HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:45:38 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Aug12.034640.17858@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, by Corby.E.Page@dartmouth.edu (Corby E. Page):
> ---
> Bush also refused to deny that he ever cheated on Barbie. Incidentally,
> this puts him in the same position as Clinton. He has been willing to
> deny having an affair with a specific individual, but has been
> unwilling to make the blanket statement that he has always been
> faithful to his wife.
> 

Face it, we have to choose between two indiscriminate sexual atheletes
who'll fuck anything that moves, eat placidyls and dilaudid like
good'n'plenty, have murdered defenseless little black children with
their bare hands, and have long since lost all contact with reality,
let alone truth.

Is this a cool world, or what?

Reading back through this, I hope everyone takes it as humorous.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
    <1992Aug12.153459.11122@athena.cs.uga.edu> <2A895785.11232@ics.uci.edu> 
    <1992Aug13.164058.20068@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> <Bsxoy6.Fv8@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:12:32 GMT
Distribution: usa

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"

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1996 alt.politics.elections:10822 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2607
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! 
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:27:49 GMT

<BszKvB.9z7@acsu.buffalo.edu> (Mike Cluff) wrote:
>   >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.  

<1992Aug14.213620.26596@den.mmc.com> (John Sims) writes:
>   I'm really interested to see a copy of the article where Bush insists
>   that all women who have abortions be put to death.  

<FOX.92Aug14212446@graphics.nyu.edu> (David Fox) writes:
> 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.  

Has Bush ever made such a statement (#1)?  He has expressed opposition
to abortion.  He has expressed a preference for adoption.  He
has stated that he will follow his conscience concerning "matters
of life".  But I am not aware of an occasion where Bush has said
"abortion is murder".

Although that is a common sentiment among pro-lifers, it is not
a pre-requisite.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:47:05 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

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

>Because single-parent families are poor.  Did Bush chase away the
>other parent?  (Govt does go after parents that don't pay child
>support.)

Government employees are protected by law from having their wages
garnisheed to pay court-ordered child support.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2072 alt.politics.clinton:2207 alt.politics.perot:1303 rec.humor:26432 talk.bizarre:26559
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:06:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.033717.12276@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|Well, the lack of smileys do bring out of hiding the ones that don't
|read the news all that often.

Actually, I don't understand why anyone would use a smiley in rec.humor.  Oops,
will ya look at that newsgroups line:  

alt.politics.{bush,clinton,perot}, rec.humor, and talk.bizarre?  Might
as well add talk.politics.guns and soc.singles so we can piss *everyone* off.


-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: UNLV
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 22:33:37 GMT

I think I watched the interview that you all are saying bush changed
his stance on abortion and i dont see it. The question was if
his granddaughter had an abortion... IE already had the abortion,
not was going to have the abortion, what would he do? What else
could he say besides he would be dissappointed but still love
her?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:48:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <gnfy0q_@rpi.edu> jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>In article <24957@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>  .
>    .
>      .
>
>>>I personally think that if people would truely follow the teachings of
>>>Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. instead of trying to kill all those who
>>>didn't, the world would be better off.
>
>>Ah, but I submit that the people in charge of the Crusades, The Spanish
>>Inquisition, the witch burnings, the murder of the incas and so on *did*
>>believe that they were truely following the teachings of Christ.
>
>That's completely ludicrous!  If they did believe that, then they  had
>major  delusions  and  would  thus be classified as highly neurotic or
>even psychotic.  More likely these people knew exactly what they  were
>doing  and rationalized their actions as justified.  Or in some cases,
>they could be incredibly naive, e.g. one of the lowly underlings -- in
>which  case  they  would have been duped by `evil' persons above them,
>not by Christianity itself. 

  Certainly everything they did they said they did in the name of Christ;
  they certainly wrapped themselves in Christian symbols.  The ball is 
  in Mr. Jackson's court if he thinks the claim that they believed 
  they being good Christians is wrong.    I think it is Mr. Jackson 
  who is "incredibly naive".


>OK, so if someone says they're a Christian but  advocates  unjustified
>murder,  then by your logic the Christian religion is permanently tied
>to this individual.

  No, if he is a Christian leader, theologian, or clergyman and he says
  he's doing it in the name of Christianity or Christ then the act is 
  associated with Christianity.   We're talking about things like the 
  Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades; not just some random acts of
  violence that just happen to be committed by Christians.   If some 
  New York securities dealers who happen to be Jewish get caught with
  their hands in the cookie jar and go to jail, we don't say that
  securities fraud is a "Jewish" practice;  if some national association
  of rabbis came out with a proclamation that it's bad to steal money
  from Jewish investors but OK to steal money from goyish investors
  then we would.



---peter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:25:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.194653.23927@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
..
>
>That's funny, I always thought it was the democratically-controlled
>House that wrote the checks.
>

Did you really think that?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: smj@iti.org (Seth Johnson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:14:26 GMT

In article <388m8yl@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>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:
>>>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?
>>
>>The junior senator from the state "between Texas and Oklahoma."  What, you
>>haven't been keeping up with the news?
>>
>
>Now I see the humor in this thread.  There are idiots on the net that
>don't know the difference between a SENATOR and a GOVENOR.  I think the
					           ^^^^^^^^
Not to mention a GOVERNOR!!!

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2532 alt.politics.elections:11307
From: naren@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Naren Bala)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:11:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug21.232259.2120@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>

DELETED

>No, it didn't.  The Repubs had a senate majority for TWO years of those
>EIGHT years, not the six years that Luck asserts.

Didn't the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate from 1980-86 ?
Didn't they have a majority in the House if you include southern conservatives.


>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:27:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>
>> I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
>> larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
>
>But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
>adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..
>
>
>Mark T. Evert
>Friendswood, TX
>

I forgot to mention that wether the air fare is lower or not does not
invalidate my comment. A big portion of the cost of a vacation is in meals,
hotel, travel in the foreign countries etc. ( it is possible to economise
in this area). The cost of these things has gone up a great deal in the
last four years. So the overall cost of the vacation is substantially higher
than it was foru years ago.

ARe you perpahs giving credit for airline degregualtion to the wrong
president. I thought it was initiated under Carter.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:53:51 GMT

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>Barbara Bush asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
>She weasled out of that question by talking about changes in XUSSR.

>My answer is NO.

I agree with you, completely.

>I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
>larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
>I eat out a lot. It costs me a substantially larger percentage of my income
>than it did 4 years ago.

I doubt if I'm going to be able to pay tuition this fall, given that in 
the last four years, tuition rates have gone throught the roof!  And I'm 
currently working for someone with substantially less education than I
have at a boring, repetitive part time job.  I can't afford insurance rates.

>I drive around LA a lot. It takes a substantially larger percentage of my
>time than it did 4 years ago. I read the news. In spite of the Willie
>Hornton ad there is a substantially greater amount of crime in it than
>there was 4 years ago.

I live in Omaha, NE.  It's located in RURAL FARM AMERICA.  We have
gang violence *here* which have only gotten WORSE in the last four years.
(Despite what P.J. Morgan, our mayor, said at the convention, that violence
has had some serious repercussions in this town.  The white and black
populations are even more polarized than they were before.)

>I like the women that I know to have the same opportunities, freedoms and
>choices that I have. Their choices are substantially less than they were 4
>years ago. Not incidentally, the Reagan Bush Supreme Court have reduced my
>freedoms as well and will go on doing so for many more years.

Sexual harrassment against women seems to be an Olympic sport anymore.
SIGH!  I don'te even want to talk about this one.  Grrr!

>Though I lead a life style that Clayton Cramer and the Religious Right
>would probably approve of at least as far as sex and drugs are concerned,
>I am substantially more at risk of aids than I was 4 years ago.

Four years ago I didn't know anyone with AIDS.  Now I know one man who has
died of the disease.  I also have met two other men with AIDS and a woman who
is HIV+.

>No! I am not better off than I was 4 years ago.

Absolutely NOT!

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:19:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.202155.20680@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Most of us know that "family values" is a euphemism for the rightwing
>fundamentalist bible thumpers' hidden agenda

	I disagree, since both parties seem to be the "family values"
party. It's the "return to" part that scares me; it should be more
like "build on what we've got". The "traditional, return-to" family
values, as Royko recently wrote, were that divorced women were a blight,
and so you stayed with an abusive mate. Traditional values were that
women stayed home, and kept quiet. Etc.
 



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:47 EST  

In article <1992Aug13.084028.22888@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes...
>In article <1992Aug12.214808.18006@ncsu.edu>
>     Aug12.153459.11122@at writes: 
>>I can't imagine any loving parent would reject their children because
>>they made a decision which the parent did not approve of.
> 
>   "Mom... Dad... I'm, um... I'm Gay."
> 
>   Now tell me that formerly "loving" parents would NEVER reject their
>children for a decision they made.

Perhaps the perception that the parents *were* loving is/was an incorrect 
perception.  The concept of loving parents is generally incompatible with 
the action of rejecting one's own children IMHO.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2359 alt.politics.elections:11153 alt.politics.clinton:2441
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:53:04 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

> In article <9o1sPB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> As I said before, the Bush adminstration has submitted a PLAN to
> >> balance the budget by 1995.  It will take more than a year to
> >> eliminate the deficit, much less get it under control.
>
> > Care to explain why, in spite of this 'plan', _none_ of the actual budgets
> > submitted by Bush's OMB have been in balance, or why they don't even fit
> > his plan?
>
> Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by a deficit reduction 'plan'.
> A 'plan' is a proposal for balancing the budget in 'X' number of years.
> It means that the deficit will be eliminated (or hopefully much smaller),
> after 'X' years have passed.
>
> It's unrealistic to balance the budget in a single year. One of
> Clinton's economic adviser's, Derek Shearer, is quoted as saying:
>
>   ``A lot of the talk about immediately balancing the budget is
>     economically screwy.''
>
> Clinton's economic plan does not even call for eliminating the deficit
> by 1996.
>
> And none of the budgets submitted by Bush have failed to meet the
> rules of the 1990 budget agreement.

You still haven't explained why Bush hasn't even followed his own 'plan'.  You
take pride in the fact that Bush is following the 1990 agreement, yet that
agreement is being repudiated by every faction in the GOP.  I ask my question
again:  Why doesn't Bush follow his plan and submit budgets that will lead to a
balanced budget?


>
>
> > Well, why does the President need to be forced to submit a balanced budget?
> > Does he lack the moral courage to do it without a law?
>
> No, Congress lacks the moral courage to balance the budget.  That's
> why the House Democrats voted against the amendment.
>

Courage on this sort of issue begins in the Executive.  Neither Reagan or Bush
had the desire, courage, strength of will, call it whatever you want, to even
try to balance the budget.  If Bush feels so strongly about this, why doesn't
he submit a budget that puts us on the road to balancing, then veto anything
coming out of Congress that doesn't match his plan?



|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:1938 talk.abortion:32235
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM ( Corp. Net Ops)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Subject: Mis-attribution
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Date: 18 Aug 1992 07:00:02 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Keywords: Sorry, Tim!

Hi...

In the thread about "Another Good Reason Not To Vote For Bush",
I mistakenly failed to edit Tim Buckley's name out of the
attribution line in my follow-up post. The quote I was using
was from message-id <l8vi0uINNeu4@spim.mips.com>, which was
posted by Michael Polen.

The quote was:

Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.

Which I still heartily agree with!

Again, sorry for the mis-attribution, especially to you, Tim!

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This in no way represents the organization I work for.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2168 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2684
From: mazzarel@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Date: 20 Aug 1992 00:18:58 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: herb-ox.berkeley.edu

I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking that we in alt.fan.dan-quayle
want to hear more of this crap. 

YOU'RE WRONG BUTTHEAD

Ariel
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:18:14 GMT

In article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>Did you all hear that the original ads had to be pulled because they
>voilated a federal law against using the presidential seal in any form
>for endorsement?
>
>Bush has shown again and again that he
>thinks he's above the law.
>

James, I'm not sure that you know what happened.  What does "original"
mean.  These ads were never shown.  After previewing them someone
noticed that the presidential seal was displayed.  This is illegal.  But
because the ads were never shown nothing illegal was done.  It was an
inadvertant act that occured during filming NOT a conscious attempt to
break to the law.

Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
broken the law.  

Tim



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1395 alt.politics.elections:10449
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.152926.15159@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes...
>In article <23582@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
> 
>> If it is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.  If it is
>> murder, then it is murder if his relatives do it.  The inconsistancy
>> demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the thinking.

>No, it demonstrates that Bush is a loving parent who would
>support his children and grandchildren no matter what they did. 

So if his granddaughter murdered young children, he'd support her?

Just asking.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle