HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Thu, 20 Aug 92 07:03:55 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> In article <16sjusINNdi9@agate.berkeley.edu>
> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> What about the 1990 budget summit agreement?  That contained provisions
> >> for balancing the budget in 5 years.
>
> > Did the Bush budget PROPOSALS for 1991 and 92 agree with these
> > provisions? NO.
>
> YES, the Bush budget did agree with the rules of the 1990 budget
> agreement.
>
> > BUSH HAS NEVER SUBMITTED A BALANCED BUDGET AND HE WILL
> > NEVER DO SO.
>
> As I said before, the Bush adminstration has submitted a PLAN to
> balance the budget by 1995.  It will take more than a year to
> eliminate the deficit, much less get it under control.

Care to explain why, in spite of this 'plan', _none_ of the actual budgets
submitted by Bush's OMB have been in balance, or why they don't even fit his
plan?  This argument of yours is a complete smoke screen.


>
> >> Most of the Republicans in the House and the Senate voted for the
> >> balanced budget amendment; most of them will be in office in 7 years.
>
> > So the BBA requires the PRESIDENT to submit a balanced budget.
>
> True, but the version of the balanced budget amendment that was rejected
> by the democratically-controlled House required the President and the
> Congress to agree on a balanced budget.
>

Well, why does the President need to be forced to submit a balanced budget?
Does he lack the moral courage to do it without a law?



|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.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: ajm@wag.caltech.edu (Abner J. Mintz)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:55:12 GMT

>> >Someone said that in his new commercials, Bush reminds them of
>> >Hannibal the Cannibal.
>
>> Obviously Bush wants to sweep the E-Lector-al college.
>
>Is that what George meant when he said that he wanted to invite all of his
>political opponents to the White House for dinner?

He used to want to kick some ass.  Now he wants to eat his opponents alive!

(Hmmm.  Is he going to threaten our enemies with canni-ballistic missiles?)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:58:33 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.bush, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>
>I know many people who describe themselves as 'pro-life'.  NONE of them would
>support crimial charges against a woman who had an abortion.  They want
>abortions to be illegal, they would punish doctors, they want to make it
>very difficult and dangerous to get an abortion but they don't consider
>abortion to be first degree murder.
>

Actually, this discussion is getting away from Herbert's position.
The point is that George is sitting down with his relative and
explaining/encouraging/loving her.  She says to him "I've decided
to murder her/him (that's how Herbert claims to see it)."  And
he is saying he supports her.

Making the doctor responsible and not the woman is like making
the ammunition manufacturer responsible, and not the trigger
man!  

If your going to make a "moral" stand, have the courage to
standup all the way.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2378 alt.politics.elections:11169
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:14:59 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review

Well, Bush's speech was... okay. It wasn't bad, it wasn't great, it was
okay. It started to crumble in a couple of places, though (I was reluctant
to watch the whole thing due to an ominous feeling that something awful
was going to happen -- he'd collapse on the podium, or something -- but I
did sit through it all.)

Thought A: He outspoke Bill Clinton!!! Bush's speech ran 59 minutes by my
watch, 6 minutes longer than Clinton's acceptance speech. I didn't think
it was POSSIBLE to outspeak Mr. Verbose himself! :-)

Thought B: The reason this speech wasn't as good as the one in '88: No
warm fuzzies (kinder, gentler nation, and so forth.) He spent most of the
time attacking Congress and/or Clinton and very little time on his own
(meager) accomplishments, and basically came over as a sort of whiny attack
dog. An attack poodle, maybe. Bush's '88 speech gave warm fuzzy reasons to
vote FOR him, and so did Clinton's '92 speech. This one didn't.

I predict a small bounce for Bush, but not enough, and if Clinton doesn't
pull a Ford during the debates, it's clear sailing all the way to November.

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:09:43 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug10.144616.18495@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (thin skin poster) writes:
>Yes, if one looks CLOSELY one can see that.  However, what you have
>done is attach a statement that I 'said' something and then included
>NOTHING that *I* actually said.  It is incredibly deceptive to anyone
>who DOESN'T happen to 'look closely'.
>
>If you don't want people bitching you out on the net about it, how
>about taking a little greater care in just what you attribute to who?
>My newsreader WARNS about doing this -- perhaps yours should?

How much more bandwidth are you going to waste on this drivel, eh?
If you don't want people to occasionally, by accident, misattributing
to you, why don't you just stop posting? I find myself misattributed
occasionally and do my best to hold my temper and not repost.

By the way, I think it a waste of net bandwidth to keep every attribution
line. What is wrong with:

In article <example> bozo@com writes:
>In article <anotherone> frod@nerd writes:
>>>argument A
>>argument B
>argument C
argument D

If it is needed to include A in order to make clear C in the context of
B, is it really necessary to expose everyone to an additional attribution
line? Most people can read indentation enough if they care who said what.

If you are sensitive to this sort of thing, you are going to find life
on the net very frustrating.

I'm going to bite my tongue and try to make this my last post
on the subject in this thread.
-- 
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
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.154352.21665@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>Well, this looks like a good place for the pro-abortionists to put their
>money where their mouth's are. Provide the woman transportation and
>a place to stay. Keep the abortion clinics open on weekends and close them
>on Monday's and Tuesdays instead. This is not an undue burden for such
>a serious decision as abortion.

I believe clinics tend to be open on the weekends (at least the ones
in NY are).  I'm not sure about transportation: I'm not an expert
on this topic.

Someone informed me by mail that I overlooked the situation of a woman
who has to explain to an unsympathetic and violent husband where she's
going for the weekend.  How do we take care of that?

In any case, while Bush was talking about family values, where is his
support for children?  Why is our infant mortality rate one of the
highest in the industrial world?  Why do so many children live in
poverty?  And so on.  If Bush says he cares about children, he should
at least act like it.

--
But this is.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2111 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2649 misc.test:9814 alt.politics.clinton:2229
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,misc.test,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Content-free Discourse (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:39:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92232.103933JFL4
 <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu> <1992Aug16.234314.13656@athena.mit.edu>
 <1992Aug19.025735.26402@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Aug19.025735.26402@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug16.234314.13656@athena.mit.edu>
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) 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.
>
>> Why do people make such statements?
>
>I'm sorry my statement does not meet with your approval, your Highness.
>
It's got nothing to do w/ approval and everything to do with fact.  The
national debt went through the roof during a Republican administration
and a Republican senate (not a "Democratically-controlled Congress").
I can't help but notice the emphasis on "spending" - I can only assume
that what you are saying is that Republicans won't spend as much, but
history says they won't pay for it either - they'll let *me* pay for
it long after they're DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!

If you need *real* information on how we got here, read David Stockman's
book.  Stockman, you might remember, was Reagan's first Director of the
OMB.  He, and wonderboy Jack Kemp, formulated the policies that have
made the United States the greatest debtor nation in the world (by far!).
His book explains all - and it's not very flattering.

Jeff Luck
CES Systems Office                        Standard Disclaimer
Penn State University                     Stamdard Disclaimer
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                        Standard Disclaimer
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1781 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2536 alt.politics.clinton:2043
From: rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Content-free Discourse (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 16 Aug 1992 18:01:11 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <y08m!2c.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Well one case that quickly comes to mind is:
>
>	If a person believes the Earth is flat, then their thought
> 		process is flawed.
>
>A religious statement? Perhaps. Most people believe it to be true.

Most people BELIEVED it in 1500.  Perhaps you and Dano should return to the
20th century.

5150
then again, maybe not.

PS: college logic professors would have fits upon reading you .sig
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2196 alt.politics.elections:10993 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2702
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:08:10 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

Hey, I'll start another topic that is definitely about the Q people.

But first, a moment of mourning for the Quayle's poor daughter, who had to
go to high school after her mom and dad sounded off about what would happen
if she got pg.  Could you imagine having an adolescence like this???

So, now that that's out of the way, I will ask the question that burns into
my brain:

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.

(And this posting is by a Republican precinct committeewoman!--but of the
pre-religious right school.)

Another question:

Why does this party think it can "feed on my kind" and get my vote?  They
come into the election with the baggage of Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill;
the abortion plank; their resistence to civil rights legislation (until the
post-Hill era) for improved remedies for sex harassment and discrimination;
and now they think that they can run an attack on Hillary that plays to
peoples' underlying hostility to strong, successful--uppity--women and get
the votes of people who support the equality of women?????

EAT LEAD AND DIE SUCKERS!!!!

(This posting is by an _uppity_ Republican woman who has seen this kind of
crapola operate in her life too many times not to recognize it when it is
done to Hillary.)

*SNARL*  *SNARL*  *SPIT*  *SPIT*

"We will vote for a gerbil if necessary to get rid of George Bush and Dan
 Quayle."  Ms. Magazine.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2038 alt.politics.elections:10857 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2621
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:15:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <sysmatt.714125615@aix3090b.uky.edu> sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes:
>Those of you who are old enough may remember that George Herbert Walker Bush
>used to be pro-choice, about 12 years ago. He did a 180-degree flip-flop so
>that he could be Ronnie's VP. 

I can't believe that anyone could make such a comment. If you pro-Clintonities
are going to start resorting to fact and reality then you'll all have to go
into the universal "truth kill file" so that Bush people won't be subjected to
the "past as it really was"!:-)

Fact is GHWB served in a high-up post(Bd. of Directors?)at the National HQ of 
Planned Parenthood. You know those guys---the baby killers straight from HELL
that have caused all the problems of modern society. This is a fact that not
a single pro-Busher has cared to post while they jump on Clinton for changing 
his views on this subject. 


Stan Knight
____________________
"I plum forgot."   |
  -R. Reagan-      |
--------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1942 alt.politics.elections:10771 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2585
From: DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:26:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug18.090715.12956@nntp.uoregon.edu>
eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>
>crap about abortion deleted

What is this bullshit abortion thread doing on alt.fan.dan-quayle?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1432 alt.politics.clinton:1848 alt.politics.perot:1259 talk.politics.misc:39436
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:22:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
:  andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
:>I watched the interview.  Bush said only that if one of his relatives
:>exercised a legal choice, he wouldn't abandon them afterwards.  He said
:>nothing suggesting that he'd approve of that choice or support it.
:
:Being pro-choice doesn't mean you approve of abortion or support it,
:it means that you support other peoples right to make the decision
:for themselves.  This would appear to be Bush's position.  

That's not the image of pro-choice that I see all the time. Pro-choice
leaders always cheer for the fact that someone is going to have an
abortion and practically shrieks when a woman decides not to have one.
	The question for me is why would someone want to have an
abortion? Women who have wanted children are practically traumatized if
the pregnancy turns into a miscarriage. I'll grant the situations about
rape and incest and the mother's life (I've already stated my positions
on the situation.), but why else? I don't think that abortions that are
performed because of the above three even accommodate 1/3 of the
abortions performed in the US. There must be some premise and
circumstances under which this "choice" is made.

:>If Clinton's children did something legal that he disapproved of, do
:>you think he should abandon them?  No?  Then why is Bush wrong for
:>doing the exact same thing?
:
:If Bush is pro-choice he should say so.  If he would let a relative
:make their own decision about getting an abortion and he is pro-life
:then the pro-life side of the debate is misrepresenting themselves.

And if he didn't let her make her own decisions, you'd indict him of
imposing unwillingly his values on her. No matter what he "decides" on
this case, he'll never satisfy your political views.
-- 
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.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 23:20:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.201543.12423@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <13AUG199211260307@rosie.uh.edu> st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.) writes:
>
>>But the primary difference here is that Bush wants to make something
>>illegal, thereby condemning everyone who commits the act, but will not
>>hesitiate to countenance the same activity on the part of people in
>>his own sphere.
>
>No, that's not a "difference", let alone a "primary" one.
>
>We can assume that both Bush and Clinton would pay for a lawyer if
>one of their kids/grandkids committed murder.  Does that mean
>that they're pro-murder?  Of course not.
>
>Suppose that said murder happened under circumstances where
>both have advocated the death penalty.  Does such support mean
>that they're really not in favor of the death penalty in those
>circumstances, or that they're being hypocritical?  Of course
>not.
>
>The abortion case works out the same way.

If the murder happened under circumstances where the death penalty
is involved, you can bet that Bush is going to do everything in his
power (which is considerable) to bend the rules just enough for his
kid/grandkid to skirt around the death penalty.  I would doubt that
he would take a second glance that someone from a poor/non-influential
family gets fried for exactly the same crime that his kid got off of.

Again, here we see that Bush applies different rules to his own kind
than are applied to the "man on the street".  You really don't think
that ANY relative of Bush's is going to fry for anything they do, do
you?

And, like you said:

	The abortion case works out the same way.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1386 alt.politics.marrou:754 talk.politics.misc:39369 alt.politics.elections:10438 talk.politics.theory:3651
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Abortion (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:23:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.004750.20555@esd.dl.nec.com>, mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>|> 
>|> You are crossposting this to every group EXCEPT where it belongs:
>|> 
>|> talk.abortion
>|> 
>|> 
>|> PLEASE TAKE THE ABORTION DISCUSSION TO:
>|> 
>|> talk.abortion

>Abortion is a political issue, and is expected to be a major factor
>in this years election.  This is the correct forum to discuss this
>issue, althought cross posting to talk.abortion would be a good idea.

No, abortion posts are meant to go to talk.abortion...why?  To keep the
permanant flame-war to a single group...and spare the rest of the net.

Anyone who really WANTS to get into the flame-war is welcome to join
talk.abortion 'discussions'...

Please, do, spare the rest of the net....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Music at Republican National Convention
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:57:32 GMT

In article <2A94F647.8D0C@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Bush's pre-planned "surprise" visit to the RNC Wednesday was
>accompanied by some appropriately upbeat music.
>
>I'm given to understand that the music was, in fact, taken from the
>play _La_Cage_Aux_Folles_, a play that revolves around homosexual
>life.

Yes :-)

>Is this information correct?  How could the RNC make such a gaffe?

They are a gaffe, they live in a fantasy world where homosexuals don't
exist. Music could never come from a homosexual, after all homosexuals
don't work they just protest and hang out in bath houses. I wish that
for just once day they would get there wish, that all that homosexuals
and all we have created would disappear for just one day. 

Hint:
 No computers, no AC electricity, for a start...
-- 
>>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,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory