HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A letter to Rush: what is a liberal
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:11:16 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>Nathan writes:
>>eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>>Huh? I don't know where the Scrooge image of the rich came from, 

>>    It came from Charles Dickens and Mike Milkin.

>What was so terrible about Michael Milken?  Before you answer that, you
>might want to read "Milking Milken" by Jacob Sullum, REASON, February 1991.
>He became a symbol for greed, but he didn't live ostentatiously and he was
>reported to be generous, and a nice guy.  He did commit some small crimes
>(for which he is paying dearly -- far more than is just), but that isn't
>how he made his money.  He did make a lot of money, but he made it making
>even more money for other people -- is that such a crime?  He invented the
>junk bond, without which there wouldn't have been a CNN, or many other new
>enterprises that helped revitalize the economy.  He just doesn't seem like
>such a horrible villin to me.

    Maybe if it had been your retirement fund that he raided and converted 
to junk bonds you would feel differently. As to Mr Milken's personality and 
private life, I admit that I have no knowledge. I merely know, as I believe 
Shakespeare noted, that a man may smile and smile and still be a villian.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:39:30 GMT


	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.

-- 
                               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
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:10:15 GMT

In article <6449@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>Uh, Steve, apparently you overlooked the fact that your corpulent hero,
>Rush, is part of the media.

Handy guideline for future reference: fat people are wrong, thin people
are right.  A few more of these and we can get everything worked out
just fine.  (Remember to avoid everything by Jack Anderson, Art
Buchwald, Mark Shields, and so forth.)


>As for "liberal media," it's a phrase used seriously only by Rush's
>whining army of girly-men. Analogously, if you were losing a game of
>chess, you would be whining that your opponent had too many pieces on
>the board.

Which brings to mind Nimzovitch's famous tantrum: sweeping the pieces
off of the board, he exclaimed, "Why must I lose to this idiot!?"
(probably in German).

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Where was Bill (Dec. 31, 1969)? 
Summary: ok, so what's the deal...
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:39:36 GMT


    Hello.  Seems as though I heard Mr. Clinton was in Moscow on New Year's
Eve of 1969.  Is that true?  Has the press been reporting it?  I don't
have a television, but I've spoken to a number of people who keep a little
better up to date than I do, and they haven't heard anything about it.  It
certainly seems like a newsworthy item to me.


John Rickert					Roberts, Yost, Dole, Bush '92
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Why Bush will lose in November
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:26:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.013615.15737@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.153432.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke) writes:
>
>>     Sadly, I just don't see how we can reasonably expect the American public
>>to show any intelligence and vote against this governor from Arkansas.
>
>	In short, Clinton will win because AMERICANS ARE MORONS. Sad, but
>true, the American public is simply too stupid to elect their own leaders,
>it's a wonder that most of them can tie their shoes without help from 
>someone with a brain (presumably a conservative).

You prove that there is, in this world, an equality of wisdom because each of
us believes that his or her share is sufficient.  I usually prefer to let
such statements as yours above stand on their own, they speak volumes about
the philosophy of the writer.

>	I've been waiting for this, and I expect that there will be a lot more
>of it as Bush goes further into the tank. I don't really expect dittoheads
>to go for the idea that the man they chose to represent the republican party
>is less desireable then Bill Clinton to the American people. After all, we 
>all know that americans are fundamentally conservative.
>
>	Other explanations we can expect:
>
>	"It's the liberal media's fault: they told everybody how to vote"

I already pointed out, though you disagreed, that the media does have
an incalculable affect.  I argue that if the media cannot affect us then
neither can we learn from it.  How many facts or ideas have we all gleaned
from the pages of magazines or from news casts?  Obviously there is a real
not an imagined force at work.  However, I cannot calculate it's effect.
>
>	"Clinton fought a dirty campaign[1]"

Wait, that's the Democrats line!
>
>	"Bush wasn't our real choice, we really wanted XXX"

Do you really mean "XXX" - isn't that poison?
>
>	"Bush was too liberal - he alienated conservatives"

This one is worthy of a discussion.
>
>I'm sure that there will be others - save and collect them all!

Why?  All I have to do is read your posts (.sig)  :)


Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6539 alt.politics.bush:7727 alt.politics.elections:15165 talk.politics.misc:49545
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:24:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Tom Selleck on Arsenio talked about the difference between liberals and
conservatives (Selleck being one). I don't have the exact quote, but it
went something like this:

It's not that conservatives don't care. We do. We just have different
answers than liberals do. It's a difference of the mind, not of the
heart.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
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,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:31:03 GMT

schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) writes:

>In article <lcet04INN354@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>|> 
>>What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
>>the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
>>the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
>>resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
>>either side is correct) as the "final argument."

>You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
>sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
>of caution?  

Absolutely.  We should go with the wishes of the one involved
who is _indisputably_ a person.

                      -rocker
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6618 alt.politics.bush:7841 alt.politics.clinton:8634
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:23:31 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <1992Oct6.054809.25524@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.195918.1@acad.drake.edu>
> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
> 
>> "Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive 
>> some kind of government aid but rather by the number of people who no 
>> longer need it."
> 
> A noble sentiment, but the way to achieve this is NOT by clubbing them
> to death!
By this do you mean subjugating people to the hopeless programs of welfare,
that only serve to entrench the needy into endless circles of dependency?
"Noble", well... yes of course, it is always noble, if not inspiring to see
someone cast off the shackles of government dependency (pardon the melodrama)
and stand on their own two feet. Surely this is what you imply. Or do you find
something inherently wrong with this philosophy? Indeed, shouldn't it be the
prerogative of all governments to wean the less fortunate off government aid?
I'm not sure I understand your arguement, Care to elaborate? 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.185046.24334@unet.net.com> 
stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>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.

> This is no doubt true in the later stages of pregency.  But in the early 
> stages this is completely impossible. Go talk to one of your biology 
> teachers about the minimun mass of brain tissue needed for cognitive 
> thought/awareness.  I'm sure there is brain wave activity very early 
> on but this does not indicate awareness. 

The evidence that I've seen suggests that the neocortex ("higher 
brain") of a newborn infant is not sufficiently developed to possess
cognitive thought.  It is only until several months after birth
that the infant's brain matures to a point where cognitive thought    
is possible.  Therefore, if you base your support for abortion rights 
on the fetus's inability to "think", then you must also condone
infanticide.  

> 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.  

>Stan Knight


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:47:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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

>Real conservatives -- great, need more of them.  Limbaugh's, Robertson's
>and Buchanon's; go find somewhere to spend the next four years, because
>I (and quite a few people I know) refuse to vote for any party that
>embraces you.

   I think he's stupid.   Conservatism as a philosophical viewpoint
   is really getting dragged through the mud these days by the 
   lunatic extremists who have become its fellow travelers: Limbaugh,
   Buchanan, Falwell/Robertson, etc.  The George Will editorial posted
   here a few weeks ago expressed these sentiments very clearly.  What
   is needed in the US is a "thinking person's" conservative movement.


---peter




Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6052 alt.activism.d:3381 alt.politics.elections:14474 alt.politics.bush:6964 alt.politics.clinton:7543 talk.politics.misc:48282 talk.abortion:38957
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:39:30 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Sep27.161223.24601@ugle.unit.no>, leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep27.093834.5371@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|>  > 
|>  > I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
|>  > that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
|>  > "Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
|>  > abortion is the outright killing of children.
|>  > 
|>  > With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
|>  > that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
|>  > is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
|>  > capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,
|> 
I assumed the foregoing was tounge-in-cheek.  I hope I was correct.

|> That's your opinions.  If there has turned up any solid evidence that a partially
|> developed fetus (like 12 weeks or less) is conscious and aware, then I would
|> agree that it is indeed a child.  Otherwise, my fine friend, your posting is a
|> prime example of fascist bullshit.
|> 
|> Personally, I don't believe a fetus should be called a child, not until it is
|> developed enough to survive outside the womb.  Further, a newborn baby can hardly
|> be said to be fully aware.  I don't view even newborn babies as actual human
|> beings--they are potential human beings.  Getting born means you're only halfway
|> there.           ^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> The world is overpopulated already.  But maybe your solution to that problem is
|> to make the death penalty mandatory for petty crimes?  I feel that the legalized
|> killing of aware, thinking human beings is far more atrocious than abortion, by
|> several orders of magnitude.  Even if those executed are guilty of horrible
|> crimes, this does not make their suffering any less.  And what of cases where
|> people are innocently convicted and sentenced?  We know that this can happen--
|> how would you like to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed--all by error?
|> 
|> Leif the .sigless

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:24:48 GMT

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>>Excuse me, but are you NUTS? Are you saying that the execution of
>>individuals who (most would say) DESERVE to be put to death for
>>committing crimes unimaginably heinous is more atrocious than the
>>killing of an unborn child, who is the quintessence of innocence? I see
>>a problem with your logic, my friend.

>Exuse *me*, but are you a hypocrite?  If life is truely an inalienable right,
>then noone DESERVES to have it taken from them, no matter what they've done.
>To do so would make life a priviledge, to be taken way when they have
>done something wrong.  By your standards, the guilty (as judged by mere
>mortals) must die, and the innocent (as judged by mere mortals) get to
>live.

>I see problem with your logic.

I see a problem with your knowledge of rights.  We take people's rights
away all the time when we decide they are a menace to society.  Taking
away somebody's right to live is the final step in a succesion of such
deprivations.  If you believe that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" are rights, how do you feel about depriving convicted 
criminals of the latter two?  And these are just the "inalienable" rights.  
We obviously also take away most of their other "state-given" rights.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush will lose in November
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:44:19 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.153432.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke) writes:

>>     Sadly, I just don't see how we can reasonably expect the American public
>>to show any intelligence and vote against this governor from Arkansas.

>	In short, Clinton will win because AMERICANS ARE MORONS. Sad, but
>true, the American public is simply too stupid to elect their own leaders,
>it's a wonder that most of them can tie their shoes without help from 
>someone with a brain (presumably a conservative).

>	I've been waiting for this, and I expect that there will be a lot more
>of it as Bush goes further into the tank. I don't really expect dittoheads
>to go for the idea that the man they chose to represent the republican party
>is less desireable then Bill Clinton to the American people. After all, we 
>all know that americans are fundamentally conservative.

>	Other explanations we can expect:

>	"It's the liberal media's fault: they told everybody how to vote"

Read Time Magazine any week of this election year and tell me that's not
the case!

>	"Clinton fought a dirty campaign[1]"

If his own co-chair calls Bush a "racist", what else can you call it?

>	"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.

>	"Bush was too liberal - he alienated conservatives"

Exactly what's happened in his term as President. Then he tries to suck up
to us by making hard-right noises, except there's nothing worse than
someone who doesn't believe in Conservatism trying to sound as though he
does, and simply ending up a caricature of himself and the movement.

>I'm sure that there will be others - save and collect them all!

Better yet, collect the quotes of lavish praise heaped upon Bill Clinton,
and see who turns around to complain about what a poor candidate he was
once he loses. Don't just believe me; think back to Mike Dukakis and the
words of his "supporters" after the election compared to before.

>[1] This was the subject of a column by a Bush person in the NYTimes last
>saturday. The author was lamenting that Bush is being tarred for fighting
>dirty when it's actually the other side. Not what I'd expect from the GOP, 
>but I think that there will be more of it.

>-- 
>                               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,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 15:39:46 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1060@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
> Have you never heard the phrase, "she is with child"?
> It makes no sense unless "child" includes the unborn.

Have you never heard the phrase, "She has a bun in the oven"?
It makes no sense unless...

(Trying to explain an idiom to an idiot...)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6349 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4831
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:19:53 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Distribution: usa
 <92268.165829KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <92269.082808JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <92270.003136KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <92Sep29.134409edt.47907@neat.cs.toronto.edu>

In article <92Sep29.134409edt.47907@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, liuyh@cs.toronto.edu
(Yuanhui Liu) says:

>Do the kids want to grow up with a chest of muscle and wear cool leather      `
>jacket
>and sun glasses ride a motorcycle, and maybe tossing a shot gun as so
>protected
>by the amendment?

Oh, I don't know.  But, that's the REAL Arnold there (with or without the
perfectly legal shotgun)which you just described.

The Terminator was a robot whose only purpose in 'life' was to kill stuff
and be a general a--hole.  Again, not presented as a role model for the kids,
not presented as a positive character with positive attributes.


------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:01:32 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <5644@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> 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."

I'd be much more interested in reading Act 144.  Does anyone have access?
Did it only levy fees on abortion clinics or did it levy fees on clinics
in general?  Was it part of a larger fee bill, and what was covered?
|> => 
|> => 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.
|> 

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6199 alt.activism.d:3424 alt.politics.elections:14648 alt.politics.bush:7173 alt.politics.clinton:7789 talk.politics.misc:48603 talk.abortion:39423