HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdough@unf6.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:33:45 GMT
Organization: University of North Florida, Jacksonville

In article <1992Sep29.214140.22915@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>For all you Rush lunatics out there:  Is Rush stupid, or is he 
>just deceptive?

He's hardly deceptive, John. He might occasionally oversimplify, but that's
one of the restrictions of his trade.
>
>members omitted]"  Do any of you think that Rush would fail to
>check the names of the committee?  I guarantee he's looked into
>it and found that it doesn't include Sen. Metzenbaum, Anita Hill
>or Ted Kennedy, or he would have been quick to mention it.  
>Discriminating Rush listeners have to realize that his reluctance
>to state the names of this committee is because he can find no
>fault with the membership.  Either that, or Rush is too stupid
>to check up on the facts, something I don't believe.
>

	I think you miss the point of his diatribe. When Bush was on his show
a few weeks ago, he made the point much better. Here's Clinton, a man who's
only the Democratic candidate because he wound up with most of a small pool
of primary votes (Bush didn't say *that*, that comment is mine), telling
the President of the United States that he wants to debate based on a format
set up by some unheard-of group of people. Clinton is the *challenger* and
should therefore follow the rules and procedures established and adhered to
by past challengers. Clinto has this annoying thing about *changing* everything
as though his way is the better way. The panel format has worked well in
the past and it worked well last night (I'm writing this on Monday morning
after the first debate). 
	And Bush even agreed to compromise on the format, so we'll likely
see at least one single-moderator debate. This spirit of compromise is 
more than I've heard from Clinton's people.
	Rush's trademark comments are not pointed at the people on the
committee. I believe his focus was on the alteration of the traditional
format and Clinton's demand for the change.
	If Clinto really wants the job, he'll have to *take* it.

	BTW, did you watch the first debate. Any comments? Mail me
if you don't want to clog the net.

Cheers,
Joe Dougherty
jdough@unf6.cis.unf.edu
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:20:32 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <92280.013927KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
> >Tom Selleck on Arsenio talked about the difference between liberals and
> >conservatives (Selleck being one). I don't have the exact quote, but it
> >went something like this:
> Arsenio let a conservative make a political statement on his show?
> Stop the presses! :-)

 Considering what group this is posted in this is pretty ironic - catch
a lot of liberals on Rush's show lately???

			gln
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:41:13 GMT


>     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
>live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
>protests during his college days.

But did he really SAY anything? I think not.

>    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
>to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
>this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
>be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
>knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
>with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.

ANYONE traveling in the Soviet Union in the 1970 (EVEN Soviet Citizens!)
must account for their movement while in the country. Yes, Clinton
took a tour of Europe, including the Soviet Union, during the fall of
1969. So? Are the conservative's position so weak that they now must
create innuendo about a simple tourist?

>     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
>information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
>British citizenship.

There is absolutely no proof of these charges whatsoever. And Monday night
on live TV, Clinton denied the allegations.

>     Is this the individual the American people should send to
>The White House?

ABSOLUTELY!!
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Yet another asshole who knows everything enters the scene...
Summary: I don't know why I'm responding to this jerk.  But I am. 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 18:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.222752.5269@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <BvqoBu.A3n@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.221234.14543@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Much safer than having your body parts ripped apart and sucked up in 
>>>a vacuum.
>>
>>In a heckuva lot of cases, not much. I'd love to compare numbers with you 
>>concerning the physical/sexual abuse of children in these instances.  But of
>>course that isn't your problem is it......
>
>You people are so twisted!  You think that never having a life is better 
>than being abused in your life!  In most cases of abuse, the person's 
>life is not totally ruined.  Are you saying that being beaten by your 
>father is so bad that you would rather not have been born?  And anyway, 
>who the hell are you to decide if a person wants to live or not?

And who the hell are you to decide that you're God?

Masters & Johnson did a study of 500 people in prison for incest in 1972.
They found that over 75% of those people claimed to belong to some
form of "Christianity".  Over half of those people felt THEY HAD DONE
NO WRONG (emphasis mine, of course).  One person expressed his feelings
by saying that "incest is less of a sin then masturbation".

(This is not a slam against Christians, it's a slam against Ted's head).

There are stories every year of children who are brutally murdered by
their parents because "he was crying too loud, so I hit him".

There are thousands and thousands of boys and girls who every year
enter "the wonderful world of prostitution" because they're tired of
the beatings, tired of the neglect, tired of everything that they've
been subjectd to.

Fucking asshole.  Did your father ever take a baseball bat to you because
you forgot to clean *YOUR* room?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7071 alt.activism.d:3747 alt.politics.elections:16066 alt.politics.bush:8593 alt.politics.clinton:9657 talk.politics.misc:50839 talk.abortion:41921
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
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: 11 Oct 92 03:01:27 GMT
 <1992Oct9.193450.21632@netcom.com> 
 <1992Oct10.163848.3251@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Oct11.013535.24697@netcom.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct11.013535.24697@netcom.com>
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

> Potential is irrelevent.  Actuality counts.  There is an enourmous
> difference between what potential a person may have and what is
> actually realized.  As an example, consider trying to spend much of
> the $7 billion you can potentially earn (after all, Bill Gates did
> it).

But without this potential, you would never actually achieve what you
do achieve. For example, some people are more inclined to work on autos
than patients. This is many times a result of genetics -- what one
person's "gifts" are may differ from another's -- and these "genetic"
gifts are determined at conception.

That's why I am pro-life. I believe every individual -- born or unborn
-- has the potential to make a positive impact on society, and should
have the opportunity to do so (before AND after birth!) Unlike many
pro-life individuals whose primary concern is in the womb, I also
believe as much in getting kids out of the ghetto.

I'm also glad we decided to debate civilly -- I appreciate it.

Regards,
Bill

P.S. I highly advise everyone to read the first post in the "Re: Child
(was re: walking down to the student center)" topic. The author (I'm so
sorry, I forgot who he was, and I don't know how to refresh newsgroups
with this ^%(%&#@ software! 8) makes the classic pro-life argument
better than I ever could ever hope to.

---------------------------------------------
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:20:13 GMT



In article <1992Oct15.170402.20971@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack
 C. Sessions) writes:
>
>> In 1981, the richest 1% of the poulation paid 28% of
>>the federal income tax. In 1991, the richest 1% pay 37%! This is a tax
>>cut? The tax RATE may have been cut, but TAXES PAID went up considerably.
>>On the lower end of the income scale, but tax RATES and TAXES PAID dropped
>>under Reagan.
>
>Oh, we pay taxes as a group, now? EACH PERSON pays taxes. The tax rate on
>EACH PERSON is what is important, because THAT PERSON is the one person
>who must pay THEIR OWN TAXES. The tax rate on the rich went down, YES THAT
>IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT, and that is what is important, as the tax rate paid
>by EACH RICH PERSON PAID was LOWER, THAT is what is important.
>

Ah Ha!
So it doesn't matter if lower tax rates on the rich BROUGHT MORE REVENUE 
(money) FROM THE RICH.  It's that percent thing.  It's the principle of the 
thing.  We have to make people THINK that the rich are paying more, even though
they may not be.  Envy, Envy, Envy.  Oh, and God FORBID that the rich may 
actually be making MORE money.  Shhhhhh!  Don't tell people that they are
paying more tax dollars either!


>Sure, the "rich" as a group paid more in TOTAL taxes, because the RICH ARE
>GETTING RICHER and the more money you make the more taxes you pay (if you
>are honest).

Veeeeeeeery Goooooooood!  Don't forget, the more taxes you pay, (because you 
have gotten RICHER??!!) the more REVENUE, and thus the more money for the 
government to SPEND.
>
>Yes, I most certainly do call what happened in Reaganomics during Reagan's
>and Bush's tenures as a TAX CUT, as that is EXACTLY what is was.

Huh?  You just said above that more taxes were being paid!  The RATES were cut.
The TAX DOLLARS were not.
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
In-reply-to: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:45:50 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Oct13.012651.3652@anasazi.com> <23860@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
	<1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:29:29

In article <1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>   When we were *told* she told friends. Listen, only a handful of people
>   claim that they were told.

If she were concerned for her job, and felt that she couldn't go
public, yet was driven to tell someone, it is entirely consistent that
only a handful of people (most folks would probably only tell one best
friend) were told.

>   If Anita Hill had brought her claims to a Grand Jury today or 10 years
>   ago, it would never have seen trial. Her word against his. Innocent
>   until PROVEN (*not alleged) guilty is still the docturing in the USA.

You mean all those folks under indictment by grand juries never should
have been indicted, since they are by docturing [sic] innocent?  Why
do we bother with grand juries, then?
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:46:20 GMT

In <1992Oct15.222820.22070@ra.msstate.edu>, John William Chambless writes:

>>> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>What a crock! By your definition, EVERYTHING is voluntary.
>Obviously, a widespread tax revolt such as you fantasize about won't
>happen. In the real world, Federal Income Tax _IS_ , in effect, compulsory.

Hmmm...technically, Congress has no enforcement powers.  Have you seen the
16th Amendment?  Most amendments have a "section 2 clause" which states some-
thing to the effect of "Congress has the authority to enforce this article with
appropriate legislation."  This clause is *not* in the 16th Amendment.  So
although Congress has the authority to create *tax law*, is the IRS unconsti-
tutional if they don't have enforcement powers?


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
******************************************************************************
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:50:56 GMT

In article <2566.339.uupcb@eabbs.uucp>, neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black) says:

>What will happen in four weeks when Clinton is elected?  Will Rush admit
>that he's wrong and that Reagonomics were wrong?  Boy, wouldn't it be
>great to see Rush go away and someone intelligent like Ray Taliaferro
>take his place?  I'd like that....

Clinton's election would be the best thing that could happen to Rush.
He'd have so much material, he would need 24 hours a day to cover it all.
I don't think he'll have any problems, except for trying to decide what
to cover in his mere 4 hours (3 on radio, and eventual 1 on TV).


------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: (Abortion liability) Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:14:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <6528@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
#For those who oppose parental consent in abortions, consider:
#  (a) Who is liable if the father of the aborted child decides to sue?

In many cases, the male partner is guilty of statutory rape.  It
is unlikely that someone would admit a criminal offense in a
civil case.

At any rate, no man has ever won such a lawsuit.  The Supreme
Court recently refused to hear such a case.  Neither the
parents nor the young woman are liable for anything.

#  (b) Who must pay medical bills if the abortion damages your daughter
#      and she needs follow-on medical care?

If the "damage" is the result of medical malpractice, then
the doctor is obviously liable for the costs of the
care.  Standard follow-up care is provided at no cost
by the attending physician.

#  (c) Who must pay if Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome requires 
#      psychological counselling for your daughter?

There is no evidence that suggests that PASS exists.  

#Abortion _may_ be the least risky of surgical procedures, but it is
#_not_ less risky than a) a non-allergic person taking an aspirin or
#b) getting your ears pierced.  Why do these require parental consent
#and abortion does not?

It is not true that all states require parental consent for
ear-piercing.

#Answer: Aspirin manufacturers and ear-piercers aren't making megabucks
#and large political gains off of their clients, and so aren't
#concerned that potential clients might choose against using their
#services.

There's a warning label on aspirin bottles - you really should
read it.  Abortions are not associated with Reye syndrome in
adolescents - aspirin is.  

A minor does not reuqire parental consent to give birth.  Childbirth
is much more dangerous than abortion for very young girls.  Are
you working for laws to require such consent?

Susan
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:29:34 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Bush - Pro-CHOICE!!

In article <1992Oct15.225214.23216@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
(Jared Dahl) says:

>George Bush is pro-choice.
>How could he say that he would support
>his own daughters decision to have an
>abortion if he wasn't!   Or does he
>support it for the RICH and his family
>and no one else???

Simple, if you don't misrepresent what he actually -said-, like most people do.

He said that if his daughter were to get an abortion, against his wishes, he
would not disown her; he would still love her, since that's what families do.

It's really very simple.  That statement was about what he'd do if his daughter
-had- an abortion, not about whether it should be -legal- for her or not.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:44:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Oct9.203639.19616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.p
> >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.
>
> So you see, there are better alternatives.

You're wrong.  Adoption is an alternative to keeping the child.  Both
options involve going through pregnancy.  Abortion is the only way to
*stop* the pregnancy.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7518 alt.activism.d:3907 alt.politics.elections:17057 alt.politics.bush:9340 alt.politics.clinton:10700 talk.politics.misc:52089 talk.abortion:42843
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
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
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:48:07 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct15.022254.26901@muddcs.claremont.edu>, weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu writes:
|Why who has the most control over our economy? It's congress
|isn't it? [...]

Can you say "Alan Greenspan"?  Sure you can.
And who pulls *his* strings?  Think hard, now.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:09:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
>pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
>instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
>did so, neither would I!
Supposing that my mother, when she was in graduate school, had decided
that my father was a total jerk and instead decided not to marry
him. I wouldn't be here.

>That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
>*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
>the net have claimed.
That's the biggest reason why marriage and child-bearing should be
mandated.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:18:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <26092@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>> There is no third alternative yet.
>>> Come up with one and we'll discuss it.
>
>>How about ABSTINENCE? (No, I forgot, that's a dirty word around
>>here!...)
>
>Not a dirty word, just inapplicapable.

Yes.  I guess that puts you in Arsineo Hall's group.  Those who feel 
that since they don't have the willpower to keep their zipper up, 
neither does anyone else.  Please don't push your lack of morals on 
me or my children.

Ted

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

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion