HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:47:09 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <31AUG199219482343@gergo.tamu.edu> dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
->Odd -- last week the night before Andrew went ashore in Louisiana, I was
->combing the Internet for back position data for the storm. I located it and
->went through all the weather service reports. I read all the prediction and
->modeling info, and the discussion comments. While I don't have the files here
->at home, I am certain that the discussion as Andrew approached Florida did
->state that the storm appeared to be weakening BUT that it was expected to
->strengthen once it hit the gulf stream. This was mentioned at the same time
->as the weakening was (~24 hours before landfall in Florida, according to your
->estimate), not just a few hours short of coming ashore.

 I was just using memory of CNN hourly news reports on this one. Didnt think I
was even that accurate. What the weather service said was that the storm had
weakened and that it COULD increase again when it got in the vicinity of the
shoreline as sometimes occurs during hurricaines. I dont recall anyone actually
mentioning that the warm water from the gulf stream could and probably would
dramatically increase the magnitude of the storm. Please provide a quote with
a time and date stamp if you could. One where someone says that it probably 
will increase in magnitude. Note - Andrew weakened just before moving ashore
in Louisiana. Dosent the gulf have very warm water ? Why did it weaken when
moving ashore in Louisiana and strengthen when moving ashore in Florida ?
Why could no one even predict this ? Are these the same people who predict
global warming ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 22:16:13 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

> From article <H3icqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, by elendil@mintir.new-o
> [...]
> > So, instead of deflecting the issue, how about we go back to the original
> > question:  can you (or anyone else) defend the Thomas appointment?
> >
>
> How about a voting record that has been everything the conservatives could
> have hoped for?
>
> Don't you think the gutless Senate is more to blame?  Duh, I don't agree
> with his views and he's totally unqualified; but he is black, I guess he's
> in.
>
> SEH

This still doesn't address the lies that Bush told about him.  Not to mention
the fact that Thomas sat there in front of the Judiciary committee and had the
audacity to say that he didn't have his mind made up on Roe v. Wade.  Gimme a
break.  Had Bush simply said he picked someone who matched his way of thinking
and left it at that, I could have let it go.  After all, he did win the
election.  If the Democrats wanted to appoint Supreme Court Justices, they
should start winning elections for President.  That's one of the galvanizing
forces behind this year's effort (and one of the reasons the Democrats have
been able to keep their fringe crazies on a tight leash).

On the Senate:  I wouldn't call what happened in the hearings 'gutless.'
Stupid, maybe, but not gutless.  The whole Thomas confirmation is going to cost
folks on both sides of the aisle their jobs.  Most blacks weren't impressed
with him before the hearings began.  However, Metzenbaum and his buddies on the
Judiciary committee did such a poor job handling the Hill thing that the rest
of the Senate had to back away from opposing him.  It was just plain dumb.






|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.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:09:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.183433.206@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.170408.1712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>|> >	Although Bush has a 18 room house in Maine, his official residance
>|> >is an empty lot in downtown houston (33'x150'). He does this to avoid
>|> >paying any state income taxes. (Maine? Thats his vacation house)

BTW - I just realized that no evidence supporting the "he does this to
avoid paying any state income taxes" claim has been presented.  Bush
moved to texas and was a congresscritter from there, even as the
family maintained the family vacation home in Maine.  As he moved
toward the base of the surviving family tree, it became his.

Rich folks often have vacation homes in other states.  That doesn't
affect their residence.

>|> In that, he's just like any other govt official stationed somewhere
>|> else.  He's just like Congress critters who "live" in their home
>|> district only to maintain election eligibility.  (My critter doesn't
>|> own squat in "his" district and may not even rent more than a mail
>|> drop.)
>|> 
>|> Of course, when Bush does it, it's different than when a Demo leader
>|> in Congress does.
>
>	I think that there is a difference between a mail drop to stay
>in your district and a mail drop to avoid income taxes.

So?  There's no evidence that Bush's mail drop is to avoid taxes.  It
is to maintain residence. 

>live in texas, he doesn't work in texas,

Just like my critter.

>he doesn't represent texas (except as part of the union) and he doesn't
>even visit texas very often.

Just like my critter.

>(You can argue the value of your congress critter all you want, I'll simply
>observe that your district elected him by popular vote, so somebody
>likes him).

Just like my critter.

>	He does, however, spend a lot of time in Maine, and utilize the

So?  My critter spends a lot of time in other states, far more than he
spends in CA.  Does that change his residence?  No?  Then why is bush
different?  Oh right; Bush is a Repub president and my critter is a
congressional democrat leader.

>The *only* reason that he has any interest in Texas is
>to avoid paying maine income taxes, which strikes me as a tad sleezy
>for a president. 

Note the absence of evidence.  (I read bush's mind too....)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (The web)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Distortion of facts
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:10:25 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.165745.1214@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>     isn't working.  His pro-right wing view does not reflect the
			  ^^^^^^^^^
			   Heh!  :)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: gerard@caliban.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: GB's Foreign Policy Record? Gimme a Break!
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:33:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.033811.1343@midway.uchicago.edu>,
wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) countered my earlier
compilation of George Bush's foreign policy failures essentially with a
"So what?"  With the exception of Iraq, where short-term U.S. economic
interests were involved, all of Bush's foreign policy decisions have
basically been in favor of isolation.  To the abundance of
isolationists in this country what I regard as foreign policy failures
are actually foreign policy triumphs. If you feel that isolationism is
in the best interests of the country and the world, then by all means
vote for George Bush.

-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: Reflections on this evening...
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:50:12 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug22.161047.14729@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <5m+nw3-.esprit@netcom.com> esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:
>>>California has been without a budget for well over a month now because
>>>no one will compromise.  The effect here is fairly serious.
>>
>>Really?  On whom?

>Er, the state suppliers who haven't been paid, and may have to close
>down?  The prison inmates and mental hospital patients, for whom
>supplies would be cut off?

I saw an interview with one of the wardens of one of the prisons.  He
indicated that they had a year's supply of food stocked away.  Not
sure if that's just good planning or a mistake (or the result of an
LDS quartermaster?), but at least that doesn't appear to be a major
concern (yet).
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:08:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <5147@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

> Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.

Yep.  Its the rich.

> 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%

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, in
constant 1985 dollars.  Presumably the Time figures were in more
modern dollars.

	Black		White		Spanish		All
	% over	Median	% over	Median	% over	Median	% over	Median
	$50,000	Income	$50,000	Income	$50,000	Income	$50,000	Income

1970:	3.9	15,340	11.9	25,203	4.5	17.719	11.1	24,197
1980:	4.3	14,053	13.0	24,392	6.1	17,822	12.1	23,121
1985:	5.8	14,819	15.8	24,908	7.3	17,465	14.8	23,618
(Sorry, I don't have 1990.)

As you can see, higher incomes have become more numerous, and median
incomes have fallen slightly, which leads to the conclusion that
lower incomes have also become more numerous.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.154035.23374@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.035743.10649@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <5147@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>>% of black families in the U.S. with incomes
>>>over $50,000
>>>
>>>1970:  9.9%
>>>1980: 10.9%
>>>1985: 12.3%
>>>1990: 14.5%
>>
>
>Since have a pretty good idea of the inflation in the 70s and 80s,
>there was LESS inflation in the 80s, we can't assume that these gains
>are explained completely by inflation.  Maybe the 70s inflation pushed
>a lot of Black families up to just under the $50k line and the 80s
>inflation happened to push them over, but that argument requires data
>that hasn't been presented.

Granted.  Does anyone have the data?

>
>>From Newsweek's review of Andrew Hacker's _Two Nations_ (3/23/92), "A
>
>Wowsers!  We're quoting book reviews instead of the books themselves....

<embarrassed look>

I actually haven't read the book yet.  I've been looking for a cheap
copy ever since I read the Newsweek review (that's the only reason
I had a 5 month old article in easy reach).  Sooner or later...



--
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"
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Name calling
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:27:03 -0500
Summary: clean campaign
Keywords: ad hominem
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Bush claims that he will not allow dirty campaigning, and that he will fire
anyone who works for him who engages in it.

Am I wrong to assume that a term like "skirt-chaser" is clean campaigning? 
(used by a member of his cabinet)

"They left out three little letters G-O-D" is issue-oriented?

When he calls Clinton "Elvis", is that because he thinks his opponent is the
King?  It coulnd't be an attempted insult.

Yes, I know that Clinton was out of line when he did a GHWB impersonation
recently, and he does get a lot of mileage out of re-using "read my lips" (of
course, that's a little petard hoisting, when you get right down to it).

My view of Bush's character does not rise when he promises a clean fight,
complete with getting rid of people who won't comply with that, and then allows
his surrogates to get away with petty name-calling.

ON A RELATED ISSUE

There seems to be a great deal of name-calling on this (and related) net(s).
Can we not engage in political discourse as rational gentle-beings w/o becoming 
rude in the process?

Ad hominem attacks do not build arguments.  They only tear us all down.





Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:29:27 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug28.170408.1712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug28.155024.19609@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
|> >
|> >	Although Bush has a 18 room house in Maine, his official residance
|> >is an empty lot in downtown houston (33'x150'). He does this to avoid
|> >paying any state income taxes. (Maine? Thats his vacation house)
|> 
|> In that, he's just like any other govt official stationed somewhere
|> else.  He's just like Congress critters who "live" in their home
|> district only to maintain election eligibility.  (My critter doesn't
|> own squat in "his" district and may not even rent more than a mail
|> drop.)
|> 
|> Of course, when Bush does it, it's different than when a Demo leader
|> in Congress does.
|> 

No, it's the same no matter whose doing it, democrat or republican.
The difference is that one of those "critters" is trying to get re-elected.

-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (Horatio "Random" Hellpop)
Subject: Re: Offended at being called a racist and hatemongerer!!!
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:30:12 GMT

In <1992Aug25.194423.3538@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:

>Apparently, because of my agreement with 
>Buchanan's views, I am also a gay-basher and hatemonger.

You did see Pat Buchanan tell Tom Brokaw that he couldn't support equal
rights for homosexuals, right?

Just checking.

-- 
Russ "Random" Smith
+----===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===-----------russ@okstate.edu--------+
|  Godfather of the Random Gang; Diplomat of the Brotherhood of Evil MUDders  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Gulf War Thing
Summary: What could Bush do in the Gulf?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:35:51 GMT
Keywords: Bush Gulf War Choices

I've read a few post-its about what people think Bush should have or should
not have done in the Gulf war, and I thought I would throw my two-cents in.

First of all, Bush probably wasn't firm on doing anything in August 1990.    
After all, Saddam Hussein was sort of a friend in the region and someone
to balance against Iran.  Fortunatly for Kuwait, Margaret Thatcher was on
vacation in Colorado and in a paraphrase of one of her advisors, "The prime
minister conducted a successful backbone implant."

Alright, skipping the war (obviously sanctions would not have worked and we
would have spent billions more garrisoning Saudi Arabia) we get to the big
revolt mess and leaving Hussein in power.

Bush did not want to help the Kurds or Shiites.  Because of the media, he did
however.  He didn't want to because they were only a sideshow, something to
eat away Hussein's power so another Sunni would-be dictator could take over.

Bush left Saddam Hussein in power because our Arab allies did not want the
United States to invade and garrison an Arab capital.  Don't tell me this was
all the U.N.'s doing because everyone knew that the UN=US policy.
Also, deposing Hussein and setting up a STABLE and democratic government
would be very difficult and would involve a lot of messing around with
internal Iraqi affairs.  For better or for worse, I think that's why Bush
left Hussein in power.

Fire away :)

Daniel at UIUC

-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: nope
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:11:57 GMT

In article <94800@bu.edu> grue@csa.bu.edu (Philip Libin) writes:
>In article <17hesjINNgqc@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>5/6 of the guns used in crimes come from the black market. Please explain
>>to me how laws governing _legal_ sales of guns will affect _illegally_
>>obtained guns.
>
>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

Where and how?  Without a florida ID and the ability to pass FL's
background check, no florida dealer can legally sell.  (If a law could
stop illegal sales ....)

>4)  Load them into said van.
>5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and
>6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).

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

How?  Most of the steps described are ALREADY illegal and the relevant
checks are made.  (True, we could search people crossing state lines.)

Libin obviously doesn't know relevant federal and state law, so his
"a law can stop this" arguments don't make much sense.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:04:20 GMT

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.

	Or are there no such parents???

Or how about a
>judicial system which says that parents have absolutely no right to be
>informed when their daughter is getting an abortion?

	The parents can ask :-)

Or how about the
>folks who tell my wife that she isn't fulfilled as a woman because she
>has chosen to stay at home to raise our children?

	Like who?

	This is from someone who would gladly tell a woman with a
career that she isn't truly fulfilled as a woman because she isn't a
full-time housewife.

Along that line, how
>about the folks who claim that raising the children is better left to
>strangers in a government sponsored day-care center, rather than trying
>to enable women to stay at home?

	Day-care centers can be made much more friendly than that :-)

Or how about good ole' Pat 
>Schroeder, who loves to proclaim family values while
>simultaneously saying that the traditional family is irrelevant?  

	Where did she say that?

	Pat Schroeder was talking about families in general, not about
the well-known stereotype of the "traditional family". There are more
kinds of family in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your
philosophy, buster :-) (to paraphrase Shakespeare)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: Political Wives...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:13:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.041222.29745@news.Hawaii.Edu>, johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan) writes...
}In article <1992Aug24.172055.27453@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
}>You gotta have a license to fish. You gotta have a license
}> to drive. But they let any asshole be a parent.
} 
}Not true, unfortunately.  Try adopting if you are gay, lesbian or
}bisexual.

or worse, atheist. Fortunately this doesn't affect me having kids the
more typical way.

}--John
}John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3857 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3304 alt.politics.elections:12239
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:31:14 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Sep2.135127.11002@news.acns.nwu.edu>, birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
> In article <PUCCIO.92Sep2001223@media-lab.media.mit.edu> puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:
>>Let me get this straight ...
> 
> Yes, let's at least give that chance.
> 
> Did I say *anything* about George Bush's "qualifications" to be the President.
> 
> No. 
> 
> I did not.
> 
> I was complaining about the way YOU, sir, seem to instantly jump on anything
> that gives you the chance to shit on "conservatives," in a way that portrays
> you as the Little Liberal That Could.
> 
> So keep your blathering foolishness, shallow understanding, and
> Clear-Thinking-Is-Labeling-Yourself-A-Liberal-To-Be-Cool attitude off the net.
> 
> birdman


Mr Kush, what gives you the right to not only be extremely rude but to tell
others to stay off of a public net?