HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:13:28 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: George Bush on abortion

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Do we have to go through this again?  Bush articulated the compassionate
> prolife position eloquently.  .........................................

Well, what puzzles us pro-choicers is that how would a pro-choicer's
answer have been ANY different than Bush's?  Do you think a pro-choicer
would have send the aborting mother a bouquet of flowers and
congratulated her on making the right choice?

What bothers me this time and what bothered my the last time when
Quayle gave the answer is that Bush's and Quayle's answers were so
close to a pro-choicer's answer (are the Republicans trying to
steal Democrat's agenda?).  Their answers were not consistent
with their belief than abortion is murder.  Let me pose this
situation again:  Bush's daughter goes to him and says that she
is contemplating murdering her 2 year old child because the child
is a nuisance (Did you read that correctly?  I said contemplating.
That is different situation than if the act had already been committed.)
What would Bush do on that occasion?  Would he say to his daughter,
please don't, but if you do murder your 2 year old, I would love you and
get you going in the "game" again.  You want to hear what *I* -- a
pro-choicer (though that is irrelevant) -- would do, if my daughter
told me she is contemplating killing her 2 year old?  What would you
do?

> ................................................  Once an evil act has
> been committed, they recognize, as well, the duty to extend forgiveness
                  ^^^^                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and love to those who have committed the act.  Often, those who commit
> the act refuse forgiveness, maintaining that they did nothing wrong.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ............

"They.......extend forgiveness," who are these "they"??
".....refuse forgiveness," who is giving it??

Is this a freudian slip?  I thought only God offers forgiveness.
(Sometime ago the that great POLITICS theologian even objected
to the priests CONVEYING forgiveness.  What is going on here?

You mean if I abort MY pregnancy, I need YOUR forgiveness?  Please
explain.

> I may not trust Bush on this issue, because of his past history.  But I
> have to admit, he has been committed to the cause since 1980, and he
> hasn't made any mistakes so far.

His commitment SEEMS to be more for political expediency than
coming from heart.

He might be as committed to his pro-life stance as he was committed
to Reagan's voodoo economics.

> --Missy Prez 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:13:33 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Is (Barbara) Bush Pro-choice?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:33:00 EST linda said:
>>*Now*, can we say for sure that Barbara Bush is pro-choice?
>
>i had always understood that babs was pro-choice. i thought it was
>common knowledge.

I'm not sure removal from the platform is an indication of pro-choice.
I think it should be removed so that it is not a party-wide stand and
has less opportunity for being in the political arena, although I know
a lot of people will vote for/against a candidate on this single issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:33:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: direct mail from jail

> > And, yes, I guess I do think that, once you are in prison, and your
> > needs are being taken care of by the taxpayers, I think you *do*
> > more or less forfeit your opportunity for gainful employment.  Somebody
> > said that government workers aren't allowed to work more than 40 hours
> > a week.  .............................................................
>
> That "somebody" was me.  And the correct statement was that no one
> is allowed to charge more than 40/week to government funds (Peter?)
> -- approved overtime (if such thing exists) excluded.  And the
> reason for that is very simple and legal: first, it is the law, and
> second, when you accept a government job you agree to that.

Lots of government agencies don't budget for overtime, so it isn't
offered whatever the workload.  The only government departments to offer
overtime in my experience are the reciept-supported departments of large
agencies (things like internal print shops that get their funding by
charging other departments for their work).

This can lead to some strange situations when the workload is high.  In
my case, they exempted my job from wage-hour legislation, so I can be
required to work overtime and legally not paid for it.  I think the
rationale is that 150 percent of my salary is considered just about a
living wage, and there's a law in this state against giving public
employees a living wage  :-).

BTW, sorry to hear about the layoffs at Rutgers, Carl.  I'm glad you
were spared.  The bumping arrangement you mentioned sounds like a
union contract clause--who represents Rutgers' employees?

To get back to prison labor--I would doubt that the prisoners were
paid what they would be paid on the outside.  Prison wages are usually
just token amounts, nowhere near minimum wage, and it would be very
disruptive to pay a small group of prisoners a larger wage.  My guess
would be that the prisoners were working for prison wages and that the
prison itself was getting the benefit of the contract.  In other words,
this would not be gainful employment but just another prison work
assignment.  Did the report you heard go into that much detail, Kerry?

Best,
Peter

> > --Missy P 2 B
>
> --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:58:57 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Slips of the tongue

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the "geography thing."
> I thought it was pretty funny.  But then, I thought it was Bush's way
> of making it clear that he considers Clinton to be such a miniscule
> threat that he need not even bother to know where the little gnat
> comes from, and that anywhere Clinton might be from isn't even
> worth knowing about.

It is one thing to try to put sense into Bush's seemingly confused
stand on abortion, it is totally another thing to try to put
sense into his blunders/slip of the tongues.

And that last sentence, Missy, I mean if he doesn't care where
Clinton is from, would he care about the poor of this country,
the uninsured, the unemployed, homosexuals, etc.?  After all Bush
wants to be everyone's president and Clinton has the loyalty of
a good portion of them.

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:29:56 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

On Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:53:00 EDT Tim Johnson said:
>
>Vote JohnsoN/OlsoN in November
>
>the first candidates to return ^^^^^^^ to the campaign

"Not" symbols, why would anyone want to return "not" symbols to the
campaign?  Of course, they could refer to knots, which would refer to
Boy Scouts, sailing, or bondage.

>accept No substitutes.

There don't seem to be any.
>
>posted by the johnsoN/olsoN campaign

Replied to by the DuNcaN/ValeNtiNe campaigN
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <ncovey.713712039@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey) writes...
>In <BswHIp.Luo@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> 
>>	What, exactly, has Bush done to encourage the illegality of 
>>abortion?
> 
>I can't help but wonder where Robert Weiss has been.  Bush has served
>under a president who advocated that abortion be criminalized.  He has
>run under a platform that proclaims that abortion is murder (murder is
>illegal, Robert). 

a proclamation is not a bill, it is not law, it is just an opinion.

>He has appointed Supreme Court Justices who have
>tried to overturn Roe v. Wade,

Souter backed up O'Connor saying that RvW was an established ruling 
that should not be overturned.



wanna try again?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:48:04 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Throwing my helmet into the ring...

I served on a presidential private counsel addressing the war on drugs.
Consequently, I know a lot about it.  I like what you said and think it would
definitely help.

Actually I like most of what you said.  I'd offer myself as a running mate,
except that I don't make the age qualification.

:(

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:55:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: help for the differently sarcastically abled

mlle elitist:

You didn't answer my question.  I really want to know.  Was it creepy
to watch Manhattan now knowing what you know (the same way it's
creepy to watch the Brady Bunch now that we know what was going on
behind the scenes.)?

--Missy P 2 B
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: More on rights
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:21:45 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

John Mignault writes:
> Just as virtually all heroin addicts began their long road to the corruption 
> of AmerikanSociety(tm; your mileage may vary) by trying marijuana....

Of course, on a serious level, we all know (right?) that heroin addicts
actually begin on things like sugar, chocolate, tobacco, and alcohol....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help stamp out sobriety!!            |                    Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:50:45 -0500
From:         "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Slips of the tongue

What?  No mention of Quayle, here?

I'm not surprised.  Someone said that he was the most intelligent
man in Washington.  Maybe that is the case, but he is very lacking
in something.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:32:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Bush-orama, Bush-omatic, Bush-ilizer

>Hey, you on the East Coast!  What's the real scoop??  Saw this morning that
>the NEW YORK POST is claiming Bush had an affair in 1984 with aid Jennifer
>Fitzgerald.  Bush says it's "a lie".


i'm having a hard time seeing bush as a super-stud, ruled by massive amounts
of testosterone.
so, um, like who cares?
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:49:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: They gotta raise; I didn't

On Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:21:41 -0400 Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET> said
:
>      Here recorded are the votes for the Senate pay raise last summer
> which also banned honoraria.
> Source:  _Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report_  July 20, 1991
>
> Democrats                          Republicans
>
> Akaka                              Burns
> Baucus                             Chaffee
> Bentsen                            Cochran
> Biden                              Craig
> Bingaman                           Danforth
> Boren                              Dole
> Breaux                             Domenici
> Burdick                            Durenberger
> Byrd                               Garn
> Cranston                           Gorton
> Exon                               Hatfield
> Harkin                             Jeffords
> Inouye                             Kassebaum
> Johnston                           Lott
> Kennedy                            Lugar
> Kerrey (Neb.)                      Murkowski
> Leahy                              Roth
> Lieberman                          Rudman
> Metzenbaum                         Simpson
> Mitchell                           Smith
> Moynihan                           Stevens
> Nunn                               Symms
> Pell                               Thurmond
> Pryor                              Wallop
> Robb                               Warner
> Rockefeller
> Sarbanes
> Simon
> Wirth
>
> Democrats  29                      Republicans    25
>
> 29/57 (50.9%) voted for            25/43 (58.1%)  Voted for
>       the raise                           the raise
>
> Though I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending
> Democreeps for god's sake - those who keep railing about the
> *democratic* congress voting themselves a pay raise might take
> note that of the *democratic* senate a greater percentage of the
> Repugnants voted for the pay raise.  Personally, I think they are
> all slime, except for Jesse Helms, he's muck.
>
> Steve

Muck, maybe, but he didn't vote himself a pay-raise.  And BTW, doesn't
the House have to pass, yea, initiate, such legislation?  How did the
house vote (You don't need to give names.)
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:51:58 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: from the battered wives

>From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
>
>>>those jammies obviously
>>>belong to someone taller who must have left them behind one night.
>
>>  Must've been Gary.  After all, *he* is the candidate
>>in charge of vice.
>
>Not necessarily, they could have been "Scrootie's;" we sent the "Central
>Scrutinizer" up to brownsville just last weekend to provide us with
>inside campaign information. His mission was to get Tim drunk (from
>what we heard not a lot of arm twisting was required for that one B))
>and spew forth his campaign strategies...

They were DEFINATELY not his!  and let me just add that the "central
scrutinizer" drank many more broo-hah hahs than anyone else.  And
you would be appalled at the things he told us about YOU.
>
>
>*Vote Y's Guys*  1-800-4NO-GOVT

Why vote Y?
55% of bud light drinkers would vote for Y.  And you wanna
be lumped in with those guys?

votE E. at least we don't drink light bEEr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:00:54 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Mary Matalin
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Today's Chicago Tribune has a rather large article in the Tempo
section about Mary Matalin...interesting reading but nothing juicy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get what you pay for.  And if you don't, then you didn't.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:35:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: this just in...generalissimo francisco franco is still dead

> given that it "promotes divorce, and encourages
>women to be independent, kill children, practice witchcraft, destroy
>capitalism, and become lesbians."

>                 * * * anneliese "the cold war ain't over 'til i say so" l.

oh, okay now i get it. since men have these rights automatically without
the e.r.a, it explains why they don't want us to get these same rights
...if both sexes were equal under the law then women might end up doing the
same stuff men have been doing (cept for maybe the lesbian part-gender
specific dontchaknow) all along and most times getting away with it.

i take exception to the witchcraft bit. if you keep women barefoot and
pregnant, well then, with all the extra time to fill, that's when they'll
start in with the witchcraft. i mean really, after the soaps are over and
dinner's on, the kids doin their homework, the lord and master has called
to say he's gonna be late (again), i mean, what the hell else is there to do.
witchcraft.
pat, baby, you may need to rethink this part.

-linda suE saboE  (goin to the occult shop to pick up a new deck of tarot
cards and black candles)
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: did y'all miss me?
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:07:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

hey, dunstan
don't know about where you live, but around here when a person makes an offer
on property they put up what we call "good faith money", usually a couple
thousand dollars. (i think it may depend on amt. of total offer).
if the seller accepts the buyers offer, and then the buyer renigs, he loses
his good faith money. protection for seller from just the situation you describe

good luck on selling and buying. i think buying a home is very stressful. i'm
glad i rent, but worry about the day i'll be priced out of my place due to
rising rent (5% a year so far). at least after all the awful stuff of buying a
place, you know what you owe (forever :) ).

linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:40:25 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion

I really don't mean to get tied up in this issue...but

>What both Bush and Quayle seem to be articulating, in that lovable way
>they both have, is the sort of compromise that exists in the European
>countries that ban abortion, and that existed to some extent in the US
>in the years before Roe.  For example, both Belgium and Ireland prohibit
>abortion, but in Belgium it is easy to get a safe, illegal abortion, and
>in Ireland you have the right to hop on a boat and go to England to get
>an abortion.

I seem to remember a recent case in Ireland wherein a teenager who was
raped by a "friend (?) of the family" was prohibited (by the Irish courts)
from leaving the country in order to receive an abortion. So perhaps "right"
is not the proper word to describe the condition under which one might
leave the country to obtain such medical care.


>So the law is officially anti-abortion, but in practice it
>winks at violations.  In other countries there are various legal
>obstacles placed in the way of a woman seeking an abortion, but there is
>also a wide variation in the way those requirements are interpreted
>(ironically, these variations can sometimes make it harder to get
>abortions than the law intended, especially if the law puts a lot of
>power in the hands of doctors).  So the practical situation is not the
>same as the legal situation, and the difference is usually in the
>direction of more access than the law seems to allow.

This brings up the issue of unenforced laws; often times people will
say things to the effect of "yes, well, the law is on the books, but
it is never enforced..."

IMHO it is not good to criminalize a large portion of the population
by allowing laws to remain on the books that are clearly either not
enforceable or not in keeping with the will of the people.

Regarding whether some sort of compromise can be worked out between
the opposing factions on this issue; aside for the sheer economic
disaster a return to a pre-Roe state of affairs would cause,
it would appear to me that such an action which would obviously
not stop abortions from happening, would further trivialize the
rule of law for the lower classes by forcing more of them to break
the law to obtain what many consider a reasonable remedy for a problem.
(I have little hope for the wealthy considering the rule of law to
be anything but trivial, unless it has something to do with keeping
the masses away from their toys.)


>Peter

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:57:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Preview of the Convention (satire)

thank you kai.
i was trying to find a reason not to watch. now i have one.
cute too.
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:31:28 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      The envelope please...

>From: "j.b. cormier" <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
>
>Hey, I just read this in "Parade".  Some of you may have already
>seen it, but here goes:
>
>"You're in Rome, watching a dog dig a hole.  He finds three items:
>a jeweled crown inscribed with the name Cleopatra, a medicine bottle
>marked with the name Hippocrates and a Roman coin stamped with the date
>75 B.C.  Without checking further, which must be a fake?"
>
>Json

                      The coin, of course!!

                                                ---roger

                      Now, I'd like to buy a vowel....
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Logic Coup!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:41:41 GMT

Quick, before Jamie gets back... let's have a logic coup!

*I'm* the new logic czar... so watch yourselves... only...
I'm gonna run this rationality business just... a little... bit...
more fun.

First, I'm suspending the law of identity for a day.  This should
make the Christians on the list happy, since for once in their lives
they don't have to feel a nagging guilt about being irrational.

Second, I'm not just suspending but *requiring* ad hominem attacks.
Notice that measley little wisecracks about the fact that Republicans
dress funny and that Bill Clinton looks too much like a teddy bear
to be president will not suffice.  We need full blown crazed insults.
Make the ghost of Stimely proud.

Finally, on Saturday afternoon from 4:00 PM to midnight, you are
allowed to assume that 'converse' and 'contrapositive' are the
same damn thing, anyhow.  This will make for some handy proofs.
Also, 'If and only if' can be taken to mean 'If and goddamn it I
mean if'.

And finally, you are allowed to organize any list of things in
such a fashion that there are *2* last members of the list.  And
both shall be considered equally last.  This will almost appease
our Christian brethren, but one of that grand 3 in 1 is gonna
have to sit out of being last on the list today.  I know that
the Holy Spirit tends to pout about this kind of thing, but
rules is rules, and I'm only the Czar.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU