HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s5202734@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s5202734)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:42:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.170303.1@vthvax.tamu.edu> joel@vthvax.tamu.edu writes:

>
>I can see how an abortion (and a waiting period) would seem like a
>nuisance for someone who has no respect for unborn life.  I think a 24
>hour waiting period is small when compared to the importance of the decision.
>
>Instead of focusing on the hardship to the mother, why not discuss the
>real questions?  Who's life is it?  Who's rights are being violated?
>The child is the only innocent party and it's the childs rights that need to
>be protected by law.
>
>Joel Hammond

    I have always wondered id the right-to-lifers who seem so ready to
make a woman give up a minimum of nine months of freedom in order to save 
the life of a newborn, have themselves made concessions to save the life
of another.  For example, have you donated one of your kidneys to someone
who needs it.  There may be some poor innocent giving up his/her life 
*RIGHT NOW* because you are too self-absorbed and concerned with your
piddly right-to-control-over-your-body to save a life.

     They really ought to amend the constitution to stop this sort of
thing.   :-)

     Jenny Gutbezahl
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:46:02 GMT

In <1992Aug12.124538.8277@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

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

>Is this a cool world, or what?

Perhaps we should ask Holly Would if they could. And did.

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: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:24:32 GMT

In article <16otk0INNnp9@agate.berkeley.edu> 
lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> 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. 

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

>> 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. 

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

> 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.

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. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Leadership & GHWB
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:52:57 GMT

	Bush has been quick to blame all the countries problems on congress,
and while many people are quick to agree that congress is a problem, I think
that it really begs the issue. The fact is that the president has to work
with congress, like it or not. The pres. can either cow down to congress, 
or he can bully them, but they won't go away, ever.

	Reagan managed to bully congress with his use of public support. Bush,
in contrast, has not been able to convince congress to do anything, and when
he has agreed with them, he disavows the action later. Thats not what I
think of when I think leadership. Bush has also been quite willing to
change his views to suit his parties right wing: it's well known that Bush
is pretty moderate, but he'll happily preach far right ideology to stay
in office. That's not leadership either.

	Leadership is the ability to take control and guide people. Bush
hasn't been able to guide congress, and he blames congress for that, but 
thats not the point. *It's his job* to guide congress, even a hostile congress,
and he hasn't been able to do it. Since congress is not going away, Bush
needs to demonstrate that he can control congress, or he isn't a leader.
I suppose, if your a right winger, it's nice to know the pres. will cow down
to you, but if he can't do the job, electing him can't be good for the party.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1995 alt.politics.elections:10821
From: jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's position on Bosnia
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:07:16 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

In article <1992Aug10.165828.24034@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <FOX.92Aug10080337@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>>FIn article <1992Aug10.022213.18824@reed.edu> kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) writes:

>>   Maybe you should explicitly draw attention to:

>>		   Unfavorable terrain and guerilla warfare conditions
>>		   like those that put much egg on the US's face in
>>		   Southeast Asia...

>>I have the feeling that much of the problem in Southeast Asia
>>was that the other side was being supported by a superpower:
>>China.  And besides, weren't we about to win when we left?

>Nonsense.  Both statements are incorrect.

I don't agree that we were about to win when we left, but NV was supported
by China (as well as USSR), and unfavorable terrain and guerilla warfare
conditions did make up a large part of the difficulties we had.  I see
only one statement which was incorrect, explain your cocksure retort,
fred j mccall 575-3539!
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:14:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.132039.14604@sei.cmu.edu> gh@sei.cmu.edu (Gaurang Hirpara) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug7.154657.19944@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> Well, let's do a little thought experiment here.  Let's suppose that
>|> both you and I live in the same small town.  The town is primarily of
>|> your religion (whatever that might be) and religious classes are
>|> required at the school.  The nearest alternative school is in a town
>|> 60 miles away.  This leaves me faced with the choice of either coming
>|> up with transportation to a town 60 miles away and back for my child,
>|> subjecting my child to mandatory religious indoctrination which is
>|> being funded by public monies (such instruction, perhaps, being at
>|> odds with my own religion), or of quitting my job, uprooting my
>|> family, and moving elsewhere.  This hardly seems reasonable to me, and
>|> is certainly not a situation to be promoted by the spending of public
>|> monies. 

How is this different from the situation today, where parents have
to tolerate less-than-optimal schooling for their children and,
simply by virtue of where they live, cannot remedy the situation.
So people spend great sums of money, move house, just to get in the 'right
neighborhood' with the good schools.

Needless to say, the best schools correspond to the neighborhoods
with the most expensive housing.
We have ended up with a kind of educational aparteid.
A school choice system could end it.

>|> Ok, now let's change the situation just a little.  Let us suppose for
>|> a moment that the Mormon school just happens to have the best program
>|> in mathematics.  Is it reasonable to require that students who want
>|> that mathematics program MUST take the religion courses?
>|> 
>|> Ok, now change the situation just a little more.  Suppose it is YOU
>|> who are the 'odd man out' and that everyone else in the area is
>|> sending their children to a school which has required courses in
>|> Satanism, which is the only school within reasonable travelling
>|> distance.  So, where do you send your child to school, and do you have
>|> a problem with that?
>
>	How are any of these situations related to the voucher system?
>	What if these conditions existed without the voucher system,
>	you'd still be faced with the same choices. Would you send 
>	your child to a school that required Satanism now?

This is hardly a hypothetical question. I read recently about a
kindergarten teacher who was teaching kids that witches weren't the
bad people that the fairy tales made them out to be, and there
were actually good witches. Hmmm, your tax dollars at work.

Are the anti-choice people opposed to this blatant act of
religious indoctrination? :-) 

-pjm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Music at Republican National Convention
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:57:27 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

Bush's pre-planned "surprise" visit to the RNC Wednesday was
accompanied by some appropriately upbeat music.

I'm given to understand that the music was, in fact, taken from the
play _La_Cage_Aux_Folles_, a play that revolves around homosexual
life.

Is this information correct?  How could the RNC make such a gaffe?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: john@makesys.com (John Turman)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Make Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:27:29 GMT

In article <adams.713240065@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson) writes:
>
>>Change, blah, blah, Change, blah, Change..
>>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah, Change.
>>blah, blah, Change, blah, Change, blah.
>>blah, blah, blah, Change, blah, blah.
>
>Nah, replace one line with 'blah blah Balanced Budget Amendment blah'
>
>I actually saw his commercial tonite.  Yeah, sure, I'll trust you Mr. Read
>My Lips....  I can just see the Clinton campaign commercials now...
>
> -Steve
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                        -------------------
>     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
>     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558

What I can't understand is that following the Gulf war Mr. "Read my Lips"
had an approval rating of 92%, this fully one year after the tax increase, so why
is it that something that was such a non-issue then has suddenly become so big
now? This tells me that there are a bunch of hypocrites that were part of the
50% or so approvers who are now on the slick Willery bandwagon cause it's
fashionable. That's OK though the jokes on you who think Clinton will be any
different or better than the Bushman, personnally I think we should all boycott
the elections this time around. Either that or vote for none of the above.

OB Joke:
There was a freak snowstorm the other night in Little Rock and Bill C. woke up
and looked out his bedroom window. What he saw brought anger to his eyes, there
in the middle of his front lawn, written in yellow snow was "Vote for Bush in 92".
This really raised Clinton's ire so he fired off phone calls to all his campaign
advisers to get over to his house at once, he was going to get to the bottom of
this.

When everyone assembled he said "use whatever means are at your disposal and
whatever funds are required from my campaign account but I want the perpetrator
of this insidious act". So off went his advisers looking for the culprit. After
an exhaustive investigation using hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign
contributions his campaign chairman came to him and said "boss I've got good news
and bad news for you".

Bill yelled at him "so what's the good news"? "Well we found out who's urine
that was in the snow the other day, it was Dan Quayle's". "Well what could
possibly be the bad news then" asked Billy C. "Well sir the handwriting was
Hillary's" came the reply.

John T.
-- 
My opinions only, if you don't like `em don't read `em. 
Hurricanes and Dolphins, my favorite weather phenomena and aquatic mammals, oh
and also my favorite football teams. And remember to always genuflect in Shula's
presence and to kiss his Super Bowl Rings. .........John "Dolphinatic" Turman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1900 alt.politics.elections:10742 alt.politics.clinton:2113
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:45:02 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug17.165401.10396@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <MICHAEL.92Aug16223939@paul.bu.edu> 
>
>> Let's face it- all that happened was that we went from stupid
>> tax-and-spend policies to even more stupid borrow-and-spend
>> policies. Myself, I find it rather hard to put the entire blame
>> on Congress when the President himself hasn't bothered to even
>> SUBMIT a balanced budget for 1993. 
>
>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. 

Seemingly, he seems unwilling to put these plans in front of Congress.

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

With good reason.  BBA would hand-cuff the government's hands too
much in a downturn (not to say the Government debt doesn't, either).



--
But this is.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1931 alt.politics.clinton:2134 alt.politics.perot:1300 rec.humor:26322 talk.bizarre:26418
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:27:14 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> Now I see the humor in this thread.  There are idiots on the net that
> don't know the difference between a SENATOR and a GOVENOR.

A Senator is a model of Vauxhall car, and a governor is what you use to
regulate the speed of a steam engine.


mathew
[ The clue is in the domain ]
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
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: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:51:05 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Fine.  Eliminate taxes and the bulk of it STILL doesn't go to the
>people who 'created' it.  Happy?

This is beginning to sound like the profit is explotation thread again.

>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago?
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:34:37 GMT


	This university recently advertised several technical positions that
have become available (these are replacement workers, not new jobs). For
a half dozen positions, we got 500 resumes. Given that nobody here has seen a
raise in 3 years, you wouldn't think that it would be all that attractive.


-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:13:07 GMT

In article <25089@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>
>There's also a bit in the NT where Jesus says that he's come as "a
>sword" and "will set brother against brother, father against son, mother
>against daughter." He later returns to the theme when he says that you
>can't be his follower unless you hate you parents.  He was also kinda
>nasty to his own mum at Cana.
>

NT references, please. I believe you are taking things way out of context.
Especially the 'hate your parents' reference.

>It wasn't all peace&love huh? Maybe these folks doing all the hating
>weren't so far from the doctrinal line after all?
>
>FoFP

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly  
dillhoff@asl.dl.nec.com  my own and have nothing to do with   
(214) 518-5351           NEC America, Inc.
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:47:14 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
	<1992Aug17.182041.16112@isag1.twuug.com>

(discussion of pre-penicilin Syphylis deleted to save space)

>Stupid reason. (No Tom, I'm not calling you stupid, just the "reason")
>People are going to screw no matter WHAT silly laws are passed against
>it. If you want to control disease, make prostitution explictly legal,
>then regulate it as you would any other industry. Regular medical
>checkups, etc., and maintaining a client list in case a "dose" does
>get loose. I know, being on a client list sounds kind of scary, but if
>it was explictly legal, there would be no stigmata attached to it so
>it wouldn't really bother anybody. Besides, think of some of the
>"lists" you're already on (IRS, FBI, Credit Agency, etc.). I'd rather
>be on a hooker's confidential client list any day! Just as a side
>note, I live in VA now, and I lived in Nevada for ten years before I
>moved here, so I've seen both "sides". I'll take legal prostitution,
>thank you.
>
>George

I wasn't commenting on modern prostitution.  With modern conveniences,
like latex, and computerized lists, it is possible to maintain the
legalized prostitution you speak of.  However, in the 19th century, such
actions were not feasible.  Keeping an accurate list of customers is
nigh unto impossible when you cannot easily verify someone's history. 
And most of the women engaged in prostitution who had syphilis did not
stop practicing until they became too ill to do so, since they could not
earn money any other way.  They couldn't even vote.  So, laws that would
make it possible to put such dangerous women in jail, where they were
fed, clothed, housed and did not pose a public health risk were
sensible, if extreme, solutions.  The other option was letting these
women slowly died alone, and infect a lot of people as they did so.

Note that I am not arguing for or against legal prostitution.  But the
laws, when they were created, were a sensible way to deal with a public
health menace.  Times have since changed, and the laws haven't.  Whether
or not they should is another matter entirely.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross)
Subject: Re: Private vs Public schools (was: Is this a socialist county?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:05:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug8.121512.12184@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
>  >  For instance, it is very easy to derive the idea that murderers should
>  >not be punished because the only person who suffered is now dead.
>
>  Even dead people can be parties to legal matters which have "carried over"
>from their lifetimes.

Further, the spouse or survivors of the murdered person have a legal
standing before the courts to represent the interests of the deceased.
They have also suffered injury at the hands of the murderer for which
there are legal remedies.

Further, since the deceased was a citizen of the state, the state
holds a certain interest in the events and what happens to the
murderer.

>  >  You cannot argue that a murderer is a threat to society at large....
>
>  Ah, but if murder were not a punishable crime, people would be in much
>greater danger, since almost any provocation could result in murder.

This is an interesting answer, but in point of fact, murderers do
represent a danger to the public at large.  Killing for some is a one
time thing done in the heat of the moment.  However, we also have
others who find killing a reqal "rush."  And others who are driven by
their own demons to kill again and again -- witness Ted Bundy, Jeff
Dahmer, and others.  These people in fact do represent a threat to the
public at large, as surely as a rabid animal does.

Just my thoughts,

Gene

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc