HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Distortion of facts
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:02:22 GMT

-> Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
-> From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
-> Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
-> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:57:45 GMT
-> Distribution: na
-> 
->      I'm predicting that George Bush's plan will backfire on him.
->      Just as he did four years ago, he is misrepesenting information
->      to the American republic.  Case in point:  Bush telling everybody
->      that Clinton has raised taxes over 100 times.  It's just not
->      true.  Even the Wall Street Journal said that.  

	How about a day and page number from the Wall Street Journal?
Keep in mind that the editors of the Journal have political
orientation.  I have seen a list of 128 new taxes that Clinton has
signed into law, and I will try to post a copy if I can find it again.
It doesn't matter too much whether he raised taxes in the past,
because he has specifically says he will raise taxes if he becomes
president.  He may call it ``Investing in America'', but it is still a
tax increase.

->      He has proven that he has no scruples.  

	Evidence?

->	His theory of trickle-down economics isn't working. 
	
	There's no basis for a conclusion for or against his economic
policy, since it hasn't even been tried.  Congress has continually
blocked his proposals.  One reason not much on the economy is being
done is because the Democrats want to economy to stay bad until
election day, and their congressional majority gives them the power to
keep it bad.

->	His pro-right wing view does not reflect the opinions and
->	attitudes of American Republic.

	Evidence?
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3439 alt.rush-limbaugh:4095 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4913
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 11:27:24 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.202323.19394@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc
> >If a man who is as strongly conservative as Will is questioning the
> >direction of his party, than its time for all of the moderate Republicans
> >to wake up.
>
>  George Wills articles are carried quite often in Conservative Chronicles and
> he has been taking some rather strange positions lately. Two weeks before the
> GOP convention he joined the feeding freenzy and suggested that President Bus
> step down. Where was George 12 months ago when all the Conservatives came dow
> hard on Bush and threatened to desert if he didnt move back to the right ?
>
>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

There's a difference.  Will wanted Bush to step down because he's going to
lose.  The conservatives came down on Bush because he lied to them.  Will
wanted Bush to step aside in favor of someone else because his lies will now
cost him the election.  There's no conflict there.




|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.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<NEERI.92Aug27184932@iis.ethz.ch> <1992Aug27.185350.15766@crd.ge.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.185350.15766@crd.ge.com> doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>In article <NEERI.92Aug27184932@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug26.181455.7405@crd.ge.com> doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>> >So every time "someone is impregnated or infected with some sexually
>> >communicated disease because of unprotected sex", it's the fault of those
>> >who encourage abstinence?  What about the people who chose to have the
>> >unprotected sex?
>> 
>> The important word here is "chose". You advocate policies to *hinder* choice by
>> making access to contraceptives more difficult.
>
>I advocate the status quo with regard to accessability of contraceptives.  It
>is the pro-condom distributors group is is advocating polices which make
>it easier to get contraceptives.

OK, but you're still advocating policies which give less than optimal access to
contraceptives and therefore hinder choice.

>>>People show their values in their actions.
>>>If their actions include unprotected sex, then it's certainly not the
>>>fault of the people who discourage those things.
>> 
>> It's not the fault of people who discourage unprotected sex, but it's
>> partially the fault of people who discourage teaching about protection.
>
>Show me one post where I advocated that schools not teach about
>contraception.  You won't find any because I don't believe it.

I just have the impression that the most vocal opponents of condom distribution
usually are against sex education also, but did not want to imply that you hekd
this opinion.

>I think
>schools SHOULD teach about contraception.  I also think the schools
>should emphasize abstinence as the best (in terms of effectiveness) way
>to avoid STD's and pregnancy.

Agreed.

>I just
>think that a school which then hands out condoms undermines the message
>of abstinence.

This is where we disagree. I see condom distribution as part of a responsible
approach to sex:

 - Consider if you really want to have sex with that partner
 - Consider if you are ready to have sex
 - If you decide to have sex, protect yourself

So handing out condoms might undermine the message of abstinence, but it
reinforces the message of responsibility. I believe that responsibility is the
more important value.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
        "I came to the conclusion that sex is a sublimation
         of the work instinct" -- David Lodge, _Small World_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: REPUBLICAN PLATFORM WANTED
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:48:56 GMT

mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok) writes:

>I am not sure if the Republican platform has been posted here before, but I do
>not recall seeing it.  Can someone please post it or send it to me in email?
[...]

*Taunt mode on*

Top Five Reasons the Republican platform has not been posted on-line:

 5) The platform was never meant to be read, it is write-only.

 4) The only copy was hand written with an ink quill on parchment. This
    supports a Traditional American Value (TM), namely good
    handwriting, but makes it hard to reproduce.

 3) Republicans are too busy trying to close abortion clinics to scan
    it in.

 2) The Republican's forgot to give it to Quayle's closed-door
    law cutting group, as a result, the platform is 85 pages
    long (in contrast, to the Democratic platform is 16 pages long.)

 1) They are ashamed of it.

Prove me wrong; post it; I double dare you.

*Taunt mode off*

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: PAT BUCHANAN SPEECH IN HOUSTON
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:28:57 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug30085722@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>Remember everybody:  THIS NEVER HAPPENED!  PAT MADE IT UP!
>The people in the convalescent home said the soldiers didn't
>come until it was all over.

To make matters even more silly, I know a person who went to LA as
one of the "federal troops". He was in the combat (getting shot at
etc.), and guess what Mr. Buchannan he is gay...

-- 
>>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.--          \/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3185 alt.politics.elections:11748 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3027
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <19768@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
}In article <1992Aug17.192239.18425@sco.COM> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
}>Yes, but you notice how he and Quayle are now sending out double messages
}>on the abortion issue. 
}
}Congratulations, all the folks supporting this view are honors graduates of the
}Ron Brown School Of Revisionist History.  Bush and Quayle both have stated they
}oppose abortion, but if a daughter or granddaughter (of adult age) chose to have
}an abortion, they would support THE DAUGHTER/GRANDDAUGHTER.  If a child commits
}a crime, the support of the child by the parent doesn't mean the parent supports
}the crime, just that they support their children.  Unfortunately, the rabid
}pro-abortion folks can't seem to understand this.

It amazes me that pro-choice people point to Bush's line about supporting
his daughter as an inconsistency.  The most telling and undeniable
inconsistency in Bush's reply was when he said, "Who else's [decision]
could it be?"  Well, shucks, if you succeed in making abortion illegal,
you have made it THE GOVERNMENT'S decision, now haven't you?  

And speaking of "revisionist history", I notice that you refer to people
as being "pro-abortion".  No one that I have ever heard of has ever
ADVOCATED abortion.  Those who (I assume) you disagree with advocate
only what Mr. Bush himself so wisely acknowledged:  That the woman who
is pregnant is the only person who can make the decision whether to get
an abortion or not.  So in the future, please cease your "revisionist"
use of the completely inappropiate term "pro-abortion".

--James Preston
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Michigan remarks
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:58:05 GMT
 <1992Sep4.141258.29310@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep4.141258.29310@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov
(Mark Taylor Evert) says:
>
>In article <kedcv5200Uh7A6zKQs@andrew.cmu.edu> mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu
>(Michael J. Keating) writes:
>>  Bush is
>> vehemently against Clinton's plan to make it mandatory for engines to be
>> more fuel-efficient in a few years.
>
>  Bush claims that this will have a
>> negative effect on jobs, and that he would fight against any such moves.
>
>Hmmm.  Perhaps such cars would be more expensive and less affordable.
>
>More fuel efficient cars would certainly be smaller.  The public
>continually shows a preference for larger cars.
>

Gee, in the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter told the Big Three that they needed
to make more gasoline-efficient cars.  They told him that they couldn't
sell fuel-efficienct cars.  Then the oil crisis came, and the Big Three
were *killed* in the marketplace by somewhat smaller, more efficient (and
much nicer) imports.  They responded by producing some *really bad* cars
(I own one) with higher gas mileage.  They went in the toilet for
the 1980s.  Now, they're recovering.  For now.

It's not that I don't believe in market preference - I do.  I exercise
it every day.  But I wouldn't be upset if *all cars* had to meet higher
gas mileage requirements - then the U. S. automakers could compete on an
equal footing with the foreign imports.  If another oil crunch came, they
wouldn't get wiped-out again.

Let me say it again - I DON'T MIND REGULATION IF EVERYONE HAS TO ADHERE
TO IT.  That's fair.  I wouldn't even mind if air bags were mandated.
Gee, remember the early 70s when Consumers Union called for the installation
of air bags?  Gee, there was this guy...what was his name...Lee, Lee
Iacocca - yeah, he led the fight against them for 20 years.  Now, I see
him on the TV touting his leadership on the issue.  The auto companies
said it would be too expensive - now it costs about $300.00 a car.

Think about the thousands of people who could have walked away from car
crashes in twenty years.  Kind of makes you think it wouldn't have been
bad to have mandated them.  Kind of makes you think of Lee Iacocca as
kind of a criminal.

But, according to Republican logic, I guess all those folks would just
be a drain on the economy.

Jeff Luck                    *My opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                   -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3812 alt.politics.clinton:3782 alt.rush-limbaugh:4174 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4992
From: fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:00:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

I guess this points out the fact that Bush is a reactive
President.  I doubt that he's done something to prevent a situation
in his life.  The only time that I can recall him setting a policy
that wasn't a _reaction_ to an event is his giving agricultural 
credits to the Iraqis.:-)

-MeatHead
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:21:43 GMT



  >Phil Libin described the firearm black market
 >5)  Drive back to whereever you came from and
 >6)  Sell your guns (with a value-added charge).
 
  Phil could you please explain how someone can make a profit 
 doing this ? One  fact brought out by various news medias
 (CBS's 48 hours comes to mind ) when they asked a young gang
 member how much a gun would cost him, he replied a 9mm Beretta   
 would cost him $100. This same gun cost me $500 in a gun store
 you can't stay in business very long that way. 
  Also anyone purchasing 5 or more handguns in one store gets 
 reported to the BATF by the dealer. 
 hint the firearms on the black market are stolen. a lot from
 the police and military. (has hapened here in NC) 

 
    Myron
  NRA, IPSC


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.151633.8704@raider.raidernet.com> tob@raider.raidernet.com (Tom O. Barron) writes:
>>>In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>>>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
>>>>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
>>>>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>>>>broken the law.  
>
>How about the Bush administration's high-handed treatment of Haitian
>refugees in international waters?  What right does the U.S. Coast Guard
>have to force anyone in international waters to go anywhere?

One I like particularly is a law that is all-but-unnoticed outside the DC
beltway.  It prohibits Federal employees from engaging in partisan political
activities.  Bush vetoed a bill a year or two ago that would have eliminated
this law.  So it gives rise to the questions:
	Is there a loophole in the law that allows Bush and Quayle to
	run for re-election?
	Is the loophole big enough to allow the White House Chief of
	Staff to take charge of the Bush/Quayle re-election campaign?
It tickles me to think that Bush might be breaking a law that he himself, and
he alone, had the chance to legally get rid of but chose to keep valid.

It's not that Bush demonstrates (or doesn't) that he's above the law:  it's
that he demonstrates that he *believes* that he's above the law.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.  -- Anon.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: School choice: comments and questions
Keywords: School choice, comments, questions, Bush, Clinton, politics,
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:59:12 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <4802@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>First comments:
>A lot of people have been saying that the Bush plan to give vouchers to
>all parents to send kids to their choice of public, private, or
>parochial schools will result in a more segregated, class-oriented
>education system with the richest people getting the best teachers and
>education environment and the poorest getting the shaft.

>kindergarten-4 to 8th grade and now college; public 9th to 12th). First
>of all, the "white flight" that is being cited so often I don't believe
>will happen to the apocalyptic extent that everyone of the boo-birds say
>it will. The private school I attended had only 200 students total

I read that the first year Milwaukee (or is that Minnesota?) adopted
its voucher program only thirty students took advantage of the option.
Nevertheless, the existence of a choice and competition improved all
schools.

Even presently, only 5% of the entire student population of Wisconsin
(Minnesota?) uses the vouchers.

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<19664@drutx.ATT.COM> <cummings.714768626@milton>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:34:37 GMT

In article <cummings.714768626@milton> cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:

   In <19664@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

   >In article <1992Aug21.232616.16804@sequent.com>, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

[...]

   >I am no big fan of George Bush; I do believe that much of the economic
   >problems are his doing.  It just seems you are making an argument that
   >cuts both ways.

	   Are you seriously suggesting that George Bush had as much influence
   over the internal structure of the Soviet Union as he did the US economy?  I
   think it's much more legitimate to criticize Bush over the economy than to
   give him full credit for the downfall of the Soviet bloc.

	   The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight.  One could argue
   that Reagan's policies, continued by Bush, sped up its demise (I would
   disgaree), but it's ludicrous to say such a complex event was brought about
   by one cause.

One cause?  Perhaps not, but the crushing burden of military expenditures
deprived the Soviet citizens of any consumer goods.  They had, and still
do have, trouble getting things like toilet paper and toothpaste.  The
liberals in this country like to moan and groan about our defense
expenditures, but they have run between five and six percent of GNP for
the recent past.  In the former USSR the expenses ran somewhere between
seventeen and thirty five percent of GNP.  So, as a percent of GNP the
USSR was spending between 300% and 600% of our expenses.  For this cost
we have averted nuclear.  Cheap at twice the price.

It's true that the Soviet system was fatally flawed, but without this
massive pressure they could have easily held on for another thirty or so
years.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3543 alt.rush-limbaugh:4113 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4930
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:26:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1864@celia.UUCP>
steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>. . . . .  Where was George 12 months ago when all the Conservatives came down
>hard on Bush and threatened to desert if he didnt move back to the right ?

Actually, George Will has been an avowed George Bush antagonist for some time.
Could be from when Bush acquiesced to the Democrats on taxes but maybe before.
An interesting side of George Will that one liberal writer at the Detroit
Free Press described: this writer attended a graduataion ceremonyat which
Will's son (who is retarded) spoke as did George Will.  Will said that he
would like to be remembered as his son's father rather than anything else,
because of his pride and love for him.  There apparently wasn't a dry eye in
the place.  I wonder if the viciousness of some of the Republican attacks
hasn't further caused George Will to question Bush's designs.

Republicans could win on the issues if George Bush dropped the stupid
personal attacks and pointed out that a Democratic congress with a
dependent Democratic executive would ram through more taxes than even
George allowed them too do.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3758 alt.politics.clinton:3737 alt.rush-limbaugh:4159 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4977