From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:38:49 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <1684776BB.DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com>,
DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.090715.12956@nntp.uoregon.edu>
>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>
>>crap about abortion deleted
>
>What is this bullshit abortion thread doing on alt.fan.dan-quayle?


Nothing -- NOTHING -- irritates me more than ingratitude.

I think Eileen was lucid and insightful, and managed to speak in a
civilized tone about an uncivilized Republican grotesquerie.  She
pointed out the unsurpassed absurdity of the Republican pretense,
and raised a number of good questions that are worth considering.
One does not often find that sort of writing on Usenet, let alone
in an alt.* group.  Even if it were true that this news-group had a
real charter and took it seriously -- neither of which is true -- I
must say that I would much rather read Eileen on *any* topic than be
subjected to the kind of foul-mouthed, delinquent spittle that so
many others try to pass off as thought nowadays.

Let me give you one recent example of the kind of trash that annoys me.

 In article <1684777B0.DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com>,
 a certain DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
 > In article <86375@netnews.upenn.edu>, X2 writes:
 > >In article <1992Aug16.051131.19162@u.washington.edu>, X1 writes:
 > >>Alright already!!!!! What was the joke?
 > >It was something about what black people really want: loose women,
 > >tight shoes, and warm bathroom seats.  Or something like that.
 > >It wasn't even funny, unlike the joke that got Watt fired.
 > I believe the King James Version reads "loose shoes, tight pussy,
 > and a warm place to take a shit."

Yes, I'd much rather read Eileen's words on any topic than anyone's
rendition of this sort of garbage.  Nevertheless, I didn't complain
about it, and Eileen didn't complain about it, so I think the least
YOU can do is shut YOUR complaining trap.  This is an *alt* group,
and this is Usenet, and many people found Eileen's words to be a
useful addition to the general political discussion: deal with it.

Eileen ended her post with:
 > Yes, the Bushes are sending double messages on abortion.  Anyone
 > who thinks otherwise is thinking in terms of substance, rather
 > than image, which is a fatal error in politics.

Unlike what some others have written, her point is worth repeating,
and repeating over again.  You may not approve, but I have appended
it to the end of this post, for those who might have missed it
earlier.


Dhanesh

Baker-Bush/Quayl in '92:
Gag on the First Two, Get the Third One Freee.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 > Article 2925 of alt.fan.dan-quayle:
 > From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
 > Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
 > Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
 > Message-ID: <1992Aug18.090715.12956@nntp.uoregon.edu>
 > Date: 18 Aug 92 09:07:15 GMT
 > Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
 > Lines: 43
 > 
 > Yes, the Bushes are sending double messages on abortion.  Anyone who thinks
 > otherwise is thinking in terms of substance, rather than image, which is a
 > fatal error in politics.
 > 
 > The Bushes know that most R's think abortion doesn't belong in the platform
 > and that it shouldn't be illegal, althought they wouldn't want their
 > daughters to have one, (but would still love them if they did).  They also
 > know that most R's think the Bushes are nice people.  Bush can't take
 > abortion out of the platform because of the religious right, so they are
 > offering FORM to the R's who are uncomfortable (or worse) with the position
 > of the platform and the religious right on abortion.  
 > 
 > Their recent remarks are designed to make moderates say, "see, they are
 > just like us," even though the SUBSTANCE of the policies of Bush/Quayle are 
 > absolutely not in line with, or comfortable for, a majority of the party
 > regulars, let alone society as a whole.  
 > 
 > It is a cynical ploy that says the public will not notice that these people
 > are on record as supporting a complete ban on abortion, but will pick up a
 > message that confuses them at the emotional level.
 > 
 > Why is it no one has asked Bush or Quayle why, if they would still love
 > their daughters who, after all the discussion and thinking about an
 > unwanted pregnancy chose to have an abortion--why would they want her to
 > have to go to some back alley butcher to have it?  It seems to me that
 > their position is pro-choice not because they would still love their
 > daughters (or grand daughters) after an abortion, but because anyone who
 > DOES love a young woman in that situation would want her to be safe when
 > she did what she was determined to do.
 > 
 > If you want her to have to go to a back alley, you do NOT really love your
 > grand daughter, and Bush should know it.  The public does.
 > 
 > By the way, I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  I saw
 > someone bleeding from an illegal abortion once.  Bush says he would 'pick
 > her up, dust her off, and get (his grand daughter) back into the race' of
 > life.
 > 
 > It takes a lot more than 'dusting someone off' when someone has had an 
 > illegal abortion to put them back together even physically.
 > 
 > Sometimes, very often when abortion is illegal, they are not around to
 > get back in life at all.  Bush ought to know that, too.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .