HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:36:21 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). Up until today, I was still looking
>forward to $20 and a dinner (the combined reward of the pool), but
>after tonight I'm willing to concede defeat. Here are highlights from
>what promised to be an exceedingly boring interview with the Dateline
>news show.
>
>---

>Q: [Same question that was asked Quayle -- if you're granddaughter had
>an abortion, what would you do?]
>
>Bush: [Same Response -- I'd disapprove of the decision, but I'd still
>love her, etc, etc]
>
>Q: It sounds like you're saying that in the end it's her choice.
>
>Bush: Well, whose else choice would it be?
>
>[The state courts, according to his stated positions.]
>---

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. I seriously doubt the
founding fathers desired that amending the constitution be a way of 
regulating medical procedures.......

-rob
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1792 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2543 alt.politics.clinton:2046 alt.politics.elections:10677
From: michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:39:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us's message of 17 Aug 92 00:08:06 GMT

In article <8JJmPB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> 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-controll
=> Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.
=>

=You mean, as opposed to the last two Republican Presidents who have done such a
=wonderful job at controlling government spending?

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. (According to REASON magazine,
the $1.52 trillion budget is 31% larger than Reagan's largest
budget. For two presidents who were supposedly so much against
gov't waste, they sure have much to account for.)

Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1555 alt.politics.marrou:777 talk.politics.misc:39664 alt.politics.elections:10565 talk.politics.theory:3668
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:32:36 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug9.134416.4208@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
>Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
>Date: 9 Aug 92 13:44:16 GMT

>In article <1992Aug7.172258.13618@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>}...
>}I am using the following. From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate...
>}
>}"A cause, principle, or system of beliefs, held to with ardor and faith."
>}...
>}humanist documents if I have to but for the moment let just summarize
>}some of the basic tenents of the faith.
>}
>}1. Man is the measure of all things.
>}2. There is no God and all the "creation" came about by chance
>}   and or natural processes.
>}3. There is no absolute right or wrong but we must as a society
>}   come up with a set of reletive standards which produce the most
>}   good for mankind as a whole. (I suspect this is where you got
>}   the above definition).
>}
>}Now to many these may seem to be perfectly reasonable statements.
>}To me they are not. They are clearly religious statements and therefor
>}constitute a religion which I find objectionable.

>How is it that they are "clearly religious statements"?  Where's the
>ardor and faith part?  (I'd concede faith for 1. and the first part
>of 2., but not the rest.)

>}I have no problem
>}with people having these views. I do have a problem with being told
>}that I have to pay to have these views spread.

>A "view" is not an article of faith held with ardor.  And I don't
>understand why you think views 1. and 2a. are being "spread" with
>public monies, anyway.

>--
>Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>

Also, regarding 2, not all humanists would describe themselves as secular 
or atheistic humanists. This may seem overly fastidious, but it is certainly 
true that there are many religionists who claim to be humanists, and many of 
these would deny 2 and probably 3 as well.  1 also is quite vague but not 
irremediably so. But I would go along with the suggestion that 'faith' as
defined is an essential component of anything identifiable as religion; 
essential, perhaps, but not sufficient.  I'm not at all sure I could give 
an account of what is sufficient for something's being a religion, an 
inability I seem share with many students of religion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 18:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.221031.5752@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <BD.92Aug15103702@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>>>Am I the only person to notice that "Senator William Clinton" is an anagram
>>>of "Win mental clitoris loan"?
>>
>>Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?
>
>The junior senator from the state "between Texas and Oklahoma."  What, you
>haven't been keeping up with the news?
>
>
Am I the only person to notice that "Senator Brice Dowaliby of Fluent" is an
anagram for "I, by law, set an effluent, doric boor"?
It makes no sense, but neither does Senator (sic) William Clinton.

Alan


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:52:05 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>>It's like Bush's answer on Dateline NBC last night, where he reiterated
>>Quayle's opinion that an abortion should be the choice of the woman, as
>>long as it's a relative of his.  Bush has shown again and again that he
>>thinks he's above the law.

>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.

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.  

BTW, what were his exact words regarding that stealing thing?
"we'd make it right?"  what does that mean?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush is a leader, not a slick campaigner
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:01:39 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug17.212729.18363@makesys.com> john@makesys.com (John Turman) writes:
>What I can't understand is that following the Gulf war Mr. "Read my Lips"
>had an approval rating of 92%, this fully one year after the tax increase,

The event showed Bush at his best. He commanded superbly and skillfully,
and showed poise, determination, and - unlike most of the congressional
Democrats - he knew that a bully like Saddam could only be ejected
from Kuwait by force. 

A year later, Congress was still able to hold Bush's economic recovery
package hostage. The hostile Democratic Congress has become Bush's Khoumeni
and his Vietnam all in one.

>so why
>is it that something that was such a non-issue then has suddenly become so big
>now?

Perhaps because the effects of increased taxes hadn't hit home.

>This tells me that there are a bunch of hypocrites that were part of the
>50% or so approvers who are now on the slick Willery bandwagon cause it's
>fashionable.

Bill Clinton and his pals in the Democratic leadership engage
in adject hyposcrisy each time they repeat the "no new taxes"
line of Bush with contempt.  They *wanted* him to break his pledge,
and were positively gleeful when he did agree to the Democratic
proposals to increase taxes.

Now Bill Clinton is proposing further tax increases and increased
regulation to add further burdens on workers and businesses.
If the 1990 Budget Deal was so bad in their opinion, *why* are
so intent on repeating the mistake?

>That's OK though the jokes on you who think Clinton will be any
>different or better than the Bushman,

No, he will be worse. None of Bush's leadership and resolve on foreign
affairs, a Democrat Congress with *nobody* to veto their nonsense,
and more increases in taxes and regulation to further stifle the
economy.

---
Pat
P.S. Clinton is just a Carter retread, with the same false promises
and platitudes hiding an agenda of increased spending and taxes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:10:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.232058.19249@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.201543.12423@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (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.
>
>If the murder happened under circumstances where the death penalty
>is involved, you can bet that Bush is going to do everything in his
>power (which is considerable) to bend the rules just enough for his
>kid/grandkid to skirt around the death penalty.  I would doubt that
>he would take a second glance that someone from a poor/non-influential
>family gets fried for exactly the same crime that his kid got off of.

He'd do no more than Senator Kennedy did for his nephew, which is no
less than any other parent.  Such vigorous advocacy is exactly what
civil libertarians think that EVERY criminal defendant is entitled to,
and what every parent wants for his kids/grandkids.  Neither group is
being hypocritical when they also support vigorous prosecution and
severe penalties.  (That's how an adversary process works; we don't
live under revolutionary law.)  Bush is no different.

>Again, here we see that Bush applies different rules to his own kind
>than are applied to the "man on the street".

If you think the "man on the street" wouldn't want the best for his
kids, even when they do wrong, you're not spending much time on US
streets.

Let's see if any of the Democrats posting are any different from Bush.
Suppose you knew your kid committed murder and you can provide that
kid with a good legal defense, a legal defense that might get him/her
off.  Will you provide said defense?  You would?  You're just as
pro-murder as Bush is, and just as hypocritical if you say that you're
not pro-murder.  What, you're neither pro-murder or hypocritical?
Then why do you insist that Bush is for doing the exact same thing?
Oh, he's got more resources to help his kid than you do?  I guess that
makes Senator Kennedy pro-rape....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: holland@access.digex.com (Brian Holland)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:37:40 GMT

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.  
A>with 3+ weeks to practice an answer to this question, he failed.  
>he failed to answer without waffling and he failed to sidestep.  
>
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.

The interesting thing about GHWB's statement is that there is no way
to reconcile it with a pro-life stance.  If GHWB really thought abortion
was murder, do you think he would of answered Stone Phillip's question
the same way?  Imagine if Phillips had asked Bush "Your granddaughter
tells you she is about to murder your four year old great-grandson. What
would you do?"  I can't see GHWB saying, "Well, I'd try to talk her 
out of it."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye)
Subject: Re: Abortion again / was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:38:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.162220.3197@news.acns.nwu.edu> pakrat@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Grogan) writes:
>	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

stop posting to alt.fan.dan-quayle
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1411 alt.politics.elections:10467 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2430
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:25:53 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.bush, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>
>I think you guys and the media are splitting hairs.  Bush is
>undeniably pro-life.  If his granddaughter decided to blow
>someone's head off, in the end it was her decision, who else's
>would it be?  Doesn't mean she would not serve life in prison, or
>even death, or that her Granddad wouldn't still love her and support
>her after she had done it.

Are you for real?  You would support a relative who blows peoples
heads off?  You guys scare the crap out of me!  Quick!  Someone
out there tell me this isn't a typical Republican position, please!

"Poor little Adolf, he's so misunderstood."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.election
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Clunkers from George
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:17:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Culturale Elit
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush


"My loyalty lies not with the Gallup polls, but with our young people
who must gallop in the way of danger."
                               - GHWB addressing the VFW, 8/17/92

Gack.  What a *maroon*.

For other verbal gems (& evidence that George has given up Peggy
Noonan's style for Jesse Jackson's), call the White House Actualities
Line at 800-424-9090.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2553 tx.politics:4374
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:32:43 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Yes, Joe, I stand corrected; the Dems have jumped on that one too I guess
to show they're not un-family!  I still believe,though, that the Repubs
are cowtowing to the exteme right on that "issue" and I hope it'll 
contribute to their downfall this election.  Family values as an issue
begs the question "Whose family and what values?" (I heard some newsguy
say that) My definition of family values would be those values learned
at home from your family, not the government; I resent being lectured
to by these politicians on how to conduct my life.  Maybe I'm prejudiced,
but the way the Repubs put it seems to be a real turnoff, and the Dems
make it easier to swallow somehow.  You know, a lot of young families
in this country are having a MUCH MORE DIFFICULT time of it than when
I was their age.  The kinds of jobs non-college people can get now 
just don't seem to pay enough for a family to live on.  Is this going
to be a country where only the "wealthy" can afford to have a family?
The Repubs make me feel that anyone who isn't financially prepared to
take care of whatever family they wind up with is irresponsible and
wanting to live in a welfare state.  Sorry, I'm getting windy. Bye.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1955 alt.politics.elections:10780 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2590
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 09:03:31 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

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

Hmmm...does that mean there's a Barbara Bush School of Revisionist History
also?  Given how seriously the Repubs take Hillary Clinton's record and views,
you can't tell me that Barbara Bush's comments (which almost verge on
pro-choice) were not planned, staged, and well rehearsed.

Seems like you're the one who's lacking understanding.  Your candidates have
backed themselves into a corner where the majority of the country just ain't,
and are having to use surrogates like wives to try to un-paint themselves out.



|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2339 alt.politics.clinton:2413 alt.politics.perot:1318 rec.humor:26636 talk.bizarre:26892
From: speers@opus.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:33:22 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> 
> >Am I the only person to notice that "Senator William Clinton" is an anagram
> >of "Win mental clitoris loan"?
> 
> Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?

If I could buy a ticket to win, what is a mental clitoris and
who would loan it to me?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2497 alt.politics.marrou:868 talk.politics.misc:41256 alt.politics.elections:11273 talk.politics.theory:3789