HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:36:37 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

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."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2180 alt.politics.clinton:2263 alt.sex:27120 talk.politics.misc:40682
From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:27:42 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <oeXmv0K00VAxQ2P0QA@andrew.cmu.edu> (alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc), ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
> glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>>In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>>And there are laws against prostitution. 
>>
>>And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
>>(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
>>that did not exist when such laws were enacted.
>
>Then I'll give you the medical reason that did exist at the time. 
>Syphilis.  Until the advent of penicilin in the 20th century, syphilis
>was as deadly a disease as AIDS is today.  There was just as much
>medical justification to pass the laws then as there is today.

Even granting that legalized prostitution may spread STDs (a subject
that I really have serious doubts about -- as in would not believe
without seeing some numbers from Nevada), is that any reason for the
profession to be outlawed?

Or, to put it more simply, do we really want the government passing
laws to protect us from ourselves?

+C


-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine 
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
										--Keith Lim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: Bush's position on Bosnia
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:01:59 GMT

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>There are no Bosnian troops in Serbia, no Bosnian
>irregulars operating in Montenegro.  Yugoslavia is engaging in an act
>of unprovoked aggression against another country, plain and simple.

So, you would also recommend similar US action in, say, Azerbijon[sic]?

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!mpd         /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:16:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>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.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>>broken the law.  
>
>For starters, he did 70 on the Beltway in 1990.
>
>More later....

Never seen him sign a bill Michelangelo style --  He's always been above
the law ...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Congress "above" the law?
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:56:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.181325.14431@sequent.com>, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
> In article <BD.92Aug14084801@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
> >You know, I keep hearing this (mostly from the pig, Rush Limbaugh), and I 
> >wonder if it's accurate (it might be, but I wonder). 

It is. The laws frequently contain special exemptions for Congress.
Such things as Social Security, child labor laws, EEO laws, etc.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Oh, Danny Boy
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:13:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Culturale Elit
Followup-To: alt.flame

In <4272@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu sez:

>IF you accept that a word or spelling become legitimate by its common usage 
>then a trip down a few supermarket isles should reveal that "potatoe" is 
                                    ^^^^^
>most definitely legitimate.


Gosh, that's great!  I guess whenever some dolt manages to misspell a
mildly complex word -- like, say, "aisles" -- then his error is
self-justifying. 

Nice trick, that.

-- 
		       Apres moi, Les Etooges.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
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
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:27:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.084028.22888@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Bush's statement reflects the reality of legalized abortion on demand
>> in this country.  His only real choice today is to allow his children
>> and grandchildren to decide for themselves.

> This translates to "My granddaughter has a choice, so I can't stop
> her from exercising that choice.  But I'm going to do my damnedest to
> take that choice away from her.  To stifle her freedom and her will."

You assume that his granddaughter is pro-choice.  Maybe she isn't.

In any event, I'm sure there are lots of issues that President Bush
and his children might disagree on.  He can't be commanded to lead 
the country through the will of his children.   

>> 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.

Loving parents would never reject a child because the child is gay.
 

>Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
>elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.

I thought you would have already known that from your .sig.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: President Bashing (was Re: Congress Bashing)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:26:15 GMT

I'm pretty tired of the Democrats' whining about the President.

Get this guys, the President is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
Congress.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?  If the
Democrats can't agree with the Republicans on something, it's probably
because it's 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.

Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are supposed to have
carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Democrats
just can't seem to stand that.  They keep trying to end-run around the
system.  That's what "national health care" is about, an attempt to
expand Congress' role beyond the specific, limited powers enumerated
to it.  That's what the office of special prosecutor is about--
turning disagreements on foreign policy into criminal matters.

President bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately, this
country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so easily.

Mike

P.S. Seriously, though, I'm not particularly happy with the
performance of _either_ branch of government.  But Congress is the one
which has the lower turnover rate.  Maybe we should try electing
Clinton to the presidency and a Republican majority to Congress?
Could be interesting...
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2525 alt.politics.clinton:2604 alt.politics.elections:11299
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion again / was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:40:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <19772@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> [stuff deleted]         And just like the Nazi propaganda machine, the
>Democrats have a liberal media to push their cause.
>
>If their view on abortion is so overwhelmingly supported, how come the 
>election in Washington on abortion on demand was so close?  In a state
>with liberal leanings?

According to the local post-election analysis, there were a couple
of reasons the abortion vote was so close (please note that the
Washington initiative was not for "abortion on demand"--there were
restrictions).  For one thing, the local abortion-rights groups
were a bit overconfident: they bought Brad's claim that Washington
is a "state with liberal leanings", so they didn't run any kind
of campaign for the initiative; they just assumed it would pass.

The second significant factor was the presence of the euthanasia
initiative on the same ballot.  This would have allowed doctors
to "assist" patients who were terminally ill and wanted to die.
This initiative was enormously controversial; it got the churches
heavily involved in the election, and most of the anti-euthanasia
voters were also against the abortion initiative.

Now, in a tortured effort to bring this all back to Dan  ;-) let's
look at that "state with liberal leanings" part.  The Washington
Republican Party platform is an astonishing document.  The party
has been taken over by the fundamentalists--the platform calls for
an end to the teaching of channeling in public schools (?!) and
decries the teaching of devil worship also!  I guess schools have
changed a bit since I was there....Not one of the currently elected
Republican officials at the state convention would endorse the
platform because they were embarrassed by it's contents.  The 
Washington state delegation to the Republican National Convention 
is only supporting Bush because our man Dan is also on the ticket.
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2008 alt.politics.elections:10830
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Oh, Danny Boy
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:34:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:
"ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
">cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
">
"><   THE POINT IS that he is the VP!!  Telling us to just leave him alone
"><   and go on is an absolutely idiotic notion.  And why shouldn't we make
"><   fun of him?  Every other public figure in the country, from Rush
"><   Limbaugh to Madonna, gets roasted by the press.  What rule or law
"><   prohibits the VP from being the subject?
">
">	Really? Tell me, when was the last time that one of Jesse
">	Jackson's speeches was printed word for word? When was
">	the last time that one of his gaffes was roasted?
">
">	Quayle is a victim of pack journalism, that's all. 
">	He's the 90's version of Gerald Ford.
"
"True, but Quayle also, clearly, and idiot.  Ford was not an idiot, he was
"just clumsy.  But this is different; it's not as though Quayle has said 2 or
"3 stupid things and people keep rehashing them -- Quayle has said literally
"hundreds of stupid/incoherent/laughable things.  People have written books
"of all the stupid things Quayle has said.
"
"But don't forget that Quayle is just a smokescreen to keep people from seeing
"what an buffoon Bush is.

So does that make Bush's choice for Dan Quayle as Vice President a good
choice after all? :)

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: another conspiracy theory
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:37:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug4.123527.19662@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

>He was not *teaching* spelling.  He was a "quest" judge at a spelling bee with
>the word potato spelled "potatoe" on the judge's card that he had.
>
>Jeff.

  Probably DQ was set up, and he fell into the trap.  :-)

-ping

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1620 alt.politics.clinton:1961 alt.politics.perot:1281 rec.humor:26121 talk.bizarre:26045 talk.politics.misc:39776
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clean Air Act (Was: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:34:09 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Aug13.180103.27080@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>... If you consider the changes in regulations that Quayle is working
>on, you may consider this to be manipulating the law so no one's
>breaking it.  These regulatory changes have been made without
>public hearing, and in violation of the spirit of the legislation
>the regulation is based on.  Clean Air Act comes to mind.

I heard him boasting in some speech or other this week (on C-SPAN) about how
the changes in the Clean Air Act made Bush the Environmental President.  It
truly made me wonder what planet Quayle's been on all this time.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244	     ---------------------+
| "Creativity in programming is to find deep simplicities in a complex	  |
| process."					- Harlan Mills 		  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2456 tx.politics:4331
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:46:20 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <oneil.714415989@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>>Looks like an attempt to do a Truman. Calling Clinton
>>Carter II is just an attempt to mask the Bush record.
>
>Wasn't Truman a Democrat?  Correct me if I'm mistaken.
>
You are right, Sharon. My point was that he is credited with
winning by running against a "do nothing" republican congress...
something Bush is trying to repeat.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:32:00 GMT

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

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

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
From: lmg@natinst.com (Louis Gomes)
Subject: Re: Content-free Discourse (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:02:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.234314.13656@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>,
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and
>>a Democratically-controlled Congress will keep a lid on
>>spending is fooling themselves.  
>
>Why do people make such statements?  I can understand that one or two of
>these things might creep into a passionate argument, but when the entire
>body of a post is just one ridiculous statement, it's time to shut down
>Usenet, chuck everything, and move to Portugal.

Hey, hey, hey! Stop picking on us. I can quote you extensively from
mainstream Portuguese newspapers from any time in the last 3.5 years
ripping the Quayleman to shreds with great gusto, and mocking the
archconservative hangups of American society in general, and of this
administration, in particular... :-)

--
a culture-shocked, uprooted Portuguese - louis.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.214808.18006@ncsu.edu>
     Aug12.153459.11122@at writes:

>Bush's statement reflects the reality of legalized abortion on demand
>in this country.  His only real choice today is to allow his children
>and grandchildren to decide for themselves.

   This translates to "My granddaughter has a choice, so I can't stop
her from exercising that choice.  But I'm going to do my damnedest to
take that choice away from her.  To stifle her freedom and her will."

>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.

>Doug Holtsinger

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Subject: Re: Oh, Danny Boy
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
	<1992Aug9.155250.12535@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:12:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.155250.12535@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> hsu_wh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (William H Hsu) writes:

> In article <woody.12c6@terapin.com> woody@terapin.com (Butch Adler) writes:

>> So he makes a mistake on one word, and the media jumps on him
>  ...
>> media based, and you never get to see the other truth.
                                             ^^^^^ ^^^^^
> I *love* it! "Other truth!". That ranks right up there with "fact
> hungry Liberals" with a capital 'L' (presumably, Conservatives are so full
> of facts that they don't need to be hungry anymore... :-)

Close, but not quite.  Actually, they're so full of (ahem) *something else*
that they don't need facts anymore.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  "I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever.  I don't  |
|  care what the facts are."                                                 |
|      -- George Herbert "Hoover" Bush, 2-AUG-88                             |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2396 talk.politics.misc:41087 alt.politics.clinton:2484 alt.politics.elections:11187