can backfire.  How happy is
>Bush with Souter right about now?
>

It at least lends some credence to that fact that no litmus test was
applied.

Gerald

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: nope
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:42:28 GMT

In article <l1cn7!_.howard@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>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.
>>
>>-andy
>
>Data? Statistics?  How the hell do you know this?

I suspect that the data is found in the reference posted by someone
else.  My statement came from personal experience.

I spent a lot of time with pregnant teens in a community that had free
effective birth control AND sex education.  (In other words, it was a
community that had the measures that supposedly help with teen
pregnancy.)  I talked with them about how they got pregnant and why.
They knew how to avoid it, but didn't want to.

The sexually active teens in that community who didn't want to get
pregnant didn't get pregnant.  A huge number did want to get pregnant,
and did.  Birth control and sex education isn't relevant for them.

It's amazing what you find out about people if you listen to them.
They often don't fit the stereotypes that society has.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:31:21 GMT

In article <17hesjINNgqc@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.225301.24877@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
> >>So, now we have created a criminal.
> >>He is well armed because all you Right Wing Gun Loving Hillbilly Rednecks
[...]

Careful, here Frank.  Alex didn't write this, he merely posted it for
our amusement...  It should have been:

In article <1992Aug26.135803.10046@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP
(Ian Malone) writes:
[...]

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 08:12:11 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:
>
> > Hurricane hits.  Bush sends troops to Homestead AFB, a federal installation
> > He sends a MASH, field kitchens and food for a division, and a Navy
> > construction batallion.  The SeaBees clear the base, the MASH staff sets up
> > hospital, and the food workers get ready to feed storm victims.  He tells t
> > Governor that there's lots of stuff just waiting for his people on this
> > *federal reservation*.
>
> While a nice thought, did you see pictures of Homestead AFB after Andrew hit?
> How long do you think it would take them to clean up that mess and be able
> to do what you mentioned above? Virtually every building at the AFB was
> destroyed.

Try again. Think hard.  I said bring in a *mobile* hospital and *field*
kitchens.  These come in tents.  Can you say that?  Sure, I knew you could.

That's why we're using military stuff in the first place.  If they can function
in a Saudi desert, they can function in the midst of flattened buildings.

>
> >  No violation of states' rights necessary.  Just a
> > little caring and quick-thinking by the Bush administration.
>
> Methinks you're more interested in finding something to criticize Bush about
> than you are in looking at facts objectively.
>

Methinks you're not looking at the facts at all.  The people needed help and
they didn't get it.  It wouldn't have been hard to get it to them.  FEMA
screwed up.  After Hugo and the SF earthquake, you would have thought that the
Bush administration would have worked towards rectifying the problems at FEMA.
Instead, Bush appoints a political hack to run the place.

That's the facts.  Had Bush cared about disasters in the US, he'd have done
something about FEMA.  Bush had at least two major disasters to contend with
and observe how shaky FEMA was.  He tends to react to a crisis after the fact,
but here's an example of where he has ignored a problem completely.



|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,talk.politics.theory
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: trust
Date: 28 Aug 1992 01:47:29 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan) writes:
!merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
!>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
!>>Personally, one of my yardsticks in choosing a president is:
!>>   Who would you rather be friends with?   Who would you prefer to be your
!>>close relative?
!>>Personally speaking, Bush wins hands down.
!
!And the answer is ..... WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT!

Wait, I'm confused.  Are you trying to insinuate that I'm some
White Anglo Saxon Protestant?

If you are, then Ha!  You're in for a big surprise.

k
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Jeff Kemp?
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:34:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <180uj1INNq29@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Martin Guerrero) wrote:
> 
> 
> Anyone know who Jeff Kemp is?  If so, is he still active, and if he
> is, then where?

Kemper used to be on the Niners.  He just got released from a team who's
name escapes me.
--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.