HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:30:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <exuptr.709.717642845@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>>Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
>>debt from getting bigger.

>   This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
>   so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
>   the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
>   means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
>   those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.

I agree with you a lot, Peter, but you goofed on this one.  What we're
paying now is only *interest*, not principal.  The debt doesn't go down
until we have a budget *surplus.*

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i don't want no rush-tv
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:53:39 GMT
Organization: Systems Development Corporation

In article <105120009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>
>and his live audience is obnoxious-- they have no clue when to
>laugh or snicker and they generally detract from the program.
>
Is the Rushinator's TV show "sweetened"?  I know he has a live audience 
but it sounds like a laugh track has been added.

Although I disagree with just about everything Herr Limbaugh says (It's a joke!
Lighten up!), I was disappointed in his TV show.  He comes across rather poorly.
Perhaps it would be better in CinemaScope.  The slow zoom the cameraman uses 
when St. Rush launches into one of his sermons is kind of eerie.  The 
commercials were actually more entertaining: Chuck Heston for the NRA and the 
aborted feti of the Conservative Party's Illinois Senate candidate (mighty 
good with mustard!).

Norm
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6233 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6090 talk.politics.misc:48657 alt.flame:13129
From: gsmith@euterpe.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:20:33 GMT
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <mykes.0e9s@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>You also need to eliminate the defecit as the first step in ANY method
>of attacking the debt.	Period.

Nonsense.  If the debt goes down as a proportion of the GDP, then we
are making progress. The figures to worry about are debt compared to
the GDP and interest onquit the debt as a fraction of the GDP.  These
must go down in order to solve the problem.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6010 alt.activism.d:3372 alt.politics.elections:14424 alt.politics.bush:6914 alt.politics.clinton:7480 talk.politics.misc:48202
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:09:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1063@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <lcpf1gINN8vo@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com
>(Michael Polen) writes:
>|Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>||> Stan Knight) writes:
>||> > Here's a free clue for you: A majority of Americans are pro-choice. 
>||> 
>||> That depends on how you define "choice". Roughly 70% of Americans
>||> support restrictions on abortion.  Most Americans do not support 
>||> unrestricted abortion-on-demand as we have today with Roe v. Wade, 
>||> nor do they support a ban on all abortions.  
>||> 
>|Sure makes you wonder why anyone would vote for someone who supports
>|the Republican Platform.  After all, the platform disagrees with
>|the majority.  Even though the majority can't easily agree on
>|what restrictions make sense, they do not believe abortions
>|should be outlawed.  On this issue, the Republican party is a fringe
>|group.
>
>The same thinking applies to the Democrats who support abortion on demand
>and government funding of abortion.  On this issue the Democratic party is
>also a fringe group.

I don't think this statement is correct. As far as I know, the Democrats
support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade into
federal law.  Roe v. Wade allows restriction of abortion during the third
trimester of pregnancy.  That doesn't qualify as "abortion on demand," at
least not after fetal viability.

(Please don't hit me with stories of second trimester fetuses that have
survived; that really doesn't have anything to do with what Roe v. Wade
or the Freedom of Choice Act state.)

-Kristy
-- 
   +==========================+============================================+
   |Kristy Patterson          |"Jack's favorite author is the man who wrote|
   |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu |'Pull tab to open.'"      -Jewel of the Nile|
   +==========================+============================================+
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:29:24 GMT
Subject: Secord, Bush and 3 Blind Mice
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



Anyone see ex-general Secord this morning on CNN(?).  He came out as
a staunch Bush supporter despite his accusations in his book
that Bush was *in* the loop with the arms-for-hostages deal 
with Iran.  

The White House continues to state that Bush was *out* of the
loop?  Am I afraid of a man who is lying, or one who is not
bright enough to be in the know??!!?

just wonderin'
pjm
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6113 alt.politics.clinton:7642 alt.politics.bush:7050 talk.politics.misc:48406 alt.politics.elections:14551 talk.abortion:39112
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
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 07:08:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
=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?

Well I was hoping you would be able to think about what could be a
financial/fiscal convienience of being pro-choice with respect to the
government. Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.

=Other than the one decorating your spotty little cranium, that is.
Excuse me. Blue Devils have two horns. Not one. =:-)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Secord, Bush and 3 Blind Mice
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 04:44:49 GMT

You've gotta wonder how long the Bush people will keep on trying to sell the
"he hasn't come clean yet" line about Clinton and Vietnam, if they also have
to say with a straight face that Mr. Foreign Policy himself was only 
"out of the loop" in Iran/Contra.

Probably we'll be hearing about family values again by the end of the week.
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:23:27 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
> >The Liberal philosophy is not based on individual rights but on group rights.
> 
> This is Orwellian Newspeak. The meaning of Liberalism is "a
> philosophy based on individual rights". In Europe we do not use
> it to mean anything else. The name of the philosophy based on
> group rights is "Socialism".
> 
> Look at how American Conservatives have perverted the language
> by gradually changing it so that now "Liberal" there means
> precisely the opposite of its real meaning. Starting from the
> basis that some Liberals (in Europe we call them "Social
> Liberals") realise that individual rights are damaged by gross
> inequalities and thus seek measures to correct them, they have
> constantly sought to shift the meaning of "Liberalism" by
> overemphasising its social aspect.
> 

it is not American Conservatives who have re-defined "liberalism" in this
way; it is American LIBERALS who have done so. Because to call them by
their true names, SOCIALISTS, is to alienate nearly all Americans who
would otherwise like to be thought of as "liberal". 


Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:57:03 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <6864.577.uupcb@meaddata.com> todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) writes:
>What is your profit?  Revenue minus expenses; the
>congress allows certain loopholes, of course, that vary according to the
>type of 'expense', but otherwise, basically the same.  So the rich have
>more expenses, and obviously attempt to spend in areas that are also tax
>advantages, reducing their taxable income as much as possible.  What am
>I missing here?
>
The problem is that Congress does not allow anywhere near real "expenses"
to be deducted for individuals.

If the personal deduction had kept pace with inflation since the mid-50's,
it would be over $6000, not the $2150 or so it is today.  A family of
four wouldn't even start to pay until they went over $24K.

It's also near criminal that EXPENSES such as FICA, which is paid to
the government BEFORE you get it, are not deductible.

I find it very ironic that the compassionate democrats were always 
willing to let inflation push millions of Americans into higher tax
brackets and fought like hell to keep personal deductions or thresholds
for higher brackets from being indexed.  Democrats are soooooo
compassionate, they just need to spend other people's money to salve
their consciences.


-- 
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
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: quousque tandem?
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:22:57 GMT


    There's been a great deal of discussion about consent, implied consent,
risk, etc., etc., etc. on this thread.  Cars and hurricanes have been 
put forward for analogies, among other things.  As this discussion has
been one of extraordinary length and complexity, I may have missed
something here.  But, a question:

    What about nonconsensual responsibilities?  Or are all responsibilities
consensual?  If so, why?  More specifically, the argument goes back and
forth, "If she did such and such, she consented to the pregnancy."  Then
another argues, "But she didn't consent to carry to term," and so on.

    My contention is that not all responsibilities are consensual.  The
responsibility to save an innocent human life, I think, is such a one.
It doesn't matter whether I really feel like doing it or not, whether
I signed a contract with the endangered person to save his or her life,
it's a basic human duty that I cannot wash my hands of.



John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:54:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct05.131339.28295@stiatl.salestech.com> kwh@stiatl.salestech.com (Kurt Hoyt) writes:
>Get real! This strategy is not only going to lose the White House but
>forever lose the Senate and House of Representative to more of the tax
>and spend thieves than ever before.

"Forever" is a long time.  I suspect that after four years of
unrestrained rape and pillage of the economy by a government
under total Democrat control, that in 1996 a Democrat will
be as hard to find as a Communist in Moscow.

Assuming, of course, that there's anything left unstolen.
Mighty big assumption.  

Re: These  rumors about Clinton having tried to switch his citizenship
-- Just the other day, Rush said this was a rumor being circulated by
Clinton's campaign.  The motive is presumably to let the Republicans
pick it up and run with it, and then show the proof that the rumor is
not true, making the Republicans look like they're making up dirt.


-- 
Mike Van Pelt                                When guns are outlawed,
mvp@netcom.com                               only Carl Rowan will have guns.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:06:02 GMT


Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??

I think life is a good choice.

I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
sarcasm of the replies I get???
Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:20:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.172735.17267@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>That statement has no bearing--I'm trying to be serious about this.
>The unborn child is clearly aware of its surroundings.

Simon,

The folks responding asking you if the car which hits the woman or the
woman's muscle spasm are also aware I think are being as serious as
your question warrants.  They've pointed out how your assertion that
because the fetus moves, then it is aware is absurd.  Now that that has
been shown to be absurd, you retreat simply to the unsupported
statement, "The unborn child is clearly aware of its surroundings."  A
slug will move away from a salt solution, does this mean it is
"aware"?  Note also that you haven't defined "aware".  My dictionary
defines it as "mindfull or conscious of, cognizant".  Is a slug
conscious?  Is the car, or my muscle if you tap it in the right
place?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Why Bush will lose in November
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:05:49 GMT

In article <mlbruce.718411459@husc11> mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

>>	"Bush wasn't our real choice, we really wanted XXX"
>
>Are you trying to be ironic on purpose by trotting out the same
>hypothetical excuses that Democrats themselves used in the past? Just asking.

	Well, I must admit, the parallels between 1980 and 1992 are pretty
interesting - I never expected that things would be quite this similar. I'm
starting to belive that there really isn't much difference between the
parties - they both act the same when they lose.

	IMHO - the election is pretty much over. I don't expect the
numbers to move much between now and November, in spite of all the
possibilities.  Bush is out of cards, the dirt on Clinton is getting
way too far fetched for anyone to take seriously (Clinton worked for
the KGB? please).  Perot has burned every chance he's had to be taken
seriously. My only questions at this point are:

	Will the race really be close, or will Bush take a horrible bath
	when the electorial votes are counted?

	Will Bush take Texas?

	Will Perot get more then 10% of the vote, and will Perot get the 
	majority in any state?

	Will the republicans get their act together by 1996, or will we see
	the religious right take the party down the same tubes that the
	Democrats went down during the 80's?

	Will Bill Clinton turn out to be a good president (lets hope so)?

	How will Rush explain the loss for the GOP? I can't believe that 
	he'll concede that Clinton is a better choice, so it'll have to
	be (A) the election was fixed (B) the public is stupid (they were
	duped) (C) Bush was the right choice, but something happened on 
	the way to the white house (D) Bush was the wrong choice or (E)
	some new and different excuse. We'll see.

The Brits are giving Clinton 3-1 odds in the casinos, and I think that that
will go higher as the month progresses. Get your money down now, or wait 
until november and take the long odds on Bush.


-- 
                               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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:24:51 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <sloy.1.717719439@novell.com> sloy@novell.com (sam e. loy) writes:
>
>Its amazing how much can be said about abortion without once mentioning the 
>person who is the most innocent, the most helpless, yet the most victimized.

The assumption here, of course, is that the developing "baby" is a person.
That, my friend, is a matter of opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
                   ---Quick Draw McGraw
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:45:00 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM () writes:

Um, Nadja, the attribution is wrong somehow.  I didn't write anything you
cited.

>>> This is a ridiculous statement/paragraph to write.  Of course at least 98%
>>> of all people who get abortions or support abortion are "Pro-Abortion".  
>>> If they were not, then alternatives would be used.

> Yep. Motherhood, madness, and suicide... mere inconveniences of selfishly
> avoided by the lazy... :-)

>>> I'm sick and tired of hearing about "they do not have the right to force
>>> values".  In the mere act of abortion/murder the woman is forcing values
>> onto the would-be baby.  As was said in another discussion, when having sex
>> those two people make the decision to live with the possibilities including
>> having a baby.

The Burkhardt Beast(tm) wrote _all_ of the above.

> I'm sick and tired of people who will never be pregnant dictating to the
> rest of us what we are supposed to feel and believe. AND FOR THE LAST TIME,
> HAVING SEX != MAKING THE DECISION TO HAVE A BABY. BTW, this assumption of
> yours is also offensively heterosexist, not that that would bother you
> in the least.

But I like your response.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: abortion, child, fetus
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:40:48 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov(Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>>> A fertilized egg is a child.  A zygote and a fetus are children. 
>>> Abortion unambiguously kills a child.  Abortion is in most cases a
>>> woman hiring a doctor to kill her child.  These are verifiable facts.

>> These are silly assertions, based on a non-standard definition of 'child.'
>>
>>       child - a young person, esp. between infancy and adolescence
>>
>> That's a standard definition.  Anything else?

> Yes, all three dictionaries included as part of the second definition
> "unborn offspring".  Some also included "fetus".  Haven't you ever heard
> the phrase, "she is with-child"?

Yes, and I've also heard the phrase, "She has a bun in the oven."  That
doesn't turn you or me into fried danishs, does it?

Or,

(Lord forgive me, for I know _full_ _well_ what I'm doing...)

Long Johns?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:54:44 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>	Finally, somebody printed Bush's tax list to go along with Clintons.
>It shows that Bush raised taxes 178 times in 3-1/2 years, as opposed to
>Clinton's 127 times in 12 years (thats 127 increases to 610 for bush,
>if you pro-rate the numbers).
>
>	This list is printed in full on the Editorial page of the New York
>Times today (Sept 29) and if someone has a scanner, I'm sure that we would
>all appreciate the posting.

I enjoyed Mickey Kantor's method of counting, which went something like:

	44. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Brazil
	45. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Argentina
	46. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Peru
	47. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Bolivia
	etc.

Of course what's good for the Chicken is good for Mr. Kantor.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6194 alt.politics.bush:7167 alt.politics.clinton:7783 alt.politics.elections:14645 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6071 talk.politics.misc:48594