HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:01:03 GMT

In article <BsxJ4r.HDC@news.larc.nasa.gov> avik@icase.edu (Avik Banerjee) writes:
>a president doesn`t have to be above the law, he can change the
>law so it wont be broken.

Depends what you mean by law.  If you mean what comes out of Congress,
the President can't necessarily change that.  He can try to go around
it by not telling anyone what he's doing (a la Reagan), though.

[On the other hand, I must commend Bush: at least he didn't have
half his administration indicted.]

If you consider the changes in regulations that Quayle is working
on, you may consider this to be manipulating the law so no one's
breaking it.  These regulatory changes have been made without
public hearing, and in violation of the spirit of the legislation
the regulation is based on.  Clean Air Act comes to mind.





--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:54:01 GMT

In article <MICHAEL.92Aug16223939@paul.bu.edu> 
michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin) writes:

>elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a 
>>> democratically-controlled Congress will keep a lid on spending 
>>> is fooling themselves.

> Let's face it- all that happened was that we went from stupid
> tax-and-spend policies to even more stupid borrow-and-spend
> policies. Myself, I find it rather hard to put the entire blame
> on Congress when the President himself hasn't bothered to even
> SUBMIT a balanced budget for 1993. 

President Bush has submitted balanced budgets PLANS, but they've been
rejected by Congress.  It's going to take more than a year to get
the budget balanced. 

Bush supports the balanced budget amendment, Clinton does not.  And a 
whole bunch of Democrats in the House don't support the amendment either. 

We need a President that will rein in the spending habits of Congress,
not one that will rubberstamp every spending bill that crosses his desk.  

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2425 talk.politics.misc:41134 alt.politics.clinton:2515 alt.politics.elections:11207
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:42:25 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug21.000534.5661@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
> ...>

> >
> >> Though I lead a life style that Clayton Cramer and the Religious Right
> >> would probably approve of at least as far as sex and drugs are concerned,
> >> I am substantially more at risk of aids than I was 4 years ago.
> >
> >Can you blame this on the President?  Do you think that 4 years of Clinton 
> >will change that?  or even 12 years?
> 
> No I can't say that I can blame that on the President. However, I do believe
> that if he and more importantly if Reagan had not ignored the importance of
> AIDs for so long, we would be much closer to a solution now. I also believe
> that if the government had supported such things as free condoms in schools,
> needle exchange programs, we would all be at less risk no matter what our
> life style. Unless of course, the cause of AIDS turns out to be something
> other than the HIV virus.


Passing free condoms out in schools is ludicrous.  Consider:

	1) Condoms have a reasonably high failure rate.  Would you
 	   feel safe having sex with someone who was HIV+ being protected
	   only by a condom?  If the answer is no (and I suspect that
	   for any reasonable person it is), then handing out condoms
	   as the preventative measure needed against AIDS is simply
	   a lie.
	2) Handing out condoms encourages their use.  Before yelling
	   "no it doesn't" ask yourself if you think we should be handing
	   out IV needles in the schools for all the kids to use when
	   shooting up.  Should we teach them to use the needles
	   properly so they can avoid disease?

What is really needed is a positive "just say no" campaign to
promiscuity.  I'm not saying that we should outlaw premarital sex,
I'm just saying that cutting back on the amount of emotionless acts
of intercourse would go a long way towards cutting back on AIDS
and unwed mothers.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:33:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.200411.1166@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.180923.29615@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>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.  

Try again.  Bush said that if his daughter stole something, he'd love
her afterwards anyway.  (Bush said that he wouldn't abandon some
relative if she made particular decisions; he didn't express support
for her right to make that decisions.  His examples included theft as
well as abortion.)  Does that mean that Bush is pro-choice when it
comes to theft?  No?  Then why do you insist on misrepresenting his
statements wrt abortion?  (Do you even understand the difference?)

>>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.

He isn't, so it isn't surprising that he's not saying so.

>					If he would let a relative
>make their own decision about getting an abortion

Feel free to show that he would, given the choice.  All you've got now
is that he won't abandon relatives who do things that he disapproves
of.

Clinton advocates have dug themselves a trap on this one.  Either
they're intentionally misrepresenting Bush or they don't understand a
distinction that the American people value.  (Would Clinton pay for a
lawyer if he knew that his daughter murdered someone and was being
tried for it?  If not, he can't admit that to the American public.  If
yes, then he's as pro-murder as Bush is pro-choice.)  We know that
Bush lies - why are Clinton fans so insistent on proving that he's no
different?

BTW - Has Clinton announced whether or not he's pro-choice wrt
abortion for sex-selection?  How about parental notification (with
judicial bypass)?  (The "pro-choice" majority isn't pro-choice for
sex-selection abortion and really likes parental notification.)

-andy is pro-abortion in some circumstances and pro-choice in all

ps - Clinton has announced that he thinks that women shouldn't be
allowed to buy guns if their local police chief doesn't think that
women should have guns, but he opposes criminal records background
checks for gun purchases.  (The alternative is that he hasn't read or
doesn't understand the Brady Bill, which he enthusiastically
supports.)  That's an interesting position.

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Music at Republican National Convention
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:25:57 GMT

dylan@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:

>In article <2A94F647.8D0C@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> Bush's pre-planned "surprise" visit to the RNC Wednesday was
>> accompanied by some appropriately upbeat music.
>> 
>> I'm given to understand that the music was, in fact, taken from the
>> play _La_Cage_Aux_Folles_, a play that revolves around homosexual
>> life.
>> 
>> Is this information correct?  How could the RNC make such a gaffe?

>I heard this on NPR Thursday morning.
>Personally, I think Dan-the-Man Quayle was in the soundbooth at that point.

I disagree. I think the Republicans knew perfectly well what they were doing.
They were just having a good time, creating confusion among the media-types.
Once again, they went for it, and look like fools for wasting time on it!

-ACF
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1422 alt.politics.elections:10474 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2432
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: School Choice (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 10:55:21 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <l8j4oaINN1kv@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> |> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >[under a tax credit system]
|> |> >Nobody is forced to pay for the type of education they
|> |> >disapprove of, whatever their reasons.  
|> |> 
|> |> In theory this might be true, but de facto I suspect it would become
|> |> common that people would wind up having to pay for religious education
|> |> that goes against their religious beliefs because that happened to be
|> |> the school that had the best classes or that happened to be the only
|> |> one around (the others having been unable to compete, pricewise,
|> |> because of the ability of the religious school to get cheaper
|> |> instructors, tax exemptions, etc.).
|> 
|> To further support fred, this is not true at all.  The fact is that schools
|> are supported by individuals and corporations.  Many of the individuals have
|> no children, and the corporations are not taxed based upon how many children
|> their employees have.

No disagreement here.          

|> 
|> The assumption you make in support of vouchers says that the education 
|> system, public plus vouchers, can get along with out those that have no
|> children.  If I have no school age children, then I have to pay for an
|> education I disapprove of, be it an inefficient public system or a
|> very extremist religios based system, or something in between.

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.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Brad, read more carefully
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:08:06 GMT

In article <19768@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>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.<

     Oh, Brad, you need to read my posts a little more carefully. Let me 
reiterate the logic of Dan Quayle for you:

     A) Dan Quayle believes abortion is murder.
     B) Dan Quayle would support his daughter (not her *decision*, just her) if
she chose to have an abortion.

     C) Therefore, Dan Quayle would stand by his daughter even if she murdered 
his grandchild.

     Is that the kind of "family values" that Dan Quayle supports? Please let 
us know before November.

                             Steve (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1392 alt.politics.marrou:756 talk.politics.misc:39379 alt.politics.elections:10444 talk.politics.theory:3652
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 1992 18:14:42 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <Jtb-vy#@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> In article <l8j4oaINN1kv@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> |> fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> |> |> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> >[under a tax credit system]
|> |> |> >Nobody is forced to pay for the type of education they
|> |> |> >disapprove of, whatever their reasons.  
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> In theory this might be true, but de facto I suspect it would become
|> |> |> common that people would wind up having to pay for religious education
|> |> |> that goes against their religious beliefs because that happened to be
|> |> |> the school that had the best classes or that happened to be the only
|> |> |> one around (the others having been unable to compete, pricewise,
|> |> |> because of the ability of the religious school to get cheaper
|> |> |> instructors, tax exemptions, etc.).
|> |> 
|> |> To further support fred, this is not true at all.  The fact is that schools
|> |> are supported by individuals and corporations.  Many of the individuals have
|> |> no children, and the corporations are not taxed based upon how many children
|> |> their employees have.
|> 
|> No disagreement here.          
|> 
|> |> 
|> |> The assumption you make in support of vouchers says that the education 
|> |> system, public plus vouchers, can get along with out those that have no
|> |> children.  If I have no school age children, then I have to pay for an
|> |> education I disapprove of, be it an inefficient public system or a
|> |> very extremist religios based system, or something in between.
|> 
|> 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?  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)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2267 alt.politics.clinton:2335 alt.politics.perot:1313 rec.humor:26600 talk.bizarre:26823 talk.politics.misc:40845
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 20 Aug 1992 18:27:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <Bt1MD7.B2D@ais.org> hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>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...)


What is CBC Windsor ?

                                            Myron Hlynka
                                            University of Windsor




Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1375 alt.politics.clinton:1817 alt.politics.perot:1249 rec.humor:25957 talk.bizarre:25764 talk.politics.misc:39355
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
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 14:36:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|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.  
|
|For starters, he did 70 on the Beltway in 1990.
	Hey, his jogging has definitely improved! :)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:59:28 GMT

lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
|> WRONG. Bush was pro-choice until he joined up with Reagan in 1980. I think
|> that Bush has finally came to the obvious conclusion, that to be a right-to-
|> run-your-life supporter, is in essence a very *bad* political decision.
|> 
|> All I have to say is - finally. I think it is, or would be, a wise move
|> on Bush's behalf to come forward and clearly state a pro-choice stand, but
|> he won't, because of the many republicans that vote on one issue alone.

I didn't say he has always been pro-life, just that he *is* undeniably
pro-life, and you just stated the reason, "because of the many
republicans that vote on [the abortion] issue alone." Although, I don't
know who they would vote for if Bush was pro-choice.  Any guesses?
Would he have won the primaries?

In the end, the pro-choice people might even benefit from the
constitutional abortion ban plank.  It could divert the pro-life efforts
from fighting the state battles to passing this constitutional ban,
something that is politically impossible, IMHO.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2186 talk.abortion:32515
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Campbell theory of abortion
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:01:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <26771@life.ai.mit.edu> 
elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

>>> Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
>>> the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
>>> the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
>>> third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
>>> is a human being.

>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
>> out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
>> process.  This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
>> "well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
>> to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 

> So, Doug, from your reasoning above, it is obvious that you
> would accept a procedure in which the fetus is removed intact
> and then given a bottle of milk with which to feed itself. In
> this procedure, no one will harm the fetus, so no one is a killer.

Not at all, I was pointing out that the original poster was
using euphemisms to describe abortion procedures.  An abortion
kills a human being, and many pro-choicers don't seem willing
to confront that fact. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:52:37 GMT

In article <ompaeio@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
        [...]
>Let's put this into perspective. In only eight years, Ronald
>Reagan and his borrow-and-spend crew doubled the size of the
>total outstanding national debt, accumulated over the previous
>200 years. Now, in not-quite four years, George Bush and his
 
Here's where it pays to think things through a little. The Reagan era
debt may have been high in absolute numbers, but so was GNP. It's a
littel silly- or perhaps just plain ignorant- to try to compare debt under
a $7Trillion economy with debt under a $4Billion economy. The Reagan era
debt was about 40% of GNP, or about 1/3rd of the post-WWII debt.
 
>To be moderately serious, anyone who considers that Democrats have
>a monopoly on spending just hasn't done his homework. Yeah, I know
>it's much easier to just swallow the malarkey regularly spewed out
>by OMB, or Bush's and Quayl's speechwriters, but the plain facts of
>the matter are that the last dozen or so budgets, every one of them
>Republican, have been the dozen biggest budgets in our history. No
 
This borders on the foolish. If the last twelve years have had Republican
presidents, and the economy continued to grow, you'd expect that the
1992 budget to be bigger than the 1980 Carter era depression budget,
wouldn't you? After all, GNP is much higher. It's just silly.
 
>Democratic budgets compare. And they've been "paid" for by mortgaging
>the futures of ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren (if,
>indeed, the pain stops there).
 
More silliness. You have to look at the trends and the actual policies
instead of mindlessly repeating what you hear on TV. Phrases like "mortgaging
our future" are meaningless and were an attempt to discredit a phenomenally
sucessful economic policy that would still be growing if we'd elected a
Republican in 1988 ;-)
>
>Use your brain, Doug. First, check up on your sentence construction.
>Then get off your good intentions and find out whether or not what
>you're being told is, in fact, true. Finally, make the supreme
>effort and actually *think* about it all, what it means, both in the
>short and long run.
 
I think the writer might take some of that advice himself.
>
>I have a friend with a parrot. The parrot can repeat anything
>you tell it. But that doesn't make it true...nor, of course,
>does the parrot waste effort thinking about what he says -
>he just bounces it back at the source.
 
Can your parrot say "Mortgaging the future", too?
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections