HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:07:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <3jze0a8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
]One I like particularly is a law that is all-but-unnoticed outside the DC
]beltway.  It prohibits Federal employees from engaging in partisan political
]activities.  Bush vetoed a bill a year or two ago that would have eliminated
]this law.  So it gives rise to the questions:
]	Is there a loophole in the law that allows Bush and Quayle to
]	run for re-election?
]	Is the loophole big enough to allow the White House Chief of
]	Staff to take charge of the Bush/Quayle re-election campaign?
]It tickles me to think that Bush might be breaking a law that he himself, and
]he alone, had the chance to legally get rid of but chose to keep valid.

You're dreaming. The law applies to civil service employees. Otherwise
every congressman and all of his staff members would be equally
violating the law.

]It's not that Bush demonstrates (or doesn't) that he's above the law:  it's
]that he demonstrates that he *believes* that he's above the law.

You've got it turned around. The executive is NOT above the law, because
when they are even suspected of violating even the slightest wrinkle of 
the law they are prosecuted and hounded (ask Casper Weinberger about that).

It is Congress that not only believes it is above the law, but ensures
it. Congress is immune from labor laws, civil rights laws, environmental
laws, etc. Congress abuses its employees in a way that would put any
private employer in jail.

Furthermore, because Congress is afraid that violations of laws that they
failed to protect themselves from (such as bribery) will hurt them, they
will fail to renew the special prosecutor law this year. They have
finally realized that they cannot harrass the executive using special
prosecutors without having those same prosecutors coming after them!
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:27:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.191428.24590@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> So when Felderspiel says, "you teach them" or "you show them",
>> above, to WHOM does "you" refer?   The parents?  See the above 
>> paragraph.   
>Yep, the parents.  Its still their responsibility to raise their kids,
>not to let the schools do it for them.

  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)?

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

  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. 

  This is the point you guys can't seem to get through your heads.
  It's the classic cars -vs- magic carpets argument.   Compared
  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!  

  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?    


---peter




Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:58:37 GMT

In article <mjenkins.715300197@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>
>If you're too "embarassed" to buy the condom, you should be more
>embarassed to have sex.

Nonsense.

Intercourse is a private act; purchasing condoms is not, it's often public. 
In a small town, it's hard to keep such a thing secret.  People should have
the right to keep their personal matters private.  Distributing condoms
through a school nurse under guaranteed privacy helps encourage their use by
those predisposed to both having sex and using condoms.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3366 talk.politics.misc:42640 alt.politics.clinton:3396 alt.politics.elections:11884
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
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 18:18:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

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

Well, Fred, if Bush is a resident of Texas, so is my father-in-law, who lives in 
California. He has the same "qualifications" as Bush.
How do you figure Bush is a "resident" of Texas?
Exactly what has Ann Richards done concerning taxes that has resulted in such
paranoia?
>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:15:42 GMT

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%

  This information is useless unless you state whether the dollar amounts are  
real or actual, and compare the figures for black families with those of the  
population as a whole.  Until you do that (or until Time does that), any  
discussion of the subject is pointless.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,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: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.225637.23448@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.224316.8107@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>IMO, the president should call D.C. home for tax purposes.
>>
>>If the same applies to the vice president, then this requirement
>>means that no president/vice president can run for reelection.
>>
>>In other words, Bush's texas residence DOES have election eligibility
>>reasons.
>
>Er, why?  Neither President nor Vice President are tied to any
>district.

Why?  Read the 12th amendment.

The president and vice-president are required to be from different
states and DC is considered a state when it comes to electing
presidents.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:01:52 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <31AUG199219482343@gergo.tamu.edu> dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
> With all the argument over whether Bush could have legally sent troops to
> Florida, and the claims that he was sitting by the phone waiting for the
> call from Florida's Governor (any pictures?), nobody has pointed out how
> simple it would have been for Bush to call Florida and say, "It looks as
> though you have a tough situation on your hands. Could you use some help
> down there? I've got some troops ready to roll if you want them."
> As far as I have heard, Bush did not make any such offer. Bush has means
> for getting reports (don't know if he trusts the TV :) and could have
> decided that the people of Florida were in serious need and made that call
> to the Governor.

Bush was there IN PERSON the day after.  Do you doubt he offered all the
assistance he could muster?  If he trusts TV so much, he wouldn't have
gone there, twice now in fact.

> It is less important how "prepared" Bush was, or how concerned, or how
> long he sat up at night waiting for that phone to ring -- the fact that
> he didn't take the initiative in a domestic disaster is very telling,
> particularly if you compare his initiative in foreign wars. You can be
> sure he wasn't just sitting by the phone waiting for Saddam to call.
> And you can be certain that the people of Florida and Louisiana will
> take this into account come November.
>

Foreign policy is what the president is there for.  It explicitly says
so in the constutition.  Don't people take civics classes in school
anymore?  Sheesh.  He did take the initiative - he's been there twice
and even made a RARE speech on TV.

Here's one for you:  Where was Slick Willy?  He didn't send the troops
from Arkansas to help, did he?  Why aren't you not flaming him?
Same prinicple applies to Bush.

>  -                                                                     -
>  - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M -
>  - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
>  -                                                                     -

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3174 talk.politics.misc:42336 alt.politics.clinton:3237 alt.politics.elections:11738
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
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: 27 Aug 92 18:02:02 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <1992Aug27.025857.17845@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.215255.16971@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.210515.6149@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug26.150756.6925@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>>>
>>>>   a) Pleasure is a positive value.
>>>>   b) It is immoral to deprive people of pleasure simply because you
>>>>      disapprove of the means of obtaining it.
>>>
>>>Let's say I find it pleasurable to find virgins off the street, kidnap them
>>>torture them break a few of their bones, abuse their bodies, have sex with
>>>them, and if they have children, molest them too then burn them alive and 
>>>bury them and pile all the ash in my backyard.
>>>
>>>What?  You disapprove of me kidnapping and stealing people of the street?
>>>How could you!  It is immoral to deprive me of my pleasure simply because
>>>you disapprove of the means of obtaining it!
>>
>>The key operating word above is *simply*.  In the scenario you have described,
>>you have clearly acted immorally (by kidnapping, torturing, etc., these
>>virgins you have deprived them of the pleasure of not being abused).
>
>Immorally?  Who are you to impose your morals on me?  It is not you
>to decide.  It is not government.  It is me!  I decide what morals I follow.
>If I say it is right, then it is right.

Someone else's morals don't have to be imposed. In fact, that's the
whole point of original poster: people shouldn't impose their morals
on anyone else. We live in a society, and the main job of society is
to protect its members both from outside attack, or from other members.
(When a society starts to protect you from yourself it is starting to
become a totalitarian society). In your example, society has the obligation
to stop you because it is protecting its members. It does not have the
right to stop two consenting people from having sex because no one
needs to be protected here. Since the sex is consensual, no one's rights
are being violated. You are free to follow your own morals, as long as
you don't violate the rights of others in the society. This simple restriction
is the price to pay to have your rights protected. Which of your rights
are being violated when someone is promiscious?

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3103 alt.politics.clinton:3168
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Political Wives...
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:12:22 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Aug24.172055.27453@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>You gotta have a license to fish. You gotta have a license
> to drive. But they let any asshole be a parent.

Not true, unfortunately.  Try adopting if you are gay, lesbian or
bisexual.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||            -- My Bloody Valentine
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 28 Aug 1992 06:21:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu

In article <94800@bu.edu> grue@csa.bu.edu (Philip Libin) writes:
>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

Illegal: When you buy a gun, you have to show the dealer a _local_ 
driver's license (except in two or theree very limited cases, like
when the dealer knows the laws required by your native state and 
follows them.)

Since out of state gun sales are already illegal, then perhaps
all we need the _enforcement_ of existing laws, not new gun control
laws...

If you buy more than two (2) handguns within a month, the dealer is
required to report you to the federal BAFT (who will have your name
address and discription, and will investigate...)

Perhaps you want to get a local to front for you. That is possible,
but also quite illegal. At one gun per front (or, or if you are
cleaver and send him to several stores, perhaps four or five 
guns per front) this still makes driving down, finding front men,
and driving back a fairly labour intensive task. 

That is, people are willing to go to great lengths to supply
firearms to criminals illegally.

That mean other labour intensive ways to supply guns would also be
tried, even if gun control laws blocked the above mentioned methiod: 
Sumggling from Mexico/Central or South America, illegal manufacture
(~2-5 hours/gun with a little skill and a few tools.), thieft from
the police or military (risky, but profitable...)

Not to supprisingly, these are the main sources of machineguns/submachineguns/
assault rifles (all illegal under current law).

						       Frnak Crary
						       CU Boulder
						       (even though I'm 
						       still using my
						       Berkeley account...)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:54:47 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug26081909@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.164454.8174@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>   It isn't obvious what to do about this.  Should we have social workers
>   round up pregant women for pre-natal care and monitor them?  Should we
>   pay them if they "do the right thing"?  Should we punish them if they
>   don't?
>
>If I were a member of the Republic Party, I suppose I'd try
>to eliminate pre-natal care programs for both the people who
>don't use it and the people who do.

Is Fox suggesting that he'd behave differently if he was a different
person, in which case this just tells us how he thinks repubs behave,
or that he thinks that eliminating pre-natal care is a good idea in
general?  Either way, his statement only tells us about him.  Why did
he drag the repubs into it?

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: jimh@welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hofmann)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: jimh@welch.jhu.edu
Organization: Welch Medical Library

In article n0H@news.cso.uiuc.edu, jbs21045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joe Sterbenc) writes:
>Two points:
>
>1) When a baby is conceived, it is one cell. Akin to plankton. To call a cell
>   [ ....   Compression .... ]
>   Life, then,
>   could be the beginning of normal brain activity. This is normally pegged
>   by medical researchers as around three months.

Take a look the Scientific American. September 1992, Page 60.  This is the
describtion of the picture ....

"SEVEN-WEEK-OLD HUMAN FETUS is about an inch long.  Eyes and limbs are visible, 
and the emerging brain is apparent.  Stimulation is needed to complete development, 
a process that for many neural systems continues ine neonatal life."

-Jim
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: RNC platform please
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:14:53 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Sep3.171911.14970@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU sez:
>In article <oneil.715491500@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep2.173615.18460@aosg.gsf.dec.com> yackel@ccvax1.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Dan Yackel) writes:
>>>>I dont know if this is the right place but could someone post the
>>>>RNC Platform please???
>>
>>>It's 90 some pages.  Get your own copy by calling (202) 863-8500.

I called this a.m. (9/4).  They said the copies just came in, and will
go out over the weekend.  BTW, it's gratis.


>They may not even know how much distribution on-line stuff gets.
>
>Asking either of us is rather silly.  If you want to know why they
>haven't made it available, ask them.

Because they're completely clueless, as my inquiry revealed.  I talked
to three different people, none of whom seemed especially interested
in the existence or benefits of the network forum, or in the
advantages of disseminating the platform on disk.

-- 
	       Qui veut la peau lisse, evite la police.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections