HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA 
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:20:23 GMT


In article <BD.92Aug13082220@fluent.UUCP>, bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
|barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) says:
|>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.

|Uhm, at this stage, getting an abortion _is_ the choice of the woman.  
|I don't see how this is thinking one's "above the law".

Isn't Bush the one who wants to change the law so that it
*isn't* the choice of the woman?  Does he, or does he not,
approve of the Republican Party's anti-abortion plank?  Does he,
or does he not, favor a "right to life" amendment?

Looks to me like he's a flaming hypocrite, who supports his own
family's right to make decisions, while trying to strip that
right away from others.

[Followups to alt.politics.bush for everyone except Fred McCall.
 McCall will, of course, insist that he has the right to make
 whiney and childish followups in t.b.  Go for it, Fred!]

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: matt@unidata.ucar.edu (Matt Hicks)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:54:23 GMT

Hey, wait a minute, this thread isn't funny! Are you all in the wrong
group or am I?
--
_________________________________________________  /\_/\  _________________
Matthew  B.  Hicks     | Unidata Program Center | ((ovo))  The spotted owl:
matt@unidata.ucar.edu  | UCAR, PO Box 3000      | ():::()  the other "other
303/497-8676	       | Boulder, CO 80307-3000 |   VVV    white meat."   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:40:05 GMT

From article <8303@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, by mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson):

MOVE THIS DISCUSSION TO talk.religion.

Edit the Newsgroup line.


Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:59:33 GMT

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Abortion again / was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:57:34 GMT

In article <19772@plains.NoDak.edu>,
green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Nice try, but I didn't say just because the public supported it it was right.
>[...]
>My point is that the majority of the
>American people DO NOT support abortion on demand, they support abortion
>under certain circumstances, with certain restrictions.

Even if your facts are accurate, your point is rendered irrelevant 
by your own first sentence.  Why do you say you care what "the majority
of the American people" want when -- at the same time -- you also say that
what they want is not necessarily right?


>All right, you're getting it.  And the Democrats want to use the same method
>to furthur their cause.  And just like the Nazi propaganda machine, the
>Democrats have a liberal media to push their cause.

Oh!  I get it now.  The right-wing fascists inherited the
old Nazi propaganda machine, so the dastardly Democrats created
their own Invincible Liberal Media?  What other nightmares have you
been having, son?  Maybe you shouldn't spend so much time in the dark.


>You didn't mention Communist China, is there a reason for this?

Maybe he's been influenced by our Fearless Leader, who never
mentions it when he talks about restoring Democracy in Kuwait,
or by our Vice-Fearless Leader, who never mentions it when *he*
talks about restoring Democracy in Iceland?

But you're right: Communist China sucks.

What's the next voting issue on your list, son?


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

Thanks for the elegy, son.  But it's a little premature.
In spite of *your* inability to distinguish pro-choice from
pro-abortion, not all of us are aborting every pregnancy.


Dhanesh


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.095421@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>   Correction noted.  The S&L deregulation happened during a democratic
>administration.  The failure to correct the mistake was bi-partisian. My
>apologies to any offended Republicans.
>
>Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

One more correction needed. The failed job of enforcing the reduced regulations
fell on a Republican Administrative branch. Most notably, Jim Baker.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2385 alt.politics.elections:11176 alt.politics.clinton:2475
From: barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush Interviewed On Atheism
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:01:16 GMT
Reply-To: barnhart@netcom.com
Organization: Netcom

<U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
>Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush.  The Republican
>presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for
>Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential primary:"

>   Reporter for the American Atheist magazine, Rob Sherman:
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
>        atheists?"

>   George Bush: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.
>        Faith in God is important to me."

>   GB: "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
>        nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

>  GB:  "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not very
>       high on atheists." 

I was at the Illinois GOP Convention in '88 o hear a similar exchange
between Sherman and the guy who introduced Bush last night, Senator
Bob Dole.  (I always love the business about "reporter for American
Atheist magazine," like anyone gives a rat's ass.  Just say you're Chicago's
#1 atheist, Rob, be proud of that!)

Having said that ...

George Herbert Hoover ought to have a look at the role of deists,
transcendentalists, Unitarians, and other near-atheists in the forming
of our country.  I think Lincoln and Washington would have been a *lot*
more accommodating toward the people that folks like Bush consider second-
class citizens.  For evidence on Lincoln, f'rinstance, read the chapter
"The Transcendentalist Manifesto" in Garry Wills' new book, "Lincoln at
Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America."

There is a fundamental indifference toward the non-high-church cultural
Protestant that Bush belies very easily, and it marks a very real contrast
between him and Clinton or Gore.  Carter rebuked it with a stern
evangelicalism, which most Americans found unappealing.  By contrast, it's 
a very earnest and humble part, perhaps the most earnest and humble parts,
of both Clinton's and Gore's personalities.  Also the most interesting.

This difference can, I suppose, explain a lot of things, like Clinton-
Gore's emphasis on human rights and environmentalism and their
indifference toward old mantras like "peace through strength" that
don't give quarter to personal vulnerability.

At any rate, all it does for me is give a more personal reason for liking
these guys.



-- 
Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1352 alt.politics.elections:10416 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2410
From: dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ken Dowzycki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:25:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:


>What's great is that while their coalition crumbles around them, the
>Republicans react by becoming more entrenched in their failed policies.
>No budging at all on the abortion plank. Chastise Bush for his budget
>agreements. And if (or when) they lose the presidency, their plan is to 
>purge all the "liberal" elements that have contaminated the party, and 
>re-emerge in 1996 conservatively correct, with Jack F. Kemp leading the
>charge. Yes, it will be nice to have another JFK in the White House.

   JFK was an amoral piece of shit that couldn't keep his pants zipped.
The media keeps digging up his dusty bones on any opportunity including
the last time he boinked Marilyn.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2447 alt.politics.marrou:863 talk.politics.misc:41166 alt.politics.elections:11222 talk.politics.theory:3779
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: More Government
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:47:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug7.203841.12820@athena.mit.edu>, howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.marrou, talk.politics.misc,
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            alt.politics.elections, talk.politics.theory

> It seems as if many of the posts here advocate that more government be used
> to solve all of the problems of society.

What you mean "here," white man?!
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1450 alt.politics.marrou:764 talk.politics.misc:39470 alt.politics.elections:10493 talk.politics.theory:3657
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: School Choice (and political questions about the issue)
Date: 11 Aug 92 21:35:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <1992Aug6.132044.27780@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> In article <o73nj64@zola.esd.sgi.com>, thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>|> |> 
>|> |> In article <l80hu3INN10a@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com writes:

>You are *already* paying for my children's education (actually, mine
>aren't in school yet but you get the point), the voucher just means you
>will pay less for better education.  One step at a time.

You are clearly ignorant about the performance of private education.
There is a very small difference in the test scores of public and
private schools.  I've examined 5 completely separate studies and each
report that there is no important difference in test scores when you 
equalize everything execpt for the private or public status of the
schools. 

You are assuming that a private schools is a for profit organization.
The free market model assumes that the motivation of private
orgainziations is the rational pursuit of maximizing profits.  Schools
don't work this way even private schools.  There are many reasons for
this including both motivations of the educators (vendors) and the
parents (consumers).  There are many other complicating factors for
example when buying education it is difficult to purchase a single unit
of education, rather, people enroll their children in a school in the
expectation that they will stay there for a long time.

Schools don't work that way.  For example, I cannot find if my child
will learn more at a private school since there is no satisfactory way
that I can compare the product of schools.  My child goes to a private
school not because we think she will learn more but because my wife
wants my daught to get a religious education.

>Now.  No one answered my questions:  What percentage of education
>is paid by the feds and what percentage is paid by local taxes?
>In other words, can local governments actually do much without
>federal approval?

I don't know the exact number but I understand that it is about %4
-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Content-free Discourse (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 00:44:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug16.234314.13656@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>,
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and
>>a Democratically-controlled Congress will keep a lid on
>>spending is fooling themselves.  
>
>I have quoted the entire body of this post -- one statement.
>
>This is the sort of statement that reveals more about its
>author than about its own content.  It is irrefutable because
>it denies the possibility of refutation.  It says:
>
>	If [A] believes X, then [A]'s thought process is flawed.
>
>How is [A] supposed to refute this sort of statement?  Any response
>that [A] cares to make is immediately dismissed as another instance
>of [A]'s self-delusion.  In the sense that it demands silent
>acquiescence, it is, essentially, a religious statement.
>

Well one case that quickly comes to mind is:

	If a person believes the Earth is flat, then their thought
 		process is flawed.

A religious statement? Perhaps. Most people believe it to be true.

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2542 alt.politics.elections:11319
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 01:41:15 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
 <1992Aug19.005214.9533@cco.caltech.edu> <1992Aug21.225141.8372@versyss.com>

In article <1992Aug21.225141.8372@versyss.com>, keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
says:
>Get this George, the Congress is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
>President.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?
>If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
>it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
>If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
>it probably ain't.

I find the tone of Bush's Congress-bashing interesting. It's not so much
disagreement, or disgust, but sheer moral outrage. Oh, how DARE those
evil Congressmen not pass my [capital gains tax cut/energy bill/rainforest
clearcutting program]! Who do they think they ARE?

"Golly, George," I found myself thinking, "maybe Congress thought your
so-called plans were pig doots, and THAT'S why they haven't passed it?"
Most of Bush's pet projects have turned out to be meaningless
gimmicks, breaks for his friends, misguided or just dumb. It's Congress's
not only right, but OBLIGATION, to get in the way of such things!

The undercurrent running through the entire GOP convention seemed to be
that the Republican Party really hates the separation of powers, and would
prefer a system where all power rests with the executive. This I find deeply
disturbing.

>Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are supposed to have
>carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Republicans
>just can't seem to stand that.  They keep trying to end-run around
>the system.

One speaker during the GOP convention stated that (paraphrased) "if Congress
hadn't approved the use of force in the Persian Gulf, the President would
have ordered it anyway" -- so there! I found myself screaming at the TV
set for the guy to get himself a copy of the Constitution, which he obviously
had never seen, and read it carefully; particularily the part about Congress
and ONLY CONGRESS having the authority to declare war. This absolute contempt
for the Constitution has been running through both the Reagan and Bush
administrations and shouldn't be excused just 'cause you happen to be in
the same party with those guys.

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2028 alt.politics.elections:10849 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2618
From: joel@vthvax.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:03:03 GMT
Organization: Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Texas A&M University

In article <1992Aug18.174311.2402@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In regards to the restrictions, perhaps most Americans have not
> carefully considered the effects of, say, a 24-hour waiting period.
> For the well-off, this is no great hardship: they most likely live
> near an abortion clinic, or can get there easily.  They probably can
> take a day off very easily.  For poor, rural women, the 24-hour wait
> is an undue burden.  Most likely, she earns hourly wages.  How much
> does she lose if she has to take a day off because of the waiting
> period?  Further, she most likely has to schlepp across the state to
> get to a clinic.  In each of the Dakotas, there is ONE abortion clinc.
> Not only does she have to travel for hours, paying bus fare back and
> forth and forgoing wages, she'll be forced to stay at this clinic at
> least over night.  Isn't this an undue burden?  More subtley, the
> waiting period is patronizing.  It assumes that the woman in question
> has not considered her situation at all, assumes that she looked at
> the home pregnancy test, and boom, she's at the clinic the same
> afternoon.  Is this truly what happens?
> 

I can see how an abortion (and a waiting period) would seem like a
nuisance for someone who has no respect for unborn life.  I think a 24
hour waiting period is small when compared to the importance of the decision.

Instead of focusing on the hardship to the mother, why not discuss the
real questions?  Who's life is it?  Who's rights are being violated?
The child is the only innocent party and it's the childs rights that need to
be protected by law.

Don't bother with the unviable tissue mass argument.  It's a joke.


Joel Hammond
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.030810.13510@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>So, now that that's out of the way, I will ask the question that burns into
>my brain:
>
>When did Marilyn Q become more attractive to the public at large than
>Hillary C?  Dear Lord in Heaven, Marilyn is the most humorless, angry,
>power-hungry, ambitious religious-rightist campaign wife you could come up
>with.  She makes my skin crawl.  She makes the hair stand up on the back of
>my head.  She makes me shake things at my television set and shout nasty
>things at it.  She has the emotional depth of a manequin, and the
>sensitivity of a cobra.  She is not nice or fun people.
>
>(And this posting is by a Republican precinct committeewoman!--but of the
>pre-religious right school.)
>
>Another question:
>
>Why does this party think it can "feed on my kind" and get my vote?  They
>come into the election with the baggage of Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill;
>the abortion plank; their resistence to civil rights legislation (until the
>post-Hill era) for improved remedies for sex harassment and discrimination;
>and now they think that they can run an attack on Hillary that plays to
>peoples' underlying hostility to strong, successful--uppity--women and get
>the votes of people who support the equality of women?????
>


Your second question has almost answers your first question. Hillary
makes the average person feel inferior. She is one of the women who
comes close to having it all. Most women and many men have settled 
for much less than she has and do want to be shaken in their believe
that what they settled for is the best there is.

Marilyn does not make one feel inferior. She makes some people feel angry.
She makes others feel sympathetic. In a world which is still dominated
by patriarchal sex roles, attractiveness  in women is a desired quality.
As someone posted elsewhere she looks like Prince Charles not Di.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle