HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:49:32 GMT

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>    It is well known that nursing is going to be a field in big demand over
>>the next few decades.  Graduating nurses are going to be getting great
>>starting salaries with tremendous benefits.  There are going to be more
>>slots available than people to fill them.  Why aren't more students
>>switching their major to nursing (or similiarly needed profession) instead
>>of pursuing a degree in a field which they know right now does not offer a
>>good chance of employment in the future?  Students are going to have to be
>>more realistic.

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.

  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.

-- 
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!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front.....
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:00:22 GMT

In article <01GO047HLUTUCIQXXC@UMAECS>, VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>	Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA....

You have got to be kidding. Either that, or you're out of your mind. 

JZ

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4006 talk.politics.misc:43618 alt.politics.clinton:3966 alt.politics.elections:12360
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:19:09 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Sep3.190340.27449@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>
>The New York Times printed extracts of the relevant Hillary
>Clinton articles a couple of weeks ago.  I no longer have
>the issue.  But what she wrote was approximately this:  The
>law assumes all minors to be legally incompetent, but surely
>it's unreasonable to consider a 16-year-old equally as
>incompetent as a 6-year-old?  She wrote nothing about the
>right or desirability of a child's suing his/her parents.
>Neither did she advocate removing the status of "minor" for
>all children.
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you even taking the time to argue with these nuts.  They heard
what Hillary's paper said on Rush Limbaugh, and we *all* know he wouldn't
lie.  Anyone who considers Hillary's paper as anything destroying family
values is not worth the electricity to keep my screen on to read.  People
on different ends of the spectrum (excluding these fascists) concede
that nothing in the paper is anti-family.

I think our hero Dan Quayle said it best.  A mind is a terrible thing to
lose.  

These people would do great with other famous documents.  I'm sure that
they would persecute the founding fathers for the phrase "right to ...
the pursuit of happiness".  'That's what gets all them queers and
feminists to think they have rights to do what they please.'
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:51:27 GMT

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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3089 alt.politics.elections:11679 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3012 talk.politics.guns:20196 talk.politics.misc:42198
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 27 Aug 1992 02:32:51 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

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
>>think that any moment now America might turn into Nazi Germany if we have
>>any sort of gun control.

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.

>>Our Tax Dollars now have to go into larger police departments, who are more
>>likely to beat the shit out of people because they are scared to death
>>of all those fully automatic machine guns that you Field&Stream types need
>>for hunting those savage deer.

Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated ($200 fee and an ok
from your local police chief and the federal government) since 1934.
Since 1986, all new sales have been banned (technically, they won't
accept payment of the tax, but will arrest you if you haven't paid the
tax...) Since 1934 there have been only three crimes committed with
legally registered automatic weapons. All the r~rest you have heard of
were illegally owned. According to the LAPD, most of these are sumggled
into the country, stolen from the military or police or illegally manufactured.

Talking about hunters wanting, owning or needing fully automatic weapons
is a lie, intended (I suppose) to confuse and scare people into passing
more gun control laws. (Even though these "evil" weapons are _already_
illegal.)

>>Make sure that kid is
>>born.  Don't give a shit about him until he uses the guns you make sure he
>>has access to for purposes of crime. 

It is a federal felony (Gun Control Act of 1968) to sell a handgun to anyone
under 21 (or a rifle or shotgun to anyone under 18). The NRA and other 
"gun nuts" support these restrictions. Again, restrictions on legal
sales don't seem to work, since the kids you are talking about, get
guns illegally (bypassing things like age limits, registration, background
checks or waiting periods.)

Legal sales are already fairly heavily regulated. Why do you think
more regulation of such sales would help (since the buyers in question
go around all the existing laws.)

Perhaps cracking down on the black market would be a good start, instead
of making life harder on _legal_ gun buyers?

                                               Frank Crary
					       CU Boulder
					       (Even though I'm
					       still using my
					       Berkeley account...)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Evolutionist lies
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:13:57 GMT

Well If you haven't taught your children the difference between
fact and theory, for shame.  If your going to teach them about 
religion you might want to educate them about the ways of science.
Evolution theory does not even discuss the realities of GOD.  It 
only says we evolved from muck.  This only discounts the Bible's
interpretation on the 'Man was created in God's image' statement.

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.  

Now, since we know whats theory and whats fact........

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche (Mo.L.)         |   labiche@bnr.ca
Bell Northern Research          |   Part of Northern Telecom 
Richardson, Texas               |   i'm really in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No opinions herein expressed have anything to do with the opinions 
of Bell Northern Research or Northern Telecom or CIA or NSA ...
These statements are mine and mine alone, well i guess my wife 
agrees with some of them?
From: news@unet.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:56:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

>Stupid question: 
>Why does anyone WANT to be a Republican? 
>It sounds like such a bore.  
>I wouldn't wanna wear pearls and get exited about prayer breakfasts and  
>waving flags around on the Fourth of July.  
>It sounds positively impotent.  
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Anyone who has been following this group knows that I don't have much good to 
say about the current adminstration but I will come to the Republican side on 
this question. I see you're a student and I ass/u/me that you are somewhat on 
the young side. I beleive that you are under the impression that what you see 
these days of the Rep. party is what they have always been. That is simply not 
true.  Now I don't have any polls but IMHO the Rep. party is currently 
being controlled by the Religious Right(no big surprise there)which is actually
a *small minority within the party*. I'm sure there's lots of theorys of how/why
this has happened but more importantly is that it *has* happened. Beleiving
that all Rep. are fantical bible thumping, gay hateing, "We the only real
Americans", feminist witch hunters, anti-whatever's not just like us, is no 
more correct then the Reps. that do think that way. Guess what---there are 
Dems. that think that way too!  Through-out our history there have been lots of
ups and downs but both parties, for the most part, have strived to make things 
better for the populous as a whole. The nation-wide issues are exteremly complex
hence there is more then one way to approach them, hence the separation of the 
parties. Trust me, if it were the Dems. preaching the kind prejudicism as we 
have seen from the Reps. I'd be bitching just as much about them as I am now 
about the Reps.

Stan Knight
********************************************************************************
Ignorance breds fear. Fear breds hate. Hate breds prejudice. Prejudice breds
racism. One of the hardest things to remember when encountering racist 
attitudes is that the *REAL* enemy is ignorance.
    ----I made this up. What ya think? Keep the day job right?:-)----
********************************************************************************
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Take Note:  Victory for Bush in another front.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:49:08 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <01GO047HLUTUCIQXXC@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>	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

Please tell me how Bush single handedly did this....What did he do exactly?
All I ever saw him do was walk around burnt down buildings and mutter,
'what a shame' to himself....How did *HE* affect the gangs and turn them
into rosie community helpers....Street war has been won by republican
white house? OH MI GH0D...give me a break...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3367 talk.politics.misc:42641 alt.politics.clinton:3397 alt.politics.elections:11885
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
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 18:22:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Fred, you said Clinton could also be called a tax dodger because he doesn't
call New York his home.  Why should he?  He lives in Arkansas.  

		Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: nick@cmn12.Stanford.EDU (Nick Porcaro)
Subject: Why?
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 05:24:56 GMT

Stupid question:
Why does anyone WANT to be a Republican?
It sounds like such a bore.
I wouldn't wanna wear pearls and get exited about prayer breakfasts and  
waving flags around on the Fourth of July.
It sounds positively impotent.

Sarah the Green "Clinton is kinda right but he's the only hope we have"
(what ever happened to Hip and ______
                               |    |
                               |    | HOPELESSLY SQUARE?      
                               ------
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: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:19:32 GMT

neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.191428.24590@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug26.045511.19175@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>>> The schools are a poor excuse for a father and a mother but in
>>> the absence of the real thing what does Federspiel suggest?  
>>You've hit the nail on the head.  There isn't a good substitute.  But
>>its very unpopular to advocate "traditional family values", isn't it?

>This is extremely irrelevant, as "traditional family values", at least
>according to the people who are proclaiming them the loudest, explicitely
>exclude giving your children a clear, consistent, and realistic message about
>sex, but cling to the ideal of innocent virgins (of both genders) learning
>everything they ever need to know about sex in the first 15 minutes of their
>wedding night.

So, just when did you become omniscient?  You should have your crystal
ball examined, because it isn't seeing all things clearly.  
Maybe your stereotyping respresents the way you have been raised, 
but it doesn't represent the way I was raised, or the way I am raising 
my children.  

>>Maybe what we need to be doing as a society is rebuilding the
>>institutions which encourage families rather than tearing them apart.

>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.  Or how about a
judicial system which says that parents have absolutely no right to be
informed when their daughter is getting an abortion?  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?  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?  Or how about good ole' Pat 
Schroeder, who loves to proclaim family values while
simultaneously saying that the traditional family is irrelevant?  
Of course, those things couldn't possibly have a negative impact on
family life, now could they?  Get a clue...

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4035 alt.politics.marrou:1032 talk.politics.misc:43676 alt.politics.elections:12385 talk.politics.theory:4025
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
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 00:10:57 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support

From article <1992Sep3.135001.4987@ornl.gov>, by de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill):
> 
> In article <1992Sep2.195731.4732@math.okstate.edu>, russ@math.okstate.edu (Horatio "Random" Hellpop) writes:
>>
>>*I* understood what he meant.  There is no teaching of Christ which reads
>>"go kill those weird easterners who bathe".  Quite the opposite.
> 
> So what?  In theory, Christianity is safe, but in *practice* much blood has
> been and will continue to be shed in the name of Christ.



If you could move this off these news groups, we would appreciate it.

You see, there is no connection with politics or elections.

Thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3013 alt.politics.marrou:920 talk.politics.misc:42083 alt.politics.elections:11632 talk.politics.theory:3875
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 19:58:10 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <19649@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> In article <l97ga1INN2un@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> } In article <19469@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> } |> In article <exukjb.84.714089276@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
|> } |> } ... the unchallenged assumption at work here is 'funded by public monies'; 
|> } |> } accept it, and it is correct.
|> } |> 
|> } |> It is the "public monies" part that gets me.  That money is not public;
|> } |> it is private money that government took by force.
|> } |> --
|> } Wrong.  The unchallenged assumption is that there is a public responsibility
|> } to provide everyone with an education.
|> 
|> I challenge that assumption.  Therefore, you are the one who's wrong.
|> Neener, neener.

Wrong that the assumption has been challenged earlier in this thread,
Wrong that there is a public responsibility, or
Wrong that "neener, neener" pushes the limit of your communication ability.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:56:58 GMT

In article <19713@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.135251.13684@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>} 
>} That the U.S.'s economic problems are primarily a U.S. domestic problem, while
>} the so-called end of communism was an international problem.  If Bush were
>} president of these collapsed Communist countries, your argument would make sense.
>
>If that is true, then it says that the rest of the world is largely
>unaffected by the foreign policy of the president of the US.  Odd.

Huh?  It says that the rest of the world is less affected by the policies of the
U.S. president than the population of the U.S..  Not odd, really.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle