HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 20 Aug 1992 20:35:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug20.034740.10661@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <16sjusINNdi9@agate.berkeley.edu> 
>lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

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

>YES, the Bush budget did agree with the rules of the 1990 budget
>agreement.

Then why are you upset?? As has been postd repeatedly, the deficit in
the budget passed by Congress has always been close to (and often
*smaller*) than the deficit proposed by Reagan and Bush in their
official budgets!

>> BUSH HAS NEVER SUBMITTED A BALANCED BUDGET AND HE WILL
>> NEVER DO SO. 

>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.  

Yeah, and I could announce a plan (you don't SUBMIT a plan, you submit a
real budget) to win the 1996 Atlanta Olympics decathlon, but even if I
start training I'll nevr make it, and to carry the metaphor further, I'm
about to get a large hot fudge sundae instead.

Nothing in yor post disputes the real point: Bush has no clue how to
balance the budget and concentrates on blaming the Democrats instead for
the terrible budget problems created by Reaganomics.

It's morning AFTER in America.

andy

>
>>> Most of the Republicans in the House and the Senate voted for the 
>>> balanced budget amendment; most of them will be in office in 7 years. 
>
>> So the BBA requires the PRESIDENT to submit a balanced budget.
>
>True, but the version of the balanced budget amendment that was rejected 
>by the democratically-controlled House required the President and the 
>Congress to agree on a balanced budget. 
>
>>andy
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2323 alt.politics.elections:11115 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2771 soc.women:15551 alt.politics.clinton:2400 talk.abortion:32739
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Republicanism Considered Harmful to Women
Keywords: Party demonizes women as 'lesbian spearchuckers'
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:13:09 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:
> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>> "We will vote for a gerbil if necessary to get rid of George Bush and
>>  Dan Quayle."  Ms. Magazine.

> Right on.

But, but...

gerbils are such...

skirt chasers.


They pursue sex like...

like...

like...

crazed weasels.


Don't we have a 'character issue' here?

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1926 alt.politics.elections:10763 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2577
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:51:32 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Aug17.192239.18425@sco.COM> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>Yes, but you notice how he and Quayle are now sending out double messages
>on the abortion issue. 

Congratulations, all the folks supporting this view are honors graduates of the
Ron Brown School Of Revisionist History.  Bush and Quayle both have stated they
oppose abortion, but if a daughter or granddaughter (of adult age) chose to have
an abortion, they would support THE DAUGHTER/GRANDDAUGHTER.  If a child commits
a crime, the support of the child by the parent doesn't mean the parent supports
the crime, just that they support their children.  Unfortunately, the rabid
pro-abortion folks can't seem to understand this.

Another thing the PA folks can't seem to understand is the poll results.  As
a good example, in North Dakota last year a poll was conducted that made the
news as North Dakotans Support Abortion.  But when you read the results, you
find that only 25% support abortion on demand.  The other 75% either oppose
abortion in all cases, or support it in certain cases.  The same holds true
of the Pennsylvania case.  Most polls show 70-80% support the "restrictions"
in the Pennsylvania law.  The overwhelming majority of the American people
oppose abortion for purposes of sex selection, convienence, economic hardship,
etc.  They find nothing wrong with a 24 hour waiting period, or parental
NOTIFICATION (notice the wording, not parental CONSENT, but NOTIFICATION).
Abortion on demand is just that, all gloves off, abortion for ANY reason.
The idea that a child would be aborted just because it was the wrong sex
smacks of Nazi Germany and in particuliar, Communist China.  It's sick.

Now, all you right-headed pro-abortion (cut the "pro-choice" crap), can
start the flaming, like most liberals, you can't handle common sense.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1265 alt.politics.elections:10343 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2383
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:40:58 GMT

In article <2A895785.11232@ics.uci.edu> duke@ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
>
>However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
>decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
>like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
>his brain is showing through

It just show how screwed-up the pro-life position is.  He was pro-choice
until 1980, when he decided to be vice-president to Ronald Reagan.
`Who else's can it be?' Of course, it is the woman's decision, but that
decision can either take her to a hospital or a back-alley clinic depending
on what the law is.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.162716.8706@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
>|> However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
>|> decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
>|> like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
>|> his brain is showing through
>
>I think you guys and the media are splitting hairs.  Bush is
>undeniably pro-life.  If his granddaughter decided to blow
>someone's head off, in the end it was her decision, who else's
>would it be?  Doesn't mean she would not serve life in prison, or
>even death, or that her Granddad wouldn't still love her and support
>her after she had done it.

WRONG. Bush was pro-choice until he joined up with Reagan in 1980. I think
that Bush has finally came to the obvious conclusion, that to be a right-to-
run-your-life supporter, is in essence a very *bad* political decision.

All I have to say is - finally. I think it is, or would be, a wise move
on Bush's behalf to come forward and clearly state a pro-choice stand, but
he won't, because of the many republicans that vote on one issue alone.
Which is also kinda funny. seeing as how there is an overwhelming majority
of republicans that are pro-choice, but the platform is right-to-run-your-life.
Strange how these things happen. I think the only chance Bush has of winning
even a year's supply of TV dinners in november, is to change his stance
on abortion. But, again, it won't happen.

"A true patriot protects his country from it's own government..."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:12:52 GMT

In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>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.

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.


------
P. McGuinness
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:00:36 GMT

In article <Bsxpp0.GAy@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.152926.15159@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>>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?

Yes.  So what?  Do you really want to claim that Clinton would do any
different in the same situation?  Is Clinton pro-murder?  No?  Then
why does Bush's support "mean" anything different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: School Choice (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:12:50 GMT

In <4LZ-FrB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.135840.15532@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Read the papers.  You pay royally for an education system
>|> >that achieves that end already.
>|> 
>|> Yes, and I'm all in favor of fixing that system.  What I'm not in
>|> favor of is spending public money to support a religion.  Why is it
>|> that people are so adamant that religion classes must be MANDATORY in
>|> the school they send their child to?  Are they afraid the child might
>|> start to think for itself and decide not to take them, or what?
>|> 

>Under a tax credit system you would not have to spend one dime of
>your money to support a religious school unless that is your choice.
>Everyone still has the same obligation to support schooling, the
>difference is that every taxpayer gets to support the type
>of education they believe in.  I don't think most people participating
>in this thread believe that religion class must be mandatory, only
>that if the parents want to send their children to such a school
>they should be allowed to and not also be required to pay for
>a school system which they aren't using.  The parents are still
>paying for education, it's not like they can take their tax
>credit and buy a car.  A tax credit system gives *every* taxpayer,
>whether they have kids or not, a choice on where to spend
>their educational dollars.  The thing that doesn't change is the

Gee, does this mean I can spend mine (no kids) over at the local
Ford or GM dealers?

>fact that educational support is mandatory.  That, of course, 
>could easily be the topic of a different thread.


>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

REB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: anne@cs.UAlberta.CA (Anne J.R. Nield)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:42:09 GMT

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



>Hmm, seems the folks in Louisana don't really support abortion themselves.
>But funny should mention Mrs. Bush, she was just on CNN and it didn't really
>sound like she supported abortion on demand, in fact, what she said was that
>it was a statement that shouldn't have been made, and she restated her belief
>in what George had said.

WEll THAT certainly clears things up.... "It" was a statement
that shouldn't have been made.  Did the statement make itself?  And...
(stay tuned, soap opera fans), what DID George say anyway???

Yikes

I give up.

Back to the joys of the Canadian constitution....

Anne

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2119 alt.politics.elections:10934 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2655
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:43:20 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

> In article <k9LNPB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >Hmmm...does that mean there's a Barbara Bush School of Revisionist History
> >also?  Given how seriously the Repubs take Hillary Clinton's record and view
> >you can't tell me that Barbara Bush's comments (which almost verge on
> >pro-choice) were not planned, staged, and well rehearsed.
>
> Hmm, seems the folks in Louisana don't really support abortion themselves.
> But funny should mention Mrs. Bush, she was just on CNN and it didn't really
> sound like she supported abortion on demand, in fact, what she said was that
> it was a statement that shouldn't have been made, and she restated her belief
> in what George had said.

What relavence Louisiana has to this discussion is beyond me.  As for Bar
saying that she shouldn't have made the statement, does that make it any less
true?  Hell, this entire group is based on the fact that Our Boy makes tons of
statements he shouldn't make?  Just because the White House handlers got to her
and put her back in line doesn't make her pro-life.  Her statement, along with
Bush's and Our Boy's, clearly show cracks in the pro-life Republican stance.

On another point, one does not have to support abortion on demand to be
pro-choice, just as one does not have to support a total ban on abortion (no
exceptions) to be pro-life.  There's flexibility on both sides, irregardless of
what NOW and Operation Rescue believe.

Of course, the next thing will be for Marilyn to finally admit that she pulls
Our Boy's strings and do an Al Haig...



|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:1872 alt.politics.elections:10710 alt.politics.clinton:2094
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 1992 19:10:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug17.165401.10396@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

Mr. Holtsinger, you have been SUCKERED by the Republicans.

>President Bush has submitted balanced budgets PLANS, but they've been
>rejected by Congress.  It's going to take more than a year to get
>the budget balanced. 

Neither BUSH nor REAGAN ever submitted a balanced budget proposal to
Congress. NOT ONE. In 8 of the last 13 years, the budget which passed
Congress had a SMALLER deficit than the budget the Pres proposed, even
though the Congress often had to revise wildly-inflated revenue
predictions. Bush said he had a plan for a "flexible freeze" which would
*eventually* balance the budget, but he NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT IT WAS OR
HOW IT WOULD WORK AND HE NEVER SUBMITTED A BALANCED BUDGET.

I hope that's clear now.

If you still think Reagan/Bush submitted a balanced budget, contact me
by e-mail and we will make a bet on it. OK?

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

Yes, Bush supports it because he knows it is a useful tool to bash the
Democrats: the only domestic policy he has ever revealed. He has never
submitted a balanced budget and he has never indicated what he would cut
in order to do so. Howver, he has succeeded in FOOLING a few people into
thinking he wants to balance the budget. You'll note that Bush would be
out of office (even if, God forbid, he wins) by the time the BBA would
come into effect.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:51:55 GMT

In article <6uuuPB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>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?

Hint: to the extent that the second part of the plan depends on the
first part, it is silly to propose the second part until AFTER the
first part has been done.  In other words, if Congress rejects the
plan in 1990, it doesn't do any good to submit the budget for the
plan's second year in 1991.  Bush has to rework the year 1 plan and
submit it.  And so on.

It is unreasonable to say "well, he had a plan that we didn't follow,
and that didn't work, so therefore, his new plan won't work either."
We don't know if the first plan would have worked; we didn't follow
it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:34:47 GMT

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.  


> 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. 

>|Edward J. Branley


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:06:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.211711.5606@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>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.
>
>Okay, let's see the argument.
>
>>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'd have a lot more sympathy for people making this argument if it
>applied to other choices, choices that one can't even legally exercise
>outside one's home state.
>
>Surely if 24 hours an undue burden and an insult, it is so in general,
>and not just when we're talking about abortion.  Surely 3, 7, or 15
>days is even worse.
>
>Why is abortion the only choice worthy of respect?  After all, we
>believe pro-choice advocates who say say "we don't like abortion, but
>it isn't our decision to make", so why doesn't that apply to other
>choices she might make, choices that said advocates may not like.
>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Please leave this off alt.fan.dan-quayle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:48:08 GMT

In article <2A895785.11232@ics.uci.edu> duke@ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:

> However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
> decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
> like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
> his brain is showing through

Bush's statement reflects the reality of legalized abortion on demand
in this country.  Women can obtain abortions for any reason, during
any part of their pregnancy, all the way up to the point of birth,
and there's nothing that Bush can do to prevent his children or
grandchildren from getting a legal abortion.

His only real choice today is to allow his children and grandchildren 
to decide for themselves.  I can't imagine any loving parent would reject 
their children because they made a decision which the parent did not approve
of.  If Bush said that he would not support his children in their
decision, then the press would likely jump all over him for not
promoting "family values".  

>Duke P. Hong


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections