HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
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: 30 Sep 92 00:44:01 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep29.185236.24690@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM () writes:
>
>> 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.

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.
 


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion rights and responsibilities
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:35:08 GMT

In article <5309@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> Just a thought (it's after midnight for this post). Usually when one is
> accorded rights, one is also accorded responsibilities with which one
> should use these rights. For example, no slander/libel when invoking
> "free speech," or shooting innocents when owning a gun, and so on. As
> the signs from pro-choicers/pro-abortionists say "Abortion rights NOW!"
> I am wondering what responsibilities are accorded to this
> constitutionally protected (according to the Supreme Court) right.

That's not how I interpret it.  Those aren't responsibilities (you
are responsible for not slandering someone?), but rather limitations.
Like your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.  You
are not allowed to holler "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is
no fire.  That's a limitation.  A responsibility is an active
requirement, like being required to pull the fire alarm when you
see a fire in an inappropriate place (like in your neighborhood
women's health clinic).  A limitation is something you aren't
allowed to do, like say something slanderous or shoot a doctor
because you don't like the kind of work he does.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: HERE'S SLICK'S TAX LIST
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:33:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.130501.7776@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>46. Act 383 increased the number of days of dog racing for the city general
>|>|>fund    and the mental retardation fund.
>
>Now just who can claim that that is a tax?
>
>I suppose Bush would try to count the opening of a gift shop in the city hall as
>300 or so fee increases.
>
>Lying is not saying things that you know are untrue. Lying is trying to convince
>people of things you know are untrue. On this basis Bush is a liar.
>


Now Bill Clinton knows the REAL meaning of the word   UNTRUE !!!!!



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6343 alt.rush-limbaugh:6344
From: attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's CompuServe Address
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:57:03 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Here's the part about Rush's CIS address taken from the FAQ:

What is Rush's CompuServe address?      70277.2502@CompuServe.com
>>>Please note:  Rush's mailbox will hold only 100 letters and although
                 Rush claims to clean it out 2 or 3 times a day you may
                 still have some difficulty - keep trying.  He does read
                 his mail and does sometimes respond (even to the internet).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Atteberry              |  The heart of the wise inclines to the
attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu  |  right, but the heart of the fool to the
D-D-D-Dittos!                |  left.  -Ecclesiastes 10:2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:53:54 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <605TRB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>Then  the guy that made this movie and a bunch more violence laden blood 
>bath movies goes running around campaigning for some clowns who claim 
>they are for family values and against the "elite" that is filling our 
>moviehouses and TVs with violence.  Hmmmmmm.  Sumpin' a little wrong 
>here?  Isn't Arnold one 'o' them "media elite" types that's part of the 
>problem?
 
 "...the guy that made this movie...."

 You seem to know a lot about how movies are made. 
  Asta la vista ,  baby.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6468 talk.abortion:40352
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:22:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct2.185046.24334@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>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.
>
>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. There was brain activity in the roach you squashed last night also.
>Try going to your local library(there's one on your campus!)and find out some 
>facts about fetal development instead of sprouting forth someone else's
>opinions as if they were facts.
>
>Here's a free clue for you: A majority of Americans are pro-choice. Of these 
>the vast majority do not want later stage aborations unless the mother's life 
>is in danger.
>
Stan, if you allegation that a majority of Americans are pro-choice, why are 
you pro-choicers afraid to put things up to votes in each state, instead 
of clinging to liber-activist judiciary decisions?

Ted


-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.145646.11824@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:

>I haven't read the article or seen the list, but using the methods for listing
>the tariffs on the same product from different sources, I think we could
>seriously extend Clinton's list, as follows:
>
>	44) Raised the tax on beer from Budweiser
>	45) Raised the tax on beer from Miller
>	46) Raised the tax on beer from Michelob
>	47) Raised the tax on beer from Coors
>	48) Raised the tax on beer from Heineken
>	49) Raised the tax on beer from Old Milwaukee
>	50) Raised the tax on beer from Molson
>	etc.
>	etc.
>	etc.

	Son, I'm hear to tell you that theres a place for you in the Bush
reelection campaign - why don't you come on down and talk about 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
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:22:12 GMT

jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>> >Did you know that liberals have 
>> >virtually taken over the used book business as well? Right under our eyes! 
>> 
>>     You must mean right *before* our eyes (or right *under* our noses). 

>No, I mean under our eyes. I've dedicated my life to tearing the vicious
>Mobius strip of tired cliches.

    Hmmm. I would have thought that the phrase "tired cliches" would have 
itself become a tired cliche by now. Me, I prefer robust, vigorous cliches.

>> >And what about the libraries? Damn liberal cells. Why is it that so many 
>> >literate people have succumbed to the liberal menace?
>> 
>>     Don't you see? It *must* be a conspiracy; a carefully crafted and 
>> diabolically executed plot to subvert conservatism. How fortunate we are 
>> to have Rush Limbaugh to let us know what we should really believe...

>I feel sorry for Rush's fans. (Actually I don't. But it has a nice bleeding
>heart sound to it.) They stagger through life grumbling that they've been
>left out of the action. Here are these liberals with the best girls, 

    Yeah, our liberal girls are outta sight. Madonna. Jane Fonda. Anita 
Hill.

>the best haircuts, 

    Hey, that's discriminatory. A lot of people don't become conservatives 
until their hair is about ready to fall out anyway.

>the slackful attitudes, and a non-stop diet of chocolate cake. 

    Is that why I've been feeling irregular recently?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: HERE'S SLICK'S TAX LIST
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:39:56 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

At least Clinton has a plan and states what it is.

Bush just makes promises that he won't keep.  The
last time I heard him talk he wouldn't promise a
no new taxes, and just avoided the question.

Was Bush the Education, Evironment, or Anti-Drug President?
  Are any of these problems fixed?
  This should be the basis of your 1992 vote.
  Not a bunch of non-issues like family values
  and the vietnam draft.

Jared Dahl
Voting out Bush - What a wonderful choice!
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6014 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4661
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:55:49 EDT
From: <JFL4@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>

In article <92270.003136KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>Do you know a single kid who wants to grow up to be a Terminator?
>If so, the kid needs help.
>

I have to admit, I don't know of any kids who want to be the Terminator,
but I don't know that many kids.

The only person I know of who *really* fancied himself as the Terminator
was...Ronald Reagan!

Hope this helps,

Jeff Luck                     *Opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:37:28 GMT

In article <BvnI8L.7nG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>Yes I am being honest.  Yes the book is available, if memory serves it is
>>called "The Making of A Senator".  Richard Fenno is a PoliSci prof at
>>the University of Rochester (his title may be "Distinguished Prof of ..."
>>but I'm not sure). 
>
>Well, if more than two sentences worth of synopsis would ruin the book,
>it can't have much substance, can it?  Even Cliffs Notes have more to
>them than that!

If you are finished waving your hands... There is a review in the technical
journal "Presidential Studies Quarterly" by Dr. Judith Best, Distiguished
Professor of Political Science (yes that's the title).  I am afraid that
I cannot do all of your research for you, you will have to find out which
PSQ it is in but I can tell you that it is a recent one.

Of course, I don't expect you to read it.

Mike Best

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:47:40 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> In article <92269.082808JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> >What kind of crap is this?  Of course the Terminator is presented as a role
> >model for young people in the same way that Rambo was a role model for young
> >people.  Look at the merchandising!  Listen to the popular vernacular! It's
> >a role model that says the best way to solve a problem is to eliminate those
> >who disagree with you.  *Very Republican.*
> 
>  Terminator was NOT a conservative movie. This town dosent have enough
> conservative minds to even begin to create a conservative movie. This
> movie was made to make money. NO conservative message was installed. They
> dont even know what conservatism is. This explains the shock most people
> have when they listen to rush. "Thats not what they told me conservatives
> were like". They have occasionally converted a slightly conservative book
> to the big screen, but it is rare indeed.
>  Violent movies are not conservative. Thats another myth thats been washed
> into your brain. Its for the 18-25 year old market. A very lucrative one in
> the movie buissness. A good example of a conservative movie would be an ac-
> curate portrayal of Boris Yeltsin, critical examination of Gorbachov or
> examples of how statist are trying to take total control of the individual.
> Unfortunately, not many 18-25 year olds, would go see it.
> 
>  Steve Tyree - These opinionsa re mine and mine alone.


No it isn't a "conservative" movie.  It is just a good old fashioned 
violent shoot-'em-up blood and guts and crashing car blastorama.
Then  the guy that made this movie and a bunch more violence laden blood 
bath movies goes running around campaigning for some clowns who claim 
they are for family values and against the "elite" that is filling our 
moviehouses and TVs with violence.  Hmmmmmm.  Sumpin' a little wrong 
here?  Isn't Arnold one 'o' them "media elite" types that's part of the 
problem?

By the way, did you all know Arnold Schwarzenegger was in the Austrian 
army as a youth?  And that they throw his ass out because he was a lousy 
soldier?  Ran a tank into a building at one point, and that was the last 
straw.  So they terminated the "Terminator", und he didn't kom back!
Think of this next time you see him playing a tuff guy on the tube.
He ain't no tuff guy.  He's a Sadsack, a bozo.  Like his buddy Bush!

Pope Charles,  Subgenius Pope Of Houston  Praise "Bob"!


--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5935 alt.activism.d:3345 alt.politics.elections:14354 alt.politics.bush:6815 alt.politics.clinton:7356 talk.politics.misc:48072 talk.abortion:38706
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
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: 27 Sep 92 17:37:10 GMT
 <1992Sep25.220609.5948@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
 <1992Sep27.093834.5371@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  
 <1992Sep27.161223.24601@ugle.unit.no>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

"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."

Allow me to take this from another perspective -- has anyone ever
proven that a partially developed fetus is NOT alive? Allow me answer
that -- no, nobody ever has. Therefore, it is entirely POSSIBLE -- not
certain, mind you -- that aborting a fetus MAY be taking a life. Is
society not supposed to err on the side of caution? If there is a
possibility we are commiting genocide, shouldn't society listen to the
better angels of their nature and put a stop to it? Just a thought.

"I feel that the legalized killing of aware, thinking human beings is
far more atrocious than abortion, byseveral orders of magnitude."

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.

"The world is overpopulated already."

I find it stangely ironic that those who are for abortion because of
overpopulation are also opposed to hunting which, in most cases, keeps
populations of animals with no natural predators under control. It even
seems that they care more for deer and moose than children -- human
beings. Weird.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:59:18 GMT

In article <5822@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 
> 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
How true. Jack Kemp said something similar:
"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."
An insight that many liberals insist on ignoring.
JACK KEMP IN '96!!
--
Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6250 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4757
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
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: 29 Sep 92 20:25:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose

Note followup.

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>At the very least shouldn't a fetus be considered a potential life??

And the egg and sperm also?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:17:49 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>Come on, no need for sarcasm-I ws trying to keep this civilized.

Actually, the comment about potential life deserving potential rights
wasn't all that sarcastic.  The "potential life" description is riddled
with problems, among which is the problem of defining just what the hell
IS "potential life".  Is it an embryo? fetus? zygote? egg? sperm?  All
of these have the potential to become adult humans.

Giving a potential life potential rights seems entirely appropriate.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: All right! My fingers are killing me!
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:47:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <5660@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

   Healthy families. Responsible families are
   the key to wellness. They are the best guard
   against infant morality...

I don't know if I agree with this.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu ()
Subject: Re: A letter to Rush: what is a liberal
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:14:03 GMT

In article <nate.612@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>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

Raiding Retirement funds?  I remember Jesse Jackson a while back wanted
to borrow (read raid) Retirement funds to pay for his plan to "invest" in
America's inner cities. I guess what really counts is the reason behind the
raiding..

---------

J.R. Ordon

Disclaimer: This views expressed here are definetely not my employers
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6015 alt.news-media:1425 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4662