HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 07:58:50 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Now don't give me that BS about the death penalty and warfare,
>because everyone knows that is totally unrelated.

Since I do not know how or why these are unrelated,
could you explain to me.

If it is wrong to kill a few hundred cells, surely it must
be wrong to kill 6 billion of them.

Also, I would take the pro-life people much more seriously,
if they actually were pro-life. Unfortunately, these are usually
the people who are against sex education i.e. they rather have
their children die of AIDS than to know about condoms and safer
sex. Majority of pro-lifers also promote hatred against lesbians,
bisexuals and gay men, thus directly contributing to the number
of gay teens who commit suicide.

As long as pro-lifers are hateful bunch of loonies, it's hard
to take them seriously.

jari
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:48:07 GMT

Ted Krueger writes:
>Michael Polen writes:
>>One issue that the anti-abortion folks really are unwilling to deal
>>with is that many of the women who seek to terminate pregnancies
>>are literally not in any economic shape to continue them. There is
>>a great deal of handwaving at 'forcing employers' to provide unpaid
>>leave, but no real help with expenses and childcare. Many women work
>>at jobs that don't offer health benefits.To go on welfare would often cause them to have to evict their husbands.
>
>This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>care plans.

Irrelevant.  What percentage of American _woman_ have comprehensive
health-care plans?  I'd assume that the percentage of men would be
higher than the percentage of women.  Besides, even 13% of the
American people is a LOT of women, supporting the statement that "many
women work at jobs that don't offer health care benefits."

I'm not sure I believe the 87% statistic, either, especially
considering that, considering unemployment, this would mean that all
but a very few jobs offer "comprehensive" health plans, an assertion
with which I don't agree.

>In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
>to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those 
>infertile couples adopt her baby.

It's been suggested that the wait is because of legal paperwork to do,
not because of any shortage of babies to adopt!  Besides, most
families want to adopt white children instead of black or Hispanic
children.

>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

"Vote Republican.  We'll put you back in the 1950's."

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: long@next3.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Re: Logical "Proof" that Abortion is not always murder.
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.154033.10557@news.vanderbilt.edu>  
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
> 
> 
>    All you've proved, according to your hypotheses, is that abortion  
involves
> at least one destruction of human life, and possibly more.
 
> John Rickert					    Nil humanum alienum	
> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		    a me puto.

Not at all.  What I have shown is that the idea of an INDIVIUAL HUMAN LIFE  
does not apply in the case of very early without contradiction, as opposed  
to, say, the notion of many individual cells with the POTENTIAL to develop  
into an individual human.  For undifferentialed cells such as those in a  
zygote, that potential is much more easily expressed, and in fact occurs  
all the time in the process of identical twinning.  Only a proper  
chemical/hormonal environment is needed to make these cells cooperate  
towards the development of an individual human being.  However, nearly  
every other cell with human DNA has that potential (the exceptions are  
those such as immune cells that undergo permanent DNA alteration).  This  
places the destruction of the zygote (at least) on the same level as the  
destruction of any number of skin, spleen, fat (etc.) cells.  In short,  
THE MERE ACT OF FERTILIZATION DOES NOT MAKE A CELL INTO AN INDIVIDUAL  
HUMAN LIFE.  Some other criteria are necessary if our antiquated morality  
(good as it is in most ordinary circumstances), is to keep up with an  
exponental flood of knowledge that is constantly redefining the nature,  
meaning and purpose of life.  
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Does this Mean we Can Finally Sell Women Again?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:39:53 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

] In article <1060@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) wrote:
] > 
] > Have you never heard the phrase, "she is with child"?  It makes no sense 
] > unless "child" includes the unborn.
] 
] Have you never heard the phrase "she has a bun in the oven"?  It makes no
] sense unless the child is a pastry and the woman a cooking appliance.


sounds Good Enough for me....

Now will they be sold Only in Hardware/Appliance Stores,
and we lose out again to the Cheap Japanese Imports?

Or will we also start retailing women in other Outlets
along with VCR's and Video Games?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:58:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.220710.27686@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210535.22592@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>>-- Ronald Reagan
>Similarly adoption and abstinence. How unsurprising to see such
>vacuity from Reagan.
>-Ekr

	Hardly vacuity, you missed the point. He's suggesting that these
people are advocating something that they would not have wanted done to 
themselves.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7669 alt.politics.clinton:11070 alt.politics.bush:9555
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:45:19 GMT

>In article <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>|> In article <cortez.717592044@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
> 
>|> >Ok, Mr. serious thinker. Explain the Burger King incident. Go on.
>|> 
>|> I do not know what you are referring to. 

I don't believe you for a second. You know, California, press in tow,
pulls over at a Burger King with a "now hiring" sign and declares
that it's a sign things are "turning around in America."

I am absolutely incapable of conceiving how anyone with a shred of
intelligence was capable of that. He was not fumbling over words,
he was not making minor factual errors, and the press did not distort
it at all. Reading the detailed reports on the event that came out at
the time, there was no way to conclude anything other than that Dan
thought he was showing off a real economic positive -- Dan went on too
long for there to have been any mistake.

So go on, explain it. Enlighten us as to how to interpret Dan's
statements consistent with your theory that he is able to think.

We're waiting.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Summary Thurs 10/15/92
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:38:44 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <tem1.719195422@Isis.MsState.Edu>, tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller) writes:
|> aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> >     Today, Rush and his listeners, a bunch of brain-dead sad sacks who
|> >haven't read fifteen books in their lifetimes, will piss and moan about
|> >Bill Clinton, the man who, in less than three weeks, will be elected
|> >President of the United States.
|> >-- 
|> >     Vern Morrison              |    
|> >     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |   read my .sig: join the Clinton/Gore
|> >     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |               email team!  
|> >     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |     write 75300.3115@compuserve.com     
|> 
|> Considering one of Clinton's supporters called into Rush's TV show and
|> the following transpired:    
|>     "Rush:  Why are you voting for Clinton?
|>     Caller: Because he's gonna create jobs.
|>      Rush:  How?
|>     Caller: well.......(long pause)  Just you wait and see!"
|> 
|> If I were you, I wouldn't be so brave and gallant at throwing around the
|> term 'brain dead sad sacks' becuase, for all we know, you could be that 
|> caller (despite the fact the caller was from Baton Rouge, there is no way
|> to discern whether you are any different)

If you weren't a ditto-head that believes that everything Rush
says is true, then you'd wonder why he would never debate these
topics seriously with people who are prepared and have really
studied the issues.  Lets see Rush go on Larry King and debate
with a real challenge.  I could beat up on the people that call
in too, if I had my notes handy and a support staff.  Rush is
afraid to face anyone with real political or debating experience.

Jared Dahl
My opinions, not my employer's.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:36:38 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <Bw77D7.C8y@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

|> You're a little confused, here, Alex; it was PEROT supporters who were
|> giving Rush flack about not being on their side. Rush REPEATEDLY urged
|> voters to go with Buchannan. Not that he thought Pat could win; but Bush
|> needed to LISTEN to Buchannan, and Bush had (and still has) his head in
|> the sand. 

	No, I'm not confused. Bush encouraged people to listen to Buchannan,
but *vote* for Bush, because Bush was going to win and Buchannan was only
a distraction. Rush got a scad of hate mail over this - for not being 
supportive (enough) of Buchannan.

|> yeah, and I guess the thing I understand LEAST is, why re they going for a
|> man who promises them more of the same? 

	Because they don't see it like you do. Since there are more of them
then you, it might be worth while to try and understand their view, instead
of writing them off as simple fools. 

	I lived in Europe for a while, and I understand where many of Clintons
ideas come from. Furthurmore, I like those ideas, because I like european
society.

	Paris has a solution for the unhireable - they have 4500 street 
sweepers (with brooms). Being a street sweeper doesn't take much effort,
and it doesn't pay well, but it's slightly more productive then welfare,
and Paris has some of the cleanest streets in the world. The GOP would
never support such an idea - it's sounds too much like socialism, but 
the fact is that these people would be on welfare if they wern't pushing
a broom, and this way the city gets a small return on their money.

	The only welfare reform idea to come out of Reagan or Bush is
to tie growth to inflation - maybe Clinton will actually try and change
the system instead of strangling it. If, in 4 years, we only have clean
streets to show for it, it will still be an improvement.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6856 alt.politics.bush:8173 alt.politics.clinton:9062
From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Date: 8 Oct 1992 17:45:45 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Oct6.102331.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.054809.25524@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct5.195918.1@acad.drake.edu>
>> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>> 
>>> "Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive 
>>> some kind of government aid but rather by the number of people who no 
>>> longer need it."
>> 
>> A noble sentiment, but the way to achieve this is NOT by clubbing them
>> to death!
>By this do you mean subjugating people to the hopeless programs of welfare,
>that only serve to entrench the needy into endless circles of dependency?
>"Noble", well... yes of course, it is always noble, if not inspiring to see
>someone cast off the shackles of government dependency (pardon the melodrama)
>and stand on their own two feet. Surely this is what you imply. Or do you find
>something inherently wrong with this philosophy? Indeed, shouldn't it be the
>prerogative of all governments to wean the less fortunate off government aid?
>I'm not sure I understand your arguement, Care to elaborate? 

I am getting tired ot this myth that all welfare recipients become
dependent on the government.  The majority of people on welfare are off
within a year, and the *vast* majority are off of welfare within a few
years.  Life on welfare is *rotten*, and people don't stay on welfare when
they have a choice.  Yes, there are a relatively small number of people who
are "stuck" on welfare, and the system should be reformed to aid and
encourage them to work productively if they can.  But the conservative
approach is typically to blame the welfare recipient for being a "failure"
and to punish them for staying on welfare.  The other approach (liberal?)
is to provide education and training, and to help welfare recipients
qualify for and apply for and succeed at jobs.  You know, all those
programs that have been getting cut back for the last decade or so...

You can guess which approach I prefer.
-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6958 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5171
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 11:03:40 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

john@msus1.msus.edu writes:

> If I understand the voucher system correctly, people with children in the
> public school system would be given a voucher which they would give to the
> public school they decide to send their child to.  That school, in turn, woul
> receive funding in proportion to the number of vouchers it collects.  It seem

One of the major aspects of the proposed voucher system is that it
would apply also to private and parochial schools. Thus, tax money
would be used to support church-sponsored institutions (which are
tax-exempt in the first place). This, to me, is the ulterior motive
of the proposal, given Georgie's and Dano's new-found belief that
the separation of state and Christian church is a constitutional
aberration.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Keywords: A slight trend
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:25:45 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <crb2.718902249@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:

|> I think you miss the point (which, honestly, doesn't suprise me).  The point
|> is that polls don't tell the TRUTH!

	People often put more stock in polls then they should, but candidates
follow polls for a reason: polls don't lie, they just don't say as much as
some people would like.

	A national poll doesn't take the electorial college into account,
for example, but watching the same poll wee after week is a good way to
judge reletive changes in public mood. The trick is to only watch one
poll, and only compare the results with other instances of the same poll
(before and after a convention, for example).

	The NYTimes has been publishing poll data on a state by state basis,
along with other statistical data on the state. From looking at the data,
it's pretty clear that Clinton will take California and the north east,
a pretty good base from the electorial point of view.

|>  BTW... Has anyone out there ever BEEN POLLED?

	I have. Someone from the Times/Mirror called me one day. I don't
know where they got my name from: probably the circulation list of the
local daily paper (I'm not a subscriber, but they call me regularly to
see if I've changed my mind). 

	Anyway: they asked me a bunch of questions in a very bored tone,
thanked me and hung up.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Proof of a Liberal Media Conspiricy
Keywords: Liberals are wincing
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:38:55 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1bn9prINN9ut@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:

|> These facts now being exposed are exactly what the liberal media wants
|> to hide from us.  More of this will come out as the election draws
|> near.  The liberal Democrats know about this information. They do not
|> want you or I to have any knowledge in this area.

	"They are hiding things from us"
	"They know"
	"They do not want"

For people who doubt the existance of the Liberal Media Conspiricy, here 
is all the needed proof. Unless Al Conte can be shown to be a liberal
plant, we can conclude that some Rush fans belive that The Media is
acting in unison to supress certain information which would benifit
conservatives. 

The Media, according to this message, appears to be controlled by the 
Democratic party or it's agents. This secret network is deftly manipulating
the public via radio, television and newpaper, but their efforts are
being overthrown by Rush Limbaugh, noble savior of the Right.

I think that it's possible that Mr. Conte is a paranoid fool, but I would
not go so far as to assert that he is without furthur evidance. If, for
example, several Rush fans were to testify that Mr. Conte is not
representitive of Rush fans in general, I would accept that as sufficent
proof. Otherwise, I can only conclude that Rush fans in general belive in
The Liberal Media Conspiricy as it is described here.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7694 alt.politics.clinton:11137 alt.politics.bush:9604
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi
Date: 16 Oct 1992 07:48:54 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct15.234945.14158@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

Now, here, Simon is an example for you to study.  Take a really good look.
Think about it for a minute.  I've highlighted the 'stupid' part.  Can you
explain it for us?  Better yet, can you stop doing it?

>The government is not saying anything about who should live or who should die,
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that is what pro-choice is if you think about it.  Pro-life means all unborn
                                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
>should live.  and I am not a nazi,racist, etc, ok???  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>Read my last postings.

(Shit, now Peter has Simon doing it....)

Adrennei Regard
From: senyart@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jason Enyart)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Where can I listen to Rush in Indiana?
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:51:36 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

I've listened to Rush a few times but I don't know when or where to
catch him on the radio or tv.  Anyone out there know the times for 
south-central Indiana?  I'd like to hear what he has to say.

Feel free to mail direct rather than post.


-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
S. Jason Enyart                                       Senior, Computer Science 
senyart@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu                    Indiana University Bloomington
                            -------->X<---------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6915 alt.activism.d:3666 alt.politics.elections:15727 alt.politics.bush:8271 alt.politics.clinton:9190 talk.politics.misc:50420 talk.abortion:41475