HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:07:58 GMT

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.
>--
>David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
>"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
>can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville

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.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3043 alt.politics.clinton:3113
From: assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Keywords: poll
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:31:01 GMT


In article <17g856INN9up@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu
(Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>A NY Times - CBS Poll of 903 registered voters shows that Bush has lost
>his post-convention bounce remarkably fast, even for someone with Bush's
>ability to screw things up.
>
>The current standings in their poll are:
>
>Clinton: 51%
>Bush:    36%
>
>Margin of error: +-3%
>
>**************************************************************************
>
>The race for '92 is over!!! GOP '96 aspirants, start your engines.
>
>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu



The race for '92 is over?  I did not know that "903 registered voters"
made up the bulk of the American population :-)

Kris
kris@fs2.assist.uci.edu




--
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:25:46 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Aug31.004535.9718@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
>
>>>Is there a Republican etc
>
>>Is there a Democrat etc
>
>
>
>So the short answer is "No, I'm not prepared to defend this
>
>unqualified political hack."
>
>-- 
>Ben Hansen
>bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu

In your dreams.   He's qualified for the simple reason that he believes
in and supports the constitution.  He's qualified because he's no
judicial activist.  He's qualified because he believes in the 
right stuff--the stuff that's going to drive the left crazy over the
next 20-30 years.
 
Roger Shouse, The University of Chicago
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Re: Bush bashing, etc....
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:58:24 GMT


>It sounds to me like what Mr. President
>said what that he would not create any new taxes, and 
>although he stressed in his campaigning in '88 that he 
>would not *like* to raise taxes, a lackof agreement 
>between the executive and legislative branches (no matter 
>on whom you place the blame) forced him to do that.

No actually Mr President made quite clear that he expected
Congress to *push* and he would say no, repeated it and then
told what is normally called a lie.

As to Governor's Clinton's avoiding the Viet Nam War. I

attended President Bush's war in the Persian Gulf and can only
respect those who may have participated in what was essentially
the slaughter of nearly helpless Iraqi conscripts. Viet Nam was
an equally questionable undertaking.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3962 alt.politics.clinton:3930
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why Family Values in the first place? (short)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <184d7rINNgbp@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>You know something is strange in American society when our politicians
>have to remind us of Family Values.

Eh?  Republicans engaging in the politics of divisiveness is strange?
Nothing odd about that for about 20 or 30 years, at least.

--
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
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:37:58 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

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.  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!

And think of all the millionaires in Weimar! Now, those guys had it made! 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3385 alt.politics.elections:11892 alt.politics.clinton:3411
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Arkansas
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:59:40 GMT

In <1992Aug30.224233.3837@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:


> Can someone explain to me why George Bush is ridiculing the 
>Arkansas National Guard? At least I understand a sneering
>reference to the "leader" of the ANG as ridicule. And also
>why does he feel comfortable dismissing Arkansas as a "state
>somewhere between Oklahoma and Texas"? This seems to me to 
>undignified and unstatesmanlike.

...not to mention geographicaly inaccurate!

I guess Bush can't make cracks about the Indiana National Guard....<g>

Michael
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic Code != sum of entire individual
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:11:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: plague-ether.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep01.064823.15238@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug31.235013.26456@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Martin Guerrero <martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>> >Oh, a z/e/f is an entity other than the pregnant woman.  Not really a
>> >separate entity, but siamese twins are two different but not separate
>> >entities, and certainly not just extentions of each other.  But the
>> >question is just what is the entity that is the z/e/f.  Human, yes.  A
>> >person?  IMO, not until its brain is fairly well developed.
>>
>> At least we agree that a human can exist within the womb.
>                         ^
>Nope.
>
So what do you call that "blob of cells" moments before natural childbirth?


>> How can you be a human and not a person?
>
>You're confusing the adjective and the noun.  It's a human fetus, but it's
>not a human (i.e., not a person).

I suppose you are the one who draws the line when a "fetus" suddenly
and magically becomes human?

>
>> Earlier, you said that even the z/e/f is human.
>
>It's human, but not *a* human.

Not *a* human?  Are you willing to tell me that that "fetus" you once
were was not really you but a generic blob of cells which suddenly became
you?  It sounds like the fetus does not possess any individuality in your
mind.


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3902 alt.politics.elections:12273 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3317 alt.politics.clinton:3875
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 04:47:37 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

In article <1992Aug31.181137.27002@m5.harvard.edu>,
borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> But many welfare recipients don't care if they can adequately care for
> their children.  Not most, but many.

OK, HOW many?  You're making a quantitative argument, here, so let's see
some figures.  How many welfare recipients don't care whether they can
adequately care for their children?  How were they identified and
counted?  How does the incidence of this attitude among welfare
recipients compare to the incidence among non-recipients?  Citations and
data, please.

> It's common knowledge that many women on welfare choose to have more
> children for the purpose of getting increased welfare payments.

I'm sure it is, along with the "common knowledge" about how the liberals
control the media (or was that the Jews, I forget) or "common knowledge"
that reading in dim light will damage your eyes.  But why should anyone
believe this "common knowledge" is true?  Something this widely known
and accepted should have plenty of supporting data lying around...so
where is it?

> Such people
> are often seen driving expensive cars, wearing expensive clothing, etc.

Since this is "often seen," it shouldn't be difficult at all for you to
list the last four or five sightings, right?  Maybe even show us some
pictures and copies of car registrations, that sort of thing?  You know,
evidence?

> 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

How frequent?  How was the frequency measured?  Where are the data?

> I am in favor of reforming the system...monitoring the use of the money 
> (no BMWs)

I think that's already been taken care of by the simple expedient of not
paying welfare recipients enough to be able to get adequate housing, let
alone enough for a BMW.  Or did you mean Bob Marley and the Wailers?  No
reggae for welfare moms?

---------

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?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jglarson@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Johan Larson)
Subject: requesting Buchanan speech
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:12:43 GMT

Does anyone out there have an online copy of Buchanan's speech
to the Republican National Convention?  I missed that day, 
and the NYT did not print the speech.
-- 
Johan Larson
                    The net is packed with objectivists, anarchists, 
                    libertarians and self-appointed threats to the current 
                    order, writing on company time with company equipment.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: nope
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:47:57 GMT

In article <BtMGKw.H6E@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Bush is at least interested in a freeze on borrow and spend, with a
>>move toward a decrease.  While we can argue about how possible that
>>decrease is, Clinton is asking for an INCREASE in borrow and spend;
>>the tax increases won't pay for the increased spending.
>>
>>We've effectively followed the Clinton policy since 1990.  Is more of
>>the same going to to do any better?
>
>So since 1990 the US has been investing in education and infrastructure?

Yes.

>Must have missed that.  [Note: Investing in administrators in the
>educational system doesn't count.]

Investing in administrators is how increased education spending is
used in the US.  I agree that it's rather silly, but Clinton won't
change that, since that's how the NEA/AFT like spending education
money and they're CLINTON supporters.  He's claimed that he supports
their goals, so either he's lying, or he's going to deliver "more of
the same".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3318 talk.politics.misc:42581 alt.politics.clinton:3358 alt.politics.elections:11851
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Is Bush a Tax Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:26:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug28.144510.26149@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ In article <1992Aug27.220758.879@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
@ 
@ >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.
 
@ 	How is Bush a tax dodger?

@ 	I've never heard _that_ one before.

>Haven't you heard anyone who calls a low tax state home is a tax dodger.  Bush a long

	He _is_ a tax dodger if he claims a low-tax state as home
while living and doing business in higher-tax states.

>time resident of TEXAS (becoming TAXES with liberal Democrat ann richards) pays

	Prove that she has increased taxes just for the fun of it, and
not (let's say) to balance the budget -- if she indeed raised taxes.

	I think it irresponsible to object to raising taxes while
expecting one's favorite government services to continue.

>less taxes because he claims Texas to be home.  If we carry this argument through
>Clinton is a tax doger to because he lives off of ( i mean in) Arkansas instead of claiming
>NY home.

	But Bill Clinton had been Governor there, and (if I remember
correctly) he was even raised there. So he has much better reason to
call Arkansas home than Bush has to call Texas home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: To Stan Knight
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:36:13 GMT

Could I please have your e-mail address? I have a reply for you, but I
want to e-mail it, and "stank@perrault.unet.com" doesn't seem to do
it. I always get the mail returned. I don't want to retype the whole
message for purposes of posting it.

Thanks.

Mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:01:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.124201.12832@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>How did President Bush screw up the hurricane relief effort?
>
>Jeff.

Because I belive he was there on Monday for his photo opurtunity,
but then didn't order in any troops or anything until thursday I
believe is the correct day(somebody correct me if I am wrong),
and then blamed it on the Govener(sp) of florida for not putting
a request in 'writing'....The Govener replied, that since Bush
had already been there for his little photo shoot, that he *KNEW*
that aid was needed, but didn't send it....That is how he screwed
up....Idiot he is...

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3613 talk.politics.misc:42979 alt.politics.clinton:3612 alt.politics.elections:12041
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 31 Aug 1992 20:48:40 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug30.184048.4782@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

What a joke! Freeman started by claiming that Bush left the restrictive
covenant on his home because it was impossible to remove.

Bzzzt. Wrong. One can petition the courts to have it removed.

Now Freeman claims that Bush left it on as a memorial to American
racism, like the Germans have a museum about the camps.

Right. Sure.

Say, isn't this the George Bush who voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights
Law? The one who openly proclaimed his support for legally-permitted
segregated public facilities?

Try again, Freeman. And from now on, I think the net will be more
cautious about accepting your pronouncements of factoids.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu (cindy davies)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 03:09:29 GMT

In article <JASON.92Sep1124501@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>  A few days is not long
>enough to organize an entire disaster relief system large enough to
>handle that level of destruction.  

The United States used to have just such a system.  When Rapid City had a
flood 20 years ago the system was in place to help the survivors.. a coalition
of federal, state local and private agencies existed to help us rebuild.  The
Republicans have managed to gut that system, to the point of worthlessness.

>In order to handle an incident like
>this to the level people seem to expect would require millions (or
>more) dollars of yearly spending for something that will rarely be
>used.
>
Andrew, Omar, Hugo, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Chicago, ...
--
Life among academics has taught me that a well-expressed opinion is
usually better than a badly expressed fact, so far as professional
advancement goes.  --Gabaldon, Outlander.
cldavies@silver.sdsmt.edu        cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:06:54 GMT

>> >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
>>      Felony number one.  (And probably two since you'll have to forge
>> a Florida ID.)
>> >4)  Load them into said van.
>> >5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and
>>      Felony number three.
>> >6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).
>>      Felony number four.     
>> >It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
>> >QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.
>>      Perhaps they would affect *this* avenue. 
>But why the hell would you concede that?  You just SHOWED how FOUR 
>laws "restricting the legal sale of arms" DIDN'T affect a damn thing.
>Why should five, or eight, or 22 do any better?

I think we are missing the point here.  The initial statement was: "It
seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have QUITE
an impact on the _illegal_ market."

Aren't most criminals' guns stolen or purchased second hand or through
strawman purchases?  Certainly if one STOPS all legal manufacturing,
sale and ownership of guns then the criminals' ready supply via this
channel will dry up also.  This has to effect the illegal market.

(The problem is, of course, that this effects the legal market a lot
more than the illegal market.  The illegal market has other supply
channels.  The legal market by definition is now gone.  This clearly
decreases the ratio of good-guys-with-guns to bad-guys-with-guns.)

-wolfgang
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) decwrl!wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
=================== Read my lips; No new term! ====================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3563 alt.politics.clinton:3561 alt.politics.elections:12006 rec.humor:27433
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,rec.humor
Subject: Radio idea (family values)
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:04:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

On the radio this morning (WMAG-99.5FM Winston-Salem) a caller had an idea
regarding the recent emphasis in the elections on "family values." The
caller suggests that we decide the Presidency and Vice Presidency by
having "Family Feud" between the Clintons & the Gores vs. the Bushes and
the Quayles. All proceeds go to eradicating the national deficit. The
family with the most money-points wins the White House; the runner-up
family gets the Vice President's home.


-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2810 talk.politics.misc:41779 alt.politics.clinton:2930 alt.politics.elections:11509
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Put some spin on this...
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:24:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan)
Subject: Re: trust
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:04:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173547.17277@digibd.com> 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!