HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:06:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <zt1pbfnb@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:

> 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...

>     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>

It seems that you have accidentilly stumbled onto the truth.

The "Church" of the middle ages was much more a political body than it was
a reigious body.  Given its abilities to effect the lives of millions, it
quite naturally attracted the attentions of those who lusted after power.

Those who gain such power are naturally lothe to loose it, they will do
what is necessary to protect their power.  Heretics threatened this cozy
relationship and had to be destroyed.

BTW, the "political" leaders of the church were no more ruthless with those
who threatened their power base, than were the "secular" rulers with
their "heretics".

-- 
--Mark
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3268 talk.politics.misc:42486 alt.politics.clinton:3313 alt.politics.elections:11808
From: stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:42:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:57:12 GMT

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
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3842 alt.politics.elections:12226 alt.politics.clinton:3810
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:02:24 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep1.222411.12082@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <3T5DqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>
>>What Clinton proposes is more dramatic than 1990, since that was a compromise
>>that was hammered out by two diametrically opposed groups.  Clinton's economic
>>plan calls for tax increases to control the deficit and re-direction of
>>spending from areas where it is not necessary (certain defense expenditures,
>>for example) into areas where the government can make a contribution to the
>>overall economy, such as job training, education, etc.
>
>The 1990 "compromise" was over how far to move in that direction; it
>did all of those things.  The Clinton plan is more dramatic; it goes
>farther.  Will more of the same really be an improvement?
>
The 1990 compromise controlled the deficit?  Then why do we have the largest
budget deficit ever?

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:23:23 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

One thing the original poster left out was Will's comments on Pat Robertson.

According to Will, Robertson founded his "Christian Coalition" with
the idea that if he couldn't take over the Republican party from
the top (get the nomination), then he'd do it from the bottom. 
Robertson is know claiming that he's succeeded, and I don't
see any reason to say he's wrong. (I posted a listing of some
examples of far right influence on the Republicans; I don't want
to repeat it). 

If a man who is as strongly conservative as Will is questioning the
direction of his party, than its time for all of the moderate Republicans
to wake up. 
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:41:57 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1685476A5.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>Republicans could win on the issues if George Bush dropped the stupid
>personal attacks and pointed out that a Democratic congress with a
>dependent Democratic executive would ram through more taxes than even
>George allowed them too do.

 Actually, as one who witnessed the Republican attacks on Pat Buchanan, I
can say that you havent seen anything yet. When the Republicans really
crank up the heat, Clinton will have to use even more Bush impressions.
When will Clinton/Gore try to defend the attacks and stop counter attack-
ing ? Oh, they probably dont want to lose the same lead Dukakis had...

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:39:34 GMT

In article <cluther.715298240@morticia> cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther) writes:

	[bush should have sent troops in early, deleted]

>If Mr. Bush had done this, he would have been in deeper shit.  Every anti-
>Bush critter would crawl out from the woodwork and proclaim Bush's total
>disregard for states rights and federal law.

	I don't think so. It would be hard to make the charges stick, since
Bush would be acting soley for the good of the people, as opposed to personal
or political gain. When he held a press conferance a week later and said,
"Yes, I made a mistake, but I was so concerned that I was overwelmed with
passion for the suffering, and decided to forsake protocol in this one case."
Ronald Reagan could have made that fly without cue card, and so could bush
if he once ounce of political sense.


-- 
                               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,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:31:09 GMT

In article <oeb2v=q00h5yAtNk1K@andrew.cmu.edu> conradp+@CMU.EDU (Conrad Poelman) writes:

   Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 25-Aug-92 Put some spin on
   this... Paul S Galvanek@pitt.edu (233)

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

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

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


   > Yep must be tough!

   > PSG 

   Such statistics are utterly meaningless without adjusting for inflation.
    Are they adjusted for inflation?  If so, this is indeed interesting. 
   If not, then it in fact reinforces the common belief that blacks are
   worse off than they used to be, given that inflation between 1970 and
   1990 was almost certainly more than 50%.

Comparing 1970 to 1990 does indeed support your point on inflation
adjustment.  But, comparing 1985 to 1990, when inflation was low makes
such an adjustment far less meaningful for that period.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: maven@lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach)
Subject: The Far Right
Reply-To: maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:07:20 GMT


            Far Right's Proposed New "Bill of Rights"
                                
                          Amendment 1
Congress shall make laws compelling the establishment of religion
and demanding the exercise thereof; and abridging the freedom of
speech and of the liberal press; and preventing the people from
peaceful assembly; and forbidding the courts to redress
grievances.

                          Amendment 2
A well-regulated militia being superfluous to the issue, the
people shall be compelled to bear arms and kill each other.

                          Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the owner, unless that house is being used
for the distribution of illegal substances.

                          Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall be violated under the excuse of being for the public good,
and no warrants shall need to be issued, but upon probable cause
supported by anonymous sources, any place shall be subject to
search and persons or things seized.

                          Amendment 5
Any person who refuses to testify in court about his involvement
in a crime, shall automatically be judged guilty.  His property
may be seized upon the governments determination that he must be
guilty.

                          Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial before he is found guilty.  He is
entitled to the assistance of counsel for his defense but not for
any appeals.

                          Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty million dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved.

                          Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall be required to ensure that the accused are
kept behind bars where they belong.

                          Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be
ignored if they conflict with the Walton's version of Family
Values.

                          Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, shall be reserved for the Supreme Court, except
that the States shall have the right to ban abortions.


   THIS IS ORIGINAL
*******************************************************************************
maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov   Larry Fishbach @ NASA Lewis Cleveland Ohio
"Everything here is my own opinion"   Quoth the Maven "Evermore"
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3903 alt.politics.elections:12274 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3318 alt.politics.clinton:3876
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:50:43 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

In article <n=jntqf.howard@netcom.com>, howard@netcom.com (Howard
Berkey) writes:
> If knowledge was common, Mr. Borden wouldn't have said something so FUCKING
> STUPID.

He might have, at that.  Maybe he's just an uncommon kind of guy.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: President Bush
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:32:01 GMT
	<1992Aug31.201641.14028@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Aug31.201641.14028@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:

> Bush reluctantly increased them to appease Congress and admitted it
> is a mistake after Congress failed to keep it's end of the bargain
> and reduce spending.

This bit of Republican nonsense should be put to rest once
and for all.  According to "The Economist" of 8/29, p.23:

	[...]

	The second misstatement was George Bush's claim, in his
	acceptance speech, that after the 1990 budget agreement (in
	which he was dragged kicking and screaming into a tax
	increase), the Democrats did not keep to their side of the
	deal, to cut spending.  This is rubbish.  The Budget
	Enforcement Act did exactly what it was built to do, which
	is why both Democrats and Republicans want to demolish it.
	
	The budget deal had two parts.  It placed dollar limits on
	discretionary spending, and it insisted that any increases
	in so-called mandatory programmes should be matched by
	revenue increases.  This was the "pay-as-you-go" rule.  The
	rule could be broken only in a so-called emergency.
	
	The surprise is that there have been so few emergencies
	declared.  Those that were include Desert Storm, the Los
	Angeles riot and Chicago's flood.  But Mr. Bush insisted
	that the three extensions of unemployment compensation he
	signed should not be counted as emergencies.  And Congress
	obliged, finding the money from elsewhere.
	
	Bob Reischauer, director of the Congressional Budget Office
	(CBO), says that there has been "a little wiggling around
	the edget" of the agreement.  But the CBO estimates that, at
	most, the wiggling amounts to no more than a few billion
	dollars over five years.  Constrast that with the $250
	billion-300 billion of annual deficits.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2956 talk.politics.misc:42015 alt.politics.clinton:3043 alt.politics.elections:11592
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:43:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Aug26.024744.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>One thing that bothers me is:
>  Why is the school, esp. Public schools the one doing the sex ed, and not
>the family where the primary education should be.   We must be careful not
>to get to a point where socialism and communistic ideas take a hold of our
>country.

Why not leaving thermo and existencial philosophy to the family?
Because it doesn't (in most cases...of course college professors have
families) know much about it. Why not leaving AIDS education to the
family? Because in lots of cases the family -IS- incompetent (yes you
family values people that CAN happen) and doesn't know mich about it.
It is a MEDICAL ISSUE. It's not like we have public schools teaching
kids how to give a blow job.

Regards,
Benjamin.

super-.sig will triumph in the end. -|
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lies
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:25:41 GMT

filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>Note to people who think that "theory" means unproven: not in a
>scientific context.  An anomoly or change in the theory does not make the
>results false, no more than if an anomoly in the theory of gravitation
>was found, we would suddenly all shoot into space without warning.

This may be philosohical nitpicking, which creationists probably
won't be interested in anyway.

But it is impossible to prove the truth of a scientific theory, owing
to the underdetermination of theory by data (experimental facts are
finite in number; the predictions of any nontrivial theory are
infinitely many).  It is however, possible, through a process of
critical analysis and discussion together with observation, to
selectively retain theories which show more success in predicting
experimental results.

Rather ironically in the current context, this has parallels with the
way in which, in biological evolution, the environment selectively
retains those genetic mutations which confer benefits upon an
organism.  The environment does not cause certain mutations to occur,
but selectively retain some mutations *after* they have occurred.  In
the same way, facts do not determine or prove theories.  Rather, we
use facts to select theories after they've been dreamt up.  Most of
the theories which have been dreamt up died in the brains of their
creators (just as most of the mutations which have occurred in nature
have made the organism die), so the ones we see are more or less
successful.  Even so, there is still room for further selection.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:03:59 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  But, (AGAIN!) : they aren't doing it.   So what about all the teenagers
>  who are out there *now* having sex, making babies, and catching STD's,
>  (some of which are fatal)?
How interesting, that you stereotype all parents this way.  My parents
raised me not to exhibit this behavior, and I _am_ raising my children
not to exhibit this behavior.  And you have still failed to explain how
throwing condoms at the problems does _anything_ to solve the problems.


>  

>  Fine, but as I said before THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL.  Because NOBODY
>  has a plan, resources, etc, in place to even attempt this. And there
>  is no agreement about how to do it anyway -- e.g., there is very 
>  broad diasgreement among the "experts" about why blacks, say, have
>  such a high rate of unwed motherhood.   And it's totally academic
>  to all the kids who are today growing up in dysfunctional or nonexistent
>  families now.

No, its not hypothetical, just don't want to hear the answer.  You folks
don't want to accept the fact that the church can be a very positive
force in this area, both in building up families, and helping educate
children.  

>  This is the point you guys can't seem to get through your heads.
>  It's the classic cars -vs- magic carpets argument.   Compared
            ^^^^^^^ jeez, if its a classic, how come I haven't heard of
	    it?  :-)
>  to magic carpets, cars are *terrible*:  they're dirty, noisy, 
>  unsafe, unreliable, expensive to own and maintain, polluting, 
>  and a general pain in the a**.    But they EXIST.   Magic carpets
>  are far better in every respect.  But they don't exist and there's
>  no schedule for when we can expect delivery.   Condoms aren't 
>  a great solution but they're the only weapon we've got that we
>  can apply today, right now.   Changing cultural values takes 
>  generations! 

As long as you want to use this argument, cars have created many
problems while they have solved some.  But that's another story.

>  BY ALL MEANS promote healthy, functional families, if you think
>  you know how.  But how long will that take?  And what will you do
>  about the kids who are having unprotected sex and making babies
>  right now?   
And just how is dispensing free condoms going to change it?  The last
time I checked, they aren't expensive.  I don't think the cost is the
issue, its the usage.  If you give them away, just how
are you going to make sure they're used?

And changing values takes a lot longer when there is a loud chorus
saying we shouldn't do it and we can't do it.

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3636 alt.politics.elections:12052 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3205 alt.politics.clinton:3634