HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Idiocies from Al Gore
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:01:18 GMT

PAUL D CHAPIN (pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
: Jerry Walsh (walsh@spider.wri.com) wrote:
: : In article <1992Sep1.214724.14694@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
: : >Gore: (Several minutes of anti-Bush ravings, especially how
: : >the evil nasty Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and signed on to
: : >increased taxes in 1990.)
: : >
: : >Hume: One last question Senator. Did you support the 1990
: : >budget agreement?
: : >
: : >Gore: Why , YES! .... ( the proud look lasted for about one second,
: : >which then turned to one of embarrassed pain)
: 
: The issue isn't whether that particular tax was right or wrong.  The issue is
: a matter of trust.  Bush proved that you can't trust his campaign statements.
: Like no new taxes.  Like 30 million new jobs.  Like no net lose of wetlands.
: What he says is strictly for political consumption and has no relationship
: with reality.
: 
: I will even go so far as to say that I think he knows he's talking nonsense
: even while he's talking.  Four years ago just about every economist and 
: politician in the country knew a tax increase was coming.  I believe the
: Chamber of Commerce, that hotbed of radicalism, was on record as supporting
: a tax increase as necessary.  And the only way he could create 30 million
: new American jobs would be to annex Mexico
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: lstewart@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (L. Stewart -- IS Office 1058)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:52:30 GMT

In article <axtnckr.gstory@netcom.com> gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.222632.2793@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>
>[Previous dialog and ad hominem rebuttal deleted.]
>
>>
>>If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
>>stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
>>himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
>>the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
>>results of due process.)
>
>Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
>
>[One paragraph deleted]
>>
>>Try for a *real* example now: you know, one where he totally
>>ignores the law and does whatever the hell he wants anyway.
>>
>I agree with you criteria, and invite you to apply them to Congress.  
>Let me add that when Congress passes a law which excludes them from its
>provisions, I consider it sneaky and reprehensible, but not "above the law."
>
>[Remainder deleted.]
>

Ok, there was that time that the entire Congress met down at 
Denny's and ordered all the blue plate specials and entrees
that were more than three bucks and then they trashed the can 
trying to get free condoms out of the machine and all those weirdos
from the south and midwest were drunk on their asses and they killed
the waitress and then they payed with a cheque that bounced off the
bank they all go to and we know that they all employ Mexican
children as sex slaves for their cocaine importing friends out
at the pentagon which is a Satanic temple where they use black
magic to keep old cancer-nose Reagan alive.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4845 alt.politics.marrou:1132 talk.politics.misc:45041 alt.politics.elections:12929 talk.politics.theory:4153 alt.politics.clinton:5068
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:46:50 GMT

williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

>Guns engender violence.  Fights that used to be settled with fists and
>bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.  Where do
>the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  Then it was
>stolen or sold or lost.  We are a nation awash in guns. We keep making
>more.  Why?

>There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
>pro gun side seems to want to find it.

I agree. I don't think an outright ban on guns is the way to go
but I'd like to here people on both sides of the issue try and 
compromise (especially, but not only, the NRA people). You'd be
hard pressed to convince me that the status quo is okay and acceptable.
The status quo is unacceptable. However, the gun control people have
to accept that there will (should) never be an outright ban on guns
while the NRA people have to accept that the status quo is not ok.
They must try and find some middle ground. Neither side believes in
SOME restrictions. For them, it's either all (gun control) or nothing
(NRA). 

We must find a compromise now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:37:28 GMT

In article <192tovINNah6@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:
|A long time ago, there was the suggestion that abortion is a
|means for men to control women.  An opposing view held that
|being "pro-choice" in fact, benefits the male.

Go tell that to Will Steeves, who posted to this group
that he would probably kill a woman who aborted "his" 
z/e/f and didn't tell him.

[followups to t.a]
---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:46:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.044420.4763@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
>>missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimneys'.
>>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>>thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
>>Dukakis tank ride all over again.

In article <wright.33.0@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Ted Wright) writes:
>I have never heard of a cruise missle that goes "through doors and down
>chimneys". Maybe somebody is confused and is thinking of a laser guided
>bomb or a TV guided bomb.

  You and someone else who pointed this out in a post are correct.  I was
just repeating what was said on, I think, CNN.  I'd never make it as a news
editor.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Right to Discriminate
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:25:31 GMT

In article <BuA7nw.9qt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jdm42241@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doug Mraz ) writes:
}The notion of discrimination based on one's sexuality doesn't tread
}much water with me. I am a conservative, and I'm not denying discrimination
}exists. But it's much easier for someone who is black to be discriminated
}than a homosexual for the simple fact that you can instantly identify a
}black and discriminate against him, whereas the only way one can tell if
}someone is gay is for him to identify himself as gay.

The only way to be certain that someone is gay is for them to truthfully tell
you so, but as someone who works in San Francisco with gay men and has some
gay friends, in my experience it's pretty easy to tell.  The fact remains
regardless of this that men get assaulted and battered for appearing to be
gay quite often.

Secondly, minorites
}have as a result of their discrimination suffered greatly economically
}but homosexuals have done much better economically. Many homosexuals have
}succeed financially, whereas blacks still face discrimination when it
}comes to getting loans.

Blacks have suffered the worst, but they suffered from de jure segregation,
not discrimination in the sense of private refusals to deal with them.  Jim
Crow laws required segregation, violating blacks' freedom of contract just
as present prohibition of discrimination in exmployment violates employers'
freedom of contract.

Homosexuals face "Bruce Crow" laws: next-of-kin laws, laws which license
heterosexual marriage but not homosexual (although marriage should be
privatized altogether), sodomy laws... these all violate the rights to
equal treatment under just laws of homosexuals.

It's unnecessary to deny anti-homosexual discrimination to oppose banning
it.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5104 talk.politics.misc:45409 alt.politics.clinton:5393
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:55:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In <1992Sep10.212650.8832@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>The National Review is run by Buckley and has the likes of Reagan, Selleck,
>and Heston doing adds for it. These do not exactly constitute a covey of
>liberals. Read the rag sometime and then tell me what constitutes bias
>journalism.
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

I'm sorry, but Joe/Jane Q. Average does not sit around reading any of these 
mags, but by listening to vapid liberal idiots like Sam "I'm a master
at stating the obvious" Donaldson.

Someone willing to post The New Republic's weekly "Clinton Suck-Up
Watch" (a feature awarding the most ingratiating comments by a member
of the press about Clinton)?  If not, I will.

-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5197 alt.rush-limbaugh:4887 alt.politics.clinton:5509
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:52:56 GMT
 <1992Sep14.033239.8769@nuscc.nus.sg>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep14.033239.8769@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) says:
>
>An increasing federal deficit is just the economy's way of saying that the
>federal welfare state is living on borrowed time. Now I can see why senators
>like Sam Nunn and James Danforth would consider that a grave concern. But
>why that should rank in importance above other issues to Americans not
>employed or subsized the uncle sam is totally unclear.
>
>The reality is that the deficit will continue to increase until the role of
>the
>federal government is reduced. For once, Bush is on the right track.
>

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4599 talk.politics.misc:44544 alt.politics.clinton:4728 alt.politics.elections:12759
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:13:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.230727.7577@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.175234.19488@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>
>[deleted]
>>Please cite your reasons for believing this.  Please bear in mind the
>[deleted]
>>Please cite your reasons for believing this.
>[deleted]
>>Please cite your reasons for believing that this figure is accurate.
>>Please cite your reasons for believing that it would further increase
>>under a Clinton administration.  Please cite your reasons for
>>believing that the current figure, be is $300 billion or not, is too
>>high.
>[deleted]
>>Please elaborate.  What were the details of the proposal that Clinton
>>"killed"?  What kind of tort reform is favored by Bush and Quayle?
>>Please be specific.
>>
>>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>
>Well, Slick Willie, I see you're practicing your lawyer tricks again
>instead of addressing the issues. BTW *I* think $300 billion is too
>much money to waste on lawyers. *I* think $.15 is more appropriate
>since it will buy one cartridge, all that's worth wasting on a lawyer
>in most cases, though sometimes I'm generous and willing to spring for
>a rope.
>
>Gary

Now, here's a real magnanimous acceptance of defeat.  I wonder if 
Bush/Quayle will be able to accept theirs with as many sour grapes.

John D.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Abortion rights and responsibilities
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:46:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

My apologies if this is a repost.

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:|Just a thought (it's after midnight for this post). Usually when one is
:|accorded rights, one is also accorded responsibilities with which one
:|should use these rights. For example, no slander/libel when invoking
:|"free speech," or shooting innocents when owning a gun, and so on. As
:|the signs from pro-choicers/pro-abortionists say "Abortion rights NOW!"
:|I am wondering what responsibilities are accorded to this
:|constitutionally protected (according to the Supreme Court) right.
:
:The same responsibilities (whatever those are) "accorded to" 
:[sic] any elective surgery.  Duh.

Fine. I don't have my dictionary tonight. :)
Oh, are you considering abortion as "elective" surgery? And do federal
programs fund elective surgery? Will Clinton's health plan cover
elective surgery? 

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:03:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

|> The following few paragraphs are completely devoid of attempts at
|> humor, so quit now if you don't want to read it.

You're humorless, all right.

Unfortunately, you're stupid and bigotted, too.

|> In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
|> handguns.  I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
|> them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
|> serving.  Guns are big business.  Many of the people involved in the
|> NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns. People stand to lose money if we
|> as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.  We'll
|> never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
|> because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
|> ownership.

*SNIP*SNIP*, a bit of paraphrasing [classic USENET technique]:

"In general, I don't believe people need to have religion, especially
fundamentalist religions.  I'm not sure how far I would go in
restricting access to them if it was up to me, but the churches'
position is cynical and self serving.  Religions are big business. 
Many of the people involved in religion manufacture, sell or trade
religion. People stand to lose money if we as a society try to limit
religion in some rational way.  We'll never resolve what the rational
limits to religion should be because the churches are such a powerful
lobby against any limits to religion."

The second sounds just as loony as the original, to me.

Let's teach people responsibility, then punish them when they overstep
the bounds, rather than punishing everyone preemptively by outlawing
things or thoughts.

For those who don't get it, try substituting "the press", "freedom from
search and seizure", "privacy", "freedom from self-incrimination",
"freedom of assembly", etc., into Williams' ramble.

If you're for any freedom, then you need to be for all freedoms, not
just the ones you find modern, convenient, sanitary, or palatable, or
you're subject to "divide and conquer" and "salami" politics.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:06:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.134621.19407@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Real reform would ultimately not cost anything since the elimination
>of the waste in the system would pay for the increased coverage for
>the poor.

Not so fast.  There's no guarantee that a single-payer system will, in
fact, have less waste.  (There's also no guarantee that a single payer
system will have lower malpractice costs.)  The expense problems with
the US system have little to do with the payer system.

I note that any provider can basically decide on how much it wants to
spend on overhead (read "waste").  People who think that a much lower
overhead system is possible in the US without changes that have
nothing to do with payer systems can prove that any time they want.

Such a proof consists of establishing a health care payer that does
things "right".  That will drive the evil wasteful companies out of
biz, lower health care costs (the savings can be spent on the poor or
returned to the customers), and make a lot of money (which can be
spent on other good acts) for the people who do it.  That sure looks
like a moral obligation, so I really doubt people who insist that its
possible yet are unwilling to risk their money to prove it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4335 talk.politics.misc:44126 alt.rush-limbaugh:4348 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5152
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton Quotes from Bush Speech, etc.
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:33:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


I'd like a bunch of before and after quotes:

Would someone e-mail me the Clinton quote Bush used to show
that Clinton was flaky in his support for GWII (Gulf War II).  
Also, would someone e-mail me a Clinton quote from *after*
GWII.  

I'd like the same for Gore regarding when to stop the war 
(didn't Gore say it was time to "stop the slaughter"?), both
during and after the war (including his second guessing of
the decision to stop the war).

thanks,
anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:53:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.101456.27348@sinix.UUCP>, ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
|> 
|> So, what is exactly do with we do with a 15 year GIRL that intentionally
|> gets pregnant?


You can't do anything-- it's too late!  It's too late by the time they're
fifteen or even by the time they're thirteen; there's even a rash of *pre*-teen
*intentional* pregnancies in parts of the country now, mostly with girls who feel
that having a baby is the only way to improve their lives or to bring meaning
into it.

How can our education system have failed us to the point where intermediate
school-aged kids feel they have no future to look foward to?

I dunno.  Go ask our Education President....


Yuna Huh

"Eighty percent of air pollution comes from plants and trees."  --Ronald Reagan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5136 alt.politics.clinton:5434 alt.politics.elections:13135