HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Pro-Life/Pro-Choice
Keywords: life choice abortion bias
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:12:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

Does anyone know which term came about first?  Pro-life or pro-choice?

I remember reading somewhere that "pro-choice" is reactive, that is
the abortion rights movement also wanted to be pro-something and
definitely did not want to be "anti-life," the natural opposite of
"pro-life".

It is my contention that "pro-life" came first, possibly as much as
ten years before "pro-choice".  Before Roe, abortion was illegal in
some states, and any ancestral pro-choice movement was probably under
a legalization banner.  Meanwhile, "pro-life" was probably coined in
1973, not long after the adoption of Roe.  On the other hand,
"pro-choice" did not need to arise until the pro-life movement became
a threat, so naturally the term came later.

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: John.Reed@bbs.oit.unc.edu (John Reed)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Bennett's Speech
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:03:32 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

I agree that Bennett's speech was a rhetorical highpoint of the convention
(although, alas, that's not saying much).  If anyone has a copy I'd like
it, too:   jreed.irss@mhs.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:20:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.205614.1696@burrhus.harvard.edu>, dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
|> If PRO-LIFE is such a fundamental position, then why are there so many
|> pro-lifers who support capital punishment?

Because people are responsible for their actions.  Those who commit the most heinous
crimes with pre-meditation and intention forfeit their claim to existance.  Society
can  use the death penalty for deterrance but most especially for retribution.

So use the term PRO-LIFE as shorthand for PRO-INNOCENT-LIFE.

Is it really that hard for Mr. Voss to distinguish between the innocence of a baby
and the guilt of a Ted Bundy?

Now a question for the liberals:

How can you be pro-abortion and anti capital punishment?

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Family Values, the GOP way
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:58:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.152031.15220@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:

|> What?  Advocate personal responsibility?  Why should anyone be responsible
|> for themselves when they have a sugar daddy like Uncle Sam to take care
|> of them??

	Or, for that matter, their business. Take Neil Bush, for example.
Why should he worry about making good investments, when he can funnel
money to the Republican Party via bad loans to contractors, and pay himself
a handsome consulting fee for doing it. After all, the government was
there to kick in a Billion dollars towards his mistakes, and he could
still bring home a quarter mil. Even when he got caught, the government
was there, first to delay the closing of Silverado S&L from July to November,
and then to send the White House Lawyer to represent him in his time of
need.

	Why should Jeb Bush worry about making reasonable investments, when
the government is willing to step in and rewrite the $11Million loan that
he used to by an office building for the $6Million that it was actually
worth? After all, it didn't cost him a dime.

	Why indeed?

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4203 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5017
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Real Reagan Record
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:50:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
REGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
smashed it to pieces.

Some of the subjects covered are:

	Liberal claim		This article says

Household income went down	NOT
Rich got richer			not much
Poor got poorer			NOT
Poor are normal families	NOT
Jobs created were McJobs	NOT
US national debt is terrible	NOT
negative trade surplus is bad	not as simple as that
foreigners are taking over	not really        
deficits caused by tax cuts	NOT
entitlements went down		NOT
Rich paid less taxes		NOT
Rich got a tax break		NOT
Junk bonds were bad for bus.	NOT
policies were especially 
	hard on blacks		NOT
Reagan caused S&L crisis	NOT
policies made it harder 
	for poor to advance	NOT
Reagan created homelessness	NOT
Reagan made homelessness worse	NOT
more difficult to own a home	NOT
HUD spending went down		NOT
Decade of Greed			NOT
bad for the environment		NOT


I'm sure you liberals will hate to hear this, and you conservatives will 
love it.  Either way, it is a good read.

Ted




-- 
"I got my brain on hype-tonight'll be your night.  Die, die, die, pig, die.  
F--k the police!  I know your family's grievin'.  F--k 'em!" -- Ice-T
"Aw, that's just black street talk." -- Ice-T (about the above line)
         -----krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu-----
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3962 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4822 talk.politics.misc:41834 alt.politics.bush:2847 alt.politics.clinton:2961 alt.politics.elections:11537
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:39:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: ACME Widget Company, Widget Falls, Southern North Dakota

In article <mykes.0ca9@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>Bush/Quayle have been under merciless attack since a few weeks before the
>dem. convention...

No, it was just an open and frank discussion of the Bush/Quayle record.  
Any open and frank dicsussion about the B/Q record would, by default,
seem like an attack.
>
>
>The biased media calls any kind of Bush attack sleaze politics and praises
>the Clinton campaign.  That's not going to stop Bush.

The sleaze aspects come from personal attacks on character, something that
the Republicans have been pursuing vigorously.  Outside of the one allegation
about Jennifer's Bush, what else have the Dems done that amounts to cheap
shots at personality?  (As far as I'm concerned the allegations leveled at
Clinton suggest that he did not want to commit genocide, might have partied
a bit when he was young, and inspired one woman to come forward to collect
a lot of money telling tales of whoopie--unsubstantiated I might add.)


Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
to anyone else on the net?

Steve Brener




Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Family Values, the GOP\P\O\GDemocrat way
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:47:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.205830.14459@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.152031.15220@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
|> 
|> |> What?  Advocate personal responsibility?  Why should anyone be responsible
|> |> for themselves when they have a sugar daddy like Uncle Sam to take care
|> |> of them??
|> 
|> 	Or, for that matter, their business. Take Neil Bush, for example.
|> Why should he worry about making good investments, when he can funnel
|> money to the Republican Party via bad loans to contractors, and pay himself
|> a handsome consulting fee for doing it. After all, the government was
|> there to kick in a Billion dollars towards his mistakes, and he could
|> still bring home a quarter mil. Even when he got caught, the government
|> was there, first to delay the closing of Silverado S&L from July to November,
|> and then to send the White House Lawyer to represent him in his time of
|> need.

Isn't it the Federal Reserve/S&L "reform" that Jimmy Carter gave us great?  

|> 
|> 	Why should Jeb Bush worry about making reasonable investments, when
|> the government is willing to step in and rewrite the $11Million loan that
|> he used to by an office building for the $6Million that it was actually
|> worth? After all, it didn't cost him a dime.
|> 

Same as above.

|> 	Why indeed?

Shame on the Republicans for working under the stupid rules that the Democrats
gave us.  I wonder what stupid regulations Clinton could get for us . . .

*** The opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my ***
*** employeer.                                                           ***
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4253 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5075
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservative Chronicle Commercials
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:57:06 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <nate.541@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
->better stocked in towns big enough to support 2 newspapers. So my problem 
->is that I'm still not convinced that there's anything to be gained by 
->buying columns with the express intention of shelving them even in a 2 
->paper market. If people want to read conservative columns they can get 
->them even in areas with *no* local newspaper. 

 Are you saying that we the people can read conservative news columns by
purchasing the Conservative Chronicles, so therefore no shelving must be
occuring because the shelving is a waste of money ?
 The problem here is that not everyone knows about the conservative chro-
nicles. Only people who have seen the ads in National Review, American Spec-
tator or listened on Rush Limbaugh know that an alternative source exists.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3621 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4495
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:39:29 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>>In my opinion, people are creationists because they want to be
>>told what to think by the church, thinking for yourself is much to
>>dangerous.

>You are certainly entitled to that opinion of creationists.  And believe
>it or not, there is much more tolerance of the theory of evolution in
>the church than you seem to be aware of.

    I guess all those fossilized remains have got people thinking after 
all.

>Evolution does not, and cannot, rule out the possibility that God created 
>us.

    True, however neither does (or perhaps neither should) creationism 
rule out the possibility that evolution was the method by which creation 
occurred.

>  It is only when
>those who believe that evolution effectively replaces God that many 
>Christians take exception. 

    Perhaps. From my own discussions with Christians about the subject of 
creation vs evolution, I've noted 2 basic camps. One group basically 
opposes evolution because it's version of the creation story disagrees 
on a literal level with the 7 days to create the world as told in the 
Bible. The other group (including Rush Limbaugh among others) seems to 
oppose evolution because they cannot accept that a monkey could evolve 
into a man even over the course of millions of years. Yet they seem to 
have little or no difficulty in believing that everything in the universe 
could be created out of nothingness in the course of only seven days. So
tell me, which theory do *you* find more credible?

    IMHO the real ultimate reason that this second group doesn't want 
to accept evolution is that the theory of evolution portrays the 
development of humanity as a natural process which could happen anywhere 
given sufficient time and resources. Evolution opens too many 
philosophical cans of worms. It could imply that life on Earth is not as 
unique or miraculous as religions have been telling us for thousands of 
years. It could imply that humans are not the only intelligent life form to 
evolve even on *this* planet. And maybe worst of all (because of the 
timescale of the universe as described by Steven Hawking) there might be 
other life forms in the universe which are millions or even billions of 
years more evolved than we are. After all, if you believe Hawking and the 
Big Bang people then you can't help but notice that life on Earth had a late 
start.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: <None>
From: rdale@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:03:50 GMT
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

> stated opinions of influential christian leaders". I'm certainly not prepared
> to abandon morality, but it must be a morality founded in the social contract,
> not myths and legends.

	Granted.  But who makes these "social contracts"?  Seems to me that
much of our law is based on old religious myths, old Persian leaders, and so
on.  "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are pretty basic
fundamentals of most societies, religious or not.  If a society is to maintain
itself, it must have moral boundaries which don't change with the breeze or
because someone feels a rule is too "fundamentalist" or too "liberal".

	Too often societal behavior's "social contract" is whatever feels
good at the moment.  In LA, the "contract" of the moment was burn and loot.
From: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:10:54 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Aug27.141846.623@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
)
)The best version of the 2nd Law I have ever heard :
)
)  "To get something clean, you have to get something else dirty."
)
)Think about it.  It is possible to get things clean, isn't it?
)Sometimes, even by accident?

Think about what you said ... think of ONE thing that gets clean without getting
ANY other thing dirty.  I can't.

-Lee.

-- 
IREALLYHATEBORDERSBECAUSETHEYMAKEEVERYTHINGLOOKMESSYANDCLUTTERED
(:                       Lee Jorgensen                        :)
(:            Internet: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu             :)
DERETTULCDNAYSSEMKOOLGNIHTYREVEEKAMYEHTESUACEBSREDROBETAHYLLAERI
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, Quayle, and the draft
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:23:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.201259.13950@dbsun.uucp>
>   hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>>The issue here is that Dan Quayle has well placed parents who were able to
>>help him, while Bill Clinton had to help himself.  Clinton had the grades
>>to get a Rhodes Scholarship, Quayle did not.  Clinton was able to avoid
>>Vietnam by himself, Quayle was not.

>Well, after reading the paper today, I hearby retract this statement.
>Apparently, Clinton received help from his uncle, who was a car dealer
>and had friends at the draft board.  They delayed Clinton's physical,
>which gave Clinton time to enroll at Oxford.

>Boy, that liberal media is really protecting Clinton.

Well, I haven't seen it at all on any of the three networks' news
for the past two days.  I've been watching for it.  The first I heard
it was late last night on CNN Headline News.  It could be that they
are waiting to get a reply from Clinton, or they may not consider it 
newsworthy.  Can you imagine for a minute the Hell that would have 
broken loose if this kind of stuff had come out about Bush or Quayle?
(Oh, it has against Quayle...  That *was* a lot of fuss, wasn't it?)

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Who Said Media Was Supposed To Be Unbiased?  (was Re: Media Bias at RNC)
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:07:27 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug25.035552.9576@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
->In article <1840@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
->>  Adam Smith himself stated that only a moral people can govern themselves.

->I'll buy that if you'll accept that "moral" is not synonymous with "the
->stated opinions of influential christian leaders". I'm certainly not prepared
->to abandon morality, but it must be a morality founded in the social contract,
->not myths and legends.

 Well stated. We dont need to abandon morality just because someone might
disagree with its particular positions.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:37:31 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


Naaah.....

Gore eliminating global warming (hah!) wouldn't make hurricanes gentle,
it would make them kinder and gentler.  Ooops, un-PC thoughts..... :-)

-- 
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,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:38:07 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug29114940@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>   You forgot '...and know your audience.'.  I don't know what your credentials
>   are but maybe you were in over your head trying to understand it.
>
>I think the quality of my writing speaks for itself.  Instead of just
>taking snotty little pot shots why don't you go read her stuff and then
>come back and show us just how good it is?

	Well, I read the article, and I didn't find it too difficult to grasp.
I did find it redundant, long and boring, for what its worth. 

	In 1973, the precidents for childrens rights simply did not exist.
There was very little in the way of guidelines regarding when the state should
step in and take responsibility for a child. There are many cases, involving
battered children, gross neglect and sexual abuse where there is little dispute
that a child should be removed from a home, but at the time, it was not clear
exactly where the line should be drawn.

	Hillary Clintons article was a discussion of dependants rights, and
helped assemble the basis for a large chunk of widely accepted law. The paper
contained little new material, and simply saught to construct a framework
for determining the rights of dependants.

	Its great to make political hay by claiming that supporting dependants
rigths is equivelent to supporting the rights of children to sue their parents
over taking out the garbage, but in reality there are many cases, such as suing
a neglegant father for child support, that have been championed as derivitives
of the "family values" that we keep hearing about.

	IMHO: I think the "bash Hillery" strategy is a poor one, and I think
that the lack of bush supporters among women is evidance of that. The GOP
has demonized Hillery Clinton to the point that she can no reemerge on the
scene as a martre, and make it stick, portraying the GOP as dirty players
once again.

>It is too bad the campaign is working this way.  There are real and
>substantive differences between the parties and I wish the Republicans
>would focus on these.  For example yesterday James J. Kilpatrick, in his
>syndicated column, detailed several of Bush's education initiatives, each
>of which was turned down by the Congress.  If I were Bush's campaign
>manager I'd print up 250 million copies and send one to everybody in the
>whole country.

	There are many other conservatives who agree with you, but until you
remove the party for the death grip of the religious right, your going to 
see little more then family values, I'm afraid. Judging from the number
of serious cantidates jumping ship, I wonder if the GOP will find itself
even more entrenched in 1996.





-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Far left's new "bill of lefts"
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:02:47 GMT

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>                              Ammendment 3
>No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered.  If by some fluke of
>social engineering, war happens to errupt, soldiers will volunteer quickly,
>defense industries will spring up from nowhere and we will defend
>ourselves after a brief training period.

    Unfortunately this can happen even to nations which maintain very 
high levels of millitary preparedness. While the army of Great Britain at 
the turn of the century was one of the largest and finest in the world, 
it wasn't ready with either men or armaments for the onslaught of the 
Germans in 1914. Under Kitchener's recruitment drives there were literally 
hundreds of thousands of young men who joined the British Army and were 
shipped to France with as little as 5 weeks training. Most of their training 
consisted of learning how to march in formation (not very useful in a trench 
war); some were issued rifles only days before they sailed.

    I guess my point is that the US is in a similar situation today. Our 
standing professional army is excellent, but if a major conflict comes 
along that really threatens the US (something more challenging than a 
bunch of Iraqi tankers hunkered down in the middle of a desert) I fully 
expect that we'll have to enlist large numbers just as the Brits did in 
'15 and '16.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.activism.d