HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:36:29 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Term Limitations (was Re:
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <3571.577.uupcb@meaddata.com> todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus)  writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>
>NE.cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>  .>larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>  .>> [term limits good]
>
>NE.>[term limits bad]
>
>NE.    [industry may not honor agreements made for special treatment]
>NE.    [term limits would somehow make congresscritters work]
>
>The basic premise behind limited terms is the fact that you essentially
>eliminate the "fat cats", a role that takes several years to acquire.
>It is not likely that industry would be heavily vying for those
>individuals with only 4-8 years in Congress.  I like this idea because

Industry is not about to give up influencing congress, agreed?

With term limits, there will be NO "fat cats".  Thus industry is far more
likely to groom candidates for office and hire them back once their term 
is over.  It'll be a new career path (1/2 :-).

>it is more likely to successfully get the individual who is dedicated to
>the idea of truly 'working for the people', take a long sabatical from
>his former role (teacher, lawyer, doctor, professor, etc.), and return
>to it when the limited term is over.  That appeals to me.  Will it

Getting elected at takes lots of money.  Do you have that kind of cash?
I don't.  I doubt most do.  You've either gotta be Perot or have some
backing in industry.  On what basis do you make the claim that a more
altruistic person is going to get involved?

>always work that way?  Of course not.  But the chance for a single
>individual to build up the kind of power and contacts that these 30 year
>veterans do is a lot less likely.  Maybe we can get some of their

No, they'll build the contacts first, then get elected.

>attention on relevant issues instead of on their own agendas.

Granted, much of their agenda is getting reelected.  What makes you think
the short terms will focus congresscritters on what YOU think is important?
And what's wrong with that agenda?  Right now, you have the opportunity
to throw the jerks out and keep the good ones.  Under the term limit
proposal, where's the incentive to pay any attention at all to the people
who elected them?  I want someone in there who's going to listen to me.
Term limits virtually ensure the opposite.  At least I have *some* recourse
if they don't listen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
                   ---J. Danforth Quayle
                "Western Civilization is addictive and dysfunctional."
                   --- Albert Gore
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:48:51 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug20.151015.11035@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
->Choice 3 would turn into a free for all.  No compromise possible.  And
->once the choice is made, there is no recourse, other than a another
->constitutional amendment.  The simple fact is that the religion with
->the most members would be able to impose their dogma onto everyone else.
->Period.  Again, this is the tyranny of the majority.  The worst choice
->of all.

 Thanks for getting me up to speed on this one. 
 I dont think we can assume what will happen if choice three is selected. We
dont even know what the results of the voting would be. The type of question
may be most important. Do you think life starts at birth or at conception or
somewhere in between the two ? 
Who would have thought that choice 1 would lead to our current mess.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Lots of new millionairs
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:22:01 GMT

In article <Bt1Iro.4zG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <mykes.0cb4@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>IMO, too much emphasis is placed on the fact that the number of millionairs
>>increased from 4,000-6000 to 64,000 during the 80's.  I can come up with
>>ONE blatant and obvious way that a significant number of them became millionairs.
>>And you can't blame it on Reaganomics or the S&L crooks or anything like that :)
>>
>>Consider the state lotteries...  If 10 states gave away $1,000,000 per week for
>>10 years, the lottery would have made 5,200 new millionairs.  Here in California,
>>there are several weekly lotteries that can make a person a millionaire.  And
>>often, there are big prize lotteries that have multiple winners (share millions).
>>
>>Could it be that as many as 1/4 of those new millionairs are lotto winners? :)
>
>Now why didn't I think of that?  This is actually an interesting and
>apparently valid explanation for a good proportion of the new
>millionaires.  I don't think that I've ever heard this before.  
>
>Thanks
>
>Tim


There's a couple of problems with this argument. First of all, almost no 
lottery winners are paid off in a lump sum amount. Usually, they are spread
out over several (>10) years, thus making their income quite a bit lower.
Also, there is the rather punitive tax that is placed on winnings. The amount
can range anywhere from 25% to 40%. Take a $1million winning ticket, take
25% off the top (leaving 750K), now spread over 10 years' time (75K/year).
Suddenly that amount of winnings doesn't look as high. 
 
Nice try, though. :)


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.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Liberal press...   yeah, sure
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:17:24 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

The sources for these comments are:

I listen to KNST, KLPX, and rarely KFLT.    
I read NYT, Arizona Daily Star.
I watch Mac Niel Lehrer News Hour, ABC News, Nightline.

In the last week I have been seriously interested in the accusation that the
press is so very liberal.  Hey, I'm a scientist, right?   So I've been watching
the news.  Over the last weeks I seen the following things;

Bush announced NAFTA  Page 1
Clinton campaign news  Page 6

Bush says "Matalin has apologized, and we won't be running a dirty campaign"
Page 1
Matalin says "I want to rip off CLinton's face"  and "I've never apologized"
Page 4

Bush on Bosnia - 15 seconds air time
Clinto agrees - 8 seconds

Bush is asked about his own Bimbo Eruptions - page 6
(By the way, I notice that Bush refused to confirm or deny... what was the
phrase somebody used?  Very slick indeeed...)
Quayle denounces sleezy media - page 1

Barbara Bush says she is pro choice - abortion should not be part of the
republican ticket,   Page 4
Kemp lambasts Bush , Page 8

etc...


After a week of keeping informal tabs,  I have come to conclusion that
at least locally the press is fairly biased...   and fairly conservative.
So the constant hue and cry about "Liberal press" does not hold water in
Tucson, Az.  (on the other hand, there isn't a lot of water to hold in
Tucson, Az.)

(The Arizona Daily Star is a Gannett newspaper, by the way.)
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:45:56 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug18.201801.26020@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <1812@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.230209.6397@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

->>through a vote decide that life begins at conception, then government will
->>have no arbitrary point of reference to make. We could also just assume

->If we the people decide through a vote that all people over 85 should be
->shot, would you be satisfied?  Or, closer to home, suppose We The People
->decide life begins at birth.  Happy now?  I didn't think so.  You're
->swinging a double edged sword there, and it's razor sharp on both sides.

 Lets take a vote and find out what the people think. Who could possibly be
harmed by just taking a vote as a basis for research. I have faith in the
people of this country. You dont seem to have it. Without feedback from
the people, this country wont evolve and will remain static.
 You have made a good case for abolishment of statism. Which I might agree
with. My initial points were based on this country still being slightly
statist. 

->No thanks, no pure democracies for me.  With your "vote", all you've
->accomplished is to show that the majority favor an arbitrary position.
->It's still arbitrary.  We need desperately to be objective here.  That's
->why any decision should be based on science.  It's the most objective
->thing we've got.  It's also changeable as our understanding grows.

 I thought that Science had determined that life begins when the total dna 
"message of self" was formed. Am I wrong here ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine slone.
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opportunity for DITTOHEAD flameage
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:16:02 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug10.202949.2635@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
 
>A guy called in today and questioned him about his lies and non-truths.
>He really laid it in there about the EIB BUILDING too.  BTW, there is no
>EIB BUILDING!  This guy cut Limbaugh to shreds and it left him virtually
>speechless. Of course, Limbaugh gave him 30 seconds to the break and then
>cut him off.

Actually, I've never heard Rush talk about an EIB building, I only hear him
speak of the Institute.  Of course, whether he said it or not is irrelevant.
What matters is that, as entertainment, Rush has obviously MADE UP the EIB 
stuff for fun.  He bitched because Rush's claims to a ridiculous number
of new listeners every minute turned out to be outrageous.

Personaly, I think Rush took the wrong tack with this guy.  He took him
seriously, but he should have made fun of him for obsessing over trivialities.

PS.  Mitch, notice I didn't call the caller stupid? :)


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Subject: Re: George & Jennifer
Summary: Let's be a little more careful here, on both sides... 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:04:00 GMT

Super-User (why no real name?), you posted a reply to a contributor here who
sees a connection between a candidate's trustworthiness as a husband & his
trustworthiness as a candidate. You said: 

>	Am I to understand that you think that Bush is an unreliable president
>because he was screwing Jeniffer Fitzgerald? Or are you willing to ignore (or
>deny) the incidents for the sake of the party?

Let me say first that I am not especially interested in this issue, in regard
to either candidate. There are in my view far better reasons NOT to vote for
Governor Clinton. I thus reject the connection between a man's conduct toward
his wife and his conduct toward the country, and I would argue that such a
standard of consistency has almost never in the history of the west been
regarded as necessary or even reasonable. 

I would like to point out however that the story that Bush was "screwing"
Jeniffer Fitzgerald, as you put it so genteelly, has no basis. There is no
incident to ignore or deny. That even the New York Times has now stooped to
rumor-mongering does not lend any more credibility to these stories.

I would add another point here that I haven't seen made in the silliness
broadcast on this non-issue. If a man--the president--cannot permit himself to
be seen alone in the company of a woman not his wife without arousing suspicion
of adultery, then indeed we have not moved forward socially, but backward. I
recommend that anybody seriously interested in this subject take a look at the
relevant chapters in Richard Ben Cramer's book "What It Takes," where he
narrates he Gary Hart/Donna Rice press fiasco. Gary certainly compromised
himself and his credibility much more deeply and publicly than George Bush ever
has. Yet it was never proved by the press that Hart committed adultery with
her, and neither she nor Sen. Hart ever admitted having had sex: on the
contrary, both denied it.                        

This sort of garbage is not pretty regardless of which side is throwing it. I
trust that President Bush will not make an issue of Gov. Clinton's infidelity,
and I hope the press can find better things to amuse itself with, as well.

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 23:07:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <nate.493@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>Sometimes he makes crude analogies, such as
>>the one about the English immigrants and the Zulu,
>
>    I wouldn't have thought that the British domination of the Zulus 
>was a very good analogy for our modern culture "war";

[other irrelevancies deleted]

Huh?  Buchanan's statement had nothing to do with the British
Empire's suppresion of the Zulu uprising.

He simply said that an immigrant from Great Britain would be
more easily assimilated into the culture of the United States
than would an immigrant from kwaZulu.

He might have used any one of a thousand or more other cultures
with which we have less in common than we do with Great Britian.

Does anyone actually dispute the truth of what Buchanan actually said
(as opposed to the unjustified racist spin that all the usual people
seem determined to try and stick to it.)

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: EIB building vs Lake Wobegone
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:10:29 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    Sometimes the truth isn't particularly interesting or amusing, but it 
>>would be if only a few facts were changed. I'd say that in that respect, 
>>what Rush does and what Garrison does aren't all that much different.

> Is what Garrison doing different then what the Fourth Estate has been doing.

    Not so much really. Garrison commented on that fact when he addressed 
the National Press Club just after the Chernobyl business (in which the 
press reports were particularly exaggerated and inaccurate). Someone asked 
him if the things and people he talks about are based on real things that 
had happened to him, and he replied that he always started with the truth, 
but that the truth could only take him so far. In that respect, he said, 
what he did wasn't that much different that what most of the people in that 
room did. It was priceless. I was listening on the radio but it sounded 
like he got a standing-O; it was the slam of all slams and yet they ate it 
up.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: the Keating 5
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politic

  .ics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
  .Subject: Re: the Keating 5
  .Message-ID: <mykes.0ceb@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
  .Date: 13 Aug 92 16:22:20 PST

MS.In article <1992Aug13.162811.12863@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex
  .Crain) writes:
  .> In article <mykes.0ca9@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Sch
  .tz) writes:
  .>
  .> >Remember the Keating 5?  Where's all the unbiased news coverage of those
  .> >guys?  Note - they are still in office.  S&L, my butt :)
  .>
MS.To my knowledge, Cranston is leaving.  There are two republican men running
  .against 2 democratic women for the Senate seats.  Cranston is leaving because
  .of health and not the Keating scandal.  Where's the special prosecutor when
  .you need one?  Hmm? :)  I bet John Glenn is reelected - anyone from Ohio
  .want to comment?

This is Ohio.  I suspect you're right.  Sigh....  I guess Ohio can't
find anyone rich enough to afford to get on the ballot who is also
interesting enough for us to get excited.  heheheh

MS."Vote for me because I am a woman" is not a compelling reason to vote, IMO.
  .en
  .good ideas and programs, I could care less about gender.

Good ideas and programs, yes.  And focus, and carry through with the
campaign promises.  How about just plain integrity?  I know!  I know!
That word and politicians is a contradiction, but I can wish, can't I?

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
                                                                                                                
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: root@engr3.umbc.edu (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:50:45 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <BsztE6.F59@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:

>                          >Rush didn't offer any of the proof that you
>>want from me, but you'll follow him without question. It must be true,
>>because Rush said it!
>
>	Ah yes, because I am critiquing your argument, it necessarily follows
>that I agree with everything Rush says, and that I "follow him without 
>question".  A non sequitur if I ever saw one.

	Well, you certainly did in this case (follow rush without
question).  This is not an ad hominem attack, its a false
generalization. Your own logic, where you imply that Rush is right
because I have offered insufficient proof, is yet another logical
fallicy who's name escapes me.

If you don't like the dittohead label, then don't act like a
dittohead, but don't blame me for quantifying your behavior - even if
I'm wrong, you still did it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Is Rush just a teenie bit inconsistent ???
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:58:35 GMT

While reading article <1992Aug19.070442.5412@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, I noticed that
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) said the following:
 >Gosh,  Rush complained that those gosh darned liberals, feminazis, and
 >animal rights wackos just can't take a joke.   
 >
 >Then, about 5 minutes later, he complained how unfair it was that the
 >liberal press makes jokes about Dan Quayle (aka Mr. Potatoe Heade).
 >
 >Stop sitting on half of your brain, Rush, and then make up your whole mind... 
 >is it okay to make jokes, or not?    Or is it only okay to make jokes
 >about liberals, and not about conservative sacrede cowes?

Well, for one thing he doesn't run around saying that the person making the
Quayle joke should be fired (or is a hate-monger, or insentive, etc.)

There's also a slight difference between Rush making a joke that the liberals
get upset over and the press _as a whole_ jumping on Quayle for the 74,000th
time.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:11:07 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1829@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <4279.577.uupcb@meaddata.com> todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) writes:
>
>->DC.You make my point.  Read what you posted - it roughly translates to:
>->  ."We know what's best for you.  You can't be trusted to make an informed
>->  .decision yourself.  Therefore, by LAW, you must jump through these n
>->  .hoops before your decision is deemed acceptable to us."  Isn't this
>->  .the precise thing that Rush Limbaugh harps upon the democrats for?
>->  .This sort of thing does not promote people thinking for themselves and
>->  .taking responsibility for their actions.  It is social engineering, pure
>->  .and simple, a thinly disguised attempt by the anti-choice faction to
>->  .encroach on people's personal decisions.  And it stinks.
>
>Some Conservatives feel that by allowing unrestricted abortion, you are giving
>Big Government massive control. Since most conservatives think that the unborn
>child is a living child, the government is allowing and funding the murder of
>living humans within our own society. Thats the main issue with conservatives.
>Its not the simplistic choice debate.
>If you want to find a solution for the problem, you need to understand every-
>ones total perspective.
>
> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Uhm, excuse me Steve, but I thought we were *not* debating abortion here.
Isn't that what you wanted?

Since you brought it up, though :-)  I agree with your last statement.
It does, however, apply to BOTH sides of the issue, does it not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh