HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ppandit@rekha.esd.sgi.com (Parimal Pandit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Distortion of facts
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:56:14 GMT
Reply-To: ppandit@rekha.esd.sgi.com (Parimal Pandit)
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.

In article <1992Aug28.165745.1214@meaddata.com>, king@meaddata.com (Mike
King) writes:
|>      I'm predicting that George Bush's plan will backfire on him.
|>      Just as he did four years ago, he is misrepesenting information
|>      to the American republic.  Case in point:  Bush telling everybody
|>      that Clinton has raised taxes over 100 times.  It's just not
|>      true.  Even the Wall Street Journal said that.  He has proven
|>      that he has no scruples.  His theory of trickle-down economics
|>      isn't working.  His pro-right wing view does not reflect the
|>      opinions and attitudes of American Republic.  He is not the
|>      choice for the future.
|> 

I would like to believe this but I remember in 1988, I thought people were
too smart to fall for that Willie Horton, wrap in american flag, pledge of
alligence, tough on crime, environmental prez, educational prez, .. bullshit.
It was so obvious, so lacking in credibility, especially coming from a wimp
like Bush and coming from the Reagan administration. He had no track
record for 
any of these issues, esp. environment and education. Mike Dukakis should have
fought back but I don't know if that would have made much of a difference.
Judging by the content of some of these postings, people are as stupid as ever.

It amazes me that no one remembers Bush constantly saying "STAY THE COURSE".
Now he is supposed to be an agent of change? I wish I could run ads proclaming
"READ MY LIPS, NO MORE BULLSHIT". 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pandit      ppandit@rekha.esd       3U-924         415-390-5290
"It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:15:39 GMT

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: grlsw@cs.ulowell.edu (Scott Watterson)
Subject: Re: Reflections on this evening...
Originator: grlsw@bigmax.ulowell.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:13:13 GMT


In article <1992Aug20.135232.22124@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:

<lots of "non-factual" information deleted>

|> explanation.  Does anyone here have any factual information on this?

	I don't suppose it occurred to YOU to get some factual information
	before posting?
 
|> 
|> Many thanks,
|> John
|> -- 
|> John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com

Scott Watterson
grlsw@cs.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:12:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.024744.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>One thing that bothers me is:
>  Why is the school, esp. Public schools the one doing the sex ed, and not
>the family where the primary education should be.   

I don't know why families are ignoring there responsibilities, but removing
sex ed from schools will not fix that problem, it will just result in more
teen pregnancy and more AIDS deaths.

>We must be careful not
>to get to a point where socialism and communistic ideas take a hold of our
>country.

Your a few years behind, this year the catch phrase is "family values",
communism is out of style :-)

>  Sex ed today is like teaching kids how to have sex without getting caught.

Sex ed is like drivers ed, if your going to take the risk of driving or
having sex you had better know what your doing...

>  But happens when they do "get caught?"  

Why don't I ever hear this argument used against drivers ed? After all
if we didn't teach our kids to drive they wouldn't have accident.... RIGHT..

>  Children today are having a difficult time going through life because 
>there is so much confusion in the world today.  Sometimes the families
>are very unstable.  Sometimes, what the family teaches often gets contradicted
>with what the schools teach.  Peers pressure children to do things they
>wouldn't do had they had been taught to be strong and to have strong values
>which stand the test of time.

Teaching someone the facts of life doesn't mean they have to have sex.
Infact teaching about risks involved gives people more ammunition against
peers if they are being pushed into something they don't want.

>   We don't need public schools to confuse our children even more.
>
>   Leave the role of the primary sex educator to the family, and not
>government.

That simply hasn't worked, I think there are something like 1 million
teen pregnancies a year. "Family values" hasn't stopped kids from having
sex, but education can atleast give them the knowledge to do it safely.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Why is there Federal Disaster Relief?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:21:22 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Edward J. Branley writes:
>kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
>
>>
>> The point is this: I don't see how the risk of having your house blown
>> down by a hurricane is that difference from the risk of unemployment,
>> illness, or even unwanted pregnancy. No one seems to question aid to
>> hurricane victims (which I support), yet the same logic applies to these
>> other cases. What am I missing?
>> ---- Kevin.
>
>What you're missing is that a hurricane is an act of God in the eyes of many of
>a Republican and insurance company.  In the eyes of 'Rubbers' Bush, you can get
>re-trained and get another job, you can not get sick (or stay at a job that has
>health insurance), and you can not have sex.  God, however, chooses where
>hurricanes go (except the ones that Pat Robertson has been able to deflect by
>sheer force of will), so it doesn't fall with the other things you've
>mentioned.

As near as I can tell, Disaster Relief is primarily a political sop for
the incumbent to prevent the "He don't care" reaction. The problem, as
near as I can see, is that people who suffer isolated Acts of God are
left out to dry. For example, when the Midwest was hit by a monstrous
wave of tornadoes in 1974, my family received housing aid for a year. 
But when a single tornado flattened a lot of buildings on my wife's
family farm: nada. 

`
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: kml@cellar.org (John Galt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:06:55 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


> It may also help to legitimize abortion. 
> 
> > One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
> > research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
> > of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
> > same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
> > to correct the flaw in utero.  
> 
> This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
> experimental stage.   
> 
> > Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
> 
> 
> Doug Holtsinger


BZZZT!!!  You should have watched 60 Minutes last week!  The child had
an in-the-womb transplant, using tissue from an aborted fetus.  The 
previous two children had died from a genetic defect; the current child
is doing fine, thanks to the transplant.

Fetal tissue has also shown dramatic effects in treating Parkinson's 
disease. 

In short, it works, and it is hypocritical to deny this to people for 
solely political reasons.  I value my family; if my daughter or
grandfather could be saved by such a transplant, how could Bush justify
just watching them die in misery?



               Personally, I skip the posts and just read the sigs.

  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.


               Personally, I skip the posts and just read the sigs.

  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
From: jsimon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: NAFTA IS GOOD ...
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:19:12 GMT
Organization: Cardiff & Lonne

I was reading Business Week recently and I came to know that
the North American continent makes up a 6 trillion dollar economy.
Out of this American economy itself is 5.4 trillion, Canada is 
probably 0.4 and Mexico 0.2 trillion.


Good points of NAFTA:

1. By moving the manufacturing base of US & Canada to Mexico,
   cost of production of goods can be redused so much that
   US can be extremely competetive in the international market,
   thus boosting exports and, ofcourse, _profit margins_, _dividends_
   of American investors.

2. On the whole there will be more money flowing into America.

3. Increase the standard of living of Mexican people, increase
   the buying power and hence the market and economy of Mexico.

Negative Points:

1. Since 90% of NAFTA economy is that of the US, it makes no
   sense to have a free trade agreement with a thirld world
   nation.

2. Jobs lost will be immense. Retraining of workers to do the
   hi-tech jobs of the future can not be matched to the rate of
   low-tech jobs lost. It will be costly and the results can not
   seen too soon. Because, the entire educational, vocational, technical
   infrastructures have to be revamped and that will take time.

ONLY HOPE IS that the proponents to TRICKLE DOWN economics ensure
that the huge profits made will surely tricke down, else
average middle class Americans, God save y'all!!

NAFTA is along the same lines as lower taxes for the rich, capital
gains tax reduction, S&L and so on....

                NAFTA _IS_ GOOD FOR THE WEALTHY!!!!!
Jac Simoneaux
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3657 alt.politics.clinton:3655
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:14:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: ACME Widget Company, Widget Falls, Southern North Dakota

In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a Democratically-controlled 
>Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.  


Thank you for this enlightening bit of commentary.  Do you have any other 
useless one-liners?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:12:32 GMT

In article <24356@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>In alt.politics.elections, puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:
>
>>  "Dozens of religious leaders have complained to the Presidential candidates,
>>especially President Bush and the Republican Party, about the injection of
>>religion in to the campaign, saying the partisan use of God's name is
>>blasphemy.
>

hmmm...I was just thinking, when I saw this again, that in the eyes
of Xians, Blasphemy is the one unforgivable sin....So, I guess that
Bush/Quayle, and all the republican stooges that went along with the
little G-O-D stuff in the platform, are going to hell? talk about
poetic justice...
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Controlled Congress:  Who should be blamed?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 14:49:38 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <01GO8JYN7QQWCIQZV1@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
> After two years of Reagan rule,in 1982, PEOPLE went to voting booths and 
> sent a Democratic controlled Senate.  In 1984 PEOPLE voted again for Ron
> Reagan, this time with a very  strong majority (electoral college 525:13,
> states 49:2, popular vote 58.8%:40.6%).  Then  PEOPLE  voted again for a
> Democratic controlled Senate.  PEOPLE keep voting for a democratic house
> for last 38 years.  It is not Democrats control the Congress, but PEOPLE
> send them to Washington.  Even a stupid can conclude that people approve
> whatever their  Congressperson did for them by  voting for him/her 
again.  
> Larry Cunningham tells the  readers not to blame Repubs.  Maybe with his
> CORRECT opinion, he wants to imply that "Blame the people".

Of course House incumbants (Demo or Rep) have stacked the cards heavily in 
their favor for relection.  Despite widespread calls for election reform 
and term limits, there seems to be little chance of that happening as long 
as the Dems are in power.

> I agree with Alex.  A strong President must be able to convince Congress
> to support his plans.  President George Bush, who claims to have grouped
> the world under him to fight Sadam, could not be able to convince his own
> Congress?  Mr Bush  appeared on TV and requested  people to pray for the
> brave soldiers who went to Gulf.  Why didn't he  appear in TV to explain
> his plans to  improve America and to request people to press their local
> Congressperson(s) to support those plans?

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Tip O'Neil.   While his views 
differ from mine, I always had the impression that he put the country 
first, and politics second.    It seems almost feasible to imagine him and 
Ronald Reagan (the two Irishmen) whooping it up in a tavern over a mug of 
beer.   Tom Foley on the other hand just wreeks of politics.  His only 
goal seems to be to get rid of Bush at any cost and the country be damned.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:56:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.202312.4362@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>
>Golly gee!  That's it!  A man who sleeps around on his wife isn't
>committing adultery, he's merely following his own morals!  And as long
>as he doesn't contract and then pass along AIDS to his wife, she should
>have no complaints, since he was just pursuing pleasure.
>
>I can see it clearly now, thanks!
>John
>

What business is it of yours if the wife knows about it and has discussed
it with him?  Is it not between them to decide?  

david redish
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: A question on abortion
Reply-To: rcollins@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:15:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
|> 	Row vs. Wade was a women suing for the right to abort her own
|> baby.  Trying to apply this to a murderer who killed a women and her
|> unborn child wouldn't work.  

This is funny.  A fetus is a *child* in cases of murder by anyone
other than the mother (mother-to-be?) or her agent(s) (the doctor),
but is a glob of tissue in cases of abortion.  Simple as that.

The funny part is how sure you are about such a controversial issue.

Please follow up to talk.abortion.
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Offended at being called
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:36:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <17ekb6INN23p@agate.berkeley.edu> 
gemmell@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Gemmell) writes to someone:

> Why not add the term "sexual orientation" to discrimination
> clauses?

Why not add "obesity" to discrimination clauses?  Or how about
"ugliness" or "smelliness"?   Fat, ugly, and smelly people face 
far more overt job and housing discrimination than homosexuals.  
And unlike homosexuals, they can't hide their handicap. 

Give me a good reason to support gay rights legislation.

>Pete


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:00:46 GMT

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

|> >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.
|> 
|> 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

Unless you are a resident of Florida, you've committed one Federal crime for each
gun purchased.  Anyone who acted as your agent in the purchase of these weapons
also committed a Federal crime for each gun they purchased, even if they are
Florida residents.

|> 4)  Load them into said van.
|> 5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and
|> 6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).

And unless you are a resident of "where ever you came from", you've committed one
Federal crime for each gun sold.

|> Congradulations!  You are now a "black marketere".
|> 
|> It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
|> QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.

Gee, "several score" Federal crimes, all felonies, were committed above, yet those
laws had no impact on the _illegal_ market, as you claimed.

Before you propose more laws, get familiar with the ones we have.

Bonehead.  They're called "criminals" because they don't obey the laws.  Get a
clue.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"Bart Simpson - NRA junior member."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3539 alt.politics.clinton:3542 alt.politics.perot:1370 rec.humor:27414 talk.bizarre:28110 talk.politics.misc:42904
From: tob@raider.raidernet.com (Tom O. Barron)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:16:33 GMT
Organization: RaiderNet Usenet Public Access, Murfreesboro, TN (615-895-4675)

In <1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

>>>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
>>>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
>>>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>>>broken the law.  

[ Spotted Owl example deleted ]

How about the Bush administration's high-handed treatment of Haitian
refugees in international waters?  What right does the U.S. Coast Guard
have to force anyone in international waters to go anywhere?

-- 
| Tom Barron          |  tob@raider.raidernet.com   |   ENVOY Corporation     |
| Technology Group    |  CIS:  70700,3044           |   15 Century Blvd       | 
| ENVOY Corporation   |  voice: (615) 872-4867      |   Nashville, TN  37214  |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Michigan remarks
Date: 4 Sep 1992 14:12:58 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <kedcv5200Uh7A6zKQs@andrew.cmu.edu> mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu 
(Michael J. Keating) writes:
>  Bush is
> vehemently against Clinton's plan to make it mandatory for engines to be
> more fuel-efficient in a few years.

  Bush claims that this will have a
> negative effect on jobs, and that he would fight against any such moves.

Hmmm.  Perhaps such cars would be more expensive and less affordable.   

More fuel efficient cars would certainly be smaller.  The public 
continually shows a preference for larger cars.

>  Where would we be today if the wheel's
> implementation had been blocked because of a fear that some manual
> laborers would lose their jobs? 

The wheel and the car have been molded mostly by free-market and not 
coercion by the government.   I have no problem with Detroit continuing 
the development of more efficient and less poluting engines.  I myself am 
interested in natural gas powered engines which I believe have some 
potential as well as decreasing our dependence on foriegn energy sources.  
If enough people like myself demand such products, they will be made.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2985 talk.politics.misc:42042 alt.politics.clinton:3066 alt.politics.elections:11611
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
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 18:00:30 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug26.150756.6925@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:

> I would suggest that all other things being equal, having sex is "better", 
> inasmuch as it increases the pleasure of the participants.
> 
> Further, I would suggest that:
> 
>    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.

How is refusing to pass condoms out in schools and portraying a positive
view of abstinence depriving anyone of pleasure?



> The media campaign against the use of various disapproved recreational
> pharmaceuticals is fraught with misinformation.  The truth about various
> risks, even when they are few, is certainly appropriate, as the people involved
> can then make informed decisions.  Lying to promote "preferred" behavior is,
> again, immoral.

Who is suggesting we lie?



> Again, you indicate that "promiscuity" should be discouraged across the board,
> as opposed to encouraging it with reasonable safety.  This again, strikes me
> as immoral.

You are suggesting that we encourage promiscuity?  I don't think you'll
find much support on this one, even if you do include safety messages.
Promiscuity goes against our traditional values system (based on Judeo-
Christian ethics but also echoed by pretty much every major organized
religion).  Unless you're suggesting that we completely overturn our
values system, there's no way we should "encourage" promiscutity.



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~