HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 08:48:37 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
> >Try again. Think hard.  I said bring in a *mobile* hospital and *field*
> >kitchens.  These come in tents.  Can you say that?  Sure, I knew you could.
>
> Try again. Think harder. Pictures I saw showed rubble strewn all over the
> place. What good is a >mobile< hospital or >field< kitchen if you have
> nowhere to put them?
>

Sigh.  Sport, go back to my original post.  I also threw in a Navy Seabee unit
to bulldoze the place.  Not hard to do.  Not to hard to make a place.

Sure, disaster relief is difficult.  But this is an election year, and if Bush
can't deliver when he's in 'campaign mode,' then it's something that's
definitely out of his ability when he's in dormant mode.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Smarter question
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:08:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies



I guess I asked a stupid question last week and got some intelligent replies.
The question was about what would be the smallest % of popular votes that could
get a person elected. Of course if just one person from X states with enough
electoral votes vote then a teeny-tiny % will decide who wins. Let's try it
this way now. First assume that there is 100% turn-out on vote day. Now what is 
the smallest % of the popular vote that could get a person elected? This goes
back to the statments by Rep. campaign leaders that they have pretty much given 
up on winning the popular vote but think they have a shot at the electoral
votes.

Stan Knight
|"Sometimes I sits and thinks, other times I just sits."|
|             --Off a wall poster--			|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4581 alt.politics.clinton:4693 alt.politics.elections:12742
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:49:52 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

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

> In article <0FPuqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >
> >Besides, Bush is spending so much time bashing Hillary that his campaign
> >for First Lady wouldn't be complete without a face-to-face showdown.
>
> Ah, is that why he didn't accept Bill's offer to debate?  He's waiting
> for Hillary to offer!
>
>
>
> --
> "I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
> "You can . . . just kidding."
>                       -- _Bob Roberts_

I think GHWB wants to, since the last time he 'kicked ass' was against a woman.
Hillary does look like she could be quite the pit bull in a debate if turned
loose, however.  I don't think the Baker Boyz would approve.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Cuomo
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:58:07 GMT

Richard Mulac writes
> Richard Mulac writes
>>> By apologizing to Cuomo he's damned himself as either a false accuser or as
>>>someone who doesn't have the courage to stand up and say he's done no wrong.

sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
> >  No, he's identified himself as an individual who, being prone to human  
> >screw-ups, is willing to take personal responsibility for his actions.  
> 
>  What actions?  My response was to a previous poster who stated Clinton did
> nothing wrong.  I responded that if he did nothing wrong, why did he
> apologize.  I think by your statement that I agree with you - Clinton
> screwed up by talking about Cuomo behind his back and apologized for it.

  Exactly.  But in your original post, you seemed to say that Clinton would  
have maintained a better face by not apologizing.  If he hadn't, IMHO, he would  
have been no better than Bush in this respect.  Bush, like his predecessor,  
just can't resist taking credit for the sunshine while shirking blame for the  
rain.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:46:56 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>dry-humping (with one's clothes on)

Why do they call it "dry-humping"?  My husband and I tried it and 
it wasn't dry at all!  Actually, somewhat soggy! 

(sorry!  I couldn't resist!)				--  M.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 01:40:46 GMT

Anyone remember what Ross Perot's deficit plan was?  It was publicized right
after he decided not to run; seems like it called for big spending cuts in
all programs.  I remember thinking it sounded uncharacteristically realistic.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:57:44 GMT

keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:

>Damn, I'm pissed.  I can't think of all of them.  You see, whenever congress
>passes a major national piece of legislation, they always tend to exempt
>themselves. 

By exempting themselves, its not illegal for them to "break" the law. Therefore,
they are not acting "above the law".

That still doesn't make their actions correct, though.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4917 talk.politics.misc:45143 alt.politics.clinton:5161
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:56:56 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep13.054606.20803@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
]In <NEERI.92Sep11165255@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher):
]>In <BuD7sq.K08@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
]
]>>  Fans of Clinton/Gore high-taxes/government-investment/government-mandated
]>>  worker-retraining/national-health-insurance would learn something by 
]>>  looking at western Europe:  The average EC unemployment rate is currently
]>>  9.5%.  At it's recent *low* in the 80's it got down to 8.3%!   In the 
]>>  US, in what is one of the worst recessions in recent history it's "only" 
]>>  7.8%.  (source: Business Week, current issue)  
]
]>Not all of Western Europe is high-taxes/government-investment
]>government-mandated-worker-retraining/national-health-insurance. And Sweden,
]>the country which probably fits these criteria best, had unemployment between
]>1.4% and 2.8% through 1985-1990.

Well, in that case why did Sweden vote out the socialists? Why has Sweden
had to increase its interest rates to 75% (last week)?

]Not that I want to disagree with your point, Matthias, but I think I
>should point out the problem with comparing unemployment rates in
>different countries; that is, that each country calculates unemployment
>rates differently.
Not all that differently.

]Further, this "high taxes" comment is unsupportable.  Even calling
]Clinton/Gore policies "higher tax" would be weak, given that they have
]proposed higher taxes on those making over $200k, lower taxes on others.

No, what they have proposed are additional programs that will cost at
least $150 billion per year. Now, that means they are either proposing
vastly higher taxes, or a significant increase in the budget deficit,
or are imagining that the economy will grow VERY fast.  Furthermore,
many prominent democrats (Clinton's allies) have publicly stated
that our tax rates are too low and should be raised. Finally, Clinton's
proposed tax increase on those making over $200k will make so little
money that it is clearly a gimmick. Finally, from an economic point
of view, increased regulation of business is equivalent to an increase
in taxes (minus the benefit of reducing the deficit), and the Gore
style environmentalism (no disclaimed by Clinton) would entail
a massive increase in environmental regulation - starting with a
50 cent gas tax (which is, obviously, a tax increase).

-- 
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! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4819 talk.politics.misc:45000 alt.politics.elections:12917 misc.legal:17099 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5290
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Reagan Admin. agrees with Hillary (was: Whatever happened to ...)
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:20:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

>EMIL CHUCK (eyc@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
>: 
>		<stuff deleted>
>
>: The quote in question is the following:
>: 
>: " The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency
>: relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving
>: of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social 
>: institutions specifically designed to safegaurd their positions. Along
>: with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include
>: marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."
>: 
>: A family is an institution that DEPRIVES children of RIGHTS?

Not to encumber the debate on Hillary's legal theories with facts or
anything, but a letter from today's NYTimes makes a point that will
give the Hillary-bashers cause for deeper concern.

"When [minor] Walter Polovchak's Soviet emigre parents sought to
return to the Soviet Union in 1980, he refused and was granted asylum.
When they sought police help to take him back to the Soviet Union, the
Illinois courts deprived the parents of custody.

"On appeal, the Reagan-Bush Justice Department filed an amicus brief
supporting Walter Polovchak's right to seek asylum, though he was a
minor."  [The decision is reported at 774 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1985).]


I guess this desire to let children assert independent positions in
intrafamily disputes makes Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese ultra-liberal
castrating feminist scholars too.  Right?

-- 
	     Every time you think, you weaken the nation.
				- attributed to Moe Howard

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd)
Subject: Re: Bush, Owls and Trees
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:33:30 GMT

arild@milan.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik) writes:

>George Bush is now going to veto any extension of the law that protects the
>spotted owl (i.e. preventing timbering in areas with this endangered
>species). This to save jobs in the timber industry. George: "It's time we put
>PEOPLE ahead of OWLS!"

>This is the first time I've been thinking that Bush actually may loose this
>election. 

>How much of a difference will this really make for the economic situation?
>And does it mean that it is now OK to hunt whales again, to save a few
>Norwegians jobs?
>A. Hestvik


I don't have enough expletives to lay on that bastard (GHWB)!  He *would* fuck
up the Endangered Species Act for political gain.

Funny thing is, his speech yesterday wasn't aimed at the PNW.  The Repubicoids
have already conceeded most of the west coast.  His remarks were a cynical
gesture to the blue-collar voters in Michigan and Ohio -- the swing states
that will make or break him.  

Timber jobs make up about 2% of our economy...

All the more reason not to vote for the liar.

Lauren

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:37:36 GMT


Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!

:-(

I've been looking forward to that for four years now.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5278 alt.politics.clinton:5608 talk.politics.misc:45680
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:04:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Sep14.184810.10827@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Try taking a look at Gore's statement to that the automobile poses
>a greater threat than the nuke.  

	A lot more people have died from car accidents than from
nuclear power plant accidents. One has to give the nuclear industry,
whatever else may be said about it, credit for that.

>Ever wonder what your life would be like with a 50% federal income 
>tax (for $20k and over, not $200k).

	If one got that much extra in services, then would one
complain?

	One thing I don't like about too many of those who object to
taxes a lot is that they seem to want a lot of government services
without having to pay for them. At least Libertarians are consistent
enough to be willing to imagine a government-less world, however
impractical the Libertopian vision might be. Conservatives _love_
government when it is such things as the military and law enforcement
and roads and airports and Social Security.

>Ever wonder what your life would be like if they banned the sales
>of gasoline?

	I don't drive a car, so I'm safe :-)

	Seriously, where did you get this charge? Is this the John
Birch Society's latest big cause? I know they've taken up the
environment now that their favorite villain has shut itself down
without even offering them the glory of marching into Moscow and
raising the Stars and Stripes above the Kremlin.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:18:33 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: For those who missed it ...

In article <5246@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
>
>George Bush took out five minutes in prime time (11:00PM ET) to say he
>has (finally) published as one volume his Agenda for Renewing America.

Before his speech in Detroit and these spots (some ran earlier), the Bush
campaign said that the specifics of his plan would not be released until
after the election.

Republican cynicism knows no bounds.

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office               "If you have a plan, where has it been
Penn State University             for the last three and a half years...."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Bush to Jimmy Carter, 1979 (parapharsed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:26:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.194744.21618@news.media.mit.edu> elwin@uxbridge.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.191656.26216@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>|> In article <27672@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>|> >   Where is the "education president?"  Is he the same guy whose
>|> >justice department is fighting MIT when MIT and the Ivy Leagues try
>|> >to offer "needs-blind" admissions?  Doesn't this seem like a stretch
>|> >of the anti-trust laws?  Professional baseball was granted exemptions
>|> >from anti-trust laws; why not MIT?
>|> 
>|> Professional baseball's exemption is STATUTORY.  Anyone who thinks
>|> that MIT deserves too can support a law to give it one.
>|> 
>|> The MIT case had nothing to do with need-blind admission, it was over
>|> price-fixing so that MIT wouldn't "bid" more for a student than any
>|> other school.  Sure, MIT would like to pay as little as it can, but
>|> students being bid for are hurt by that practice.  MIT thinks that it
>|> shouldn't have to compete on price and the law disagrees.
>|> 
>|> Note that other schools figured out that they didn't have a case, that
>|> they were breaking the law.  MIT disagreed, and was wrong.
>
>Actually, I believe the new Higher Education Act explicitly gives schools
>the right to do what MIT and the Ivy's have been doing. So the case is moot.
>Is this the statutory exemption you were asking for?

If that's what it does, it's a statutory exemption to a law that MIT
thought didn't apply to it, to a law that Campbell thinks that
shouldn't be enforced on schools.  If Bush signed it, it's tough to
argue that he disagreed with the idea that maybe certain practices
shouldn't be against the law, but until Congress went along ....

Note that Campbell's complaint was that Bush wouldn't look the other
way when MIT broke the law and wouldn't stop doing so.  Ooh, how evil.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:17:02 GMT

In <BuDrBI.J3x@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> lstewart@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (L. Stewart -- IS Office 1058) writes:

>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.

Yeah, I'd heard about that...I'm surprised it isn't more of an issue
in the current campaign.

Must be that liberal media again!

<grin? What grin?>

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 19:48:53 GMT



Apologies for splattering this all over the net, but I have no idea
which group this originated in.  Followups to talk.politics.guns.



In article <farenebt.716582810@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>
>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).

Compromise implies getting something in return for giving something.
So far, law-abiding firearms enthusiasts have been giving up more and
more freedoms due to nonsensical laws and receiving _nothing_ in return.
I, for one, would love to see some "compromise".  How about a National
Concealed Carry Permit in return for Federal background checks?  Is that
compromise satisfactory to you?

>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.

Who says we don't?  I agree the status quo is unacceptable: legislators
are making it increasingly more difficult for me to enjoy my hobbies as
well as provide for the defense of myself and loved ones while criminals
are being protected and coddled to the point that, should one even be sent
to prison, he lives in (generally) better condition than the average
inner-city dweller with a warm bed, excerise equipment, color TV, and
plentiful food.  Yes, Brian, the status quo needs to change.

>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). 

Show me one single NRA publication stating that they believe in no
gun control whatsoever.

>We must find a compromise now!

Agreed.  Give gun owners something in return for all you're taking.

>BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."

John Kapson    NRA
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5008 talk.politics.misc:45279 alt.politics.clinton:5280
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:17:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep13.054606.20803@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>Further, this "high taxes" comment is unsupportable.  Even calling
>Clinton/Gore policies "higher tax" would be weak, given that they have
>proposed higher taxes on those making over $200k, lower taxes on others.

If the sum result of all of the Clinton/Gore tax changes result in more
taxes being collected, then by my definition Clinton/Gore support higher
taxes.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4582 alt.politics.clinton:4694 alt.politics.elections:12743