HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:56:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Suicide
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

>On Fri, 7 Aug 1992 11:37:36 -0700 Andy Freeman said:
>>>But surely there is a great distance between *physical* illnesses which
>>>are terminal and *psychological* problems like depression.
>>
>>Really?  What is that distance?  Are we seeing an assumption that ALL
>
>The distance is 8 kilometers.  The difference is that the *terminal*
>illness has given you a high probability of dying in X number of months,
>the psychological problems although troubling are not terminal.  The
>folks Dr. Kavorkian has assisted with suicide all had terminal illnesses.

        Again, I do not see the importance of this.  In cases where we
are to say that suicide provides a person with a benefit, the person who
will die anyway in a short time has less of a reason to seek a medically
assisted suicide than a person who is going to suffer through some type
of illness for a longer period of time.  It is the person who will not
die soon enough who needs such a service.


> Most psychological problems are probably curable.

        So are most physical problems.  There is no real distinction here.



        Neither the degree to which the condition is terminal nor whether
the condition is physical or psychological is relevant to the rationality
of suicide.  The relevant criteria needs to focus only on whether 1)
the patient is or soon will be suffering in what, from the patient's own
point of view, is an intolerable situation; 2) there is no less drastic
means available to end or avoid this suffering, and 3) the patient either
expresses a wish for the procedure or, where the patient is unable to make
his or her wishes known, it is reasonable to believe that the patient would
have expressed a wish for such a procedure.

                                                Richard A. Fyfe
                                                rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:18:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the gipper saves the night from being sank by the loose
              buchanan
              20 Aug 1992 12:54:00 -0400 from
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE>

Hi y'all:

A lot has been said about Bush claiming credit for things and not
accepting responsibility for other things.  Admittedly, Bush is
a far better foreign policy president than a domestic policy president,
but last I checked the President is *supposed* to lead in foreign
policy, while Congress is charged with managing legislation (which
is where most domestic policy is determined.)

The point being made in Houston is that Bush hasn't had much effect
on the economy because he *can't*.  If the Congress won't pass (or
even discuss) Bush's domestic agenda, there ain't much he can do
about it, short of dissolving Congress or suspending the Constitution.
(He isn't Lincoln, you know--he couldn't get away with *that*.)
Bush has sent bills to Congress, which they have resolutely ignored.
He hasn't strong-armed them the way Reagan did, but since Reagan
departed, Congress has begun to believe it can do just about anything
with impunity.  They truly believe that they are immune from the
public, and that they deserve to live better than everyone else
just because they *can.*

The message in Houston is that this must end.  Now.

And what do you suppose would happen if Clinton got elected with
a Republican majority in the House and the Senate?

Anyway, the point is that, where Bush could act, he has acted.
His foreign policy record is strong and admirable.  If a Republican
Congress would enact his domestic agenda, things would definitely
be different.  The Democrats don't say Bush's domestic agenda is
bad, they say he doesn't have one; this is nonsense.  Look at the
record, and ask why Congress has sat on Bush's domestic agenda for
hundreds of days, if not for pure partisan politics.  If there's
something wrong with Bush's ideas, the Democrats should say so,
not just deny their existence.

And I *loved* the Point of Light speeches.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: Politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"Politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: BASGD
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:54:08 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Jim Baker

Has everyone heard about Jim Baker leaving the State Department?  He's taking
Skinner's place as Chief of Staff, I think.  How do you think this will change
the campaign?  I don't really think that Baker will be able to work the magic
that he worked in 1988; Clinton's farther ahead and is a stronger candidate
than Dukakis.

Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:45:03 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: remedial civics; or,
              moral outrage as the lingua franca of the gop

>Please remember that the Clinton 60-minutes interview was held at the
>request of the Clintons, specifically to rebut the accusations about
>Gennifer Flowers.  It would have been pretty stupid of the interviewer
>to ignore the subject.

I agree.  And it would have been equally stupid of Judy Woodruff to ignore
the subject in her interview with Barbara Bush.

>--Missy P 2 B

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:57:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject: Re: Reading List

j.b. inquires concerning where one receives information.  I read three dailies,
the two local San Antonio, Tx newspapers and the NYTimes.  Also, Newsweek, ITTs,
 Nation, New Republic, eleven or twelve journals, and monitor 13 discussion
groups like this one.  I also read five popular scientific news papers,
magazines, journals.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:46:00 -0400
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Missy Justice takes over the world

>
>(Gary slides an ashtray under the couch, which has started to smoke, then
>goes to the sink to wash the grape jelly out of his hair, wondering if he
>should deny this to the media or not...)
>
>                      Don't deny it.  It's already public.
>                      Be true to your heart (or true to your....
>                      whatever.)  For the record, I did not
>                      invite Regis *or* Kathi Lee, and I thought
>                      the midget with the camcorder was *your*
>                      idea.  ;-)
>
>                           --Missy P 2 B

That still doesn't explain the presence of Spiro Agnew, Henry
Kissenger and the Ghost of Lee Atwater.

Or was that just another unsubstantiated rumor?

--Julie "Who needs Geraldo when you've got the POLITICS list?" W.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @ Mother: "Is it a boy or @
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @   a girl?"              @
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @ Doctor: "I think it's a @
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   bit early to start    @
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   imposing roles on it, @
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @   don't you?"           @
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @  --Monty Python's THE   @
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @    MEANING OF LIFE      @
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:12:02 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Polling Methods (was Re: Some REALLY interesting numbers)
              21 Aug 1992 14:43:50 BST from <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

Dunstan:

I am rather well versed in the techniques of public opinion polls.

I included the methodology information (slight though it may have
been) to make it clear that this particular poll was extraordinarily
carefully done.

I stand by that statement.  This poll is designed to accurately
capture movment during (and *only* during) the Republican National
Convention.  Its usefulness is limited to that movement.

BTW:  Bush has come dead even with Clinton on the youth vote (18-25)

--Missy P 2 B
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <01GNT0UYBK0W0003X0@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET (Men-- can't live with 'em, writes...
>It's public knowledge that Welk died from AIDS-related complications,
>or at least I thought it was.    _I_ remember it in the papers.  Doesn't
>anyone else?

which public knowledge are we talking about?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: RNC II: The Second Night
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:44:28 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              19 Aug 1992 14:17:11 EDT from <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VI RGINIA.EDU>

On Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:17:11 EDT Scott W. Fischer said:
>Kai notes the CNN reports that not many delegates were paying attention to
>the speakers; I saw that also.  Ironically, a few minutes later I switched
>over to watch PBS' Convention Night in Review and Gloria Borger reported that
>she witnessed most of the delegates paying attention to the speaker,
>espeically  Phil Gramm.  I wonder whose interpretation was correct and how
>much personal bias was getting into the reporting.

Some of that may be backlash/revenge from the media.  Yesterday's Trib
(Chicago, of course) had mention in the <Inc.> column about the orchestration
of key figures being unavailble to the press during the time persons
were speaking at the podium in order to prevent the press from picking
and choosing what parts they wanted to feature; i.e. interviewing
Keynote Speaker A while Lesser Speaker z was at the microphone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:11:32 EST
From:         Scott Adams <SADAMS@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Carl's post

Carl:
Do you feel that _all_ people have the right to free speech in intimidation
cases such as this one? In many cases, my right to swing my arm ends at
your nose. There are limits to the right to free speech. What limits do
you think should be placed on the speech of the radical anti-abortionists?
Where did the guy get the alleged fetus he was allegedly trying to show
Clinton? What do you think about the Republican's waffling lately on the
abortion issue? (Not just the platform).
Good wishes,
Scott
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:41:44 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      did y'all miss me?

Hi, y'all:
I know, I should've set NOMAIL before taking off for a week :)  But guess
what?  I'm typing this note from my very own den in my very own house!!!!!
I mean, like, a house that I actually own!!!!  What a concept.  Anyway,
just wanted to spread the joy, say "hi" to everyone, and let y'all know
that I'll be posting again sometime (wonder how long it takes to read 380+
messages?).

Take care
Kerry
who needs to move a few more boxes :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:55:17 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      the supreme court justice needs someone to make decent pasta

...and might i also inquire since when does mario cuomo want to be a
supreme court justice?  i don't deny the veracity of this, i just want to
know how long i've been out in the ozone on this particular issue.
                                   * * *anneliese "those robes are handy for
                                        carrying, oh, severed horse heads" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:38:00 -0400
From:         "Men-- can't live with 'em,
              can't shoot 'em" <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

My apologies regarding the Welk/Liberace thing.  Yes, Rufus, I was
thinking of Liberace.

--Julie "at least I didn't blame it on the cue card" W.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: RNC-second night...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:21:03 GMT

In <POLITICS%92081909243433@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET writes:

>God, man, I wish I was able to see the first night....
>Pat Buchanan AND Ronald Reagan???!!?!?
>Anyway, I saw part of the second night and the only speaker that
>impressed me was the Gov. of Massachusetts (was his name Wend? I
>don't remember).  He said he believes in awoman's right to choose
>very forcefully and didn't seem scared to say it.  This shows that
>the republican party is the true party of diversity.
>They don't silence opposing views the way the Dems did to Gov. Casey.
>-Travis
Yeah, right.  The Dems were wrong to silence Casey, but let's not get
carried away and call the Republican party a party of diversity.  Weld
may be pro-choice, but if a Doctor at a public clinic said what Weld
said to a low-income pregnant woman, he might well lose his job-- and
the Supreme Court would stand by his firing.  Remember also all those
well-heeled delegates sieg heiling Pat Buchanan the night before.  And
the same people who let Weld do his one-line thing wouldn't let
pro-choicers take the platform to the entire convention floor.  What I
see from the GOP is cynicism: Spout openess, and club gays.  Talk
opportunity and curtail student loans and grants.  Praise freedom and
coddle the Chinese.  Shout about democratic elections and ignore the
democratically-elected Muslim fundamentalists in Algeria.  The most
puzzling thing about these people is how Jack Kemp, who seems to truly
believe in equality of opportunity, seems to believe their policies will
actually achieve it. 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:47:00 -0400
From:         "Satan For President-- Let's Get it Out in the Open"
              <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Slips of the tongue

>>Japanese bombed pearl harbor and quoted Churchill's comments about how
>>it was a day that "will live in infamy."  What Bush did not seem to
>
>did bush say churchill or did you?
>wasn't it FDR who said that?
>
>linda


Uhm... yeah, it was FDR, not Churchill.  Somehow I knew that I'd find
a way of making some sort of factuall error at some point during that
post-- it seemed inevitable.

--Julie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @ Mother: "Is it a boy or @
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @   a girl?"              @
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @ Doctor: "I think it's a @
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   bit early to start    @
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   imposing roles on it, @
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @   don't you?"           @
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @  --Monty Python's THE   @
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @    MEANING OF LIFE      @
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%UCF1VM.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:04:00 -0400
From:         "Men-- can't live with 'em,
              can't shoot 'em" <JULIE%DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GOP & equality

>Anybody else notice that *every* committee of the Republican National
>Convention is made up of one man and one woman from each state,
>and one delegate each from the Virgin Islands and Guam?

Well golly gee whilikers!  Tokenism reigns supreme!

>Party of *true* equality, folks.
>
>In your heart, you know it's right.

Missy-- are you by any chance one of those liberals in disguise
designed to help republicans look really silly?  (That's my theory
about Dan Quayle, btw...)

--Julie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@  _____  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ / ___ \ @@ Julie Waters                 @ Mother: "Is it a boy or @
@ / /   \ \ @ P. O. Box 23040              @   a girl?"              @
@ \ \___/ / @ Providence, RI 02903-0394    @ Doctor: "I think it's a @
@@ \__ __/ @@ (401)-273-4851               @   bit early to start    @
@@  _| |_  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   imposing roles on it, @
@@ |_   _| @@ Email addresses:             @   don't you?"           @
@@   | |   @@ Julie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu @  --Monty Python's THE   @
@@@  |_|  @@@ Julie@drycas.bitnet          @    MEANING OF LIFE      @
@@@@     @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:15:21 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:07:54 -0500 j.b. cormier said:
>It may not be what Barbara meant, but it is what she said.
>
>If she needs to have speechwriters to help her keep on track,
>then maybe she should get some before she continues speaking.
>

Then we'd have to listen to the Peanut Gallery complain she is
incapable of answering for herself and needs a speechwriter or
spin doctor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:39:55 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on Abortion

>>>Much as I love my son - if he murdered someone - deliberated, decided
>>>to do it, and carried it out - I can unequivocally say that our
>>>relationship would undoubtedly change.  My *horror* at what he had
>>>done, at what he was *capable* of doing, would stay with me for a
>>>long time.
>
>>So?  Under the standard being proposed for Bush, you'd still be
>>pro-murder if you "supported" him.
>
>So?  I didn't propose that we could determine whether Bush was
>pro anything.

Not so fast.  We're discussing whether or George's statements "mean"
that he's pro-choice wrt his family.

>I was musing about how what Bush *didn't say*
>reflected upon his motivation to be pro-life.

What a deal.  How about I muse on what Clinton hasn't said and discuss
how that reflects on his motivation to be ignorant and/or lying on
some issue I pick?  Then we go and attribute that to him.  Deal?

>>>It seems that they feel that *their* family members could decide this
>>>tragic question appropriately - If only every other woman in the
>>>country had the decency and intelligence to approach the decision with
>>>enough thought.
>
>>We're still waiting for ANY evidence supporting that feeling.
>
>Keep waiting, *careful* readers may have noted that that I began
>the paragraph by qualifying the above as an opinion.

I'm asking about the evidence supporting that opinion.

>>Carter didn't disown Amy; does that mean that he "feels" that various
>>illegal drugs are appropriate for the "right" people?  Does that mean
>>he's secretly pro-drug?  No?  Then why is Bush/Quale any different for
>>saying that they'd do the exact same thing wrt a LEGAL act?
>
>-andy, do you really believe that murder and drug possession are
>       anywhere near each other on the "horror scale"?

It doesn't matter how close they are on the "horror scale".  That
scale tells us what the act "means", it doesn't tell us whether or not
someone is pro-act.

The spinners have proposed an evaluation standard by which Bush is
pro-abortion, or pro-abortion for "his" people.  (Both have been
suggested.)  Somehow, they don't like it when that same standard is
applied to other people.  They point out that it is a silly standard
in those other cases, and they're half-right; it's a silly standard in
ALL cases.

Why is it so difficult for Clinton supporters to make an honest
argument?  Why are they so intent on behaving like their portrayal of
Bush supporters?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:20:39 GMT

In <BswHIp.Luo@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

>	What, exactly, has Bush done to encourage the illegality of 
>abortion?

I can't help but wonder where Robert Weiss has been.  Bush has served
under a president who advocated that abortion be criminalized.  He has
run under a platform that proclaims that abortion is murder (murder is
illegal, Robert).  He has appointed Supreme Court Justices who have
tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, the decision that made it legal for women
to seek and have and for doctors to perform abortions in the first
place--or to be precise, the decision that made it unconstitional for
states to make abortion illegal.