HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 1992 20:40:27 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Information needed

Hello,

I hope this is an okay newsgroup to post this on. I am trying to find
out the addresses of the American Family Association and the Feminists
for Life so I can write to them for information, membership and
otherwise, but I have been unsuccessful so far. If anyone can give it to
me, or at least point me in the right direction, it would be very much
appreciated. Thank you very much in advance!

Cheers,
Alison Colman
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6204 alt.politics.bush:7178 alt.politics.elections:14653 talk.politics.misc:48614
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: All right! My fingers are killing me!
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:02:36 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'm not sure I agree with this.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6009 alt.activism.d:3371 alt.politics.elections:14423 alt.politics.bush:6913 alt.politics.clinton:7479 talk.politics.misc:48201
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:24:26 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:

>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>I am amused by the left's outrage that we conservatives have adopted
>>their very own protest techniques.  Who knows, maybe we'll be shouting
>>down some unwary liberal trying to give a speech next...  But that would
>>be denying him his constitutional rights, wouldn't it?

>Who's outraged? If someone wants to break a law and block a clinic,
>I'm not outraged. They'll just go to jail. What I'm really outraged by
>the Operation Rescuers is that they expect not to be arrested. They
>honestly seem shocked when they get arrested. I'm a pro-lifer who thinks
>that we should go about this battle within the law. i do understand
>that they feel that different methods (more extreme ones) need to be used.
>I don't agree with that but that's their opinion. But part of civil
>disobedience as defined by almost anyone is that you EXPECT to get
>arrested. It's your way of getting media attention. 

I know of nobody who has ever gone to an OR demonstration that did not
expect ot be arrested.  Are you basing your assumption on the
expressions on their faces on the news?  How can you possibly have
gotten that impression?  Most of the time they are demonstrating in
violation of a court order.  To think you won't be arrested is pretty 
stupid, and for the most part they aren't.


-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6338 alt.activism.d:3459 talk.abortion:39872
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: "Child" includes the unborn.
Keywords: abortion, child, fetus
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:39:19 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Sep30.201558.6773@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov
(Chris A Lyman) writes:
|stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> If you are going to argue about words, you ought to at least look
|> them up.
|
|Why didn't you?

Oh, for-crying-out-loud!  I did.  I checked three different dictionaries.
I wouldn't have said that if I hadn't.  What more do you want?

|> 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"?

This point is not arguable.  I submit that you only are because you can't
accept the fact that abortion kills a child.

Look, if it makes it any easier, none of this is an argument either for or
against abortion.  I just want to keep the debate honest.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6268 alt.activism.d:3437 talk.abortion:39581
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
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: 2 Oct 92 16:29:51 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.

>|> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>|> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??

for the woman, yes, if she realizes what she feels and why, rather than
just soemthing right about here felt like it was moving. You wouldn't
call a muscle that spasmed aware, would you?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6637 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4967
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:15:02 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> In article <cortez.717592044@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
|> 
|> This intellectual tirade has stunned me.  Let me just ask one question, if
|> this guy is so dumb then how did he defeat the veteran Birch Bayhe (sp?)
|> in Indiana?  Perhaps you would care to conclude that the people of Indiana
|> are dumb too (hey, they elected Birch Bayhe :))

He did it the usual way - tons of money, both his own and from outside
the state. Bayh's seat was targeted by the Republican National Committee
as one they felt might be vulnerable to a massive infusion of dollars and
Ronald Reagan's coattails. They were right. So Our Man Dan is a flesh-and-
blood living example of the Evils Of Big Money in our election process.
  
|> >Is the statistic I have read -- that there was only one bill Quayle
|> >sponsored to ever become law the entire time he was in Congress, and that
|> >a bill with bipartisan big-name support that passed both houses nearly
|> >unanimously -- not true?
|> 
|> I do not know the answer to this specific.

Thanks, Mike, we appreciate the honesty. Tom's posting is correct - the
only bill from Quayle's tenure with his name on it is the Job Training and 
(mumble) Act, which he co-authored with Ted Kennedy. He doesn't talk about
it much anymore...:^)
 
|> >Ok, Mr. serious thinker. Explain the Burger King incident. Go on.
|> 
|> I do not know what you are referring to. 

He's referring to a Quayle media moment where Dano pointed to a "Help Wanted"
sign in a Burger King (New York City? - not sure where) as proof positive
that we were out of the recession.

|> Let me add one more point (of 
|> course, you have no choice).  Bob Woodward stated on the Brinkley show
|> several Sunday's ago to a question regarding Quayle's treatment by the
|> media.  He (Woodward) responded by saying that Quayle has received a
|> bad rap from the media and that, should something happen to Bush, Quayle
|> _would_ be an effective president.
|> 
|> That from Bob Woodward?

I'm far from alone in finding Woodward's current position on Quayle
anomalous, to say the least. I guess it's just additional proof that
nobody's perfect.

Of course, maybe he was only using "effective" in comparison to
the performances we've seen over the past twelve years :^) 

- Don Coolidge
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:57:56 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> 
|> I don't believe the lines that some of the pro-Clinton people are taking
|> regarding Clinton's stance for peace during the Vietnam War. Many in
|> comparing Bill Clinton's dodging with Dan Quayle's dodging say that Bill
|> Clinton deserves more respect because he was standing up for his
|> principles and could have been arrested for what he was doing while
|> Quayle was just taking advantage of his connections with his family and
|> being a coward by going into the Indiana National Guard.
|> 
|> [rehash of history deleted ]
|> 
|> Clinton could have been arrested for what he was doing. But George Bush
|> could have been killed for what he did. The question is do you think
|> that freedom and peace are worth dying for? Bill Clinton's answer
|> doesn't come as clearly for me as does George Bush's.
|> -- 
Were you old enough to be draftable in the 60's?  In the 40's?  Do you
have any idea what the attitude was about the war among fighting age
males in either time?  Do you understand the political environment?
There was a big difference.  

Also, many people you would never consider voting for fought and
risked death in both wars.  Will you consider them all better
candidates than all who didn't go?  Many people you would
vote for avoided putting their life on the line.  Will you now drop
them from consideration?  There was an article in this mornings
San Jose Mercury News about Republican senatorial candidates who
are under fire for their Viet Nam era draft avoidance.  Will you
campaign for their Democratic opponents?

For Emil and other republicans, this is a purely political diatribe
to try and get Bush elected, not a position based upon principles.  If
I am wrong, please post confirmation that you would support Gore over
Buchanon.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:12:19 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Sep.28.13.16.59.1992.5878@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

I just say ignore Murphy Brown, whose show regularly belches out
megatons of sludge of propaganda against anything that's not 110% Ultra
Far Left. 

Rather than listen to that stupid ditz, I'll just turn on the Rush
Limbaugh Show and watch Rush Limbaugh tear the hide off of Hillary
Clinton the next time she says "he doesn't have his facts straight."

Isn't it funny how Hillary Clinton's screw-up with Rush, is being so
badly ignored by the press? 

I say we discredit the media and make journalism a highly shameful
profession. They are blatant liars, cover-up maniacs, and they just
don't do their job. 

In my opinion: Long Live Rush! 

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: as423@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Kenneth A. Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gore's enviromental statements.
Date: 26 Sep 1992 15:56:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


     Does anyone have some of Gore's quotes from his book. I have
seen a few of them, but do not know the name of the book or the
full context of the statements. 

                                         Ken Wallace
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6300 alt.activism.d:3445 talk.abortion:39719
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: The the term "inalienable" doesn't apply to individuals.
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:07:06 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <Sep.28.10.39.13.1992.20171@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
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.

You misunderstand what is meant by inalienable.  When the U.S.'s founding
fathers spoke of inalienable rights, they were speaking of the Rights of
man, not of individuals.  If an individual's Rights were inalienable, then
we wouldn't be able to put him in prison, little less execute him.
However, an individual's Rights may only be taken from him through due
process of law.

...
|In my personal spiritual philosophy, a child is not a child until it 
|inherits a soul.  This soul is not inherited until birth.  At that
|point, the soul deserves the chance to make the most of the life that
|it has chosen, without interference.  Before that point, in the womb,
|the body is a vehicle under construction.  I don't believe that when
|a fetus is lost, it is irreplaceable.  It is the soul that is irreplacable.
|But that soul cannot be destroyed -- at least not by any means that we
|have at our disposal.
|
|Therefore, to force me to carry to term, a fetus that I do not want, to
|me would be ridiculous.  

Here we have someone who is for abortion rights for religious reasons . . .
something I don't think is that uncommon.

Look up the word "child".  You will find nothing about a soul.  A fetus is
by definition a child.  That is why there are phrases like "she is
with-child".
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6324 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6169
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:31:54 GMT
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <mykes.0e1b@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG sez:
>
>I heard Bush interviewed on Rush's radio show that same day.  Almost
>everything Rush said on TV that night was EXACTLY what Bush said.
>Exactly.  Now, with that in mind...
>
>Rush asked Bush on the radio about the Crowe endorsement.  Bush said
>that Crowe was one of those who testified to the senate before the
>Gulf War - against Bush' proposals.  He told the committee that the
>war would fail, the plan was stupid, we were starting another VietNam,
>etc.
>
>And Crowe ended up being proven totally wrong.	YOu might say he
>ate crow :)

You might say that once again, Rush and his dittoheads can offer only
half-truths.  The fact is that while Crowe did give such testimony
before Congress, *he reversed position and endorsed the use of force
before the invasion began*.

But heck, don't let a measly fact get in your way.

-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6587 alt.activism.d:3553 alt.politics.elections:15240 alt.politics.bush:7797 alt.politics.clinton:8574 talk.politics.misc:49661 talk.abortion:40701
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
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: 6 Oct 92 06:35:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


You don't like the civilized tone I keep in my postingss??

So people should have their fun, and throw responsibilty out the
window??

No wonder I get flamed.

I can get flamed like the shuttle on reentry, but I'm not backing off.
Simon
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:22:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <BvBMFq.9xA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
>Plain and simple: Clinton stood up for his beliefs by refusing to kill people  
>he believed this nation had no business killing.  Pick up the New York Times

I fail to see how arranging for relatives and friends to influence your
draft board, then arranging to join ROTC and (with political precision) then
reneging on the agreement, is somehow "standing up for his beliefs".

Standing up for your beliefs would be something like burning a draft card,
telling the draft board to stuff it, going to Canada.  Clinton never did
ANYTHING he thought would affect his political viability in the future.
He tried to have his cake and eat it too.  He tried to make sure that
there would be no consequences. 

I have more respect for the people of my generation (and I consider a few
of them friends) who said they wouldn't go in the military, and went to 
jail instead.  I can respect their "standing up for their beliefs"; I
cannot respect what Bill Clinton did.



-- 
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,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:50:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.175444.20913@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>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.
>
On the other hand, I noticed he only counted the raising of alcohol tax
once instead of mulitiple times like in the list of Clinton's tax
raises.  I also noted that Bush raised income tax, which is something
Clinton did not (and could not) do.  Actually, Clinton would have
probably had far fewer tax and fee increases if he would have been
allowed to raise the income tax.  It would have been more progressive as
well.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: (Abortion liability) Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:22:44 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

For those who oppose parental consent in abortions, consider:
  (a) Who is liable if the father of the aborted child decides to sue?
  (b) Who must pay medical bills if the abortion damages your daughter
      and she needs follow-on medical care?
  (c) Who must pay if Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome requires 
      psychological counselling for your daughter?

Abortion _may_ be the least risky of surgical procedures, but it is
_not_ less risky than a) a non-allergic person taking an aspirin or
b) getting your ears pierced.  Why do these require parental consent
and abortion does not?

Answer: Aspirin manufacturers and ear-piercers aren't making megabucks
and large political gains off of their clients, and so aren't
concerned that potential clients might choose against using their
services.
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6225 alt.news-media:1429 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4726
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:52:43 GMT
 <1992Sep25.210838.3942@ils.nwu.edu>  <20777@plains.NoDak.edu>
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <20777@plains.NoDak.edu>
green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

> >The idea that the "creul and unusual punishment" only applies to sentences
> >is idiotic,  there is nothing in the constitution to cause anyone to take
> >this stance.     [Bob Hooker]
> 
> This is typical, liberal, re-write the Constitution nonsense.  [Brad Green]

And yours is the response of an ignorant reactionary who has bought the
Republican myth that it is the "liberals" who are re-writing the
constitution.  If "liberal" and "re-write the Constitution" are twins,
than the three most liberal members of the current US Supreme Court are
Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (in that order).

As Brad Green writes, there is nothing in the Constitution which
indicates that only sentences are implicated by the "cruel and unusual
punishment" clause.  In fact, the full clause reads "nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted".  Inflicted.  Not Sentenced.  

I suggest you disabuse yourself of the notion that our Constitution
faces danger only from "liberals", and that you acquaint yourself with
some history of US Constitutional Law.

Note: Follow-ups have been redirected to exclude alt.fan.dan-quayle.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6076 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6006 talk.politics.misc:48342 alt.flame:13099