HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 14 Aug 1992 19:44:13 GMT
Organization: Greedbusters
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

It's all very well to debate the number of angels dancing on the top
of Bush's pinhead but the fact of the matter is that Bush has no
convictions about abortion or anything else (well, perhaps his
allegiance to his class as witnessed by his incessant droning about
capital gains taxes --I think he now believes that a capital gains
tax cut will cure cancer and produce a proof of Fermat's last theorem).

The Bush plan is to have the Official Bush Position be anti-abortion,
while doing everything possible to back away from that stand.  Barbara
Bush was on the air yesterday claiming that it should not even be
discussed at the convention.  The nominating speech will be given
by Secretary of Labor Martin who is pro-choice but being a typical
Republican woman will swallow her pride and ignore principle for "her
man."

Even a cursory examination of Bush's syntactic patterns should
convince one that expecting logical consistency from him is ridiculous.
----------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Coming next month: The Republicans hit a new record on the slime-o-meter.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2231 alt.politics.elections:11025 alt.rush-limbaugh:3759 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4659
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:04:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug11.201419.8793@cco.caltech.edu> ajm@wag.caltech.edu (Abner J. Mintz) writes:
>In article <STEVES.92Aug11094426@kuwait.gdfwc3> steves@gdfwc3 (Steve Strauss) writes:
>>Someone said that in his new commercials, Bush reminds them of
>>Hannibal the Cannibal.
>
>Obviously Bush wants to sweep the E-Lector-al college.

Sweep, no.  He'll make it by the skin of his teeth.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2551 alt.politics.elections:11326
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 10:40:42 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:

>
>   Well, I think both sides are a bit unjustified (and quite a bit
> justified, too.) :-)   However, I would like to add that a CNN report
> at the beginning of Congress's term reported on the state of the Democrats
> in Congress.  The report basically said:
>
> 1)  There is a small group of (largely) newer Democrats that want to work
> with the President to get some bills passed that will help us through these
> tough economic times.
>
> 2)  There is a much larger group, dominated by the older, more powerful
> members, that want to send Bush only bills he will veto in order to make
> him look bad for the fall election.
>
>   I really think that point number 2 justifies some moral outrage from
> we voters, if not the President.
>
>
> Pat
>
> --
> Patrick Sugent                                "Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip
> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu           the Hogs of Peace."
> (708) 447-1771                                 --P.J. O'Rourke

Of course, had 'Rubbers' Bush tried to forge some sort of working coalition
with Congress rather than waiting until election time to get things passed, his
attempts at bashing Congress wouldn't seem so shallow.  That's one big
difference between Reagan's handlers and Rubbers' handlers:  when Ronnie didn't
get what he wanted, he was on national TV telling the good folks at home to
help him nudge and arm-twist the Congressmen.

Bush has never been able to form any sort of working coalition for his
programs.  Is that because of the liberal Congress?  That's hard to swallow,
since Reagan and his White House staff were infinitely more conservative than
this group.  They (Reagan's) were also more diplomatic and less offensive than
Sununu and his ilk, however.  Had Rubbers been a leader in the first two years
of his term, he wouldn't look like a shrill professional campaigner now.



|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,talk.politics.misc
From: karches@utdallas.edu (Tom Karches)
Subject: Re: Congress "above" the law?  (Was: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:35:41 GMT

In article <BD.92Aug14084801@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
>
>>It is biased rhetoric. For real, objective, cases of an institution
>>that considers itself literally above the law, look to Congress, which exempts
>>itself from wage laws, occupational health and safety laws, Civil Rights
>>laws, and numerous other laws it subjects the rest of the country to.
>
>You know, I keep hearing this (mostly from the pig, Rush Limbaugh), and I 
>wonder if it's accurate (it might be, but I wonder).  I had thought the 
>reason for this is that Congress is Constitutionally exempt from them, since 
>the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and separation of powers limits the 
>influence of the Executive Branch over Congress.  
>
>Anyone have a clue what the real story is?
>-- 

My understanding is that you are correct. Congress exempts itself from laws
whose enforcement is performed by the executive branch. This attempts to
prevent influence of the Executive ove the Legislative Branch.

I suppose now that I have responded to something in this group I will now
be "oficially" lambasted  by someone. Spurious noise to /dev/null please.

Regards,
Tom Karches
karches@utdallas.edu

P.S. Is it just me, or are the Re: subjects becoming totally meaningless?
Both the Bush and the Clinton alt groups are getting totally unwieldy.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Karches          |"If rap music had been around when I was a kid,
karches@utdallas.edu | I would have become a musician instead of a politician."
karches@holonet.net  '-------------------------------------- Richard Nixon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pakrat@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Grogan)
Subject: Re: Abortion again / was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:22:20 GMT

	In re: the media collective diqsapproval of women in China using
abortion to terminate unwanted children.  Nothing, but nothing aggravates me
in@a political debate more than compleve and total ignorance of a foreign
culture when usiog it to back up an argment.  What the autho of this statement
fails miserably to ryalize is that coomunist China forces (within the context
of <he sta~dard human rights convention) to have abortions of second children.
	The program consists of teaching the first born child to come to the
parents each night, birth control pill in hand, and tell their mommy not to
forget to take it.  Should that fail, and the woman does get pregnant, they
send councilors to desuade the having of the child, then enforcers of the
state of martial law comePto have a word with her (i.e. have an abortion or
else).  Faxling that, if the child is born, all education benefits and tax
status of an obedient family are lost. 
	If the choice is not left up to the public, the choice becomes that of
the government.  Do you want Bush deciding whether or not you have an
abortion?  Or maybe you would prefer Quayle?
	Think before you
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1357 alt.politics.marrou:749 talk.politics.misc:39319 alt.politics.elections:10418 talk.politics.theory:3647
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:48:37 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug10.161351.21146@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.044925.19882@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <l7r95rINNcjd@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>>
>>>I am fighting the Bush propsal to move public money to private schools
>>>because a) I have no data that suggests it will work and b) I do not
>>>believe public funds should be used to teach bible/religion classes.  If
>>>I were convinced I was wrong on (a), I am sure a compromise on (b)
>>>would be possible.
>>>
>>>I expect no response to this, because I keep asking and have not found
>>>one proponent of privitizing our schools or using vouchers that can
>>>demonstrate it works anywhere.
>>
>>Two words, Catholic School. 
>
>You are taking a self-selecting group of higher achievement and then
>comparing it to everyone else to prove that a particular thing will
>make everyone move to the level of that self-selecting group.  It
>doesn't work like that.

I have no illusions that moronic hoodlums will benefit from private
education any more than they benefit from public education which
serves only as a holding area until they can be transferred to
real adult prisons. At least in private schools their disruptive
influence can be removed and the remaining students allowed to
learn.

The concept that everyone deserves a high school or college education
at public expense is fatally flawed. There are people who can not
benefit from such instruction. They are better off released early
to wield a broom or gather garbage.

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:07:17 GMT

ajm@wag.caltech.edu (Abner J. Mintz) writes:

> In article <STEVES.92Aug11094426@kuwait.gdfwc3> steves@gdfwc3 (Steve Strauss) writes:
> >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?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Republicans = Evil
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:25:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.211145.10418@engage.pko.dec.com> breeding@snkerz.enet.dec.com (Andy Breeding) writes:
>>Besides, the Republican party is not composed of "groups" and special
>>interest groups, so there is no group for the Democrats to blame.
>
>Which groups don't you mean?:  the oil industry?, the evangelicals?,
>the pro-lifers?, Wall Street?, the NRA? etc.   The Democrat's don't have a
>corner on the special interests market.  But if you listen to the so-called
>liberal media you might not know that.

One of the interesting things about that list is that most of the groups
listed give more money to DEMOCRATS than Republicans.

It appears that a "special interest group affiliated with Repubs" is
one that significantly supports Replubs, even if it supports Demos
more, while the only interest groups that are Demo-specific are those
that give NO significant support to Repubs.

It's a nice definition for a biased presentation.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 16:57:46 GMT

In article <qVLqPB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>
>>   Did anyone else notice all the young, college-aged, enthusiastic people
>>   at the Republican convention last night?...
>>   They seem to be leading the cheers and providing much of the enthusiasm.
>>   They are very photogenic and are often captured in the television shots
>>   of the convention crowd.  There are a lot of them.
>>   Are they ushers?  Hosts and hostesses?  Young-Rebulican cheerleaders
>>   brought in to fill space and put life into the cavernous Astrodome?
>
>If they're running Houston like they did here in New Orleans in '88, those
>kids are ushers, gopher, flunkies, otherwise known as volunteers.  

One of them is from the Sacramento area, so the local paper (the Bee) did a
multi-page article on her the other day.  I finally got around to reading it
last night, and it said that she and her colleagues are, basically, cheer-
leaders.  Their official title is Convention Floor Whip.  They're there to
lead cheers, quiet them down when the speaker wants them quiet (i.e., Bar-
bara Bush's shushing motion (finger to lips) was effective not because the
delegates paid attention to it, but because the floor whips were all shushing
them at the same time), retrieve lost delegates, safety-pin delegates who
are coming apart at the seams, and do other basic baby-sitting tasks.  The
floor whips are not themselves delegates.  The girl featured in the paper is
the floor whip for the California delegation.

>If it were a science fiction con, at least they'd get a t-shirt, but those
> young-Republicans hardly get a thank you....

Actually, they get lime-green baseball caps.  Watch tonight's show; you
should be able to spot them.  I don't know if they're allowed to keep them
after the convention; I didn't read that much of the article.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
| "I'm new to C and need to know how to get random numbers returned."  "Just |
| send them back to the manufacturer with the original packaging and the     |
+ receipt.  What?  You didn't keep the receipt?"   	- Anon. -------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: petersob@uwec.edu (Brent Peterson)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Univ of Wisc - Eau Claire
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:40:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: access-111.telecomm.umn.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug12.034640.17858@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Corby.E.Page@dartmouth.edu (Corby E. Page) writes:
>From: Corby.E.Page@dartmouth.edu (Corby E. Page)
>Subject: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
>Date: 12 Aug 92 03:46:40 GMT

>Bush also refused to deny that he ever cheated on Barbie. Incidentally,
>this puts him in the same position as Clinton. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Except the democrat's evidence against Bush has been dead for 4 years.  
Also, Clinton hasn't denied any allegations about an affair, as far as I 
know.

>He has been willing to deny having an affair with a specific 
>individual, but has been unwilling to make the blanket statement that he 
>has always been faithful to his wife.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1935 alt.politics.elections:10768 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2581
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:47:27 GMT

In article <oneil.714415989@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
> 
> Is anyone else sick and tired of having Barbara and Marilyn held up as the
> paragons of womanhood?

Yes.  I'm also sick of the Hilary bashing.  I wonder if those 
Republicans only like women who stay home and bake cookies.
That reminds me.  Have you heard of the 
[A[K[BThat reminds me.  I heard on KPFT that there was a group of women
called "the Republican Dream Team" who goes around 
barefooted with pillows under their dresses to look pregnant to
spoof Republican-style "family values."
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1388 alt.politics.clinton:1822 alt.politics.perot:1252 rec.humor:25970 talk.bizarre:25781 talk.politics.misc:39370
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:55:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug12.192521.13783@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>>          Bush has shown again and again that he
>>thinks he's above the law.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>If Bush had said "I want to kill people with my own hands and not be put
>on trial", well, THAT'S thinking you're above the law.

No,  if Bush (as Commander in Chief) had said to the Coast Guard, "Go
out there and capture private boats in international waters and sink them. 
Kidnap the people onboard, take them to Haiti and dump them there."  It
would have been thinking he was above the law.  If you or I were to do
that, it would have rightly been considered piracy.

If he then told them it was for their own good, that would have been
adding insult to injury.  

Of course, he would never do anything like that, would he?
>
RJL
-- 
Rich Loether (rjl@unix.cis.pitt.edu)
Computing and Info Services (Systems & Networks)
(412) 624-6429 / FAX (412) 624-6436
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1679 alt.politics.clinton:2001 alt.politics.perot:1287 rec.humor:26156 talk.bizarre:26109 talk.politics.misc:39868
From: elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 15 Aug 92 07:03:35 GMT
Reply-To: elee74l@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston

In article <1992Aug14.174441.24329@emr1.emr.ca>, kasvand@ccrs.emr.ca (Tony Kasvand) writes:
>      Who is Bush?
>
American beer.   (-:


-Ken N.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1727 alt.politics.clinton:2022 alt.politics.perot:1291 talk.politics.misc:39982
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Congress "above" the law?
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:42:34 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <1992Aug14.181325.14431@sequent.com>
bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

>
>In article <BD.92Aug14084801@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>>You know, I keep hearing this (mostly from the pig, Rush Limbaugh), and I
>>wonder if it's accurate (it might be, but I wonder).  I had thought the
>>reason for this is that Congress is Constitutionally exempt from them, since
>>the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and separation of powers limits the
>>influence of the Executive Branch over Congress.
>>
>>Anyone have a clue what the real story is?
>
>I don't know about federally, but this is true at the state level in Oregon
>but only when congress is IN SESSION.

     Congessmen can't be arrested while Congress is in session except for
"Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace," (Article I, Section 6)  That's
also where they are made immune from any reprisals for what they say on
the floor in debate.  (Yes, they are Constitutionally protected from lying
to Congress.  Amusing, isn't it?)

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:00:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.174441.24329@emr1.emr.ca> kasvand@ccrs.emr.ca (Tony Kasvand) writes:
>      Who is Bush?

Tony, read "Mulroney" whenever you see "Bush".  It will read just about
as well, and make sense much of the time, I assure you.

(...at least that's what I understand from watching CBC-Windsor...)

-- 
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,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:31:58 GMT

In article <Bsxoy6.Fv8@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>
>Agreed.  What really strikes me is that Bush tried to cover his tracks by
>saying something to the effect of, "But if my granddaughter stole something, I'd
>do my best to support her as well."  Funny, but I always thought that the 
>bumper stickers said "Abortion is MURDER," not "Abortion is STEALING."  
>Do we really think that if his granddaughter murdered someone that he would
>support her choice?
>            ^^^^^^^

Interesting how you changed 'support her' to 'support her choice'.  Its not
the same.  He could easily support her even though he finds what she did
to be morally wrong.  If his graddaughter murdered someone I think he would
support her (i.e. visit her in jail, help her when/if she got out).  He could
still think that she deserves the punishment that she gets.


>******************************************************************************
>Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
>v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
>UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
>******************************************************************************


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory