HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:55:40 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:
>|> In article <13AUG199211260307@rosie.uh.edu> st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Aug12.180923.29615@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes...
>|> >>If Clinton's children did something legal that he disapproved of, do
>|> >>you think he should abandon them?  No?  Then why is Bush wrong for
>|> >>doing the exact same thing?
>|> >
>|> 
>|> >But the primary difference here is that Bush wants to make something
>|> >illegal, thereby condemning everyone who commits the act, but will not
>|> >hesitiate to countenance the same activity on the part of people in
>|> >his own sphere.
>|> 
>|> No, that's not a "difference", let alone a "primary" one.
>|> 
>|> 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.
>|> 
>|> -andy is pro-abortion, but won't misrepresent bush to advance that cause
>|> 
>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.
>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."  He would not
>say that robbing a store or committing a murder was "her choice."


But abortion, unlike murder and robbery, is legal.  Therefore it is her 
LEGAL right to make that choice and there is nothing Bush can legally
do to stop her.   He did not say that he supported her decision but rather
that he would support her.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Aug12.180923.29615@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug12.200411.1166@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug12.213308.2330@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:57:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.213308.2330@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.200411.1166@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>If Bush is pro-choice he should say so.
>
>He isn't, so it isn't surprising that he's not saying so.

From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
>Date: 12 Aug 92 17:04:49 GMT
>
>More specifically, via the Washington Post:
>[...]
>"So in the end, the decision would be hers?"
>
>Bush: Well, who else's [choice] would it be?

Excuse me if this looks quoted extremely out of context, but I read this
sentence as support of a womans right to choose -- provided this woman happened
to be a granddaughter of Bush.

BTW, has anybody any pre-1980 quotes of Bush on abortion? It has been stated
here several times that he changed his position, but I've never seen any quotes.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
        "I came to the conclusion that sex is a sublimation
         of the work instinct" -- David Lodge, _Small World_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: alberta@sarsun.larc.nasa.gov (Tim Alberta)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:33:53 GMT
X-Posted-From: sarsun.larc.nasa.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BtC96z.Fvs@scd.hp.com>, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
|> 
|> And what if it is natural?  Would you care to explain why the affects from
|> it now are more numerous than scientists can find in their digs? i.e. -
|> explain why the hole is bigger than it "probably" has ever been before.
|> If that one is too vague for you, then try this - why is there an ozone
|> hole on the north end now?    If the South Pole is a sink for ozone...
|> 
|> - standard disclaimer

Both poles will have less ozone than in mid-latitudes because of the dependency upon solar radiation to produce ozone.  

Tim Alberta
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:22:59 GMT

In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>a Republican Senate.

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

The House has some responsibility, and all spending bills must
start there.  How long has it been Democrate controlled?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1782 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2537 alt.politics.clinton:2044 alt.politics.elections:10674
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 19:08:06 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

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

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

You mean, as opposed to the last two Republican Presidents who have done such a
wonderful job at controlling government spending?



|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:2505 alt.politics.elections:11282 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2850
From: wilson@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: abortion debate f*ck off!
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:14:39 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University CS Department

In article <1992Aug21.203548.12739@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
This VP was probably generated by a buggy politician.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1441 alt.politics.clinton:1855 alt.politics.perot:1260 rec.humor:26000 talk.bizarre:25825 talk.politics.misc:39450
From: rowland@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Paul D. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:47:40 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I think it's pretty humorous myself that some one out there is actually 
offended by statements which lead you to believe George is not a saint.
After all, is he a POLITICIAN? So, let's cut the chatter, and tell some 
jokes.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1745 alt.politics.elections:10656 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2522
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:41:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug14.213620.26596@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes...
>In article <BszKvB.9z7@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) 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.  
[oops..  meant "4."]

>>Why is that ridiculous?  It is plainly hypocritical, unless he doesn't truly 
>>believe that abortion is murder.  

>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
[...]

Like I said before, it's very simple.  The conclusion follows logically from 
the premises.  While he hasn't insisted on the death penalty for those who have
abortions, consistency demands this conclusion.  You can't have it both ways:
claim that abortion is murder, demand that murderers be executed, and then 
"coddle" the murderer of unborn babies without being properly labeled a 
hypocrite.

>>******************************************************************************
>>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.

Oh?  How so?  Careful, as I suspect you have no idea what that means.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2157 alt.politics.elections:10966 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2680
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:43:52 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

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

Well, this looks like a good place for the pro-abortionists to put their
money where their mouth's are. Provide the woman transportation and
a place to stay. Keep the abortion clinics open on weekends and close them
on Monday's and Tuesdays instead. This is not an undue burden for such
a serious decision as abortion.


-- 
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
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1896 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2571 alt.politics.clinton:2109 alt.politics.elections:10737
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:46:22 GMT
	<8JJmPB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> <Bt4uo5.DKv@scd.hp.com>
	<1992Aug17.133200@IASTATE.EDU>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug17.133200@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
<   In article <Bt4uo5.DKv@scd.hp.com>, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
<   >>> Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a 
<   >>>Democratically-controll
<   >>> Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.
<   > 
<   > One of the problems w/Rep vs. Dem spending analyses is that the hidden costs
<   > are not seen.  The Dem's have traditionally spent visible money, where as
<   > Rep's like GB spend money on the Gulfthing where not all of the costs are in
<   > yet.
<   > 
<      Um, howsabout the 873 gazillion stomptillion dollars spent on "deregulation"
<   of the S&L industry?  Talk about your hidden costs.  wheeeezzzzeee.  The
<   deregulation _was_ a Republican initiative, wasn't it?  


	Sure, supported and signed by the famous Republican 
	President James Earl Carter of Georgia in 1979.

<Of course the
<   occasional<
<   Democrat (e.g. Cranston) manages to make a bit off the chaos too.

	Occasional? Senator DeConcini of Arizona, Senator Glenn of
	Ohio, Speaker of the House James Wright of Texas....the
	list goes on and SOME are still in office.

<  The figure for the cost of the cleanup is derived from a Dave Barry column.

	Derived? Arrgh.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:27:16 GMT

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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2546 alt.politics.elections:11322
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
Date: 23 Aug 92 13:10:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
>says:
>>Get this George, the Congress is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
>>President.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?
>>If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
>>it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
>>If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
>>it probably ain't.
>
>I find the tone of Bush's Congress-bashing interesting. It's not so much
>disagreement, or disgust, but sheer moral outrage. Oh, how DARE those
>evil Congressmen not pass my [capital gains tax cut/energy bill/rainforest
>clearcutting program]! Who do they think they ARE?
>

  Well, I think both sides are a bit unjustified (and quite a bit
justified, too.) :-)   However, I would like to add that a CNN report
at the beginning of Congress's term reported on the state of the Democrats
in Congress.  The report basically said:

1)  There is a small group of (largely) newer Democrats that want to work 
with the President to get some bills passed that will help us through these
tough economic times.

2)  There is a much larger group, dominated by the older, more powerful
members, that want to send Bush only bills he will veto in order to make
him look bad for the fall election.

  I really think that point number 2 justifies some moral outrage from
we voters, if not the President.  


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1991 alt.politics.marrou:824 talk.politics.misc:40411 alt.politics.elections:10811 talk.politics.theory:3717
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
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: 18 Aug 92 18:02:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug17180945@gauss.nmsu.edu< ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<<In article <24922@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:

<<   The thing is that christianity has shown a penchant for this sort of
<<   thing. Apart from the inquisition I'm thinking of:
>
<<   The Crusades.
<<   The Genocide of the Incas.
<<   The murder of complete villages in Europe who were accused of "Heresy"
<<   (ref: Simon De Montfort, The Albigensians, The Gnostics, various others...)
<<   The European Witch-trials (one third of the female population killed in
<<   some areas).

<<   So this "aberration" seems to be a regular feature of christianity.
<<   It's a reasonable question to ask whether a penchant for mass-murder
<<   could be expected from a creed whose god is also depicted as having
<<   a very strong genocidal and murderous streak.

>	I note that all of those events occurred rather a while back.

>	However, let's continue in this direction: socialism, as
>	religion, has killed more than all previous religious
>	crusades.

>	* The 1920's purges of "kulaks" in the USSR
>	* The 1930's purge of the Communist Party of the USSR
>	* The 1930's purge of Communists by the NSDAP in Germany
>	* The 1930's purge of the Army in the USSR
>	* War in Europe from 1939 to 1945, instigated by Socialists,
>	  continued by Socialists.
>	* The killing in Cambodia

>	And so forth and so on. Now, it will be argued that
>	"those actions weren't carried on by REAL socialists"....
>	but that's the same argument as "the crusades weren't
>	carried on by REAL christians".

These so-called socialists were using socialism as a religion.  It
is not the theology which is the driving force in a religion, but
the idea that others should conform.  Buddhism and Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism are both atheist.

The war is Europe was instigated by those who called themselves 
socialists, but were merely statists.  

You left out another one, possibly the biggest.  The purge in China
by the Maoists.  Mao's "Little Red Book" is nothing more than a
religious manual.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2087 alt.politics.elections:10899 alt.politics.clinton:2212
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: 19 Aug 1992 04:50:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug19.022432.25397@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <16otk0INNnp9@agate.berkeley.edu> 
>lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>> Neither BUSH nor REAGAN ever submitted a balanced budget proposal to
>> Congress. NOT ONE. 

>What about the 1990 budget summit agreement?  That contained provisions 
>for balancing the budget in 5 years.  

Did the Bush budget PROPOSALS for 1991 and 92 agree with these
provisions? NO. BUSH HAS NEVER SUBMITTED A BALANCED BUDGET AND HE WILL
NEVER DO SO. It doesn't matter if he announces a plan to repeal the law
of gravity 5 years from now; he hasn't flown thru the air with his arms
yet and he will never do so.

>President Bush supports the balanced budget amendment because that  
>appears to be the best hope for motivating Congress to work on reducing 
>the deficit.   

Lee Campbell posted the budget figures showing the deficit is only a
little greater than (interest on Reagan/Bush debt) + (S&L bailout).
Now, why don't YOU work on the deficit. Take those budget figures and
explain the cuts YOU want to make.

>So?  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.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:20:58 GMT

In article <10AUG199220382682@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (David J. Brinker) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.164930.23634@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>Except that situations could arise where the school requiring
>>religious education was the school of choice for some reason other
>>than religion, in which case you are requiring people to accept that
>>religion.  For example, suppose that I am Jewish and live in Salt Lake
>>City.  I figure that I can take care of my child's religious training
>>myself, so I look around for schools with the best academics.  Now,
>>further suppose that it is some Mormon school that requires Mormon
>>religious instruction which has the best course in physics and my
>>child is interested in physics.  Should I have to violate my religious
>>beliefs to get that education?
>
>It's YOUR CHOICE.

No, it's not, except in the sense that you can say that I can elect to
go to a bunch of extra expense to send my child to some other school
that is in some other city.  If it's paid for by public money, it
shouldn't violate my Constitutional rights by interfering in the free
exercise of religion.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1599 alt.politics.elections:10594 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2476