HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<BszKvB.9z7@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Aug14.213620.26596@den.mmc.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:24:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.213620.26596@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:

   >It's really not that difficult to understand.  According to a
   >pro-death penalty pro-lifer:
   >
   >1. Abortion is murder, therefore 
   >2. Those who have abortions are murderers
   >3. Murderers should be put to death
   >
   >The only logical conclusion would be that
   >
   >3. Those who have abortions should be put to death.  
   >
   >Why is that ridiculous?  It is plainly hypocritical, unless he
   >doesn't truly believe that abortion is murder.
   >
   >Look, I agree that Bush may have been showing some natural
   >parental caring for his descendents.  What I find fascinating is
   >that he seems unwilling to do the same for women outside of his
   >family.

   I'm really interested to see a copy of the article where Bush insists
   that all women who have abortions be put to death.  That's the one
   consistent thread you folks have been harping on.

You miss the point.  The scandal is that (he says) he believes #1 and
#2, but either doesn't understand or won't admit that from these two
statements #3 follows immediately.  If such an article as you ask
for existed we would be re-assured of his integrity (if not his
judgement.)

   >Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
   >v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
   >UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Actually, this could explain a lot
       of things.

Right, it is important not to examine what politicians say.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:00:25 GMT


In article <BtAv3I.5s2@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...
> 
>Tell me, is it wise to base a national policy on the assumption that
>poor people are not going to have children if they can't afford them?
>Is it wise to punish the children for the poverty they are born into?
> 

No, it is unwise to have a national policy that encourages poor people to
have children they cannot afford.  It is even worse to have a national
policy that then supports those children by (both figuratively and in
many cases literally) taking the bread from the mouths of those children
whose parents could, if weren't for the government stealing to support
the irresponsible, provide for them.

A national policy based on CHARITY, rather than thug-enforced taxation
financed beauractatically run social welfare programs, addresses the
problem of not punishing the children of the poor or of the not poor.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1534 alt.politics.clinton:1913 alt.politics.perot:1275 talk.politics.misc:39624
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Congress "above" the law?  (Was: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:48:01 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness writes:

>It is biased rhetoric. For real, objective, cases of an institution
>that considers itself literally above the law, look to Congress, which exempts
>itself from wage laws, occupational health and safety laws, Civil Rights
>laws, and numerous other laws it subjects the rest of the country to.

You know, I keep hearing this (mostly from the pig, Rush Limbaugh), and I 
wonder if it's accurate (it might be, but I wonder).  I had thought the 
reason for this is that Congress is Constitutionally exempt from them, since 
the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and separation of powers limits the 
influence of the Executive Branch over Congress.  

Anyone have a clue what the real story is?
-- 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766       |
|                        bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu                              |
|              I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me                |
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:34:49 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
	<4657@news.duke.edu>
	<oeYemuq00WBOM4Gq0R@andrew.cmu.edu>

>!Chris Lyman
>Emil Chuck
 
>!Amen and preach it sister!  Some time ago in talk.abortion, I read a 
>!harrowing narrative by a woman who had given herself an abortion with
>!a sterilized knitting needle.  She described the pain as 'excruciating,'
>!and said that she bled for days.  Her reason?  Her father had stated that 
>!he would kill any daughter of his who became pregnant before marriage
>!and she had every reason to believe him.  I wish I'd saved the article;
>!it's very worthwhile reading.
>!
>!I wish even more that, before they glibly spout their fetus worship, pro-
>!forced-birthers would take the time to reflect on what circumstances would
>!cause a woman to risk her life in order not to be pregnant.

 
>I assume that the pregnancy was the result of consentual sex. Otherwise
>I don't think she should have had that much to fear from her father.
 
>and if she had a
>legal abortion, I doubt this action could have helped her relationship
>with her father. Making abortion available to this woman I doubt would have 
>helped her family be more closer and more trusting.

Mr. Emil Chuck's comments are fascinating in the same matter as
attempting to understand Marilyn Quayle's hair-do or her comments. 
Maybe, he's intentionally joking.
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.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:47:53 GMT

In article <l8llf5INNq7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) 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.
>
>No.  The difference is that if either Clinton or Bush found out their child
>was about to commit a murder or rob a store, they would do anything to stop
>it.

No they wouldn't.  They wouldn't kill said "about to rob" kid.  They
probably wouldn't even hit said kid.  At most, they'd call the
cops.  Since abortion IS legal, Bush can't do that.

>Would Bush, if he found out his granddaughter was going to get an abortion,
>do anything he could to stop it?  He said "it was her choice."

It's legal, so there's nothing he can legally do to interfere in that
choice.

Moreover, the question actually asked was "what would you do if you
found out that she'd had an abortion".

We know that Carter didn't hose his kid when he found out AFTER
she was using drugs, he "supported her", but he's not considered
pro-drug.  How is Bush's decision to do the EXACT same thing
any different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2368 talk.politics.theory:3772
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:32:15 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:

[...on Church Leaders ordering the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc....]

>>  It does if you are a spokeman or authority for that "ism".  
>>  The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc, were blessed by major
>>  Christian leaders of the time.

>You keep mixing up the actions of individuals, such as the leaders during a
>small part of history, and a set of ideals.  The set of ideals doesn't call
>for murder or torture -- it very clearly stresses love and compassion.  Any
>justification of heinous acts based on these ideals is pure rationalization
>on the part of the `leaders.'  Criticize the use of religion in politics or
>any specific group of `religious leaders' which committed some acts, but do
>not attack a set of ideals which contradict the claims of these `leaders.'

A couple of points here. These were the leaders of the Church founded by
Paul that we're talking about here. That's as "official" as you could
get as far as Christianity was concerned. A big question is that if all
these christian members of the Church were following a peace&love
doctrine, how come they were not only dumb enough to lete people who
obviously didn't follow that doctrine get to be in charge of, and
spokesmen for, their Church and how come a lot of them went out to kill
folks when so ordered?  Weird huh?

There's also a bit in the NT where Jesus says that he's come as "a
sword" and "will set brother against brother, father against son, mother
against daughter." He later returns to the theme when he says that you
can't be his follower unless you hate you parents.  He was also kinda
nasty to his own mum at Cana.

It wasn't all peace&love huh? Maybe these folks doing all the hating
weren't so far from the doctrinal line after all?

FoFP
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1849 alt.politics.marrou:803 talk.politics.misc:40149 alt.politics.elections:10700 talk.politics.theory:3692
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:05:49 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Aug16.135913.27105@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>You are constructing a classic strawman argument. Please try again
>with something a bit more rational and to the point.
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
> - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -

My anti-christianity, to the degree it exists, is based on their belief
that their rules apply to all people, not just Christians.  I say "to the
degree it exists" beacause not all Cristians are like this, but it isn't
some fringe minority that hold these beliefs.  The frequency with which
laws are proposed that harm homosexuals, or that control the lives of
non-Christians shows that it is common.  I am especially upset by claims
to a "Christian America".  I think they actually believe that the founders
wnated it that way!  Historical revisionism at its worst.  
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: newby@leland.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Newby)
Subject: REQUEST:  Transcript of Bush & Quayle Acceptance Speech
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush, sender
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:48:00 GMT

Would someone who recorded the speeches bo so kind as to type 
them up for the rest of us who couldn't tape them.

I would really appreciate having a copy of these speeches to review.

Many, Many, Many thanks!

-matt
-- 
   /\/\/\            |  ----------->> newby@leland.stanford.edu <<-----------
    / / /    __/__/_ |  Rom 10:9  If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is
   / / / __,  /  /   |  Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him
  / / (_/(_\_/\_/\_  |  from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1990 alt.politics.marrou:823 talk.politics.misc:40408 alt.politics.elections:10810 talk.politics.theory:3716
From: wombat@nfinit.enet.dec.com (Christopher M. Conway)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:58:19 GMT
Reply-To: wombat@nfinit.enet.dec.com
Organization: Prickly Wombat Enterprises


In article <BsMHu9.Cvs@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
- In article <1992Aug7.162922.13138@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> wombat@nfinit.enet.dec.com writes:
- 
- >Boycott Kodak
- 
-    Just out of curiosity, why?   Why should we boycott the *only*
-    US company to make it into the top 5 US patent grantees list 
-    in the last two years?
- 
Because of an unevenly enforced "no posting to Usenet" policy which is
used to silence people with controversial opinions. More than that I'm
not at liberty to say right now.

--
Boycott Kodak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Conway		| U*ix and C Guru
wombat@nfinit.enet.dec.com      | Legalize Freedom!
wombat@juliet.ll.mit.edu        | Marrou/Lord in '92!
nfinit::wombat (DECnet internal)| (505)761-2413 DTN 552-2413
--------------------------------------------------------------
In no way should any statement, question, or other transferral
of information in this post should be construed in any way
as being an official communication of Digital Equipment
Corporation.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:22:21 GMT

In article <92234.111459MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
 
>
>Well, Bush's speech was... okay. It wasn't bad, it wasn't great, it was
>okay. It started to crumble in a couple of places, though (I was reluctant
>to watch the whole thing due to an ominous feeling that something awful
>was going to happen -- he'd collapse on the podium, or something -- but I
>did sit through it all.)
 
      [...]
 
>Thought B: The reason this speech wasn't as good as the one in '88: No
>warm fuzzies (kinder, gentler nation, and so forth.) He spent most of the
>time attacking Congress and/or Clinton and very little time on his own
>(meager) accomplishments, and basically came over as a sort of whiny attack
>dog. An attack poodle, maybe. Bush's '88 speech gave warm fuzzy reasons to
>vote FOR him, and so did Clinton's '92 speech. This one didn't.
>
On the contrary, I think it was an excellent and effective speech for
exactly the opposite reasons. The '88 speech was almost a repudiation
of the sucessful policies of the preceeding 10 years. What he said then
was this is the end of confrontation with the Congress, we'll be friends.
 
Last night's speech sais what a lot of us were waiting to here: I was wrong,
I made a mistake when I signed the "compromise" tax increase. Congress then
turned around and spent even more (50% increase in 3 years), the debt grew,
and so forth.
 
The public has shown time and again that it forgives a repentant sinner.
Bush made his public confession regarding the tax increase and promised a
tax cut.
 
Bush also did well in quoting Clinton. If the Republicans continue to quote
directly from Clinton, Gore and the official Democrat platform they'll
continue to gain. We'll never hear the entire text of the platform from a
news media so objective that they brought Bill Clinton in to critique the
Republican convention speeches!  ;-)
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.224502.7074@news.columbia.edu> 
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

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

> With good reason.  BBA would hand-cuff the government's hands too
> much in a downturn (not to say the Government debt doesn't, either).

Wrong.  The version of the balanced budget amendment that was rejected 
by a bunch of Congressional Democrats contained provisions for allowing 
a deficit with a three-fifths majority vote. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1248 alt.politics.marrou:727 talk.politics.misc:39117 alt.politics.elections:10330 talk.politics.theory:3625
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: school choice (Was: Is this a socialist country?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:34:09 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <veal.196@utkux1.utk.edu> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.165705.23891@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug10.014900.1240@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
>>>  >  ...when did you give up your beliefs long enough to think that
>>>  >what *I* do with *MY* money should be any of *YOUR* concern?
>>>
>>>  Nice try, but the issue is not what you do with your money.  The question
>>>is whether or not you are a hypocrite.  By taking the position that you
>>>have a right to force someone else to contribute to your favored causes,
>>>you leave yourself open to the question of how much you yourself contribute
>>>to said causes.
>
>>Sorry, but the question has nothing to do with that.  I pay for lots
>>of things with my taxes that I don't particularly like.  I say that
>>you will probably wind up paying for lots of things that you don't
>>like, too, and that it is up to society (and its elected
>>representatives) to decide what those things are.
>
>     Society and government are not interchangeable.  They do not equal
>each other.  Nobody gets elected to a high position in society, although
>being in a high position in society often helps you get elected to
>government.

Nobody said that they were.  Note the use of the conjunction 'and'.

>
>>>  You, of course, have the right not to answer that question.  Others, of
>>>course, have the right to draw what conclusions they will from that refusal.
>>>
>
>>The question asked about what *I* do with *MY* money.  Being a
>>libertarian, you have already demonstrated that you are a hypocrite by
>>asking it.  
>
>     Why?  Nobody is forcing you to respond.

Because as a libertarian, what *I* do isn't germane and is my affair.
Implying otherwise is hypocritical for a libertarian.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:03:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.000534.5661@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>>But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
>>adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..
>
>Lynn Martin was smart enough not to try to give Bush credit for what 
>happened under Reagan.

	Good move, too, considering that the airlines were deregulated 
under (dare I say it) *Jimmy Carter*.


-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1528 alt.politics.elections:10552 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2459
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:16:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <sysmatt.713779952@aix3090b.uky.edu>,
sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes:
>There was a great cartoon about this in the local newspaper. Bush saying
>"I'd support a relative if she had an abortion", then "I'd support a relative
>if he robbed a bank", then ringing phone, then "Hi Neil, I was just thinking
>about you"


Now THIS is Funny Stuff!  For this sort of humor, I'd bail out
any number of Bush's delinquent dependents and to Hell with the deficit.

Anyone know who the cartoonist was?


Dhanesh
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cosc16tt@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.)
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
Reply-To: DGray@uh.edu
Organization: /posole/cosc16tt/.organization
	<1992Aug19.005214.9533@cco.caltech.edu>
	<1992Aug21.225141.8372@versyss.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:32:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.225141.8372@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle) writes:

   I'm pretty tired of George's whining about Congress.

Me too!

   Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are supposed to have
   carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Republicans 

Well, not exactly.  Our system was not designed with political parties
in mind.  In fact the dudes who designed it would rather have not had
them pop up.

   Keith

-dennis
--
Dennis Gray, Jr.                 "What the hell were you doing???"

DGray@uh.edu                   "Attempting the hell to communicate."
                                     -from The Voyage Home


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2226 alt.politics.elections:11022 alt.politics.clinton:2298