HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Evolution (was Re: Liberal Bias Example)
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:56:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
>I've editted the newsgroups line to drop unrelated newsgroups.

Good, I should have done it earlier.

>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>
>>Evolution is "woefully lacking?"  As if Creationism is based in sound
>>scientific theory!  
>There's a fallacy here along these lines: Explanation A is viewed as an 
>alternative to Explanation B, if Method A is lacking, then Method B must be 
>true.  This is a fallacy. Under the scientific method, each theory
>must explain the known facts.  When a theory fails to explain the
>known facts (or the facts contradict the theory) then the theory
>is rejected. Under this method you CANNOT defend a theory by attacking
>alternative explanations.  In short, attacking creationism does
>NOTHING to defend evolution, in any scientific sense.

True.  What I am saying there is no true scientific theory that predicts
species diversity any better.  I was saying that Creationism is not a true
scientific theory.  It takes a religious belief, that of Creation as
stated in the Bible, and explains ceratin phenomena in relation to the
creation theory, even if more plausible explanations for these phenomena
exist.

> -- [statement of experiment to determine how long it would take for ]
> -- [a squirrel to mutate into a blue whale deleted to save bandwidth]

Well, I grant you that the current theory cannot explain it.  Typically,
Creationists jump on scientific uncertainty as a sign that "Hey! Those
scientists themselves say they might not be right.  We must be right!"
Since antiquity, men have used religion to explain things they do not
understand.  Creationism is the latest chapter in the same book.
 
>I leave up to you the question of where the fossile record is for virtually
>ALL of the intermediate forms between proto-mammal and blue whale, despite a
>century of intensive search.

How about the ocean floor?  Of course with continental drift, much of the
crust gets put back into the mantle.  Of course I cannot answer it.  There
is a theory out there better than current evolutionary theory.  Creationism
is not it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: smothers@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:10:04 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University


     Of course it's a joke. Is it? I hope so.
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Senator I Knew James Polk. . .
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:35:25 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

From the National Review, August 31, 1992:
"R. M. Van Horn, in Florida Today, recalls that during a 1988 debate on Firing
Line, Wm. F. Buckley Jr. asked each candidate whose picture he would hang
in the oval office.  Gore said "That great Tennessee President, James Knox."
Since Gore is not Dan Quayle, his truncating of James Knox Polk did not make
any headlines."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:50:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.142149.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>     Clinton may not have a plan to eliminate hurricanes, but I believe
>Gore does.  In his book "Earth in the Balance," Gore (obviously) "proves"
>the existence of global warming.  The beginning of Chapter 5, entitled
>"If the Well Goes Dry," discusses how global warming causes warmer oceans.
>Then, on pg. 106, the Gospel according to Gore reads as follows:
>
>     "Warming oceans are also likely to cause the average hurricane to
>     be more powerful, scientists say, because the depth and warmth of
>     the ocean's top layer is the single most important factor in
>     determining the speed of a hurricane's winds.  More powerful and
>     more frequent storms coming into the land from the ocean would in
>     turn greatly exacerbate the damage from rising sea levels, for
>     it is during storm surges that the sea advances farthest inland
>     from the coast."
>
>I'm surprised Gore is not blaming the Bush administration for their
>lack of action regarding global warming--  if Gore were president,
>there would be no global warming, thus giving us cooler oceans,
>which would have resulted in Hurricane Andrew being "a gentle
>late summer shower."
>
>     C. Perttunen

Ha, ha, ha!  Science can be so stupid, can't it?  As if anything we
did could possibly affect the environment!

------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:04:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.131807.1836@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
[silly stuff deleted]
Your time stamp indicates you're supposed to be working, not composing
drivel.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Bennett's Speech
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:02:57 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug31.210332.6845@samba.oit.unc.edu> John.Reed@bbs.oit.unc.edu (John Reed) writes:
>I agree that Bennett's speech was a rhetorical highpoint of the convention
>(although, alas, that's not saying much).  If anyone has a copy I'd like
>it, too:   jreed.irss@mhs.unc.edu

 "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:00:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.190246.20700@burrhus.harvard.edu>, dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

|> pro-choice people obviously do not really
|> believe a fetus in the first (and maybe second) trimester really is a
|> human being

Then what species is a fetus?
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:35:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Even when evolution violates fundamental 
>naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 

Let me be one of many to publicly call your statement stupid.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: misinformation from the right
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:44:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.191240.12196@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, jpietro@calais.austin.ibm.com (Jeffrey A. Pietro) writes:

|> Does anyone remember the "Phillips Curve"?  It was a curve developed by
|> a man (economist?) named Phillips that showed Inflation (CPI) on the
|> vertical access and Unemployment on the horizontal access.  The curve
|> was basically y = 1/x [asymptotic].

	[economic theory, deleted]

Just so you know, there's been a fair bit of discussion about this lately,
and the theory is in some dispute. We have, for example, had very low
inflation for the last several years, and it hasn't done much for 
unemployement, which will probably rise slightly this fall before 
(hopefully) starting to fall in the first quarter of '93. Thus, the 
corrilation between inflation and unemployment is not quite complete.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.clinton
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:27:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.015037.21570@wri.com>
   walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.142149.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>   cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>
>>I'm surprised Gore is not blaming the Bush administration for their
>>lack of action regarding global warming--  if Gore were president,
>>there would be no global warming, thus giving us cooler oceans,
>>which would have resulted in Hurricane Andrew being "a gentle
>>late summer shower."
>>
>>     C. Perttunen

This is obviously hyperbole.

>Ha, ha, ha!  Science can be so stupid, can't it?  As if anything we
>did could possibly affect the environment!
>
>------------
>Jer.
>walsh@wri.com

This is not.

Did the Chernobyl accident affect the environment?

Does heavy metal pollution in Eastern Europe affect the environment?

Does hyrdocarbon pollution in the Los Angeles Basin affect the environment?

Did the Exxon Valdez oil spill affect the environment?

Did the Love Canal Toxic Waste dump affect the environment?

You may argue that these are short-term problems that will be fixed by
nature, but how many of these short term problems will you let accumulate
until life becomes unlivable.  I'm not advocating living in caves eating
leaves.  I'm advocating responsibility (a favorite conservative mantra).
The idea that nothing we do affects the environment is dangerous.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Conservative Chronicle Commercials
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:42:30 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>->So my problem 
>->is that I'm still not convinced that there's anything to be gained by 
>->buying columns with the express intention of shelving them even in a 2 
>->paper market. If people want to read conservative columns they can get 
>->them even in areas with *no* local newspaper. 

> Are you saying that we the people can read conservative news columns by
>purchasing the Conservative Chronicles, so therefore no shelving must be
>occuring because the shelving is a waste of money ?

    No, I really did not say that shelving is an impossibility. I suppose 
that it might occur in some 2 paper markets. All I'm saying is that I can't 
see how shelving articles fits into the long-term profitability prospects 
of a newspaper that engages in it. There aren't many businesses in which one 
can succeed by acquiring a product but not delivering it. I suppose that 
the implication is that the shelving newspaper gains some sort of advantage 
over its competitor by being able to say "Look, we're *both* mediocre! Buy
my paper instead of his!"

    Also, I have yet to see a single documented case in which it can be 
proven to have taken place. If anybody has such a case and has been holding 
out on me then shame on you. Trot out your evidence and make a believer of
me (or continue to withhold it and make me a skeptic instead).

> The problem here is that not everyone knows about the conservative chro-
>nicles. Only people who have seen the ads in National Review, American Spec-
>tator or listened on Rush Limbaugh know that an alternative source exists.

    Yeah, I can see your point. Not many conservatives in those audiences, 
eh? 

    Look, I have never said that the CC is a bad idea or that there isn't
a market for it. I *AM* saying that the "shelving" theory is not the 
only reason that an editor might decide against running a conservative 
column, and consequently I think it's a poor topic to waste air time on 
when attempting to describe what I'm sure are the many, fine, verifiable
reasons for subscribing to the CC.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:52:06 GMT

In article <19930@plains.NoDak.edu>,
   jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.141846.623@dbsun.uucp>,
>   hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>)
>)The best version of the 2nd Law I have ever heard :
>)
>)  "To get something clean, you have to get something else dirty."
>)
>)Think about it.  It is possible to get things clean, isn't it?
>)Sometimes, even by accident?
>
>Think about what you said ... think of ONE thing that gets clean without getting
>ANY other thing dirty.  I can't.

AAARRRGGGHHH!!  That's what I said!  If you get something clean, even by
accident, something else gets dirty!

Sheesh.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: verbose+@cs.cmu.edu (Jeff Barbose)
Subject: Rush/Fam.Values/Homosexuals
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:30:44 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Clinton, Quayle, and the draft (Was Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!)
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:12:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.120949.7529@afit.af.mil>
   jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>> [...]
>>How did [Dan Quayle] avoid the draft? There are certain types of National
>>Guard Units, by their very nature, which are virtually guarenteed to never
>>have to serve overseas. The unit Quayle wanted to enlist was one such unit,
>>but the young men of Indiana aren't all stupid, the waiting list in that
>>particular unit was so long, that if Quayle waited it out, he would have
>>been drafted first. What did he do? He had his family assert pressure at
>>the right places and voila! His name went to the front of the list!!
>
>I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>have on these two.  It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to 
>avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?
>
> [...]
>
>Break out of your campaign fog for a minute and look at the facts.  Do
>you think this is right?

The issue here is that Dan Quayle has well placed parents who were able to
help him, while Bill Clinton had to help himself.  Clinton had the grades
to get a Rhodes Scholarship, Quayle did not.  Clinton was able to avoid
Vietnam by himself, Quayle was not.

This is the same issue as how Quayle got into a law school that had a
2.60 GPA requirement when his was 2.16 (figures from memory).  He had a
rich, powerful family.

I'm not saying that a low GPA automatically makes him stupid, I'm saying
that he was afforded chances that ordinary people do not have, thanks
to the power of his family.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: RICKERJP@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bill Bennett's Speech
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:15:20 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21


     Greetings.  Hope this isn't a FAQ, but I haven't been able to keep
up with news the past couple weeks.  Does anyone have a transcript of
Bill Bennett's nominating speech for Dan Quayle?  I thought it was one
of the best and most substantial of the whole convention.  Please email
if possible.

     Thanks.


John Rickert                      		   Bush/Quayle '92
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu              To hell with the media
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Date: 31 Aug 92 05:47:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Aug30.214439.5435@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>Even after you receive a draft notice, you are free to do anything you
>legally can do before the induction date to keep out of serving in the
>Army. Case in point, my brother received his draft notice in 1967. But
>before his induction date came up, he had enlisted in the Naval Reserves.
>This is no different that Clinton making arrangements to be in a ROTC
>program.

At least your brother did some sort of service.  Clinton did none.

Any dictionary will likely have a definition of the word ``dodge'' like:

	To evade a responsibility or duty, esp. by deceit or trickery.

It is clear that Clinton manipulated the system to avoid serving
in Vietnam but still cynically trying to maintain his political
viability.  This is draft dodging.  I don't recall any of his
critics ever saying that what he did was illegal, just highly
uncivic and something that should disqualify a candidate for
Commander in Chief.

Maybe your brother dodged the draft to avoid going to 'Nam, too;
I don't know why he chose to sign up for the Naval Reserves
when he did.
--
Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Computer Science; U of Arizona   Voice:    +1 602 621 4089      
Tucson, AZ 85721; USA                     FAX:      +1 602 621 4246
The fact that you're paranoid doesn't prove they're *not* out to get you.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton commuted life sentences for murderers???
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:56:47 GMT
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access

In article <173qusINNn6g@agate.berkeley.edu> schubert@capri.berkeley.edu.UUCP (John Schubert) writes:
>
>I was just reading todays (Friday 21 August) Wall Street Journal.  On page
>A10 in Paul Gigot's "Potomac Watch" column I read the following direct quote:
>
>	One private GOP survey showed at least 10 issues that would
>	make voters less likely to vote for Mr. Clinton.
>
>	The biggest mover was Mr. Clinton's commutation of life
>	sentences for murderers after he vowed he wouldn't.
>
>----------end quote
>
>
>Has anyone heard about this before?  I have heard that Clinton is for the
>death penalty, but I don't know if that has anything to do with this quote...
>
>-John
>

Actually, he has been pretty steadfast in *not* commuting sentences. He has 
time and again refused to stop executions in Arkansas.  

>John Schubert
>schubert@united.berkeley.edu

Tom H.

-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:59:15 GMT

dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

>Eric Titmas, in response to one of my comments, asks how a liberal can be
>for abortion-rights but against capital punishment.  The answer to this
>question seems fairly obvious: pro-choice people obviously do not really
>believe a fetus in the first (and maybe second) trimester really is a
>human being, but they think a mass murderer IS a human being and hasn't
>sacrificed his/her humanity by committing heinous crimes.  I don't see
>why this is so inconsistent.  And Eric is right, pro-life and
>pro-executions go together OK too if you qualify the positions by saying
>pro-innocent-life, but then I question whether it is really such a
>fundamental position.  It amounts to the following: humans have no
>right to take another human life, unless the other human is really bad.
>Is this really any more fundamental than pro-choice, which equals
>pro-reproductive-choice?  Probably not.

>By the way, before Chip jumps in and starts assuming I'm revealing more
>liberal bias, I should mention that I personally am not one of the
>many who are both pro-choice and anti-capital-punishment.

Steve:  
  You are more than entitled to your own opinions.  The only place I 
object to a liberal bias is in the news.  I have no problem with a 
reporter having a different view of life and politics.  The only reason
I mentioned that your post was liberally biased was because you seemed
to be speaking as a reporter and trying to give an objective
explanation of bias in the media.  I was questioning your objectivity--
not as a person, but as a reporter.  Does that make sense?

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh