HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov>
	<ART.92Aug29110417@world.std.com> <1992Aug31.170915.14269@news.nd.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:50:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.170915.14269@news.nd.edu> slarsen@copland.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug29110417@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >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:
   >
   >   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.
   >

   Not true.  According to the American Ornithological Union, the body that 
   makes the decisions with regards to bird species, the Spotted Owl is a 
   distinct species.  There are various subspecies of the Spotted Owl. You 
   may check any number of field guides (Peterson's, Golden, Geo) to verify this 
   information.

Doesn't matter what they say.  Classically the definition of species wrt
animals has been the criteria I mentioned, production of fertile
offspring.  The spotted owl is a species.  The NORTHERN spotted owl in
the old growth areas is a subspecies.  The species of spotted owl is not
endangered.  What is in danger is the remaining old growth forest.  I am
all in favor of saving that, but it's not productive to hide behind a
sham species, it becomes a credibility issue.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: RNC platform please
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:35:03 GMT

In article <oneil.715587070@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>>In article <oneil.715491500@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>True, but if someone at the RNC would take the time to scan it, it would be
>>>all over the net in no time!  If you ask me, it looks like they don't want
>>>people to read it because the Democratic platform was online in about a day!
>
>>So?  If you ask me, they think that they've got better things to do.
>>They may not even know how much distribution on-line stuff gets.
>
>Interesting that you would say this.  The Clinton campaign certainly 
>feels that it is important to get this stuff online.  They put everything
>out in a day and I believe that they even have their own internet 
>connection now.
>
>I certainly feel the Democrats are more grass roots.

So?  Clinton plays better sax too.  Does this really matter?

>>Asking either of us is rather silly.  If you want to know why they
>>haven't made it available, ask them.
>
>Why is it silly for the LARGE NUMBER of people who have asked to ask online?

Learn to READ O'Neil.  It is silly to ask people on-line why the
Repubs have made certain decisions because said people DON'T know.
Anyone who honestly CARES why the repubs did certain things will ask
them instead of attributing reasons to them.  Why do the best Clinton
arguments consist of dishonestly attributing things to others?

>The Democrats got theirs online.  If those were available via anonymous
>FTP, then only naturally would we be querying about the Republican platform.

So?

>>>Furthermore, does the Republican party /charge/ for copies, given how 
>>>thick it actually is?  I don't want any of my money going to the Republicans.
>>>
>>>I just want their platform.
>
>>Yawn.  It's easy enough to find out.  If it isn't worth checking, it
>>isn't worth me telling.
>
>My, aren't you endearing?
>
>But anyway, this group seems to be the natural place to be checking.

Why?  Unlike alt.politics.clinton, apb isn't a Bush media outlet.
Wishing otherwise won't change that.

>Of course, I'm sure you wouldn't want that thing to get into the hands
>of the culturally elite anyway.

What are you babbling about O'Neil.  If I didn't want anyone to get
their hands on it, I wouldn't have posted access information.  (Even
that wouldn't mean anything, because I'm not part of the Bush
campaign.)

I don't care whether or not anyone reads EITHER platform.  I'm
undecided, although the Clinton folks sure are pushing me towards
Bush.  Why are you folks so intent on becoming like your caricature
of Repubs?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front.....
Date: 25 Aug 1992 14:22:17 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3275 talk.politics.misc:42505 alt.politics.clinton:3320 alt.politics.elections:11812
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Date: 28 Aug 1992 02:22 MST  
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Aug28.044252.22060@athena.cs.uga.edu>, stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes...
>In article <1992Aug27.220758.879@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>>In article <19742@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>BTW, I believe that the demise of the Soviet Union was largely its own
>>>doing.  But the notion that the US played no role in that is naive.
>>>--
>>The Soviet Union collapsed because of extensive internal corruption.
>>This occured partly as a result of very widespread cynicism which
>>essentially provoked an everybody-for-themselves attitude.  The same
>>thing could happen here.  For example, we have a tax dodger for
>>president.
> 
>If these two statements are true then why the hell are so many ignorant
>conservatives coming to me yelling at the top of their lungs how wonderful
>George Bush is for saving us from the Soviet Union's threat? The Soviet
>Union hasn't been a threat for a LONG time and as much as these arch-
>conservatives would like to THINK their emaciated idol, GHWB was responsible
>for it's "downfall" (not that I think it's failure was necessarily a good
>thing) I don't see how it can possibly be attributed to him.  
> 
>So will someone PLEASE tell me where these dimwits get this idea?
> 
>Catherine Stanton
>--The 100% American is 99% an idiot--
>  - George Bernard Shaw

They have been inhaling the stuff they have been smoking for far too many
years.  They also have ignored people in Eastern Europe like Lech Walensa,
Hovel, and the masses of people in the streets who contributed to the
downfall of communism.

To attribute the downfall of communism and the Soviet Union to GHWB is
like attributing the loss of China to communism to Harry Truman.
Denny F@misvax.mis.arizona.edu
-------------------------------------
Imagination is the beginning of creation.  You imagine what you desire, you 
will what you imagine, and at last you create what you will.
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Gridlockers
Date: 30 Aug 92 12:59:07 -0500
Keywords: parties
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

If all of Bush's problems are to be laid at the feet of the DCGC (Democrat
controlled Gridlocked Congress), I have one simple question.

Assume that the Democrats control Congress again after this election.  (NOTE: 
I'm not saying that's good or bad--play along with me or don't play, please).  
WHAT THE HECK DOES BUSH DO THEN?

Can the rift that exists between Bush and the Dems in Congress (created by both
sides) be easily repaired?  Would either side even try?  My guess is that we
would have at least four more years of the inactivity we currently have.

This partisan sniping, by the way, is just one more reason that I think we
would all be better off if political parties never existed.
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lies
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:31:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug31.141357.23874@bnr.ca>, labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes...

>So even if man was/wasn't created in God's image, it's pretty amazing
>that all this is here and seems so fluidly designed.  Hmmmm, somethings
>probably out there.  

An Argument From Design (Tm)!  How quaint!

(Read Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker")

******************************************************************************
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.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:42:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.232522.22310@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu 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.
>
>	You are right. Currently for each single mother on welfare 
>payments from the government increase with each additional child.
>(This follows from the increased cost of having more children,
>but the mother does not have to spend the full increase on the
>additional child, see?)

I didn't see that.  I saw emotional and personal choice reasons.
Maybe there were economic reasons as well, but I can't comment either
way.  I also don't have any experience with pregnant teens in rich
communities.  (Public policy can ignore rich pregnant teens.)

I am amazed when people who won't do something insist that their "If I
was to do that, I'd do it because" tells us something about people who
do do that thing.

There doesn't seem to be a good group to discuss this in.  It isn't
about abortion, it is about pregnancy and public policy.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Summary: qualified
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:55:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.214155.28299@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>This country needs to pay more attention to efficiency.  Things could cost
>a lot less if they could be made more efficient.  (I know this is obvious,
>but I think it's worth discussing anyway.)  Here's one example:

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  In administrations the problem is that they
know they are useless and want to justify their jobs, so they create systems
that take up more time and money than the system that was replaced.  It happens
in schools, governments...

As far as medicine, though, if it is not a private hospital then I'd have to
take a small issue.  I understand your point, however the constant upgrading
from one super-advanced-techno-diagnostic-system has broken many a small rural
hospital, and many county hospitals that aren't so small.  Not only that but 
many a high-tech company will charge a medical institution BIG bucks because
they think the medical institution can afford it, and public hospitals can't.
This is part of the reason that medical costs are sky-rocketing.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:45:06 GMT

In article <zt1pbfnb@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.222615.4507@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> >All this about Christians killing and hating etc. is very interesting. I guess
|> >we all know that the Atheists never persecuted anyone. They never sent
|> >people to siberia, or tortured them for holding different views. They never
|> >put people in mental hospitals because the had different beliefs. It's
|> >only the Christians that hurt others. And you know all Christians are alike.
|> >What a crock!
|> >
|>  You said it, Mike, what a crock! That is the saddest piece of misdirection
|> I've ever seen in my life. The issue was Marxism, of which atheism was a tiny
|> part. Now, if you're going to tell me that the Inquisition was not a Christian
|> organisation, rather it was a militant Eco-Nazi Party, part of whose agenda
|> was Catholic, then OK, maybe we got it wrong. Otherwise, stop dribbling:
|> you'll short out your keyboard...
|> 
|> Later,
|> 
|> The Wisp. [born again w*nker, more like...]
|> -- 
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>      Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
|> "Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
|>                                       Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)

The point is that the Soviet government was officially Atheist in the
same way that those participating in the Inquisition were officially Christian.
Both claimed a title. Both commited horrible crimes. You simple can not
generalize and say that all members of a group are violent; unless of course
their hadbook requires them to be so. This is not the case with Christianity
though.

					mike
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3631 alt.politics.clinton:3629 alt.politics.perot:1378 rec.humor:27485 talk.bizarre:28221 talk.politics.misc:42999
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:17:51 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Aug30.151633.8704@raider.raidernet.com> tob@raider.raidernet.com (Tom O. Barron) writes:
>
>
 [much deleted] . . .

>How about the Bush administration's high-handed treatment of Haitian
>refugees in international waters?  What right does the U.S. Coast Guard
>have to force anyone in international waters to go anywhere?
>
>-- 
	Good question, Tom.  I guess about as much right as the U.S.
	military had to invade Panama and kidnap Noriega, send in the
	DEA to arrest the doctor who is accused of killing that American
	DEA agent, send in others to kidnap a Honduran drug dealer and
	bring him back here for trial, indict a Columbian on drug dealing
	charges in Connecticut, when it hasn't been established that he
	committed any crime in the U.S. . . . . . . I guess you get
	the point!

		Remember, virtue is its own punishment.  Judy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:13:01 GMT

In article <2A9FF1C0.10153@orion.oac.uci.edu>,
    cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>EJ. Branley writes
>> So, tell me, do you include that chapter of the Hitler
>> Youth (oh, excuse me, Young Republicans) that charged
>> the doors of the building where Ron Brown was holding his
>> press conference during convention week in Houston
>> 'intelligent students' also?  Give me a break. 
>
>Again, exactly how does that differ from young ACT-UP "nazis" shouting down  
>George Bush ? Except - of course - that the Young Republicans probably were  
>better dressed and cleaner ?
>
>Be serious. Rudeness is a vice in anyone. Fortunately, rudeness alone does not
>a nazi make. And quite frankly, I'd rather deal with a rude republican, than
>with a machete-wielding berkeley radical heroine.
>
>	Carl Edman

You mean like the Lambs of Christ?  Just don't disagree with them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:25:08 GMT

All this discussion has on free condoms made me change my mind. I used to
be highly in favor of giving out condoms. Now, however, I believe that is
not a good idea. There are a few key factors in my change of heart.

1. The world is overpopulated.

2. Something needs to be done to slow the population growth.

3. Not passing out condoms will slow the population growth because 
teenagers and their babies will die from AIDS.

4. The teen agers who will not have enough knowledge to use condoms on
their own will be the sons and daughters of the Religious Right.

5. Natural selection will improve the species.-:)

Richard Foy                       Standard Disclaimer

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3302 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4881
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: George Will on the GOP
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:42:22 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus


	Looking for a good read in the mismash of convention coverage? Let
me direct you to George Will, syndicated columnist. Will is a staunch
conservative, and an excellent writer, and a quick look at any of his
recent output will explain why Rush Limbaugh was a speaker at the convention,
and George Will wasn't. From Wednesdays Washington Post:

	"When George Bush's campaign slithered through Georgia, Rep Newt
Gingrich rose to the challenge of lowering still furthur the tone of it."

	Make no mistake, Will is a dyed in the wool conservative and loyal
member of the GOP. It's just that, as he put it "Today honerable conservatives
feel the sort of fury felt by honerable conservatives 40 years ago when
Joe McCarthy was giving anti-communism a bad name" ... " serious people
flinch from being associated with the intellectual slum that is the Bush
campaign, with its rifraff of liars and aspiring ayatollahs".

	It's good stuff. Will is a regular contributor to the Washington
post, and occasionally the NYTimes prints his stuff (but not often). For
the dittoheads out there, maybe it'll help you grasp the difference between
Rush Limbaugh and somebody who puts content over entertainment.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: yackel@ccvax1.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Dan Yackel)
Subject: RNC platform please
Organization: AOSG
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:36:15 GMT

Keywords: 


I dont know if this is the right place but could someone post the
RNC Platform please???

Dan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:57:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.144932.27897@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
 
>     [...]
>cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>A large percentage of students who major in the liberal`
>>arts do so because (I'm going to get flammed heavily for
>>this, but it is the truth) there is no math or hard
>>science involved.
>>
>>Note, that this is not to say that a liberal arts education
>>is bad, or does not have a place. It is especially needed
>>as part of a core graduation curriculum. Liberal art classes
>>require critical thinking and reasoning, but are also
>>graded very subjectively when compared to math and
>>science courses.
>
Would that that were still the case! It is now both possible and
typical to graduate with a liberal arts degree and have no experience
with or exposure to the classics, logic, history or a language. It
is possible to graduate from most schools, it seems, by satisfying
all one's requirements with classes like "The Comic Book as Postmodern
Literature", "Marxist Perspectives on Hegemony in Ancient Phonecia"
and so forth ;-)
 
>  I agree, liberal arts are needed to give one a 'well rounded' education.
>I also want to reiterate that everyone has a right to pursue a career in
>any field they wish regardless of the ratio of supply to demand.  Just
>don't expect the government to balance out a field where there is great
>oversupply.
>
That's the heart of it. We have artists who think the government owes
them a living. I'd like to spend all my time playing rock and roll and
riding my bicycle, but I'm not looking for a federal grant to do so.
Maybe I just need to sharpen my arguments regarding my biking enriching
the cultural experience of my community?
>--
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
>for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2916 alt.politics.clinton:3007