HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:12:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <1992Sep26.000155.25694@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>>
>So what's your point?  Clinton's made no secret of his
>involvement in the Peace Movement -- in fact, like most
>Americans opposed to the War, he's proud of it.  The country
>was split down the middle on the Vietnam War, and to many,
>the draft evaders and deserters were heros who helped shorten
>the war, and the Pentagon was a greater enemy than a nation
>on the other side of the world who wanted their country back.
>BTW, it was perfectly legal and commonplace for Americans, of
>all political persuasions, to travel to the USSR in the 60s.
>And Moscow had and has no monopoly on irresponsible arms-
>trafficking.
>
>It serves no useful purpose to reopen the divisions of the
>Vietnam era for cheap political purposes in 1992.  Americans
>on both sides acted in good faith -- and bad faith.  It was a
>great disaster and we *all* lost.  You're in school, sonny --
>go take a history class and stop embarrassing yourself in
>public.

Au contraire.  It serves every purpose.  If Bill Clinton opposed the war
ON PRINCIPLE, he could have told the draft board and ROTC units just
that and taken his lumps.  Instead, he LIED.  Character counts, and 
Charmin' Billy doesn't have any.

I wasn't a big fan of the Vietnam war.  But that didn't stop me from
enlisting in the military before it was over.  I know people who enlisted
as medic and hospital corpsman because of their opposition to war and
killing.  They still wanted to serve their country.

Bill Clinton has been campaigning for the presidency since he met JFK in
the early 60's.  He has been serving HIMSELF, not the country or Arkansas.
It shows in what he did with respect to the draft and military service,
and it shows in what he says and does now.


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.153137.7990@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

|> So, in light of the influence which you've admitted those action films have
|> on one segment of society, would you agree that Murphy Brown does have 
|> some influence as well?  Are the fans of Murphy Brown immune to such
|> because they are higher thinkers?  I don't expect an unqualified "yes"
|> because that would legitimize Quayle's statements to some degree.

	I'm not convinced that these films have much effect on society. I
think that TV is a reflection of society, not a leader. We have violent
films because we are violent people, and films are a safe way to express
that.

	Murphy Brown looks to me like a dramatization of what happens all
the time in this society. Murphy is not married, and may never get married,
because she put her career over her social life. Murphy is hardly a 
philanderer, yet she managed to find herself pregnant anyway. because she
chose not to live a celibant lifestyle. Murphy chose to have the child,
and chose not to get married.

	This is pretty common, with variations. There's the one where the
couple gets married, learns to hate each other, and gets divoreced in a year.
There's the one where the mother has an abortion (thats certainly the 
simplist, right?). There's the one where the woman wants to get married, but
the father denies all responsiblity and only payes child support after she
drags him to court 2 years later. In Murphy's case, she happens to be
affluent enough that keeping the child is a reasonable possibilty, in real
life she would have to move in whith her parents to make ends meet.

	That's not fiction, that's the way it is. You can talk about how
things would be different if we had a different attitude towards sex, but
talk won't change the fact that Americans want to be sexually active. I
don't think that TV should reflect the way one group thinks that society
should be, I think that TV should reflect what people want to watch. 

	Dan Quayle thinks that TV is a source of Americas problems. I think
the only thing more foolish then blaming television for signle parent 
families is the suggestion that changing TV would solve that problem, which
Mr. Quayle is implicitly suggesting in his comments.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6107 alt.politics.clinton:7635 alt.politics.bush:7042 talk.politics.misc:48396 alt.politics.elections:14545 talk.abortion:39102
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:17:30 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <5540@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) wrote:
> 
> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
> 
> "1987
> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
> each abortion clinic."
> 
> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?

Not especially.  Did you have a point here?

Other than the one decorating your spotty little cranium, that is.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:26:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.070107.23902@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>II think you understand at least part of what I've been trying to say.
>Perhaps there are valid reason for abortion, although I'm against it.
>But those reasons must be important, and other options should be examined
>as well.
>
>Simon
>

Hmmm...lets see...you're against it, but you admit there are valid
reasons for an abortion, and that other options should be examined...
that sounds a whole lot like what the pro-choice argument is all
about... or are you suggesting that because there are valid reasons
for an abortion, they should be made illegal ???

John




Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 08:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.191756.23954@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>         Every man's death diminishes me, for I am a part of mankind.
>No "man" gets killed in an abortion.  What planet are you on?

Just in case anybody doesn't really know: that phrase is part of a
John Donne work (the one with "ask not for whom the bell tolls-- it
tolls for thee") and the use of the word "man" is a poetic device to
represent any individual.  "What planet are you on?" is also a device,
but not nearly as meaningful or as poetic.  It's worth disputing whether
an indivual is killed in an abortion, but not that way.

Yours,
-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:17:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>+[Note: this is reposted a day late due to server problems]

[text of DQ's speech deleted]

So, basically you're pointing out that Dan made a good speech but blew
it with an assinine ending.  It was a ridiculous thing to say and he
deserves to blasted for it.

>Unfortunately the premiere of Murphy Brown showed Murph not discussing
>the values that are in decay but discussing that single-parents
>households are families too. I am sure there isn't much debate on that,
>but the debate Quayle called upon for discussion was not covered by this
>episode.

Quayle asked for this.  He brought up a totally irrelevant example to
make his point and he got snagged.  He accused Murphy Brown for glamorizing
single parenthood and mocking the importance of fathers, and setting a
bad example for society.  If Murphy Brown was a program about a woman in
a ghetto who kept having children and collecting welfare and the program
made that whole situation seem positive, then Danno would have a point.

However, the show decided to deal with a very real situation.  What if you
find yourself pregnant and single?  What do you do?  They dealt with
the situation very honestly and I think they deserve applause for their
efforts.  They do not deserve to be twisted and misinterpreted by the
vice president to support his agenda.

>But it was relatively funny. I actually expected the "potato" bit at the

I think that Dan's speech is just further proof that if you give him 
enough rope, he'll hang himself with it.

And I think Diane English got Danno good.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: rovero@oahu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:40:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

As was pointed out on MacNeil-Lehrer last night, VP Quayle attended
public schools (as did his wife) while Al Gore attended the most 
expensive private school in Washington DC.

Andre` Marrou also wants to privatize the education system through
vouchers or tax credits.  His argument is the same as that voiced
by the "other" pro-choice groups.  Education is "too personal" a
 thing to be left to the state.

Wonder why so many pro-choice (on abortion) are so anti-choice on
education?  

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6220 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6082 talk.politics.misc:48636 alt.flame:13127
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:57:07 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep28.034306.26893@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
> >Federal Income Tax IS voluntary.
>
> Another weenie who believes anything he is told emerges from under his
> rock...
>
> Let's all wait and have a good laugh while Mikey spends lots of time in
> jail and gets all his property confisicated while "voluntarily" not
> paying his taxes....
>

How much information do you VOLUNTARILY give to the government to determine
what you are willing to pay?  Do you VOLUNTARILY give the government your
social security number as your tax payer ID?  Did you know that it is
against the Social Security Act to use the SSN for identification purposes?
You are NOT compelled to declare a single decuction.

On the other hand, your idiotic comment is off just a little.  Why not
rephrase it:  Let's all watch the Feds arrest EVERYONE if nobody
volunteers and pays the tax.  That shows how VOLUNTARY the tax really
is, because the govt. can't and won't arrest everyone.

> MD
> --
> --  Michael P. Deignan		      / Sex is hereditary. If your
> --  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com	     /	parents never had it, chances
> --	UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /	are you won't either...
> -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347		   /

--
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.rush-limbaugh
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:23:55 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <Bv9E0B.E4p.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
> In article <1992Sep27.212109.24265@news.uiowa.edu> bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:
> #From article <1992Sep25.193212.22684@advtech.uswest.com>, by steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak):
> #
> ## Has anybody confirmed or denied this rumor for poor Jym?  I haven't
> ## heard.  Though, Nolte and other sheep are already buying Snapple in
> ## droves :).
> #
> #Gee, thanks Steve.  I didn't know that all it took to become famous on
> #the net was to get under your skin.  You make me proud.  Bring on the
> #Snapple!
> 
> 
> First, several people decide that a rumor is as good as fact,
> and broadcast their gullibility as if it were a virtue.

Boy, we are sensitive here, aren't we.  First we must make it clear that
NOONE, I repeat, NOONE on the net has ever once stated the rumor to be
true.  Several have stated they hope it to be true.  Several have also
stated that if it is true, it only serves to make them proud of their
"choice" to drink Snapple.  As for being "famous", I was merely happy
that after barely a month on the net, I am known to those whom disagree
with me by name.  Rush teaches us to have a sense of humor as we go
through life, those of us that are allowed to go through life, and this
is what I was doing.  For those of you that cannot handle that type of
lifestyle, namely certain members of the intolerant left, tough.  The
rest of us are goning to have good, clean fun, maybe even at your
expense.  Tee hee, tee hee.

Bill Nolte

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6061 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5997 talk.politics.misc:48310 alt.flame:13094
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:52:49 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <BvAyBM.A8E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>terms. Since most (3/4) of the debt is not 12 years old, you still have
>>a $210B deficit this year, which more then offsets the small amount of
>>debt repayment. Net result: the debt is still growing.
>   
>   I don't think you understood my point.   The original posting claimed
>   that a balanced budget doesn't get rid of the national debt.

>   My point is that if you had a balanced budget (i.e., no deficit) 
>   then you wouldn't need to issue new debt, and over time the existing
>   debt would be retired.  

Oh, but this is exactly what I meant.  Obviously sooner or later you can
kill it off.  But you made it sould like an instant solution.









 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6480 alt.activism.d:3516 alt.politics.elections:15066 alt.politics.bush:7652 alt.politics.clinton:8373 talk.politics.misc:49376 talk.abortion:40403
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:53:27 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <lcoqv0INN35d@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>|> 
>|> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>|> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
>|> 
>The pregnant woman can also feel it when a car hits her.  Does that
>contitute awareness for the car?

You should have put it this way.  The pregnant woman can also feel it 
when, while walking by the abortion clinic, she is hit in the face by
the remains of an unviable tissue mass.  Of course the u.t.m. does not
have awareness, especially since it was just killed.

Mike Best

"liberals are no different than conservatives in this respect, their
 compassion extends only as far as it is convenient for them" 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: "Poor quality of life...(WAS Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:52:00 GMT

Steve Chaney writes:
>>Brian Kendig writes:
>>>I believe in the sanctity of life, and I feel that a life cut off
>>>early is "the lesser of two evils" when compared to a life of bleak,
>>>despondent misery.
>
>One better question: 
>What if Brian Kendig's hypothetical person - "those born into a good
>life" - suddenly drops into a bleak, despondent misery, later on? 
>Kill them then? 
>No. Declare them "non-persons." That's the solution! 

My original statement is being taken out of context here.
Nevertheless, I think it was a rather silly thing for me to say.

Here's what I _meant_ to say in support of my original point: If it
looks like a child will be born into a life of misery (such as certain
areas of the third world which haven't any food to feed the people who
live there already, much less a new baby), and the mother wants to
have an abortion, then it would be morally reprehensible to force her
to give birth to the fetus instead.

-- 
_/_/_/  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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Femi-Nazi's
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:52:32 GMT
Summary: No, but this sure adds to the definition..

In article <1992Sep26.181700.13159@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
> X-Date: 26 Sep 92 18:16:24 -0500
> X-Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"
> Lines: 11
> 
> On the show, and I think that it was on tuesday's program, Rush corrected
> our views on what a femi-nazi is.  Could anyone post what it was, I can only
> remember part of it.  
> 
I don't remember any re-difinition, having until lately missed the first
two hours of his daily show for the last 3 months, but yesterday, he 
shed new light on it talking about Feminazi cows.  And what is the 
difference between a Feminazi and a Feminazi cow?   

About 10 pounds and a flannel shirt!

HA!  The Democratic Party Power-feminists up on Capitol Hill in particular
come to mind there....  (Call *Rush* "fat"??...well, tit for tat, YOU PEOPLE)

                                                  H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers, comment my own;
 replies via the newsgroup only, please*
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: TAXES, FEES AND A GOVERNOR'S LAMENT
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:55:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA



	I'm wondering if anyone has done a study on the amount of
taxes and fees raised by governors across the board.  There is much
ado about clinton's 128 tax and fee increases during his tenure as
governor. (note-- *fees* are included in this figure, unlike bush
claiming that he is only responsible for 1 tax increase).  I used
to live in PA and plenty o' taxes and fees were increased during the
eighties (read- *the reagan/bush years*).
	maybe the reason clinton and at least the pennsylvania
governors increased taxes/fees is because much of what the feds
were providing disappeared...

pjm (votin' for shakespeare in '92)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:47:22 GMT

jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>csmith@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>> In regard to finding people who have read Rush Limbaugh's book but not
>> Clinton's or Gores, I have not been able to find a single bookstore that
>> has Rush's book!

>Now that we're bored with the liberal media conspiracy,

    Who's bored with the liberal media conspiracy? Not me. I'm just as 
willing as ever to read posts from both liberals and conservatives as they 
interminably bitch and moan about bias in our very nasty and unprincipled 
news media.

> let's move on to the liberal bookseller conspiracy. After that, there's 
>always the liberal college professor conspiracy. And the liberal 
>novelists, poets, artists, and filmmakers. Did you know that liberals have 
>virtually taken over the used book business as well? Right under our eyes! 

    You must mean right *before* our eyes (or right *under* our noses). 

>And what about the libraries? Damn liberal cells. Why is it that so many 
>literate people have succumbed to the liberal menace?

    Don't you see? It *must* be a conspiracy; a carefully crafted and 
diabolically executed plot to subvert conservatism. How fortunate we are 
to have Rush Limbaugh to let us know what we should really believe...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6508 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4900