HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:04:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.180923.29615@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

.. deleted ..

>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 supoort other peoples right to make the decision
for themselves.  This would appear to be Bush's position.  

>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.
 
>-andy

C "Anti-abortion  --  Pro-choice" Frog
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2498 alt.politics.elections:11277 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2844
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: The Solution to All Evil.
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:51:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


>I'm pretty tired of the Republicans' whining about Congress.
>>I'm pretty tired of the Democrats' whining about the President.

Now everyone listens carefully:

	Let's elect a Republican Congress and...
  ..you guessed it, a Democratic President!

Benjamin.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: The Survivors of ``Choice''
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:22:54 GMT


Doug:
   Would you please stop preaching religion!  

[sarcasm meter had BETTER be on!]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1936 alt.politics.elections:10769 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2582
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:07:15 GMT
Followup-To: Double messages on abortion
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

Yes, the Bushes are sending double messages on abortion.  Anyone who thinks
otherwise is thinking in terms of substance, rather than image, which is a
fatal error in politics.

The Bushes know that most R's think abortion doesn't belong in the platform
and that it shouldn't be illegal, althought they wouldn't want their daughters
to have one, (but would still love them if they did).  They also know
that most R's think the Bushes are nice people.  Bush can't take abortion 
out of the platform because of the religious right, so they are offering FORM
to the R's who are uncomfortable (or worse) with the position of the
platform and the religious right on abortion.  

Their recent remarks are designed to make moderates say, "see, they are just 
like us," even though the SUBSTANCE of the policies of Bush/Quayle are 
absolutely not in line with, or comfortable for, a majority of the party 
regulars, let alone society as a whole.  

It is a cynical ploy that says the public will not notice that these people
are on record as supporting a complete ban on abortion, but will pick up a
message that confuses them at the emotional level.

Why is it no one has asked Bush or Quayle why, if they would still love
their daughters who, after all the discussion and thinking about an unwanted
pregnancy chose to have an abortion--why would they want her to have to go 
to some back alley butcher to have it?  It seems to me that their position 
is pro-choice not because they would still love their daughters (or 
grand daughters) after an abortion, but because anyone who
DOES love a young woman in that situation would want her to be safe when
she did what she was determined to do.

If you want her to have to go to a back alley, you do NOT really love your
grand daughter, and Bush should know it.  The public does.

By the way, I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  I saw
someone bleeding from an illegal abortion once.  Bush says he would 'pick
her up, dust her off, and get (his grand daughter) back into the race' of
life.

It takes a lot more than 'dusting someone off' when someone has had an 
illegal abortion to put them back together even physically.

Sometimes, very often when abortion is illegal, they are not around to get
back in life at all.  Bush ought to know that, too.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:47:40 GMT

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.  

>> 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. 

>andy


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: int475d@mdw027.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr T.J. Joy)
Subject: Bush flip-flop (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:38:55 GMT

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. After all, we couldn't have any dissension on
|> the team now, could we?  You may remember that George put his manhood in a
|> blind trust to avoid any conflicts. After preaching the rabid Ronnie pro-life
|> line for 8 years, he figured it was working ok, so he might as well keep it.
|> His recent wafflings are coming closer to his original stand. I really doubt
|> this has anything to do with getting back in touch with his conscience and
|> standing up for his real feelings; I think he's just decided that the 
|> pro-life stance isn't as politically convenient as it once was.

-- 
Apparently someone once called George  "Mr. Rubbers", because of his strong 
support for family planning.  Sometime in the 60's I believe.


Timothy John Edward Joy
int475dccds.cc.monash.edu.au
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2103 alt.politics.clinton:2222 talk.politics.misc:40559
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:28:45 GMT
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <4630@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Excerpts from former President Ronald Reagan in the keynote address to
>the Republican National Convention in Houston: Mon Aug17 1992. Taken
>from Washington _Post_.

Thanks for posting this. Could you or someone else also post the text of the
other speeches made at the Republican convention ?

> And
>would could possibly have so little faith in our American people that
>they would trade out tomorrow for our yesterday?

Look who's talking.

>They kept telling us with a straight face that they're for
>family values, they're for a strong America. 
>[...]
>Let us strengthen our health care system so that Americans of all ages
>can be secure in their futures without the fear of financial ruin. And
>my friends, once and for all, let us get control of the federal deficit
>through a budget balanced amendment and a line-item veto for the
>President.

And Reagan tells with a straight face that he is for a stronger health care
system and balanced budgets ?

>... My fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for
>America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a
>hill. ... God bless each and every one of you, and God bless this
>country we love.

Nice speech. Who wrote it for him ?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "What do you do when your President ignores all the palpable,
    relevant facts and wanders in circles."
                -- David A. Stockman, _The Triumph of Politics_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1444 alt.politics.marrou:762 talk.politics.misc:39459 alt.politics.elections:10488 talk.politics.theory:3655
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: School Choice (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:19:48 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Jim Howe) writes:
|> In article <l8l9kiINNhnl@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> |> In article <Jtb-vy#@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> I don't follow your line of reasoning.  A tax credit system still 
|> |> |> requires all taxpayers (whoever or whatever they are) to pay for
|> |> |> 'public' education.  The key difference is that the taxpayer can 
|> |> |> direct his education funds to an educational institution of their
|> |> |> choice.  Whether you are a parent or not, you have the same choice.
|> |> |> You fund the school that you want to fund.  If you have no preference,
|> |> |> the government distributes the money where there is the most demand.
|> |> |> I suppose the only caveat is that you couldn't fund a school which
|> |> |> nobody wanted to attend.
|> |> |> 
|> |> You mean that I can take my tax credit even if I have no children in
|> |> public or private schools?  
|> 
|> If you are supporting someones education you can take the tax credit.
|> You could choose to support your neighbors kid, your grandchild, etc.
|> Your entire neighborhood could start a school and pool tax credits
|> for funding.
|> 
|> |> Can I use it to buy self improvement books?
|> |> Can I buy a new home computer?  Can I take a skydiving class?  (Saying no
|> |> to this last question is OK)
|> 
|> No, the credit you receive is for money to be spent on primary school
|> education.  The purpose of the money doesn't change, you just have
|> more discretion over where the money gets spent.
|> 
Great.  It is an involuntary tax, and If I have no way to benefit from
it, I can give it away to someone else -- still paying and still not 
benefiting.  But if you want to use it to teach your children that
people like me (what ever that is) are terrible people that should
not be allowed on the face of the earth, you can take your share
of my money and do just that.

Also, a tax credit says that if you don't make enough money to pay taxes,
you can't use the tax credit to pay for an education for your children.

This is an excellent program for expanding the disparity in wealth
(and education) between the current haves and have-nots.  Not with my
dollar.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
    <1992Aug14.000821.8215@nuchat.sccsi.com> <1992Aug17.192239.18425@sco.COM> 
    <19768@plains.NoDak.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:13:35 GMT

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. After all, we couldn't have any dissension on
the team now, could we?  You may remember that George put his manhood in a
blind trust to avoid any conflicts. After preaching the rabid Ronnie pro-life
line for 8 years, he figured it was working ok, so he might as well keep it.
His recent wafflings are coming closer to his original stand. I really doubt
this has anything to do with getting back in touch with his conscience and
standing up for his real feelings; I think he's just decided that the 
pro-life stance isn't as politically convenient as it once was.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1930 alt.politics.clinton:2133 alt.politics.perot:1299 rec.humor:26321 talk.bizarre:26417
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:25:04 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
> Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?

Now you know why he isn't a Senator.


mathew
[ "Who the hell is Brice Dowaliby?" ]

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2448 alt.politics.marrou:864 talk.politics.misc:41169 alt.politics.elections:11223 talk.politics.theory:3780
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:59:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug7.182147.27623@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> Too many people in our
> society are anti-religious, for reasons that I truly don't understand.
> 
> Yes... I know of the excesses of the bible beaters, and I have indeed
> read about the Spanish Inquisition. These are no excuse for the
> hostility or even hatred for anything related to Christian religion
> (which seems to be the main target). An odd phenomenon! I guess it
> is part of the general trend to believe that anything that is
> traditionally american is ipso facto wrong or bad or stupid.

No, it's more basic than that.  It is simply human nature to react
negatively against people who are intolerant of oneself.  If some of the
more "obnoxious" Christian believers were more tolerant of those
outside their own beliefs, reaction against Christians in general would
wither and disappear.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:03:18 GMT


jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>What's great is that while their coalition crumbles around them, the
>Republicans react by becoming more entrenched in their failed policies.
>No budging at all on the abortion plank. Chastise Bush for his budget
>agreements. And if (or when) they lose the presidency, their plan is to 
>purge all the "liberal" elements that have contaminated the party, and 
>re-emerge in 1996 conservatively correct, with Jack F. Kemp leading the
>charge. Yes, it will be nice to have another JFK in the White House.

Yes, it looks like what's shaping up is the same kind of purge that the
Republicans made after losing the 1960 election that led to the debacle
of '64, and that the Democrats made after losing the elections of 1968
and 1980 that led to the debacles of '72 and '84. It seems that the fringe
elements of the major parties grab control in these situations and have
to commit suicide before the party can move to a more moderate position
and attempt to include, rather than exclude, more voters. There are
Republicans who are attempting to do this this year but they aren't being
heard by the purists who are increasingly in control of the party
machinery as they stumble toward the election with a damaged candidate.
The Democrats appear to have learned the lesson this time around, and
are co-opting the moderate positions.

-----
Eric Smith     erics@sco.com     erics@infoserv.com     CI$: 70262,3610

"I see no media mention of it, but we entered in -- you asked what time
 it is and I'm telling you how to build a watch here -- but we had Boris
 Yeltsin here the other day.  And I think my times campaigning in Iowa,
 years ago, and how there was a -- Iowa has a kind of, I single out Iowa,
 it's a kind of an international state in a sense and has a great
 interest in all these things -- and we had Yeltsin standing here in the
 Rose Garden and we entered into a deal to eliminate the biggest and most
 ballistic missiles and it was almost, 'Ho-hum, what have you done for me
 lately?' "

 -George Bush, on why he should be re-elected

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1227 alt.politics.marrou:723 talk.politics.misc:39074 alt.politics.elections:10312 talk.politics.theory:3623
From: bobw@linus.cac.washington.edu (Bob Williams)
Subject: Seattle
Organization: UW Information Systems
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:25:11 GMT
X-Posted-From: linus.cac.washington.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Are there any CAW nests in Seattle?

--Bob
From: thud@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Ted Thibodeau Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds
Subject: Re: Hello, what is all-worlds, please .... ?
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:31:24 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


Church of All Worlds
Box 1542
Ukiah CA  95482-1542

Maybe I'll build a FAQ for this group, and start posting it
every 30 days, to prevent these and, more importantly, the

HI, I'm a fool, ready for a flame-war, and I worship Zorkon
the Space God -- ask me for details!

posts.

THud

-- 
   Ted Thibodeau, Jr    a/k/a    Thud, Fyodor Ilyich Lobachevsky, Zamel
       61 Marion Street       Medford, MA  02155        617-395-9915
** Crash & Burn for Democracy! ** A Pan of Fudge in Every Fridge, and a **
*** Yerazunis for President! **** Net Connection in Every Living Room!! **
From: J.M.A.Gilman@newcastle.ac.uk (J.M.A. Gilman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds
Subject: Hello, what is all-worlds, please .... ?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:06:46 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

Hello,
      from a first-time poster; WHAT is all-worlds ? Can you tell me if it
is what I think - A Robert A. Heinlein / Stranger in a Strange Land fan
group ? If not, then what ?

                    Thanks,

                      James Gilman.



 ********************************************************************
 *
 *  Dr. James M.A. Gilman,       *   J.M.A.Gilman @           
 *   Dept. of Chemistry,         * 
 *    Bedson Building,           *   newcastle.ac.uk
 *     The University,           *       
 *      Newcastle-upon-Tyne,     *
 *       NE1 7RU      ENGLAND    *
 *
 *********************************************************************


-- 

 ********************************************************************
 *
 *  Dr. James M.A. Gilman,       *   J.M.A.Gilman @
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds
Subject: Re: Hello, what is all-worlds, please .... ?
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:31:06 GMT


This newsgroup references *the Church of All Worlds*
a bona fide religious organisation often abreviated as CAW.
(Why they didn't call it alt.CAW is beyond me?)
 
It is basicly neo-pagan in nature, and strongly influenced
by the fictional *church of all Worlds * in Stranger.

CAW was founded in St Louis Mi, back in the late sixtys,
(I Believe). I first encountered it around 1971.

They publish a magazin named Green Egg, I don't have the 
address handy, but will attempt to find it and post it.

I haven't seen much CAW activity, and don't know who newgrouped it..

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: CASCADE (was: you know what really gets my goat)
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:59:19 GMT
Keywords: No, not the dishwasher soap!

cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (D. Cowan (Postmaster)) writes:

>reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:

>> Oh, so you don't like to see CASCADES??????

>no, I don't.  People who produe those cascades should be forced to watch 
>"Married with Children" until they can think up an original idea.  

I doubt that would work.  They're the biggest fans of the show.

I really shouldn't talk, though.  I actually contributed to the
bozotic "Agnostics and Athiests" (sic) thread, though I deleted
all the Newsgroups: except alt.folklore.urban, and put in an
urban legend for good measure. 

How is Charles Nelson Riley's last name really spelled?
That guy on In Living Color whose last name is Carey or Carrey can
squinch up his face to look exactly like him.  It's quite
remarkable.  I had completely forgotten about the talking banana.

>I've learned to skip over them now anyway :-)

Get hold of nn, the non-annoying newsreader!  It cures all ills
and makes your life perfect!  You can read 168,792 groups without
even constructing a killfile!  Of course, HappyNet will make such
conveniences redundant.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, professional gradgrind, amateur Usenet drifter
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: setuid() problem
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:29:40 GMT
 <1992Aug11.002719.21317@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> 
 <Bt3wDy.2Ct@world.std.com> <1992Aug17.031542.10029@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

csquared@coos.dartmouth.edu (C Squared) writes:

>Well he doesn't really exist, but if he did he would have told me I was
>ALLOWED to use his name in a story I'm writing so when it's done I'll post
>it and then he'll exist.

If Kibo did not exist, somebody would have to invent him.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] The Data Maker")
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Repulican Truths (Oxymoron #406)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:49:37 GMT
	<1992Aug20.125548.14754@nic.umass.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Eaters of Wisdom
In-reply-to: jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu's message of 20 Aug 92 12:55:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.125548.14754@nic.umass.edu> jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu (JENNIFER LENNARD) writes:
>   Did anyone else notice the outburst of applause whenever anyone said the
>   word "family" in any context?  Sort of like the secret word on Pee-wee's
>   playhouse....
--

                And for to see, and eke for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.urban