HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 11:24:30 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.204545.28084@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com
> >Apparently the Bush property is also subject to a 'covenant' that makes
> >it illegal for Bush to sell of give the property to a member of a racial
> >minority. Source: NYT, week of 8/24, Schanberg column.
> >
> >Cute, huh?
>
> "Cute" is an apt term for the quality of the NYT's coverage.  The NYT
> knows that such covenants are not legally enforceable.  Moreover,
> neither the seller nor the buyer can remove them and they're quite
> common.  Given that such covenants are legally meaningless albeit
> indelible evidence that the property was once owned by a racist, what
> does bringing them up tell you?
>
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

If it's obvious that a covenant cannot be enforced because it's illegal, then
why is it unremovable?  It doesn't seem to be too difficult to remove language
from the current act of sale that would remove the racist elements of the deed
or title.



|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|
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:49:57 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <JASON.92Aug31132748@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.221319.2770@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:

In ref to C Thomas
> 
> 	How about a few examples of what he's done that you're all in
> a huff about.  I can guarantee you that he will never make a law on
> the Supreme Court,


Actually, no-one has ever made a law on the Supreme Court.  However, they do
make decisions that hold weight as precedent.  This principle is a large reason
why Roe v Wade was not over-turned this summer.  Bush was rather peeved that
the court did not follow an activist course in this matter



 and his decisions to date have reflected a
> conservative ideal which is why Bush appointed him.  
> -- 


(except in things like rejecting school prayer, abortion, etc)

Why should a judge follow ANY conservative or liberal or whatever ideal?  That
is precisely the kind of activisim that Republicans generally complain about
when they mention the Warren Court.

The biggest issue here, though, is that Thomas is almost singularly unqualified
for the post.  Now, Bork is a different story (as would be Tribe, or such
non-lawyers as Rawls, Quine, Chomsky, Bloom, etc).  


> Jason C.Austin 
> j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
> 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3287 talk.politics.misc:42529 alt.politics.clinton:3333 alt.politics.elections:11822
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
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 14:07:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

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.
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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:08:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug28.203730.5166@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>  unwed motherhood.   What is your plan?   What *specifically* do you
>>  think ought to be done?   I don't want any hand-waving "we all have
>>  to change our attitudes and raise our children better" -- that's
>>  an empty platitude.   What are you proposing we do TODAY about
>>  14 and 15 year old kids who are having sex and producing babies?          
>>  If you were emperor what specific steps would you take?
>
>Of course, I can't speak for what is going on in other churches.  In my
>church, we have a sex education class for kids as young as the 4th
>grade.  They are taught that sex is an essential, beautiful part of
>life, and that is is meant to be enjoyed by married couples, and that
>there are consequenses of sex outside this context.  No one screams at
>them, or tells them that sex is dirty, but sex is presented in a
>Christian context. 

 You didn't answer the question!  Not everybody is a member of your
 church.  So to repeat:   What are you proposing we do TODAY about
 14 and 15 year old kids who are having sex and producing babies?          
 If you were emperor what specific steps would you take?

 The anti-condom, anti-sex-ed crowd keeps making the pointless
 statements: "In *my* family . . . ";  "In *my* church . . . ".
 We're not talking about *your* family or *your* church -- we're
 talking about all those millions of kids out there who don't HAVE
 families or other sources or moral guidance, and who are busily 
 having sex and making babies and getting STD's.   What are you
 proposing we do about that?   

                              

---peter


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: The Republican Party...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:52:45 GMT


is planning to rename itself Hezbollah, so they they can have not
just the word God in their platform but in their very name.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
bhansen@oread.cc.ukans.edu
From: reb@cssn06.ssc.gov (Bob Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Put some spin on this...
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:36:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX

In article <5147@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:


>   Well it seems someone is better off under Reagan/Bush.  This is from the
>   August 31 issue of Time.
>
>   % of black families in the U.S. with incomes
>   over $50,000
>
>   1970:  9.9%
>   1980: 10.9%
>   1985: 12.3%
>   1990: 14.5%
>
>
>   Yep must be tough!
>
>   PSG 

As a good republican you no doubt have heard of the term "indexing".
Has anybody bothered to correct these numbers for inflation?  (Note
that the correction is not a simple one because the distribution of 
individual incomes no doubt rises steeply as the income goes down.)

                                              Bob B.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:58:57 GMT

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.

Pardon my sarcasm...

>
>Certainly I did not espouse a complete set of ethics in the two points above;
>nevertheless they can cover such an obvious attack.
>
>                                         James Parker
>                                         jap@cb1focus.att.com
From: kml@cellar.org (John Galt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Jeff Kemp?
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:23:19 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

> 
> Anyone know who Jeff Kemp is?  If so, is he still active, and if he
> is, then where?


Jeff Kemp, son of Jack, was just cut by the Philadephia Eagles.  Soon his
dad will join him on the sidelines.



       As a matter of fact, no, I don't have a life.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: gohnert@civil1.civ.wits.ac.za (Mitchell Gohnert)
Subject: NEW WORLD ORDER?
Organization: Wits U Civil Engineering (Novell Users).
Distribution: WORLD
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:52:01 GMT

President Bush is constantly referring to a "new world order."  What is
this man talking about?  I can't find any literature on the subject and 
no one seems to know what is the basis of this new world order. Is 
Bush refering to the UN as the world's new controlling body?  I don't know!  
Can any one help?





Mitchell Gohnert
Dept. of Civil Engineering
University of the Witwatersrand
 ___________________ _____________________________________
| Private Bag 3     | Phone : (011) 716-2659              |
| P O Wits          | Fax   : (011) 339-1762              |
| 2050 South Africa | E-MAIL: 003mitch@witsvma.wits.ac.za |
|___________________|_____________________________________|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3300 talk.politics.misc:42549 alt.politics.clinton:3344 alt.politics.elections:11838
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
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: 28 Aug 92 15:37:44 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>>  If you know some reliable way to prevent
>>   young people from having sex **PLEASE** post it to the net!

Spay and neuter.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3789 talk.politics.misc:43223 alt.politics.clinton:3764 alt.politics.elections:12169
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
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: 2 Sep 92 00:02:22 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <mjenkins.715352882@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
|> In <1992Sep1.120454.4688@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> 
|> >At least two people in this debate have asked for a definition of promiscuity. 
|> 
|> >Well?  We're still waiting....
|> 
|> >Or is it not as black and white as you first thought?
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >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
|> 
|> PROMISCUOUS, adj. 1. indiscriminate. 2. having sexual relations with
|> many people.
|> 
|> Nah, that was easy.

But wrong.  Websters dictionary only defines it as "having more than one
sexual partner."  Websters electronic dictionary defines it as "not limited
to one sexual partner."  Neither definition even implies that the two or
more relations occur in the same time frame.  By Webster's definition,
if you have sexual intercourse before marriage with someone other than
your spouse, you are promiscuous.  So what.
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.205900.5872@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <Aug.26.07.39.21.1992.12991@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.220643.28500@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) should have written:
>>
>>> [Because I'm a Canadian.]
>>
>>Now shut up and mind your own business.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes, another reason why I cannot vote Democratic.
>

Huh?  Ted?  A reason?


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Woody allen and Family Values
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:04:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.235422.27900@adobe.com> uday@adobe.com (Uday Kurkure) writes:
>    Just curious:
>
>    Is Woody Allen a democrat or a republican?
>

Well, he lives on the Upper West Side...


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company
	<1992Aug26.225301.24877@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
	<17hesjINNgqc@agate.berkeley.edu> <94800@bu.edu>
	<PA146008.261.715017540@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:20:04 GMT

In article <PA146008.261.715017540@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
   In article <94800@bu.edu> grue@csa.bu.edu (Philip Libin) writes:

   >It seems that laws restricting the _legal_ sale of arms would have
   >QUITE an impact on the _illegal_ market.

	Perhaps they would affect *this* avenue.  However, I have yet to
   hear a good explanation why, when local sources dry up, South American
   drug smugglers won't just include a few guns in their shipments to
   sell on the streets.
	Restricting one avenue is useless if you can't cover them all.

Yea, that's right! And the same thing goes for illegal drugs!

The hipocracy of right-to-bear-arms types who are against drugs is
thus unmasked. At least the Libertarians are consistent!
--
: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: First Lady Barbara Bush:  Can she act at her own?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 11:55:04 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	Yesterday I was watching "Inside Politics" in CNN.  Mrs Bush was shown
first, cheering her husband after the acceptance speech. She was wearing a red
ribbon, the symbol for "solidarity with the  people with AIDS".  She was shown
again, walking to the podium to join her husband. Well, the red ribbon was not
there.  Anchorman Berny Shaw said that  they contacted the Office of the First
Lady and CNN received no response.  

	What is all about this?  Why red ribbon first?  Then?? Republicans had
a person with AIDS in their convention.  I don't see anything wrong in wearing
a ribbon.  I am wondering who makes the decisions for the first lady.


Vicky:
UMass,
Aug 26
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3566 alt.politics.clinton:3566
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Republicans are confusing me again...
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 10:39:43 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

> Edward J. Branley writes:
> >
> >As for Republican racial strategy, don't forget David Duke.  It is my strong
> >belief that George Herbert Walker Bush should offer Pat Buchanan his choice
> >jobs in a second administration (behind James Baker, of course).  For all of
> >the bashing that Buchanan gave Bush in the primaries, it was infinitely bett
> >than what the Democrats would be doing to him now had Duke been able to stic
> >it out.
>
> It has always been my belief that Buchanan was a rabbit to keep Duke out of
> the race. Nothing Buchanan said during the campaign or at the convention
> has made me change my mind. Duke got "finessed" out of his day in the sun.
> Which isn't all that bad, actually, but can one imagine how much more "lively
> the race would be, say, with this slate of candidates: Clinton, Perot, Bush,
> and Duke in the race until the end. Who would have won? Either Clinton or
> Perot, I'd think.
> --
> Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.

The Democrats would have been able to make a lot of hay out of Duke in the
race until the end.  I can't speak for other states, but racism has a habit of
really galvanizing blacks here in LA.  In '82, when Republican Rep. Henson
Moore ran against now-Senator John Breaux for the Senate, there were charges
that the GOP were preparing to conduct purges of voting rolls which would lead
to a mass exclusion of blacks from the rolls.  That sort of talk mobilized
black community groups and Moore got buried (he was Sam Skinner's #2 man, which
puts him in limbo at the moment...).

The same would have happened with Duke in the race.  It wouldn't matter that
Bush would have put him down long before the primaries were complete.  His mere
existence would have fired up the black community.  If that were to happen in
more states (say Illinois, Michigan, California), it would have spelled real
trouble for Bush.  Since blacks appear to be merely lukewarm in their support
of Clinton, this would have been a welcome boost for him.




|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,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:02:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.181800.14314@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Loren Petrich, you asked "How is Bush a tax dodger?"
>
>	Many of us in Texas think he's a tax dodget because he maintains
>an apartment (or hotel room, or the like) in Houston so that he can retain
>residency in Texas; we do not have a state income tax here.  We assume
>that there is a state income tax in Maine, because most states have them,
>and that is where his home really is.  Anyone know if Maine has a state
>income tax?  Anyway, that is why I think he could be a tax dodger.
>
>
>	Bye, Judy.  
>
>		PS:  Virtue is its own punishment.  (unknown source)

       I am from Houston myself as well, and I believe him to be a tax
dodger for the reasons stated above. And, YES, Maine DOES have a state
income tax, further adding to the assumption that he is a tax dodger.
Let's see, last year, Bush spent 3 days in the state of Texas. NOT 
3 days in Houston mind you, but 3 days in the WHOLE state of Texas. I 
don't know how many of those 3 days he spent in Houston, but it wasn't
all of them.
       Just a little addendum to show the wonderful things that Bush
has done for this country, I would like to also point out that The
Houstonian, where Bush stays when he is in town, filed for bankruptcy
not too long ago...
       Etc, part two...There was an article in Time a year or two ago,
illustrating the fact that after Bush had renigged on his "no new taxes"
pledge, he payed LESS taxes then he had the year before...I believe this
was his 1990 taxes, in comparison to his 1989 taxes...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh