HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:37:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.163533.8595@technology.com>, richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.123555.11553@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
|> >The truth is:
|> >
|> >	Democrats will raise your taxes, spend more on social programs, increase the size
|> >	of government, restrict your ability to succeed, punish you if you do succeed and
|> >	blame you for hurting those who do not succeed.
|> >
|> >	Republicans will raise your taxes less, spend less on social programs, increase the
|> >	size of government slower,  encourage you to succeed, try to reward your success
|> >	and try to provide a handup not a handout for those who do not succeed.
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> >That it and thats that.
|> >
|> Fortunately, Fred, that's not it. Propaganda pure and simple, to justify nothing more
|> than GREED....I have republican relatives in S. California and I have heard what they
|> say in public and what they say in private. They don't give a damn about anything but
|> their neighborhood and their bank accounts.....


So what is your point.  Democrats do not give a damn about anything except raising taxes,
enlarging government and getting the most people possible on some government program.

I'll take a group of folk who care only about their neighborhood and bank accounts any
day of the week.


fred

##############################################################################

He did inhale.  He lied about the draft.  He did sleep with Flowers. 
He did cheat on his wife.  He will raise taxes.  He will put people out of
work.  He is LIBERAL.

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quayle 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5086 alt.politics.clinton:5368 talk.abortion:36445
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:58:14 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <192tovINNah6@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
# A long time ago, there was the suggestion that abortion is a means for men
# to control women.  An opposing view held that being "pro-choice" in fact,
# benefits the male.
# 
# Anyway, I found ths brochure recently and because it is interesting, I'd
# like to share it with you as a means of reflecting on the debate several
# weeks ago.

[Text of brochure deleted.]

Not another one.  Haven't we already demonstrated what utter idiocy
this group espouses?  Hasn't it been pointed out enough times now that
these people have made the fundamental mistake of confusing abortion
with abortion rights?

Here's an experiment for you kids to do at home.  Replace all
references to abortion in the brochure with references to
contraception.

If you have emacs, here's what you need to do:

	M-% abortion contraception
	M-% aborted never-conceived

Read it.  Know it.  Loathe it.

[Note followups.]

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4417 talk.politics.misc:44250 alt.politics.clinton:4444 alt.politics.elections:12646
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:37:49 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Sep3.061238.23450@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
->Keywords: huh?
->
->In article <1992Sep2.175645.829@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
->>In article <1992Sep1.161349.24795@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
->>header.
->]>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
->]>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
->]>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
->]
->]Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
->Yes... see American Spectator - they have a complete quote (I don't
->expect you to believe their non-quoted stuff).
->
->]children deemed responsible by the court should be able to sue their parents
->]over matters that can significantly affect their future, e.g., child abuse,
->]surgery to repair a hair-lip, ability to stay in highschool, etc.  I also
->]understand that her position is now standard practice and well within the
->]legal mainstream.
->
Well then parents could sue their children! How neat!  This liberal stuff is
really great when you get into it.  Would there be a statue of limitations?
(forgive me for not knowing this stuff - I'm new at liberal).  It's been
almost 23 years since my son peed in the back of my brand new color TV.

But it's only been two weeks since my granddaughter shit my couch.  Will I
be able to sue her as per Ms. President?  Or would this just be for 
"serious" stuff like nervous breakdowns, car wrecks and that kind of thing?

How about when my daughter pulled out $3,200 worth of braces.  Supose she
had sued me to get the braces to start with.  When she did that could I
sue her back for the second set I had to buy?

I hope you'll answer these questions because I could be in for some really
big bucks here.  Oh, and then, hot shit, I could sue my Mother too.  She's
done some nasty stuff to me lately.  

No wonder the trail lawyers support this pair! (Guess who's ((ultra liberal))
daughter is going to law school)
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Bill Moore     billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu    (602) 395-1732
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser  -  ZEUS OFFLINE)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Reply-To: Poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:14:12 GMT

In article <CINDY.92Sep14192354@solan10.solan.unit.no>, 
cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

|>                        The German central bank is purposely keeping
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>intrest rates quite high to keep the Mark strong.  This means other
|>countries in the European Monetary Fund, which uses the Mark as its
|>base currency, have had to chose between high interest rates and
|>high inflation.  Fortunately, the Germans have FINALLY decided to
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
|>give te rest of us a break and drop their interest rate.  

Just a tiny little note of caution here. You've correctly identified the 
body that holds sway over the Mark in Your first statement. The second 
statement could be read as if the German government finally relented.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Bundesbank is an independed body, mandated to keep the currency stable
by monetary means and the government can do bugger all about it. Indeed, 
the Zentralbankrat considered the spendthrift ways of our government to
be an imminent danger to the stability of the currency and in the long run
to the economy. Therefore they brutally pulled in the reigns. Let me tell
You that the German government was anything but happy about effectivly
being muzzled and receiving the brunt of the abuse of our partners in the
bargain. It is the policy of the Bundesbank to "encourage" them to save
money.

|>-Cindy Kandolf

       Till Poser         Internet: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg  Bitnet:   POSER@DESYVAX
bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85  Hepnet:   VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
   D-2000 Hamburg 52      Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: approval ratings
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:55:54 GMT

In article <BuJqMC.FJC@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>i saw a report which appeared to indicate that the
>approval rating of an encumbent president running for reelection
>is an excellent estimator for November's general election.
>since Bush's current approval rating was 39% the last time
>i heard it, then he is in trouble.
>what is his current approval rating?
>how do Bush supporters interpret this situation?

What report?  Please cite.

I recall the late Lee Atwater saying that approval ratings don't
matter; the NEGATIVITY ratings are more important.  I believe he
noted that a candidate with a 40% negative rating by election
day was dead, and the strategy was to push Dukakis's rating up.



--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5203 alt.politics.clinton:5516
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "We don't want a liar for president!"
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:05:53 GMT
 <1992Sep13.153330.12362@anasazi.com>
 <1992Sep14.112414.5994@eskimo.celestial.com>
 <1992Sep14.211232.23967@den.mmc.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep14.211232.23967@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John
Sims) says:
>
>But there is a big difference in responding to a situation where both
>alledged parties have repeatedly denied its truthfulness....

I don't believe that Rubber's Gennifer has ever denied anything.  She
just hasn't commented on it.

Jeff Luck                             *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
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: 11 Sep 92 16:49:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Oh, well, preaching to deaf ears accomplishes nothing.  People will
>believe what they want to believe about Christians.

>Gene 


Nice try Gene, but I personally have given up on this thread.  You just
can't argue with bigots.  Especially after they have gotten their
righteous dander up.

Peace.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:58:34 GMT

In article <188issINNnhk@early-bird.think.com> dm@think.com (dave mankins) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.194642.3183@genome.wi.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>>BUSH BACKPEDDLE ON DEBATES A DISSERVICE TO AMERICA
>>September 3, 1992
>>
>>     George Bush is hiding under the table when
>>it's time to put the issues on the table.
>>
>>     With Labor Day approaching and the President's
>>men now rejecting the proposal of the bipartisan
>>Commission on Presidential Debates
>
>They ought to hold the debates in the original format anyway.  If
>George doesn't show up, they can have a chicken sitting in his
>chair to cluck out his response for him.

Have Dana Carvey do Bush instead of the chicken.  The feathers would
be too much of a give-away, and Carvey's Bush is a helluva lot funnier
than any chicken's Bush I've seen.



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Why Bush would/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:04:30 GMT

In article <mykes.0dp6@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep11.202818.14845@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep11.140452.17935@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
|> > |> In article <mykes.0dl8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
|> > |>    mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
|> > |> >
|> > |> >The Bowlen amendment was unconstitutional.  If congress is allowed to make
|> > |> >laws that restrict or eliminate the presidential powers of foreign policy
|> > |> >institution, then congress becomes the only branch in government.  A GREAT
|> > |> >example of spitting on the constitution.
|> > |>
|> > |> Would it have been too much trouble to get a majority of those nine
|> > |> people known as the Supreme Court to agree with your statement before
|> > |> they broke the law?  The law may have been unconstitutional, but it
|> > |> is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not the executive branch.
|> > |>
|> > It's the Boland amendment(s).  They changed yearly.
|> >
|> 
|> True.
|> 
|> > For the Supreme Court to make a decision there must be a case or controversy.  I.e.
|> > a law must be broken and somebody tried for it's violation before the courts will
|> > rule on whether that law is constitutional.
|> >
|> 
|> The Supreme Court is an appeals court - the highest in the land.  However, Article III,
|> Section 2 of the constitution reads:
|> 
|> 	The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
|> 	under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
|> 	made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all caess
|> 	affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all
|> 	cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which
|> 	the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or
|> 	more states; between citizens of different states; between citizens of
|> 	the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and
|> 	between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens,
|> 	or subjects.
|> 
|> It seems to me that this case certainly arises under the constutition...

Which case?  The term case has been interpreted to mean a trial.  When someone is
convicted they can appeal claiming the law they broke is uncomstitutional.  Noone 
has been charged with breaking any Boland amendment.

|> > In the U.S. the federal courts do not issue advisory opinions.
|> 
|> Also true.  Appelate courts do not do this kind of thing.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:02:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>like this, they don't think, they act.  Hang out with some of your less
>successfully friends and watch how they think.  They _are_ in most cases,
>the ones that get unintentionally preggers.

Reality in the US, at least among the young pregnant (7th-9th grade,
with some high school), is different.

I used to hang out with them.  Most knew what they were doing; they
were TRYING to get pregnant.  The others didn't care whether or not
they got pregnant.

The ones who wanted to get pregnant thought that having a kid would
make their lives better.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4272 talk.politics.misc:44047 alt.politics.clinton:4259 alt.politics.elections:12556
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 7 Sep 1992 15:23:23 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep5.110014.2871@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:
...
>
>How can a family sustain its values when they are continually undermined
>everywhere they turn?
>-- 
>The Democrat U.S. Congress - Evil Empire II (TM)

And in particular they are undermined by the Presidents and Vice Presidents
of teh United States. Assuming you agree with me that honesty is a postive
family value and greed is a negative.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer




























































































































Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4724 alt.politics.elections:12850 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3575 talk.politics.guns:20822 talk.politics.misc:44824
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Cuomo
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:39:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.022320.19012@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>  But Clinton apologized profusely to Cuomo after the tape came out.  Some
>might say he was just kissing *** for political reasons.  If that's so,
>then will he act the same way as President when dealing with foreign
>governments, apologizing for the US when it has done no wrong.  By
>apologizing to Cuomo he's damned himself as either a false accuser or as
>someone who doesn't have the courage to stand up and say he's done no wrong.

Oh give me a break!  How far can you stretch to connect two unconnectable
things before you snap?  You amaze me!

Did you ever see the cartoon, Plastic Man?  I don't think you can stretch
him as far as you seem to be able to stretch this situation.

Just give it a rest.  Bill Clinton kissed an ass!  Oh Horror!  That
means that he's a demon from hell in disguise!

All this situation means is that Clinton has his priorities straight.
Instead of letting a misunderstanding get blown out of proportion, he
apologizes, so he can move on to more important things, like becoming
President.  

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:33:19 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Sep4120809@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>
>Well the polls may show Bush behind, to varying degrees.  Let us not
>forget how far he was behind Dukakis (God knows how the Dems picked
>this guy).  Anyway, my prediction:
>
>   Bush will win.  He will win big.  The polls mean nothing.  And the
>   media has less control over us than both they and we think.
>
>   Bush will win 38-40 states, and the Democrats will win the Congress.
>
>Oooh, this ought to generate a bit of discussion.
>

Well, why should it if you don't give any reasons beyond, "Well, he
beat Dukakis"?



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Sep11013334@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep11.174408.33847@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:27:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.174408.33847@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:

   In article <ART.92Sep11013334@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
   >   StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
   >   |> Glenn Story) writes:
   >   |> : forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
   >   |> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
   >   |> write bad checks?
	   [stuff deleted]
   >   I am not saying it was not abused.  I am just saying they broke no
   >   laws, spent none of our money, violated no bank rules, etc.
   >Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
   >our tax dollars that covered their loans.

   You are either being knowingly duplicitous or willfully ignorant. The
   overdrafts were covered by the deposits of other House members. There was no
   external (i.e., other than salaries paid to Representatives) tax money
   involved?

Are you sure about this.  I thought I read somewhere that the Treasury
covered any deficits in the House bank.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:02:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: ACME Widget Company, Widget Falls, Southern North Dakota

In article <1992Aug29.180045.20296@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>Wowsers!  Branley thinks that Bush is aimlessly wandering around on
>the edge of a cliff, but prefers Clinton, who's promised to run off
>that cliff.

When did Clinton actually promise to run off of any kind of cliff?
And what makes you think that Bush hasn't fallen off the cliff?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Family Leave (was Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 08:53:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.205821.3652@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> ujwb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jeff Beer) writes:
"In article <1992Sep9.203232.5464@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
">The family leave bill is going to help rich yuppies have children,
">and that's about all.  A company will likely fire any poor, working
">class individual who takes advantage of the 12 week unpaid leave
">authorized by the bill.  Companies know they can easily replace
">untrained, unskilled workers, and they won't be happy about a
">worker who takes temporary leave -- it costs them money to find
">a temporary replacement.  It'd be cheaper to fire them, and replace
">them with a new worker.  
">
">And in those situations where the worker doesn't get fired, the costs 
">of finding and training a temporary replacement will hurt American
">businesses, and possibly cost other people their jobs.  A President
">who is concerned about "family values" will veto this bill, because
">it will ultimately cost American jobs and hurt U.S. competitiveness.  
"
"And such is an example of the shortsightedness of American business.
"They view their workforce as reusable, replaceable, and ultimately
"meaningless entities, merely chess pieces in the equation producing the
"Almighty bottom line.
"
"Jeff

Thats why we need legislation to FORCE them to respect people as
human beings rather than just another "plant asset". Again, like
I said, trickle-down must be ENFORCED. Thats why we need Clinton/Gore.
 
George Bush is in the rich factory owners' pockets. Thats why we
have to get rid of him and his republican buddies in November.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush