HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Ross Perot is the only true choice for change
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:36:40 GMT

In <1992Nov5.015729.8150@s1.gov>, Loren I. Petrich writes:

>In article <1992Nov2.210125.24552@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) wri

>: You've overlooked a critical point in your analysis, John.  That is that in
>: the private sector there is a driving force called _competition_.  Now,
>: our government has zero competition therefore it is innately inefficient.
>: Furthermore, the Founders, that you have acknowledged as wise, recognized
>: that big government was a big problem.  That is why they sought to create
>: a limited government (and look what happened - we have the opposite).

>Have you ever heard of "monopoly capitalism"?

>Or does your mind snap shut when presented with counterevidence?

>If government is so *EVIL*, then why do we never hear of
>privatizing or dismantling the military, law enforcement, road
>building, etc. etc. etc., from "mainstream" conservatives? How many of
>them have become vigilantes, for instance? And how many of them have
>renounced Social Security and other entitlements programs? Only
>Libertarians seem to have come up with anything close to this.

>For my part, I believe that there is a such thing as "good
government".

I believe there is, too...and I'm a Libertarian.  I do denounce Social Secu-
rity, though.  I'm 27 years old.  I have paid close to $20,000 in FICA taxes
in my life, as well as the $20,000 that my employer didn't pay directly to me.
I would gladly forfeit every penny of it if I didn't have to pay into the
system anymore.

The baby boomers were born from 1946 to 1964 (so they say).  I was born in
1965.  After all the baby boomers retire, will there be much left for me?  We
have seen taxes go from 1% to 2% to 7.65%.  As more people retire and fewer
enter the workforce, that will approach 11% by the year 2020 just to keep
the current level of benefits.  I'm worried about that.

We do need to find ways to *combine* government service and market forces.  Un-
like hard-core Libertarians, I don't believe complete privatization is the
answer.  We do need to introduce market principles (and ACCOUNTABILITY) in the
more inefficient government bureaucracies.  I wish I knew how we could do that.

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9622 talk.abortion:47824
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 13 Nov 1992 09:42:55 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: abortion, slavery

In article <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1e0kq7INN4br@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>Now, when society does not/cannot offer an alternative, this series of
>>assumptions, behaviors and ramifications does not occur.  Society can
>>offer an option to parenthood, but it cannot offer an option to pregnancy.
>
>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
>Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
>don't want to have a baby, whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
>the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
>acceptable.

Whoa, wrong twice!!!

Abstinence obviously is *not* acceptable and reasonable to a whole lot of
people, Paul.  There are a whole LOT of people, probably the majority of
adults between the ages of 21 and the end of their fertility, (and a good
handful of people below the age of 21) who think abstinence is a pretty
unacceptable and unreasonable alternative.

BTW, *most* sexual encounters do not result in pregnancy.  I'd say, just
grabbing numbers out of thin air because it's not a research topic of mine,
something on the order of less than .5% of sexual encounters result in
pregnancy.  Maybe that's why abstinence is perceived to be unacceptable and
unreasonable by so many -- it's a very high cost to pay for avoiding and
extremely marginal occurance.

And, second, abortion (I presume that's what you were talking about when you
said 'killing the child') *is* quite acceptable to an almost equally large
number of people.  The vast majority of people in the United States feel
first trimester abortions are just fine, thanks.  The numbers fall off over
second trimester, and most feel third trimester abortions aren't such a 
good idea.  But, since the majority of abortions happen well within the
first trimester, we find that MOST abortions ARE ACCEPTABLE to MOST people
in this country.

Now, it is also true that lots of people think prevention of unwanted
pregnancy is even better.  That's why over 80% of the women in the United
States today USE BIRTHCONTROL.

Sorry.  Try again.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:05:21 GMT
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In article <nate.791@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu
(Nathan Engle) writes:
>pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>>>   eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>>   Well, I prefer seeing Madonna in a teddy than Rush in one.
>>>             ------ 
>
>>Could Rush FIT in a teddy ?
>
>    All things are possible. Give me some scissors and a 4-man pup tent 
>and I'll give you a teddy that would fit Rush.
>
Don't forget the superglue to hold it all together.
What color would suit Rush do you think? Suggestions please.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: c546-14@ugrads.eche.ualberta.ca ()
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:00:48 GMT

buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:
: 	Women start making some gains in income.  We're still getting 68
: cents for every dollar a man makes.  [deleted]

Please clarify.  Are you suggesting that employers multiply the salaries
by 0.68 when women are hired in stead of men? 

Robert Knutson 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Cuomo justice, what a joke!
Summary: Cuomo needs appointment
Keywords: Republican ideals
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date:  9 Nov 92 22:27:23 GMT

Mario Cuomo, what a joke.  Enough that Clinton and his strangely
circuitous politics could make it to the presidency but Cuomo
as justice?  Come on, Bill, get a clue.  Seems that Bill wants
to take his party in Arkansas to the White House.  Now, no offense
to those from there, but Arkansas the United States is not.  Hopefully,
for the sake of the nation, Clinton won't appoint idiots to his
cabinet like Carter.  As for Cuomo, I think that he SHOULD get an
appointment that would tie him up for say, 30 years.  Not the 
supreme court, however.  This would keep him out of the picture
for awhile anyway.
As for Rush, good man.  Bush was not our favorite (conservative)
but he was the only option.  Clinton does hold some conservative
stances that certainly are better than the none that Mondale or
Dukakis had. Clinton for 1 term, them another 12 years of Rupublican
ideals sounds good.  

	JACK KEMP IN '96.
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:29:14 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <92310.27666.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>I want to say something.  I wanted anything BUT a Clinton presidency.  I voted
>for Marrou, and hoped Clinton would lose.  I would have even preferred (yecch)
>....
>National Health Care IS socialist.  Something needs to be done.  I think we
>should look for other reforms first (judging by government's past record in
>federal programs), such as malpractice and drug profit reform, but something

As a Libertarian voter, how do you justify the stance of drug profit
reform?




-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: These statistics don't lie. (unless u prove otherwise!)
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:49:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov3.012559.1002@odin.corp.sgi.com>, archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
> In <1992Nov2.102432.123@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
> *
> *The fact is that the Census Bureau does not count government-paid cash nor 
> *any non-cash benefits in defining a family's income -- including food stamps, 
> *welfare, ADC, Social Security, and similar benefits.  It only counts wage
> *earnings, thus grossly understating the tru income of many "poor" folks 
> *(and vastly overestimating the number of truly poor).  
> 
> Not to defend the practice, but if your goal is to help people out of
> poverty, should you count the help that you give them?  If you do, then
> as soon as the receive assistance, they are no longer eligible.

I don't see it that way.  By excluding that aid and their assets, and *still* 
insisting they are "poor," we are perpetuating the myth that the only way 
to help them is to shovel out more money to them.  Would it not be more 
honest to measure their status by what they have, no matter where it came 
from?

> *As a result,
> *according to a Heritage Foundation study, is that 40% of the "poor" own
> *their own homes; 60+% have two cars; 70+% have at least one TV and a VCR;
> *and so on.  Further, if one includes the above benefits, many of the "poor"
> *are not. 
> 
> See above.  Note also that the Heritage Foundation has a rather large, heavy
> ax to grind on the stone of welfare services.

True -- but their approach is more honest than the welfare agencies and the 
liberals who a different, heavier, larger axe to grind. 

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
In-reply-to: eyc@acpub.duke.edu's message of 9 Nov 92 00:13:39 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:41:06

In article <6814@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>   Well, I prefer seeing Madonna in a teddy than Rush in one.
>   -- 
>   Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
>	   THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!

Hey, Emil Thomas, can you post a gif of Rush in a teddy?  I bet a lot
of us would like to see that!  Come on, you can't sit on hot pictures
like those, Emil.

Peter


--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
From: pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton's promises
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:18:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In article <9170@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
writes:
>I caught Rush's TV show last night.  He has promised to compile all of
>Clinton's campaign promises and keep track of which ones are broken.
>This would be a good thing to do, if it were done fairly.
>
>David

A pleniforus plenitude of Dittos to all readers

Much as I admire Rush I find what he is doing here a little hypocritical.
It's all very well keeping track of Clinton promises but what about
George Bush's 'Read My Lips. No New Taxes' ? My point being why didn't
Rush do the same thing for Bush?

The fact is, I don't think there has EVER been a politician ANYWHERE
who has kept every single promise. They can't because things occur that
cannot be foreseen.

So I find this Rush thing rather IMMATURE.
                                 --------
David (A Clinton supporter AND a Rush fan - truly mixed up!)

(This was written with 3/4 of my brain tied behind my back !!)
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If character isn't an issue ...
Summary: I'd prefer Dan Quayle to Bush, Clinton, or Gore.
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:01:42 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Oct28.065803.1769@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
<In article <6421@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
<>If character isn't an issue why does it matter if Dan Quayle is President?
< 
<   Because Character is never an issue with Danny boy. He has not matured 
<enough to have his character judged. He is just a baby. And we don't want to
<have a baby in charge. Why we don't want to have Danny boy in the White House 
<has nothing to do with character,

Dan Quayle is a year older than Albert Gore, and he has more experience in
Government.  Moreover, I think he has shown character.   The possibility of
President Gore scares me much more than Quayle ever did.

<unlike the case of George King Bush, who absolutely has no character, no
<principle and no clue.

I'll agree with that.  It may be the principle reason George didn't get
re-elected.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:22:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
.graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff) writes:
.>Rush Limbaugh Sucks--Howard Stern is the King of ALL Media
.<BZZT> Wrong answer.
.
.But thanks for playing our game. We have lovely parting gifts for you!
.
.Johnny, tell him what he's won....

You win a hologram image of Rush Limbaugh in a teddy! :)
Now to merge with another thread on this group....
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:01:08 GMT


	Our favorite radio boor has attempted to pull victory from
defeat by calling the election a triumph for conservatism on the
ground that Clinton had to move to the Right. And this is someone
whose candidate lost. I somehow expected him to jump into the
Sacramento River after this one, but his ingenuity has been as
entertaining as ever.

	Given his taste for nasty remarks about Hillary Clinton, I
wonder what he is going to say about CA's two new senators, who are
both female liberal Democrats (hooray!).

	Given that the two are from the Bay Area, known for a city
with a big gay population, maybe he will crack lesbian jokes about
them, like (to paraphrase Robert Kerrey's lesbian joke) their common
ambition to "lick Bush". Yes, I know that's rather offensive, but I
would not put it above Rush LameBrain.

	Well, my favorite homosexual political joke is derived from
Bush's infamous flub that he and Reagan had, among other things, sex.
Someone I knew snickered about Bush's discovering Reagan's stitches
when he was cornholing Reagan.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: C'mon Nathan Engle...
Summary: You blast then avoid
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:42:38 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>Where are you Engle, I'd like to think that you are not avoiding the topic
>at hand...or is it that you have blasted too many others that you need to
>spend the time responding to them....

    I'm here in Bloomington, Indiana.  Please refresh my memory. What topic 
is it that I'm so blatantly avoiding?

>       I wonder what you are doing here in Limbaugh-land anyway.

    I applaud your inquisitive spirit, but I assure you that the reason I'm 
here is that I suffer from EIB.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: WELFARE RECIPIENTS = LIBERALS
Summary: Limbaugh is right
Keywords: limbaugh
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:02:55 GMT

ged1@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>How about that Eye-catching title?

    Verrrry impressive. I like the sweeping generalization; the summary 
line really says it all. "Limbaugh is right". I guess dittoheads really do 
think for themselves.

>Anyway, I can't believe how pedantic these liberals are getting. These 
>people are so joyous over this Clinton victory that they can't see the 
>forest from the trees. My only guess is that they think that they might 
>be on welfare under Clinton and want the extra cash his redistribution of 
>wealth might provide. Not to jump on the socialism bandwagon but does this 
>sound familiar?

    Yes, it does sound familiar. It sounds like the same partisan anti-
liberal tripe I hear on Rush's show every day. "Oh, those liberals... 
far be it from me to call them names but you know they're all closet 
commies and welfare queens."

    In the same way that you can't believe how pedantic some of the 
liberals are getting, I'm having similar trouble believing how pedantic 
some of the conservatives are getting. I think it's probably fair to 
say that nobody (not even Clinton supporters and certainly not Clinton 
detractors) has any real information on what Clinton is going to do when 
he takes office. I have personally decided to wait and see what happens 
before I decide that he's a success or a failure.

>Clinton wants to take his Arkansas party to the White House where he will 
>be in for a rude awakening. Arkansas the United States is not. Clinton had 
>12 years in Arkansas and look what he did. (Nothing, for all of you tye-
>dyed liberals out there blinded by purported social reforms)  He hasn't 
>got that much time with the US and will have to deal with more beaurocracy, 
>not to mention foreign policy, which will be different from trying to get 
>Mississippi to agree on a country music coalition.

    It's safe to say that Clinton's foreign policy skills are an unopened 
can of worms. You seem convinced that he'll do a poor job. I prefer to 
reserve judgement and base my opinion on his results.

>Okay, actually I'm not 
>writing this to make smart comments but rather to ask these liberals to 
>wake up and start addressing the issues and not blaming people for 
>the problems.

    Great advice. Can I assume that you will do the same, and if so then 
when do you plan to start?

>Clinton can't do it, in four years we'll see that... 

    It's good to see that you're keeping an open mind...

>maybe Hillary could?

    Maybe she'll get a chance to give it a try. Bill's turn is first, 
though. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9039 alt.politics.bush:13178 alt.politics.clinton:15829 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7931
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:29:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Nov5.035646.15531@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:

>In article <grendel.720899219@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Nov4.152527.29320@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clinton claims his landslide election is a clear mandate for
>>>change!  Let's see, winning 43% of the vote is a landslide...
>>>What's that you say, oh he won 33 states and therefore a the
>>>_electoral vote_ for him was a landslide.... OIC
>>
>>Remember that only one-sixth of the American population voted GHWB into office.
>>And the voter turnout this year was a record.
>>
>LOVE the way you jump from percentges to fractions to voter turnout records..
>but, er, what are you trying to say?  Funny, but facts and figures, when

What are you trying to say--that percentages cannot be translated to fractions?
My point is that a political mandate is exceedingly rare no matter how you
look at it.  What is one-sixth in percentages--approximately 17%, right?
If you're looking at sheer numbers, the vote turnout this year was greater
than it's been in a long time, so we can assume that more people voted for
Clinton this year than voted for Bush four years ago.

>recognizable, always seem to work for me.  Looks like the smoke ran out of y

Not always, apparently.
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:08:10 GMT
Subject: INDEPENDENT HOUSE SPEAKER
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



hey all!

		just thought i'd start a thread to see if
anyone here is for an INDEPENDENT SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

		all this talk about change change change from
both sides of the aisle looks like it'll end up being just
that-- talk (see, e.g., tom "worried-bout-those-freshmen"
foley holding those get-togethers with all newly elected
reps... you can bet your bottom dollar he wants to
maintain the status quo).

		i think one way in which to institute
change (or at least start down the right path) is for 
the house to elect an INDEPENDENT SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
someone who is beholden to no one...

		any suggestions?  contact your local
representative (especially those who are new) and tell
them to change!


peace,
pjm.
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:16:59 GMT
 .us.oracle.com> <1dr4vtINNne0@spool.mu.edu> <92316.124914MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <92316.124914MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) writes:

> Perhaps, but the point is moot anyway due to the little-known fact that
> Anita Hill's politics are well to the right of Clarence Thomas's. 


Now, where did you get THAT idea?  Sources, please!

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh