HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:31:36 GMT

In <1993Jan16.213852.4702@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes ...
>>keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>>rwn@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard W. Nelson Jr) writes:
>>>-> 
>>>-> Ahh yes! But what if part of the contents of your body is another
>>>-> person's body? The plot thickens!
>>
>>>if that were so, and it's not, you'd have the right
>>>to evict that invader of you didn't want them there,
>>>wouldn't you?
>>
>>*sigh* But what if you put them there in the first place!

>Barring a few examples of people who've paid to have an embryo
>implanted, most babies are not put into the women's uterus.

Cute. What if you caused them to be there in the first place?

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14117 talk.politics.misc:70405 alt.president.clinton:1909
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:09:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan27.202034.13025@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
...
>Texas is just too progressive of a state.  First a recovered alcoholic US
>Senator, and now a recovering alcoholic Governor: Ma Richards.  Looks like we
>need to add a clause covering the civil rights of alcoholics to Teddy's
>homosexual civil rights bill, since the rest of the nation isn't so progressive.

    That'd be redundant, for they are already covered by the Americans with 
    Disabilities act.

    One of the reasons why Bush administration blocked the Oregon
    healthcare (rationing) plan was that the plan discriminated 
    against alcoholics by denying them liver transplant coverage.







-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aj234@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Woolard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Larry King (daytime?) he he
Date: 27 Jan 1993 06:29:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


 
Does Larry really think he has the heart (he he) to compete head to head
with RUSH. I think not, but I bet the main stream press will give some
serious coverage to this competition. In the end we will see who the 
real king is. Stay tuned, Febuary 1, 1993, Larry King goes head to head
with RUSH. Can you believe Larry is giving up his comfortable throne to
Jim Bohanan in the late nite market. While I sure he will have a formitable
market share, he won't touch Rush. 
 
Reply on this board and E-mail since I can't log into here often....
 

-- 
Don't blame me     O   O   I voted Republican !!!!!!!!!!
                     ^
                   \___/
Jack Kemp in '96 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Subject: abortion logic
Reply-To: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:55:44 EST

Here's a question for all you pro-choice advocates out there.


Let's imagine a family ... Mom, dad, a couple of kids and one on the 
way. Dad has a good job, mom's on maternity leave. Dad and the two 
kids get killed in a fiery car wreck. Dad leaves no will. Two days 
later, mom gives birth. Does that child have any right to inherit from 
his or her father? 

        It is logical to assume that the child does have a right to 
some of his or her dad's estate. If so, that child must have a legal 
personality in the womb, no?

        Just wondering ...


David Meadows 
---
  1st 1.02b #813  Stercum longe aufer, ne malum habeas -- CIL 6.31615
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14132 talk.abortion:58492
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:20:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <C1JBpp.4B9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <C1C2JL.IE4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>>
>>>If you really feel strongly about how important sentience is, assume that
>>>Bill's brain was removed, and will only be restored in 9 months.
>
>>"This in no way relates to abortion because in abortion" there was no previous
>>sentience, *only* the potential for future sentience.
>
>I once knew a kid who was born in a coma.. he was never technically
>sentient.  Could I have killed him since he was NEVER sentient?  By your
>own logic I could have.

If he was inside your body, absolutely.

>Oh.. you still didn't answer my question... could she KILL Bill Clinton
>since her actions put him there in the first place?

If he didn't leave willingly, she could try, but the Secret Service would
wrestle her to the ground.  Any more stupid questions?

>>>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>>>he sees.
>>>
>>>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>>
>>>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>>>body from being violated?
>>>
>>>Of course... but this is no way relates to abortion because in abortion
>>>the woman would have shot the dart herself.  Nice try though.
>
>>Next question - suppose she agrees to sex, but after starting, finds it
>>too painful, and asks him to stop.  He says, "Too bad - you invited me
>>in, and now I'm not going to stop until I'm done."  Rape?  And can she
>>stop him?
>
>Rape.  Castrate the asshole.

But what right does she have to change her mind after inviting him in?

And if you can see that she hasn't given up her rights by inviting in a person,
why do you claim that she's given up her rights to something that's *not*
a person which she explicitly tried to keep out (by using birth control)?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Keywords: 4 names
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:16:53 GMT

In article <C16JxL.Dvx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
> 
>    Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
> history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
> (law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
> to me.


At least he knows what a bar-code reader at a grocery store is all about..




_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:53:35 GMT

dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

>In article <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>|> > = (John Townsend) writes:
>|> 
>|> >The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
>|> >of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
>|> >nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
>|> >the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
>|> >and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"
>|> 
>|> No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
>|> ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
>|> less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
>|> century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
>|> defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>|> will of the people and acted immediately.

>What are you, an alcohol-o-phobe?  Don't you know that alcoholism is a
>predisposition just like homosexuality?  John Tower couldn't help being a
>drunkard.  He was simply living an alternate lifestyle.  Shame, shame on you!
>Surely you wouldn't want someone to be passed over for a job because they were
>exhibiting the lifestyle that they were born with a predisposition toward. 

Absolutely!  And think of the terrible discrimination these poor people
suffer!  There are actually laws that *criminalize* their activity!
Homosexuals complaing because they don't get special rights in Colorado,
but who will stand up for the millions of alcholics that are arrested 
simply because they exercise their alternative lifestyles on the Interstate.
The cops don't even have to show damage has been caused - the poor
drunk just gets hauled in for being on tarmac.

>Texas is just too progressive of a state.  First a recovered alcoholic US
>Senator, and now a recovering alcoholic Governor: Ma Richards.  Looks like we
>need to add a clause covering the civil rights of alcoholics to Teddy's
>homosexual civil rights bill, since the rest of the nation isn't so progressive.

Ain't it the truth.  Equal rights for drunks in the military!

>***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
>***  employer.                                                           ***

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13324 talk.politics.misc:68982 alt.child-support:4634 soc.women:22930 talk.abortion:57144
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 17:26:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

[Followups directed OUT of alt.child-support, soc.women, and talk.abortion 
since this thread has no relevance to those groups]
 
In article <1993Jan21.105614.29576@fwi.uva.nl> vlieger@fwi.uva.nl (E.J.P. Vlieger (N89)) writes:

>Once again, I'm amazed by the American way of thinking (or at least, the 
>way half the Americans think). Can you really think that the cowboy 
>president ended the Cold War?

That is what many people in Eastern Europe "really think", too.  The American 
media, on the other hand, tend to give most of the credit to Gorbachev.

Eastern European Communism was propped up by the Soviet Union, and would 
probably have continued indefinitely if the Soviets had not bankrupted
itself trying to keep up with the US in the arms race.  The proposed
"nuclear freeze" that you probably thought was so great would only have
delayed the fall of Communism... and yet you STILL want to preach to US
about how we "should have" dealt with the Soviets?  Amazing...
  
>Steven (kramer@phys.uva.nl - that's the Netherlands, good people of America,
>look it up on your map - if you can)

/*sarcasm on*/
That would be a good exercise for anyone who is interested in useless trivia.
I mean, it's not as though the place really *matters* to anyone outside of
its own borders, but I guess we did care enough to make some effort keep it 
from becoming a German province or another Soviet Socialist republic. 
/*sarcasm off*/

-db
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Sleaze Marches In....
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:34:39 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

> Wow.. People called Reagan and Bush sleazy - and I'm not too sure I'd
> disagree, at least on the Bush part of it.
> 
> But the sleaze parade in Washington this week, well, they've uncovered
> more corruption in the Clinton administration *before they even take
> office* than anybody even hinted at during 12 years of Reagan & Bush.
> 
> Several more unscrupulous business deals by Ron Brown have been
> uncovered. He "sees how these actions could be viewed in the wrong
> light" (the light of day, I assume). He also recieved over $140,000.00
> in "brokerage fees" from a client, while using his connections as DNC
> chairman to solocit business for the client. He agreed to stop this
> well into his Commerce position only after heavy pressure from the
> Justice Department.
> 
> Look for a bigger scandal involving ChemFix, a sewage-handling company,
> to be dragged out over the next couple of weeks.
> 
> Lloyd "the Breakfast Club" Bentsen was on the mooch from a
> nearly-defunct S&L for a while, it seems.
> 
> Zoe Baird paid off the back taxes te IRS demanded over the weekend.
> 
> ... And the freak show continues....
> 
> 
> --
> "To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
> dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
>                                                  - P.J. O'Rourke
> 


More sleaze before he's in office than 12 previous years of Reagan and 
Bush?   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH!
Where have YOU been for the last 12 years?  Remeber the brewhaha of Meese 
for instance?  No!  Too bad!  Yeah, Brown is a bit sleazy, but he'll have 
to go a lonnnnnng way to be as sleazy as say, Samuel Pierce of HUD, 
Meese, or any of the other notable bits of crap than have happened in the 
last twelve years!  Remember all the crap that happened under James Watt 
that sent some of his underlings to prison? No?

Get real.

At least Slick will allow us to finally be able to say "foreign policy" 
without having to say, "special prosecutor".

Still wish he wouldn't have picked Bentson, myself though.

Pope Charles

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Aargh!!! Rush re-runs!
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:09:38 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <C1Iz9L.Aq2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
> What's Rush doing this week?  All I've seen are re-runs of his more
> recent shows.
> 
> Jim Graham 
> 
>         -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
>                           Neither do they speak for me.
>  ______________________________________________________________________
> | Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
> |           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
> | BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
> |            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
> |______________________________________________________________________|


You know you're hopeless when you start to recognize reruns of the Rush
Lameboy show!

-Garrett
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 28 Jan 1993 03:51:27 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <nate.1092@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>Tit for Tat,
>
>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>private or public of their choice.
>
>    Basically for the same reason that I oppose the "right" of individuals 
>to use public money to pay for abortions. "Pro-choice" means that I support 
>the right of people to have a choice, but it doesn't necessarily mean that 
>I think that the government should have to pick up even part of the tab 
>for whatever they choose.
>
>    You want an abortion? You should have that choice. You want to send 
>your kid to a private school? You should have that choice too. But if 
>you want the government to pick up the tab for either of the above, 
>sorry. At that point it's gone beyond your right to have a choice, and 
>that's where I draw the line.

The problem with your point is that the government already picks up the
tab for education.  Everybody gets, if they choose, an education from K-12
through the state with federal support.  However, not everyone has an
abortion or can (like men, another form of discrimination :).

The voucher system will not require any extra funds to be used for the
system.  Only the amount spent on the child shall the parents have access
to.  Abortion will require millions in funding not accounted for now.

>
>    So I suppose that the direct answer to your question is that so many 
>people are both pro-choice and anti-voucher because the two positions are 
>completely logical and consistent with each other.
>
>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


--Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!
From: sking@wattres.SJ.CA.US (Steve King)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Calvin & Hobbes: Victims!
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:23:52 GMT
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant   San Jose, CA, USA


From the 21 January 1993 "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip

CALVIN: Nothing I do is my fault.  My family is dysfunctional and my
        parents won't empower me!  consequently, I'm not
        self-actualized!  My behavior is addictive functioning in a 
        disease process of toxic codependency!  I need holistic
        healing and wellness before I'll accept any responsibility for
        my actions!

HOBBES: One of us needs to stick his head in a bucket of ice water.

CALVIN: I love the culture of victimhood.


('Nuff said)
Steve

-- 
Steve            Domain:  SKing@Wattres.SJ.CA.US
                 Packet:  KC6WCH @ K4DPZ.#GNVFL.FL.USA.NA
                   ICBM:  29N 41' 26" / 82W 21' 17"
KC6WCH/4        "Dammit, Jim!  I'm a meteorologist, not a forecaster!"
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Government and religious freedoms
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:40:56 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <nate.1121@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>   Here's an observation I've made several times, and I direct it toward 
>>those who oppose private school vouchers while favoring federally funded 
>>abortion. 
>
>    That's not me, but I have something to say here. 
>
>[big snip]
>
>>  Just for the record:  I favor vouchers for private schools, and I'm also
>>in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal--but I don't want the government
>>to fund it.
>
>    The thing that I'm curious about is how you reconcile the position 
>of favoring vouchers for private schools while opposing funding of abortion. 
>It seems to me that your position is just as flimsy as that of the people 
>who favor funding for abortion but oppose vouchers. I'm obviously biased on 
>the subject, but I would have thought that the only thoroughly consistent 
>positions are to either oppose government funding of both (which, for the 
>record, is where I stand), or to favor funding for both (the ultimate "Big 
>Government" position).
>
>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


It is fairly easy to reconcile. A parent who doesn't want his
child to go to public school is simply getting a rebate on the
money that he is NOT using for his child's public education. The
government is not "funding" private ed at all. the person is
just, in essence, withholding his payment to public school, while
using that same money to pay for a private education.

The abortion question is fundamentally different in this way.

--
 !         \                                                                    !      1------1                     
 !\     1______1            __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 ! \    1______1      /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !      !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Inherant characteristics of inanimate objects
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:52:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1993Jan24.014923.21332@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) writes:
|> 
|>      I saw on one of the Network newscasts that President Clinton is using the
|> same desk in the newly redecorated Oval Office (I wonder how much that cost)
|> that was used by former Presidents JFK and Ronald Reagan.
|> 
|>      When I heard it, I didn't know quite what to make our of it- almost hoping
|> that there was a possibility that President Clinton would draw some powers
|> from the desk. I started to ponder what he could get from the previous owners
|> of the desk.
|> 
|>      My results? From Ronald Reagan- pride in America, a strong defense and
|> good economic policy. From JFK- phone numbers of old girlfriends that were
|> carved in the top.

Are you kidding?   Ronald Reagan was arguably the WORST president in the
last 60 years.  The Reagan administration wasted tons of money on worthless
military projects, destroyed the economy by running up a HUGE debt, let
our cities go straight to hell, ruined the public school system, and sold
weapons to Iran and gave the money to bandits.  And you think that this 
man is worthy of accolades?  The final crime, the selling of our country
to Japan, was his worst, and he had enough gall to accept the payoff in
public!!

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Sleaze Marches In....
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 00:43:41 PST
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

> At least Slick will allow us to finally be able to say "foreign policy" 
> without having to say, "special prosecutor".

uh, pardon me...  Like there is a chance that any REAL investigating
would occur with both sides being Democratic...  even if they were
forced to invoke some sortof investigation or special prosecutor--it'll
be like the House Bank scandal or one of the countless other 
congressional scandals of the past few years---no real action against 
anyone who is a democrat.

Pete

--
pete@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)  {SYStem OPerator}
The Missing Link BBS, (805) 925-1129
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14067 talk.abortion:58413