HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: absentee ballots in UK...
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Distribution: UK
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:15:41 GMT

Hi all,

If you wish to apply for an absentee ballot form for the upcoming federal
election in the UK (US citizens only, of course!   ;->  ), here's how:

Contact:

        American Citizen Services,
        U.S. Embassy,
        24 Grosvenor Square,
        London W1A 2LQ

or phone:
        (071) 499 9000, and ask for American Citizen Services.

All you need do is give them an address to send the application form to.
You fill it in and fire it off to the appropriate state election board
(details on the info sheet sent with the form). You need to send the
application NO LATER than 30 days before the election - 4th October - to
be sure of getting and returning your ballot in time to count.

Don't waste that vote!

Chris Williams
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2549 alt.politics.elections:11324
From: michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:31:03 GMT
	<1992Aug19.224946.12105@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Aug22.021353.5374@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<2q+n68=.feustel@netcom.com>
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: feustel@netcom.com's message of 22 Aug 92 13:47:05 GMT

Please notice how alt.fan.dan-quayle has been removed from the list...
In article <2q+n68=.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
   =andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

  =>Because single-parent families are poor.  Did Bush chase away the
  =>other parent?  (Govt does go after parents that don't pay child
  =>support.)

  =Government employees are protected by law from having their wages
  =garnisheed to pay court-ordered child support.
   
I'm sorry- I assume you mean only employees of the federal gov't;
otherwise, I can tell you that you're wrong.
(unless police departments are not considered part of gov't,
which is relevant to the case with which I'm familiar.)
My father, who was a police officer in N.Y.C., rather easily
had his paycheck garnished in order to provide child support.

As for chasing down child support evaders, I thought that
became the baliwick of the feds once the evader has crossed
state lines, not before.

And now, a plea: if a thread drifts from the humorous
implications of Danoe and the Funkmaster George,
let's do our best to get it off of alt.fan.dan-quayle.

=-- 
  =Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
  =---
  =Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
  =Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.
How true.

  =The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
  =full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
  =gonnabees.
How very true.

Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2238 alt.politics.marrou:850 talk.politics.misc:40797 alt.politics.elections:11037 talk.politics.theory:3750
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:58:57 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <19469@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> In article <exukjb.84.714089276@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
|> } ... the unchallenged assumption at work here is 'funded by public monies'; 
|> } accept it, and it is correct.
|> 
|> It is the "public monies" part that gets me.  That money is not public;
|> it is private money that government took by force.
|> --
Wrong.  The unchallenged assumption is that there is a public responsibility
to provide everyone with an education.  We are talking about the best way
to care that responsibility out.

If you believe there is no public responsibility to see that everyone gets
an education, please let us know.  That is a different discussion.

If you accept such a public responsibility, then the money collected is 
collected with "public" approval.  I have not even seen a bill that suggested
discontinuing public schools, discontinuing public funding of education, etc.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2071 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4609 alt.rush-limbaugh:3718
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pat Buchanan and the decadence of the republican party
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:22:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <+20m38g.michel@netcom.com> michel@netcom.com (Steve Michel) writes:
It's amusing to hear talk about "the fall of communism." To listen to these 
Republicans, you would forget that a quarter of the population of the earth
lives in a communist country. I guess they want to forget that because the 
Chinese tyrants are buddies of George Bush...

I say:
One-fifth of the earth's estimated 5 bil live in a communist country (PR
of China). I don't think the remaining 1/20th live in Cuba, nor was it
what you intended. But I wonder what you'd like for us to do to China to
coerce them into changing themselves from a Communist to a free-market
economy/government. Should we have invaded China after Tiannemann
Square? What if any sanctions we have encouraged China to send more
missiles to Iraq? How long until we capitulate that closing a 1 billion
person market to American business is going to hurt our economy? Just
wondering.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Congress "above" the law?  (Was: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.003541.10223@utdallas.edu> karches@utdallas.edu (Tom Karches) writes:
>
>P.S. Is it just me, or are the Re: subjects becoming totally meaningless?
>Both the Bush and the Clinton alt groups are getting totally unwieldy.

No, it's not just you.  They are nearly meaningless.  Both groups ARE
getting unwieldy.  In the 24 hours I was off there were 210 postings to
this group.  I might just have to hit "u" soon.

Tim


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:36:20 GMT

In article <BszKvB.9z7@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.143930.16354@encore.com>, rcollins@encore.com writes...
>>v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>>|> Oops, wrong choice of phrasing...  Even so, given that the president favors 
>>|> the Death Penalty for first-degree murder, you'd think that consistency would
>>|> demand the same for his granddaughter.  Unless, of course, he doesn't believe
>>|> that abortion *is* murder...
>
>>This is getting ridiculous.  So now pro-lifers are hypocrites unless they
>>want their children executed if she had an abortion.
>
>It's really not that difficult to understand.  According to a pro-death penalty
>pro-lifer:
>
>1. Abortion is murder, therefore 
>2. Those who have abortions are murderers
>3. Murderers should be put to death
>
>The only logical conclusion would be that
>
>3. Those who have abortions should be put to death.  
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Why is that ridiculous?  It is plainly hypocritical, unless he doesn't truly 
>believe that abortion is murder.  
>
>Look, I agree that Bush may have been showing some natural parental caring for
>his descendents.  What I find fascinating is that he seems unwilling to do the
>same for women outside of his family.  

I'm really interested to see a copy of the article where Bush insists
that all women who have abortions be put to death.  That's the one
consistent thread you folks have been harping on.  Oh yeah, I forgot
where Bush's granddaughter has been transmogrified into Adolph Hitler
because he supports and loves her.  So, if you have a verifiable
statement where Bush advocates mandatory death sentences for women who
get abortions, state it.  Otherwise, don't insult our intelligence with
this prattle.

>
>******************************************************************************
>Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
>v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
>UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Actually, this could explain a lot
    of things.

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:39:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> The situation we have today is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-
> demand.

This is not true.  The situation we have today is that there are *no*
third-trimester abortions performed in this country for other than serious
medical reasons.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2070 alt.politics.elections:10886 alt.rush-limbaugh:3717 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4608
From: rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Date: 19 Aug 1992 20:45:12 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug20.030810.13510@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>When did Marilyn Q become more attractive to the public at large than
>Hillary C?  Dear Lord in Heaven, Marilyn is the most humorless, angry,
>power-hungry, ambitious religious-rightist campaign wife you could come up
>with.  She makes my skin crawl.  She makes the hair stand up on the back of
>my head.  She makes me shake things at my television set and shout nasty
>things at it.  She has the emotional depth of a manequin, and the
>sensitivity of a cobra.  She is not nice or fun people.

She's ugly, too.  At least Hillary is one hot mama.

I think Danforth had beergoggles.  But that's just a theory.


5150
hopefully chelsea will be as cute as her mom
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1998 alt.politics.elections:10824 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2608
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <19768@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>Most polls show 70-80% support the "restrictions"
>in the Pennsylvania law.  The overwhelming majority of the American people
>oppose abortion for purposes of sex selection, convienence, economic hardship,
>etc.  They find nothing wrong with a 24 hour waiting period, or parental
>NOTIFICATION (notice the wording, not parental CONSENT, but NOTIFICATION).
>Abortion on demand is just that, all gloves off, abortion for ANY reason.
>The idea that a child would be aborted just because it was the wrong sex
>smacks of Nazi Germany and in particuliar, Communist China.  It's sick.

In regards to the restrictions, perhaps most Americans have not
carefully considered the effects of, say, a 24-hour waiting period.
For the well-off, this is no great hardship: they most likely live
near an abortion clinic, or can get there easily.  They probably can
take a day off very easily.  For poor, rural women, the 24-hour wait
is an undue burden.  Most likely, she earns hourly wages.  How much
does she lose if she has to take a day off because of the waiting
period?  Further, she most likely has to schlepp across the state to
get to a clinic.  In each of the Dakotas, there is ONE abortion clinc.
Not only does she have to travel for hours, paying bus fare back and
forth and forgoing wages, she'll be forced to stay at this clinic at
least over night.  Isn't this an undue burden?  More subtley, the
waiting period is patronizing.  It assumes that the woman in question
has not considered her situation at all, assumes that she looked at
the home pregnancy test, and boom, she's at the clinic the same
afternoon.  Is this truly what happens?


--
But this is.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Abortion again / was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:52:14 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.112948.1@cc.helsinki.fi> leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:

>>Liberal, leftist (at least in the American context), pro-choice, and
>>damn proud of it, I remain,

>Ah yes, part of a dying breed.

The thought of pointing out that pigheaded, conservative anti-choicers might
make up "part of a breeding death" came to mind.

But I'm much too nice to say anything like that.

Aren't I?

Tim Lynch 
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt - through laws 
and through the courts - to tell us what God to believe in, and how 
to apply that God's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and
our bodies. "
			-- Gov. Mario Cuomo, 7/15/92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2489 tx.politics:4342
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:37:27 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

> Yes. I too don't like them. I would not Barbara Bush as my grandmother,
> mother, wife, friend or anthing else. Double that for Marily Quayle.
> 
> On the contrary, I would be very pleased to be related to Hillary Clinton
> in any way.
> 
 To me, it's sad to think that you would a dislike for someone 
based only on their public political views alone. I have many 
friends (and relatives) who I disagree with politically. Have you 
ever actually met any of these women, in person? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2408 alt.politics.elections:11196
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:44:39 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
 <92234.111459MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <1684ABC11.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>


In article <1684ABC11.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
(Michael Edelman) says:
>
>Last night's speech sais what a lot of us were waiting to here: I was wrong,
>I made a mistake when I signed the "compromise" tax increase. Congress then
>turned around and spent even more (50% increase in 3 years), the debt grew,
>and so forth.
>
The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
a Republican Senate.

Jeff Luck                                      Standard Disclaimer
CES Systems Office                   "None of us really understands what's
Penn State University                 going on with these numbers."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                      -David Stockman, Reagan's OMB Dir.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 23:32:13 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug16.221031.5752@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <BD.92Aug15103702@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>Am I the only person to notice that "Senator William Clinton" is an anagram
>>>of "Win mental clitoris loan"?
>>
>>Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?
>
>The junior senator from the state "between Texas and Oklahoma."  What, you
>haven't been keeping up with the news?
>

Now I see the humor in this thread.  There are idiots on the net that
don't know the difference between a SENATOR and a GOVENOR.  I think the
confusion is due to Clinton's and Quayle's looking slightly alike and due
to their both being from fairly unimportant states (i.e. Arkansas and Indi-
ana).

Or could both these posters be Quayle in disguise? (ASIDE:  I never knew
that he could hook his GameBoy into the Usenet system.  Must be the powers
of the Veep.)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug7.182147.27623@anasazi.com> <24712@castle.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Aug16.135913.27105@anasazi.com> <24922@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:09:45 GMT

<In article <24922@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:

<   The thing is that christianity has shown a penchant for this sort of
<   thing. Apart from the inquisition I'm thinking of:

<   The Crusades.
<   The Genocide of the Incas.
<   The murder of complete villages in Europe who were accused of "Heresy"
<   (ref: Simon De Montfort, The Albigensians, The Gnostics, various others...)
<   The European Witch-trials (one third of the female population killed in
<   some areas).

<   So this "aberration" seems to be a regular feature of christianity.
<   It's a reasonable question to ask whether a penchant for mass-murder
<   could be expected from a creed whose god is also depicted as having
<   a very strong genocidal and murderous streak.

	I note that all of those events occurred rather a while back.

	However, let's continue in this direction: socialism, as
	religion, has killed more than all previous religious
	crusades.

	* The 1920's purges of "kulaks" in the USSR
	* The 1930's purge of the Communist Party of the USSR
	* The 1930's purge of Communists by the NSDAP in Germany
	* The 1930's purge of the Army in the USSR
	* War in Europe from 1939 to 1945, instigated by Socialists,
	  continued by Socialists.
	* The killing in Cambodia

	And so forth and so on. Now, it will be argued that
	"those actions weren't carried on by REAL socialists"....
	but that's the same argument as "the crusades weren't
	carried on by REAL christians".
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2450 alt.politics.elections:11225 alt.politics.clinton:2539
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:09:06 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

> Hint: to the extent that the second part of the plan depends on the
> first part, it is silly to propose the second part until AFTER the
> first part has been done.  In other words, if Congress rejects the
> plan in 1990, it doesn't do any good to submit the budget for the
> plan's second year in 1991.  Bush has to rework the year 1 plan and
> submit it.  And so on.
>
> It is unreasonable to say "well, he had a plan that we didn't follow,
> and that didn't work, so therefore, his new plan won't work either."
> We don't know if the first plan would have worked; we didn't follow
> it.
>

So, because his original 'plan' is now inoperative, that means he is now under
no obligation to try again?  That means that the Bush administration is just as
guilty as the Congress on the deficit issue.  It is not unreasonable to say
that a President with some amount of moral courage would stick to his
principles and rework the year 1 plan.  He hasn't done that.

The bottom line is that Rubbers is a good campaigner and a lousy President.



|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1873 alt.politics.marrou:805 talk.politics.misc:40195 alt.politics.elections:10712 talk.politics.theory:3695
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:39:08 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> In article <MICHAEL.92Aug16223939@paul.bu.edu> 
> michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin) writes:
> 
> >elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> 
> >>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.
> 
> > Let's face it- all that happened was that we went from stupid
> > tax-and-spend policies to even more stupid borrow-and-spend
> > policies. Myself, I find it rather hard to put the entire blame
> > on Congress when the President himself hasn't bothered to even
> > SUBMIT a balanced budget for 1993. 
> 
> President Bush has submitted balanced budgets PLANS, but they've been
> rejected by Congress.  It's going to take more than a year to get
> the budget balanced. 
> 
> Bush supports the balanced budget amendment, Clinton does not.  And a 
> whole bunch of Democrats in the House don't support the amendment either. 
> 
> We need a President that will rein in the spending habits of Congress,
> not one that will rubberstamp every spending bill that crosses his desk.  
> 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bush has not submitted a single balanced 
budget.  Every one he has sent to the Hill has been as far out of balance as 
what has actually been passed.  The argument has not been over whether or 
not to balance the budget, but what the borrowed money will be spent on.


|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.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory