HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Is your Congressperson on this list?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:07:50 GMT


In article <1992Sep2.200947.1318@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>Patrick Sugent writes:
>>
>>  I typed this in for a conversation in another newsgroup, but
>>I thought I might as well spread the information around.  Basically,
>>it is a top 100 list of congressional spenders.  My Representative
>
>Any chance you've got the bottom of the list available as well?
>
>Keith
>


  I wish I did.  I'll try to get in touch with the NTLC and
see if they will release it.  I've never contacted them before, so
I have no idea what the odds are. 

  Any other requests while I'm at it?

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 05:23:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug31.211539.25146@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>
>>It's common knowledge that many women on welfare choose to have more
>>children for the purpose of getting increased welfare payments.  These
>>are mainly inner-city inhabitants, who don't plan on using much of that
>>money to care for the child, but are glad to take the money.  Such people
>>are often seen driving expensive cars, wearing expensive clothing, etc.
>>Of course it's not all welfare families that do this, it's probably not
>>even a majority of them, but it's a frequent occurrence, and it is common
>>knowledge.
>
>Thank you for that lucid demonstration of the use of one of my 
>favorite oxymorons:  COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
>
>						--  Michal
>


No kidding... If knowledge was common, Mr. Borden wouldn't have said something
so FUCKING STUPID.  Here's an invitation, Mr. Borden...why don't you come
down to the projects a few blocks from my apt. and we can ask the welfare
mothers there if it bothers their concience that their kids are wasting good 
tax dollars.


-Howard
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
"Jesus Christ, How many people does it TAKE to kill the President?"
		-John Dillinger, in _Illuminatus!_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: Is your Congressperson on this list?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:45:40 GMT

Actually, No.  I've lived in midwestern states all of my life, and only
one of the states that I have lived in was listed, and way down towards the
bottom at that.  Does this mean that we should allow the midwestern congress-
critters to balance the budget? (this was a playful, meaningless question.)
I do have to add, on a serious note, that I was greatly disappointed by the
geographical distribution of the those voting for greater spending.  Might
be an interesting study in this.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Rev Bush at it again
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:36:53 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <BtLCMD.ADJ@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@cshl.org sez:
>
>My disgust at this prospect is attenuated a bit by the
>splendid photographic essay on the front page of NYTimes.
>It contains two photographs of equal dimension side by
>side. One of Clinton wearing a medal, smiling, and one
>of Bush with his hands raised over his head, casting
>a gross shadow on his face, with a half-buttoned coat,
>looking like a putrid heap of sin. Way to go NYTimes!

More entertaining, and actually more objective, was the page 1 photo
last week of Bush in martial-arts getup (alongside none other than
Chuck Norris).  Entirely aside from the resonances of Bush's
unfortunate accident in Tokyo earlier this year, the shot reminded one
ever so much of the infamous Dukakis tank stunt.

Curiously, the Times ran a different photo of a rather more
normal-looking Bush in later editions.  (Darn that Liberal Media
Elite.)

-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: trust
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:14:24 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

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

What does Bush's ethnicity, Clinton's ethnicity, or Martin's ethnicity
have to do with anything? Stop insinuating race if you can't agree with
someone!

And Republicans get blamed for being racists!

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I have entered the week of transition from my summer job at NIH to fall
semester at Duke. I will not be able to reply to everyone. If you want
to continue a thread, please email replies to me until I can post again.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar)
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:27:55 GMT

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

>>  Read "Starship Trooper", by Robert A. Heinlein.

>Were Kohl, Miyazawa and Thatcher elected for their military records?
>Was Reagan?

  No, they weren't elected _for_ their records, if they have them.
However, who would you trust more : a slick politician, or a slick politician 
who risked his life for his country?  The military service issue has
always been strong in the US, for good reason.

>Also, doesn't Heinlein argue that civil/public service should be a
>requisite for voting, with the military the most honorable?  Clinton's
>record of public service is not exactly negligible.

  No- only veterans can vote, and only voters can run for public
office.

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment
 Procyon, Inc.              |   for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu         |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 933-4649
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3017 talk.politics.misc:42090 alt.politics.clinton:3090 alt.politics.elections:11635
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
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 20:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Michael Doel) writes:
|> Richard Foy) writes:
|> > doel@crd.ge.com writes:
|> > 
|> > >
|> > >Passing free condoms out in schools is ludicrous.  Consider:
|> > >
|> > >	1) Condoms have a reasonably high failure rate.  Would you
|> > > 	   feel safe having sex with someone who was HIV+ being protected
|> > >	   only by a condom?  If the answer is no (and I suspect that
|> > >	   for any reasonable person it is), then handing out condoms
|> > >	   as the preventative measure needed against AIDS is simply
|> > >	   a lie.
|> > 
|> > No I wouldn't feel safe. However I would feel a lot safer than having
|> > sex with someone without condoms. It is no more a lie than it is to
|> > say that wearing a seat belt will make you safe in riding in a car.
|> > In both cases using the device will make you safer.
|> 
|> Better yet is not having sex at all.  Too often the advocates of condom
|> distribution seem to refuse the best alternative.  Of course condom use
|> is better than sex without a condom, but it's not the best choice in
|> most cases (remember, we're talking school kids here).  If we don't feel
|> protected by a condom, we shouldn't be handing them out to kids as a
|> protective device.  We should encourage the kids to refrain from the
|> dangerous behavior.
|> 
OK, great idea.  How?  We have fairly solid evidence that no society,
no race, no religion, no socio-economic group, no people, have figured
out how to do this.  We do know, however, that the less kids know about
sex, the more likely they are to have it.

Since "don't have sex" is not a viable solution, particularly for those who
have not yet reached the (st)age of reason, do we punish children by
consciously subjecting them to a high risk of a deadly disease?
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: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:40:48 GMT

In article <17pl66INNnip@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.225303.8298@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>You know, sometimes I think reading Usenet is a new form of "Call My
>Bluff". Specifically, speaking of the restrictive covenant on Bush's
>property, Freeman writes

And I did.  Lazarus thought this was a slam dunk argument, but only
succeeded in showing how week the argument really is.

>>"Cute" is an apt term for the quality of the NYT's coverage.  The NYT
>>knows that such covenants are not legally enforceable.
>
>This is true.

Yup.  Bringing up the covenant doesn't tell us anything about Bush,
but it does tell us something about the Clinton supporters.  If they
had an argument, they wouldn't have to sling mud.

The interesting thing about this election is how hard the Demos are
trying to be just like their caricature of Repubs.

>>and they're quite common.
>
>This is a meaningless statement, being so heavily qualified.

Unfortunately for Lazarus argument, one of the Clinton supporters has
already commented that it is true.

>>Given that such covenants are legally meaningless albeit
>>indelible evidence that the property was once owned by a racist, what
>>does bringing them up tell you?
>
>That Bush didn't overcome the inertia to have it legally removed.

There are several reasons why one might not bother even if it is
trivial, and it isn't.  I note that the Germans MAINTAIN evidence of
their society's past failures and this is considered a good thing, yet
Bush merely allows similar evidence to continue to exist and Lazarus
goes ballistic.

If Lazarus wants to argue that folks with such covenants have an
obligation to remove them (even if it is a practical procedure), he
can take that up with the Clinton supporters who have them.

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3505 alt.politics.clinton:3511
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PAT BUCHANAN SPEECH IN HOUSTON
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:57:22 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <92240.215340T3B@psuvm.psu.edu> Tom Benson <T3B@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

   Hours after the violence ended I went down to the Army
   compound in south Los Angeles where I met the troopers of
   the 18th Cavalry who had come to save the city of Los
   Angeles.  An officer of the 18th Cav said "Mr.  Buchanan, I
   want you to talk to a couple of our troopers."  I went over
   and I met these young fellows.  They couldn't have been 20
   years old and they recounted their story.

   They had come into Los Angeles late in the evening of the
   second day, when the rioting was still going on, and two of
   them walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and
   burned every building on the block but one, a convalescent
   home for the aged.

   And the mob was headed in to ransack and loot the apartments
   of the terrified old men and women inside.  The troopers
   came up the street, M-16s at the ready, and the mob
   threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated because it had
   met the one thing that could stop it:  Force, rooted in
   justice, backed by moral courage.

Remember everybody:  THIS NEVER HAPPENED!  PAT MADE IT UP!
The people in the convalescent home said the soldiers didn't
come until it was all over.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Keywords: poll
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:56:31 GMT

In article <2A9BF815.10328@orion.oac.uci.edu> assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site) writes:
>
>The race for '92 is over?  I did not know that "903 registered voters"
>made up the bulk of the American population :-)

Well, with declining voter participation, who knows?  By '96, we
may have 903 people voting.



--
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"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:37:45 GMT

In article <mykes.0da2@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
   mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>Sorry, alex.  But as you have demonstrated by your several posts on this
>subject, Bush would be attacked for the most ridiculous of charges.  Give
>his enemies, such as yourself, a legitimate charge, and you'd keep your
>mouth shut?  I doubt it.

I think the charges by both sides have been pretty ridiculous.  First, Bush
is not allowed to send in Federal troops unless specifically asked for by
the state.  So first, the governor has to assess the damage.  He doesn't
call for troops right away, because, after all, he would rather Florida be
self-reliant (one of those conservative mantras, dontcha know).  Once he
finds out the extent of the damage, he calls for Federal assistance.  The
logistics of the situation is just incredible.  Frankly, I'm impressed
the army got there as soon as it did.  I think Bush handled the situation
well.  And so did the governor of Florida.

Well, that's my first, last, and only words on the subject.  We return you
to your regularly scheduled flamewar.

>Alex, you couldn't be more wrong.  But if your attitude is typical of
>liberals, I guess the constitution is something to be spit upon.

Liberals only spit on the Constitution when they aim at conservatives
and miss :-)  Or they spit on the flag because they were aiming at the
conservative who had wrapped himself up in it :-) :-)

Seriously, I think both liberals and conservatives have done their fair
share of spitting.  Liberals have invented laws in courts (Roe v. Wade).
Conservatives have ignored laws (Supplying aid to the Contras in spite
of laws forbidding it).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3487 talk.politics.misc:42844 alt.politics.elections:11962
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Washington DC and the 12th & 23rd Amendments
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:27:37 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <16852F158.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, 
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) said:

> > The president and vice-president are required [by the 12th
> > Amendment] to be from different states and DC is considered a
> > state when it comes to electing presidents.
> 
> There is no prohibition from President and Vice-President being from
> the same state.  It only disallows Electors from voting for *two*
> people who are from their state.  (Electors from Texas couldn't vote
> for two Texans, for example.)
> 
> This would only mean that the D.C. Electors (How many do they get,
> anyway?) couldn't vote for both the President *and* the
> Vice-President assuming they won the district.

David's correct here, and to answer his question, the 23rd Amendment,
which gave "the District constituting the seat of Government of the
United States" the power to appoint electors, says that the District's
number of electors shall be "equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if
it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State."

In theory, the population of the United States could divide itself up
so weirdly that this clause could give D.C. as many as ten electors,
but in reality the District has always (where "always" == "since the
23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961") had and probably always will
have only three electors.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A question on abortion
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:13:59 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <2394@unet.UUCP>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
> ... While the current adminstration says its a person
> at conception the IRS won't count it till after the birth.
> ...
> If society as a whole believes the unborn is a person then how come there
> isn't a funeral when a mis-carriage occurs? 

To be consistent, the Bush Unministration should extend the exemption for
dependent children to cover the entire term of pregnancy, issue a Social
Security number at conception (logistics should be interesting), and move
back all "age" numbers in the laws (drinking age, voting age, draft age) 
by nine months.

At the risk of making the Understatement of the Year, consistency isn't
their strong suit.

-- 
Bob Munck
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Anti-Bush/Slandering Bush/Songs
Date: 2 Sep 1992 07:15:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Yes, it is finally out.  Anti-Bush (in a way) music.  Currently, two
Bush songs (taking samples of George Bush completely out of context to
the techno beat) are on the air.  Anyone heard of a song called
Bushwhack?

Also, since the song (or the other Bush song) sampled George Bush and put
his words together to form complete lies like 'aggression is just as it is
right,' who would win?   "Artistic expression" or will the libel and
slander laws (if it applies) prevail here?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3850 alt.politics.clinton:3817 alt.politics.elections:12232 talk.religion.misc:15413
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: GOD, GOP, and the KKK
Date: 2 Sep 1992 15:20:25 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems


> Family Values and the K.K.K.
>   By Diane McWhorter [New York Times, 1-SEP-92]
> 
>   The 29-year-old celebrations of "family values" playing in my 
earphones were
> strangely similar to the sentiments expressed at the Rebublican National
> Convention two weeks ago.
> 
>   There were tributes to God ("We need to go back to the old-time 
religion")
> and wives ("I wonder how the ladies can sit across the breakfast table 
anymore
> and [not] ask your husband, Now what are you doing in this fight?  Don't 
you
> love our children?")  There was a good cop-bad cop format that paired 
bland
> civic pieties with apocalyptic denunciations of Communists, journalists 
and
> Democrats.

The subject of family values was not unique to the KKK during that time 
however.   A few months ago, Rush Limbaugh played a speech of Hubert 
Humphrey in which Humphrey embraced family values, questioned the wisdom 
of giveaway welfare programs, and he even attacked television for 
destroying those values.   I'll try to find out more about that speech, 
but it was great.   Made Dan Quayle look left wing.   I guess the press 
was pretty quiet about it too.

I don't think Hubert Humphrey was a Ku Klux Klan member, although at least 
one prominent Democrat (Robert Byrd) was.   At any rate equating family 
values with racism is bunk.   One of the values instilled on me by my 
family (My dad was a preacher) was that everyone is equal in the eyes of 
the Lord... and in my eyes also.



Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:22:14 GMT

In <la814eINNi@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>In article <mjenkins.715352882@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>|> In <1992Sep1.120454.4688@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>|> 
>|> >At least two people in this debate have asked for a definition of promiscuity. 
>|> 
>|> >Well?  We're still waiting....
>|> 
>|> >Or is it not as black and white as you first thought?
>|> 
>|> >-- 
>|> >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
>|> 
>|> PROMISCUOUS, adj. 1. indiscriminate. 2. having sexual relations with
>|> many people.
>|> 
>|> Nah, that was easy.

>But wrong.  Websters dictionary only defines it as "having more than one
>sexual partner."  Websters electronic dictionary defines it as "not limited
>to one sexual partner."  Neither definition even implies that the two or
>more relations occur in the same time frame.  By Webster's definition,
>if you have sexual intercourse before marriage with someone other than
>your spouse, you are promiscuous.  So what.

I guess I should have slugged my source...it was Oxford. So it may be
different, but I don't think its "wrong", although I like the Webster
definition better.

Mike