HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:12:55 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 17135@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>]	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>]decsion that she made".
>]	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>I would answer the same as he did. It is pro-family values to support
>your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
>try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
>made the choice.

I think this proves what the pro-choice people (the majority of
Americans) have been saying since the beginning.  When push comes
to shove, virtually ALL Americans are pro-choice.  I don't see why
they hide behind this pandering, limp excuse for a weak attempt at
silly symbolism regarding their stand on being anti-choice.


---
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:40:23 GMT


>In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>]	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>]decsion that she made".
>]
>]	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.  He was asked
if his daughter came to him with this 'problem' what he would do..his
answer was 'I would council her and I hope that she would make the right
decision' (that's my paraphrase..I don't have the transcript, but it's
real close).  The next question was 'well, if after all that her
decision was abortion, what would you do?', he said that he would
support her no matter what she did...

In this VERY hypothetical instance, Quayle obviously doesn't want his
daughter to have an abortion (and I am sure would be heart-broken if she
did), but the fact is..the law (as it reads in most places), leaves
him (the parent) out of the legal question.  If after all of his pleading
and 'counciling' she still had an abortion, he just said that he wouldn't
hound her forever or disown her, he would support her.

The pro-life stance is that if the law was different, Dan would never
be asked stupid hypotheticals and if it ever did happen as stated, then
he would have his 'counciling' and the law on his side.

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:01:18 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services

In article <rdippold.711829432@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>There was only the $8 million he took from BCCI folx.  But him being
>Carter, the media never followed up.

	Actually, the media followed this one up very throughly. There
was an $8M transfer from BCCI to a charity that carries Mr. Carters
name, but there was no evidance that Carter ever benifited or even
knew about the transaction. The charity carries his name for
promotional purposes, Carter is not active on the board of directors.
The charity was investigated and found to be completely legit. All of
this was reported as the BCCI scandle unfolded, in detail.

	Is this an example of the media bias that people keep talking
about?  If so, I begin to understand: If the media fails to print what
the right wants them to (irregardless of the truth) then it's biased
to the left, right?  This explains why Rush Limbaugh would be
considered a balanced source, I suppose, since he doesn't let facts
stand in his way like those liberal media sources.




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

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3846 rec.arts.misc:347 rec.music.christian:5329
From: HJ46@lafibm.lafayette.edu (Baboo (Holton, Jeffrey))
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the
Date: 26 Jul 92 14:04:47 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Originator: news@lafcol

In article <BD.92Jul24090131@fluent.UUCP> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
>
>in article <1992Jul21.172912.27656@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>
>There are two choices, neither of them pleasant.  Either the Babtist child is
>forced to listen to the prayers of another faith (not good, IMO), or the
>school has to change it's practice of leading Catholic prayers, and every
>other member of that community dislikes the Baptist family for changing
>their way of life (also not good, IMO).
>
They're not different faiths!  Last I checked Baptists and Catholics
are both Christians.  'Course, they're both wrong...  (just kidding...)

:)

(Do I have to put a disclaimer in here that that line was written in
humor?)

--Jeffrey

P.S.  My point I guess is that Baptist prayers and Catholic prayers
only differ occasionally in the recipient of the prayer.  In essence,
they're all goin' to the Big Guy upstairs, so Baptists and Catholics
*can* pray together.  I don't think God minds.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3842 alt.rush-limbaugh:3107
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:05:38 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
> 	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> decsion that she made".
>
> 	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

Comment:  She would choose to not have an abortion.  Supporting that
decision is easy.  This is the quote from Marylin Quayle after the
show (it also is getting press - "supposedly" the Quayles disagree
with eachother).

Comment:  Legalized abortion is the law.  If you respect the law, you
must respect those who obey the law.  That's reality.

> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> 					Alex Crain
> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:18:37 GMT

While reading article <1992Jul27.183442.18616@lsil.com>, I noticed that
mitch@lsil.com said the following:
 >In article C45@solbourne.com, kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
 >>While reading article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
 >>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
 >>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue.  If he said
 >>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
 >>make him pro-life?
 >
 >You are missing the point.  Of course Clinton would support his daughter because
 >Clinton is pro-choice.  Quayl claims not to be but he actually is pro-choice.
 >That's where the lies come in.

The whole point of Operation Rescue is to endeavor to make abortion illegal.
If his daughter decided to fight to have abortion made illegal and Clinton
said he'd support her, I guess that (at least from the press' point of view)
makes him pro-life.

By the way, I would think that even if Quayle's daughter went out and blew
away a bunch of people on the street he would still love her as his daughter.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: WHO THE HELL IS RUSH LIMBAUGH
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:36:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

uk02757@nx22.mik.uky.edu (jeffrey t hazelwood) writes:
>As a relative foreigner and not involved in Politics, just who the hell is  
>RUSH LIMBAUGH????????????

    Rush is the host of a radio talk show. Most of his topics are 
politically oriented in one way or another, although I would say that
Rush's comments are of interest even to people who are not particularly
interested in politics.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the NEA)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Jul24123012@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul27.202841.1736@pictel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.202841.1736@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:

   In article <LARRY.92Jul24123012@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
   >In article <1992Jul22.144403.2637@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
   >
   >   I think it is pretty clear from my previous posts that I would not want
   >   *anybody* designated as the "leader" of prayer.  A "moment of silence"
   >   is an impartial opportunity for students who have religious beliefs of
   >   *any* kind to use that time as they see fit.  Those students who do not
   >   hold religious beliefs can spend those 15 seconds reading a quarter of
   >   a page of notes, or anything else that does not disturb others during
   >   that time.
   >
   >Well, that's a poor assumption to make. My kids need to chant aloud, and 
   >they'll need to do it for more than 15 seconds. We'll also need the blood
   >of a right-thinking Republican. Else we might anger our ancient god 
   >Pindeho.

   If that is the case, then we'll have to deal with it like we dealt with
   conflicts of interest throughout the history of this country: by
   compromise.  If one person's faith promotes verbalized prayer and
   another's promotes silent, the two obviously cannot pray at the same
   time in the same place.  A proper compromise would involve providing
   different times or places for the two groups to pray, not denying both
   groups the opportunity.

I've got a better idea. Let's both keep our religion at home and in our 
churches and religious schools. Then neither of us will get upset at the
allocation of public resources to promote our particular religious
beliefs versus the particular religious beliefs of others.

   As for getting the blood of a right-thinking Republican, if you can do
   that without violating anyone's rights, please feel free.  :-)

Well, I was thinking, if I wait awhile in this group, I might find some,
freshly spilled. :->

   ____________________________________________________________________________
   Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
   PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
   Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:54:15 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <nate.382@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>> Oh, your trying to make an election issue out of it.
>
>>>    No, I'm not trying to *make* an election issue of it. 
>
>>Perhaps you are not, but the Democrats are.
>
>    I think you missed my point. My point is that it's not necessary for 
>me or the Democrats or anyone else to inflate the importance of the S&L 
>deregulation debacle. We could dissolve the Democratic party tommorrow and
>people would still be mad about the S&L crisis.

If you think the S&L bailout is bad, wait until after the November elections 
when they unveil the commercial bank bailout. It will make the costs of the S&L
bailout look like pocket change. I may vote for Clinton just so he gets stuck 
with this one.


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
It can't be won, the way the game is run
but if you choose to stay, you wind up playing anyway.

		"On the Boulevard" -- Jackson Browne

===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3783 rec.arts.misc:342 rec.music.christian:5295
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the NEA)
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:54:20 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>>And what about people of *no* religion, Dan - or do their feelings
>>count?

>Are you concerned that people who have *nothing* to do during the
>"moment of silence" have 15 seconds wasted every morning?  A person can
>use that time as he sees fit, whether by praying, meditating or writing
>a note to the student across the aisle.

    Just to cast more oil on the already flaming waters, I'm curious why 
you think that it's necessary to have a "moment of silence" at all? I would
think that if people really want to pray then they could do it pretty much
any time, and in any place. I'd bet that there have been a lot of prayers 
throughout history which have been offered under extreme conditions (like
men praying on a battlefield or on a ship during a storm at sea). Are the
words of a prayer less likely to be heard if they're spoken when you can
barely hear yourself think?

    So is it really necessary to have silence to offer prayers? What 
happens if somebody wants to pray out loud? Are we going to prevent 
people from doing that during a "moment of silence" ostensibly reserved
for prayer?

    It seems to me that all of this hedges the real issue which is allowing 
the students to pray when it's really important - before eating a school
cafeteria lunch... ;)

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:26:35 GMT

While reading article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) said the following:
 >	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
 >is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
 >murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
 >one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
 >anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
 >stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
 >at least that far for your own kids.

He is.  The point is, if she were an adult and decided to have an abortion,
"traditional family values" dictate that you love and support your children,
regardless of whether you agree with what they have decided.

I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue.  If he said
that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
make him pro-life?
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:23:52 GMT

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <mykes.09gl@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>The gas lines were before 1974.  Nixon was president during the oil embargo.
>>But the prime lending rate WAS pushing 20% when Carter left office.  And,
>>no, Carter had nothing to do with Watergate - BCCI definately, but Watergate
>>no.

>	Is there any evidance to link Carter with BCCI, or is this just a
>random accusation? I was under the imression that no one had been able
>to find any real dirt about that.

There was only the $8 million he took from BCCI folx.  But him being
Carter, the media never followed up.
-- 
You can't teach people to be lazy - either they have it, or they don't.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3724 alt.rush-limbaugh:2960
From: v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Schmidling is simply wrong.
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <EGGERTJ.92Jul30165655@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>,
eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes...
>In article <159680INN7pj@agate.berkeley.edu> dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves) writes:
>Yemen is starting to be a democracy now.  Lebanon would be a democracy
>if it weren't for the constant invasion, occupation, and civil war.
>Shall we start supporting these two countries at the same rate we
>support Israel?  Or should we reduce Israel's support to the levels we
>give Lebanon and Yemen?

We should increase their support levels the very second they are
in similar positions to Israel (i.e. only one ally in the world,
threatened by nuclear powers, surrounded by hostile nations of which
only one even recognizes their right to exist, etc. etc.).

>I don't understand what you mean when you say that Israel has been one
>of the USA's most steadfast allies.  Do you mean that the US has, in
>time of need, been able to go to Israel for help?  Do you mean that
>Israel has done its best to do what the US wants it to do?  Please
>explain.

This is a silly point to argue, but to point out two examples,
Israel has provided the US with critical intelligence data
for quite a long time (including during the Gulf War), and
helped Reagan channel arms to the Contras. No, Israel does
not do whatever the US wants - its a sovereign nation.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
{          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:34:03 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 110238@IASTATE.EDU, jjspence@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey J Spencer) writes:
>What is Dan supposed to say.  "Well I would probably take her home and beat her
>first for getting pregnant.  Then I would force her to marry the father and live
>a long and happy life."
>He didn't say he woudn't care if she decided to have an abortion.  He simply
>meant that he loves his daughter and would support her even if she made a
>decision he felt was bad.  On tv this morning the bank robbery analogy was used
>to illustrate how even if she robbed a bank, he would still be behind even
>though she made a bad decision. It's not called being a hypocrite, just a good
>parent. 


As long as he's going to be going along with all those people who scream
their gibberish about ABORTION IS MURDER and all that other crap I think
he is being a bit disingenuous in his stands on choice.  If his daughter
were to kill his grandchild in cold blood I think there would be a rift 
there and it might even strain their relationship.

---
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 18 Jul 92 20:50:51 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Jul19.001322.20298@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> >	   Of course he's in "panic mode".  He remembers, as I do, the
> >   extremes of the Carter administration -- 20% interest, 12% unemployment,
> >   and gas lines out to next week.
>
> >The gas lines were due to an Arab embargo on oil, but largely exploited by
> >our own oil industry, who had tankers sitting in the harbors, with no
> >place to put the oil, because it was all being withheld from the market.
>
> 	The gas lines were also two years before Carter took office, in 1974.
> Should be blame Carter for Watergate, too?

The gas lines were before 1974.  Nixon was president during the oil embargo.
But the prime lending rate WAS pushing 20% when Carter left office.  And,
no, Carter had nothing to do with Watergate - BCCI definately, but Watergate
no.

> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> 					Alex Crain
> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion