HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:45:49 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Andy Freeman) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> >Andy Freeman) writes:
|> >> 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.
|> >
|> >No.  The difference is that if either Clinton or Bush found out their child
|> >was about to commit a murder or rob a store, they would do anything to stop
|> >it.
|> 
|> No they wouldn't.  They wouldn't kill said "about to rob" kid.  They
|> probably wouldn't even hit said kid.  At most, they'd call the
|> cops.  Since abortion IS legal, Bush can't do that.

You, of course, are correct.  Neither would break the law to prevent someone
else from breaking the law.  Given that, they would stop it any way he could.
|> 
|> >Would Bush, if he found out his granddaughter was going to get an abortion,
|> >do anything he could to stop it?  He said "it was her choice."
|> 
|> It's legal, so there's nothing he can legally do to interfere in that
|> choice.
|> 
|> Moreover, the question actually asked was "what would you do if you
|> found out that she'd had an abortion".
|> 
1.	He was asked "if she said she was going to ..."  His answer began
	"I would try to talk her out of it."

2.	He is trying to make it illegal.  His answer, however, was not
	qualified to say that TODAY it is her choice.  His answer was
	"who else's choice is it?"  He either is afraid to answer the
	question directly so she won't know he really doesn't support
	her or so the pro-life abortion won't know he really doesn't
	support them.

3.	Bush used to believe abortion should be a womans choice.

|> We know that Carter didn't hose his kid when he found out AFTER
|> she was using drugs, he "supported her", but he's not considered
|> pro-drug.  How is Bush's decision to do the EXACT same thing
|> any different?
|> 
If this is the case, and I have missed it, there is no comparison between
what a young child has done, and what an adult is about to do.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:42:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.034640.17858@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Corby.E.Page@dartmouth.edu (Corby E. Page) writes:
>Three friends and I started a betting pool two months ago on the
>outcome of the Presidential election (at that time, the likely options
>were Perot, Clinton, and Bush).

Four people betting on three likely outcomes?  Did one of you get stuck with
"none of the above", or what?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:53:09 GMT

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

>It's over and here's what I got out of it:

>B+ for Quayle, for giving a good speech. Good delivery, lot's
>of Clinton bashing. I still wonder if he thinks about 1996..

B+?  I'd give him a B.  His delivery was pretty good -- for him.  He did
get in a couple of shots that even made /me/ smile.  But, he is just too
much of a Yes Man.  It's disgusting.

>C for Bush. Same old stuff. Some credit for tax hike apology.
>Blame congress doesn't fly. You can't take credit for all the
>good stuff and blame the bad stuff on someone else. The illogic
>of being a masterful statesman and foreign policy maker,
>yet a hapless victim of democrats in congress doesn't fly.
>Looks like an attempt to do a Truman. Calling Clinton
>Carter II is just an attempt to mask the Bush record.

Wasn't Truman a Democrat?  Correct me if I'm mistaken.

>Family values...yea, we're all for 'em. The negative stuff
>I think will back fire. The arrogance was heavy. Look, the
>people really don't like any politicians very much these days.
>Trying to put horns on the demos and halos on the republicans
>is just down right dishonest. 

My family values are ones that extend rights and friendship to atheists,
gays, Democrats, and women who have chosen to do other things with their
lives than stand by (or behind, in Barbara and Marilyn's cases) their
men.  It seems to me that Bush is /imposing/ values on people, like
trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Is anyone else sick and tired of having Barbara and Marilyn held up as the
paragons of womanhood?

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1760 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2527 alt.politics.clinton:2034 alt.politics.elections:10665
From: rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 16 Aug 1992 14:25:21 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a Democratically-con-
>trolled Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.  

It's probably better than having a do-nothing president in the White House.
At least SOMETHING will happen, other than golf in Kennebunkport and barfing
on the Japanese Prime Minister.

And keep this crap out of alt.fan.dan-quayle.


5150
what's wrong with "tax and spend" anyways?  isn't that what you're supposed to
	do with money?  spend it?  maybe it's just me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Subject: Re: school choice (Was: Is this a socialist country?)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:33:46 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug15.174653.1433@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> However, attempting to impute that what I do with my money is somehow
> 'meaningful' to the original discussion seems to be pretty
> hypocritical for a libertarian to do, wouldn't you say?

Hey, wait a minute!  I thought *you* were the one so concerned about people
who infer that which was not explicitly stated, and here you are doing it
to someone else!
 
> Well, that was your intention, was it not? 

And now you're doing it to me!  I need you to tell me my intention about as
much as you need me to do the same for you!

> You had no factualy
> argument, so you changed things to the basis of 'libertarians spend
> their own money on this, that, and the other; do you?'.

I said no such thing.  Are you forgetting who you're arguing with?  It's
easy to do when you argue with so many different people.  (Hint: I was not
the person who asked you what you do with your money.)  Your reading skills
are obviously on a par with what you believe mine to be!

>  Perhaps I
> should suggest a much better grounding in real economic theory for
> libertarians, instead?

Please do.  I'm sure we'd all be very interested.

John Wilkes  <wilkes@apple.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:55:29 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

OlsonDL) writes:
|>  |> 
|>  |> If they can't afford their children's education, then they shouldn't have
|>  |> had children in the first place!
|> } 
|> } So poor people shouldn't have children?
|> 
|> Not what I am saying.  If a person, poor or not, can afford a child, fine.
|> 
|> Tell me, if it is wise for someone who cannot afford a child to have one
|> anyway, how about two?  Five?  Nine?  Fourteen?  At what point do you
|> think someone, who cannot afford children, should stop having them?
|> 
Tell me, if it wise not to be overweight, how overweight should we allow
people to become?  I suggest we legislate mandatory dieting at 25% above
a government set "ideal weight."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1918 alt.politics.marrou:814 talk.politics.misc:40305 alt.politics.elections:10756 talk.politics.theory:3705
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:18:13 GMT

rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>No, actually, Bush does not just support overturning Roe v Wade. He supports
>(according to the Republican Platform of 1988, and 1992) A CONSTITUTIONAL
>BAN ON ABORTION. No shit. This is outrageous.

A woman from Orange County was interviewed and said, "While I've been a
life-long Republican, I'm voting for Clinton because I can't support
Bush's position on choice." Fair enough, but where has she (and many other
Reagan/Bush-cum-Clinton supporters) been for the last twelve years? As
you point out, their platforms have been consistent: let big government decide
and take the choice away from you. Why the sudden outrage?

The only thing I can think of is that the abortion plank, along with other
planks such as "school prayer" that pandered to certain constituencies
throughout the Reagan/Bush tenure, had been viewed somewhat abstractly as
nothing was really done the issue. After twelve years, the best they can
muster is "parental notification" restrictions, which as Bush points out
also applies to such controversial procedures as ear piercing.

Is it because of the currently stacked Supreme Court that only failed to
overturn Roe v. Wade by a 5-4 vote that erstwhile Bush supporters are
waking up?

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.

----
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2287 alt.politics.marrou:856 talk.politics.misc:40879 alt.politics.elections:11082
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:47:42 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>Not what I am saying.  If a person, poor or not, can afford a child, fine.

>Tell me, if it is wise for someone who cannot afford a child to have one
>anyway, how about two?  Five?  Nine?  Fourteen?  At what point do you
>think someone, who cannot afford children, should stop having them?

Tell me, is it wise to base a national policy on the assumption that
poor people are not going to have children if they can't afford them?
Is it wise to punish the children for the poverty they are born into?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2512 alt.politics.elections:11288
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 14:37:40 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
 <1684ABC11.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Aug21.194653.23927@ncsu.edu>

In article <1992Aug21.194653.23927@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) says:
>
>In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>That's funny, I always thought it was the democratically-controlled
>House that wrote the checks.
>
You thought wrong.  You've apparently always thought wrong.  Gee,
didn't you ever see "I'm just a Bill, up on Capitol Hill..."?

The budget originates in the House, based on a budget request from
the President.  It must be approved by the President (in this case
it was a Republican President) and the Senate (in this case a
Republican Senate).  Neither Ronald Reagan, nor George Bush, has
ever submitted a balanced budget.  And they approved every budget
since 1981.  That is to say, they "agreed" with the budget - that's
what approval means, in a governmental sense.

>>"None of us really understands what's
>> going on with these numbers."
>> -David Stockman, Reagan's OMB Dir.
>
> ``A lot of the talk about immediately balancing the budget is
>   economically screwy.''
>
>   -- Derek Shearer, Clinton's economic advisor
>
"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

It seems likely that 12 years of damage really can't be undone "immediately,"
no matter how politically profitable such a statement might be.

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
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:2220 alt.politics.elections:11015 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2710
From: leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion again
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:00:27 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

> leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:

Your other "points" having been taken care of by other posters, I'll
take a look at the last.

>>Liberal, leftist (at least in the American context), pro-choice, and
>>damn proud of it, I remain,
> 
> Ah yes, part of a dying breed.

Well, for the US, someone else would have to comment on that (I guess
Dhanesh did already), but somehow I doubt that.  For Finland at least I
can safely negate your little comment.  In fact, people with opinions
like yours are quite a minority, rarely heard from, and not taken
seriously.  Fortunately.

--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  leisti@cc.helsinki.fi

        "All my life, I wanted to be somebody."    -- Anonymous
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1308 alt.politics.marrou:743 talk.politics.misc:39221 alt.politics.elections:10388
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:52:35 GMT

In article <wPe8oB1w164w@coldbox.cojones.com>, system@coldbox.cojones.com (Bryan Lockwood) writes:
} shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
} 
} > Oh come on now. First of all EVERY school teaches a religion in
} > one way or another. In a public school it is usually humanism. Now
} > I might not want my taxes going to spread humanism and Joe across
} > the street may not want his money going to spread Christianity or
} > Hinduism or what ever. The obvious solution is to keep the government
} > and taxes out of it all together and let people choose the education
} > that they want for their kids.
} 
} Won't fly. In this scenario, education would be too expensive for many
} parents to afford!

If they can't afford their children's education, then they shouldn't have
had children in the first place!

} As it is now, everyone bears part of the financial burden
} of education in America, whether or not they have children.

While true, that doesn't make it right.

} Maybe one way of
} looking at it is to say that you spend the rest of your life paying back into
} the system to cover your _own_ education.

That may be the rationale, but it does not balance the books.

If you buy a loaf of bread, you are not obligated to keep paying the grocer
for that bread for the rest of your life.  Once you have paid your doctor for
medical care, you are not obligated to pay for that care for the rest of
your life.  Why must it be any different for education?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2455 tx.politics:4330
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:21:55 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In answer to Sharon O'neil, I too am sick and tired of this Barbara-Marilyn
balogna. (Did anybody notice during the GOP convention, somebody was talking
about doing something bad to ALL those horrid lawyers. . .; Marilyn looked
as if she just discovered a doggy do do in her mouth)

Most of us know that "family values" is a euphemism for the rightwing
fundamentalist bible thumpers' hidden agenda -- that of shoving their
religious views down everyone's throats.  What is sad is that I don't
think even George and Dan really believe all that junk; they're just
desperate because they can't run on their record, so they're kissing
up to the extreme right who will vote on the one "issue" -- family values.

	Bye, Judy          Clinton/Gore, 92 and 94!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.abortion
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:47:44 GMT

I've re-arranged the Newsgroups: line to something more sensible for this
section of the thread, even though I don't subscribe to any of the
above groups...

In article <1992Aug14.153740.16783@access.digex.com> holland@access.digex.com (Brian Holland) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.175205.28423@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>>
>>i saw the interview too.  IMHO:  gb was not spouting the pro-choice
>>line, but he failed to spout a strong message the otherway.  
>>with 3+ weeks to practice an answer to this question, he failed.  
>>he failed to answer without waffling and he failed to sidestep.  

So, then, if a politican sucessfully sidesteps a question, that is
considered a success??  No wonder so many people hate politics these
days...

>If you don't think GHWB was "spouting" the pro-choice line, then you
>don't understand the pro-choice position.  Even if you think abortion
>is wrong you are pro-choice if you think that a woman, and not the 
>government, should determine whehter or not she has a baby.  Pro-choice
>is not a synonym for pro-abortion.

I'm sorry, I have heard one too many conflicting definitions of the
two sides of this issue!!  The pro-life crowd would have me believe
that to be pro-choice, I must be in favor of "abortion on demand",
which, as far as I can tell, includes such reasons for abortion as
the fetus not being of the desired sex.  The pro-choice crowd would
have me believe that to call myself pro-life, I must consider an
abortion to save the life of the mother "justifiable homicide", and
maybe not even justifiable.

And then, as if that weren't enough, both sides have the gall to claim
that the whole of American politics hinges on this issue, that, for
example, the only reason Reagan was re-elected was because he was pro-
life and his opponent was pro-choice!

And thus both sides proclaim guaranteed victory in the next election
because, by the only reasonable definition of the abortion issue
(their own), the vast majority of Americans are known to be on their
side.

As Joan Collins would say, puhlease!

(Flames via Email only; again, I don't read any of the above groups!)

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections