HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Keywords: Liberal law making
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 02:25:39 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>  Once again I think we need to look at the basics of CO Amend. 2.  This amend
> is a direct result of several cities passing 'Gay Protection' laws.  So, what
> does the state do?  It passes a LAW to outlaw the other laws.  Does this soun
> strange to you?  As a conservative, I am for smaller government (fewer laws o
> more substance).  So why is it that the conservatives have enacted this new
> law?  It would have been smarter to attack the liberal cities to get rid of
> the first laws.  The CO2 approach is wrong for conservatives, and it sends th
> wrong message to radical liberals ( Queer Nations ).  The way to fight radica
> liberalism is not to adopt their tactics ( more laws ), but to go after their
> silly laws as they are.
>  I know that the cities are more liberal than the state, but there must be 
> other ways for the state to put pressure on the cities ( state funds ? ).
> 
> 
> 
> 


If voting for laws that stops the process of people losing rights and 
being treated as second class citizens is "Radical Liberalism", then 
B'God, let's have more of it!  More Rights for everyone, or........?



Pope Charles    SubGenius Pope Of Houston    More Slack for everybody!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:34:56 GMT

dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?

    Well, I'm a liberal type, but I honestly think it was for the best. It 
bugs me that laws were broken and lies told and all that rot, but I don't  
see that it really serves anyone's interests for us to go on reliving the 
past. The people who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra fiasco 
were the leaders and they're on the way out. I wouldn't really get that 
much satisfaction from tormenting their underlings, and I don't mind 
watching them walk away at this point. We (liberals) have an opportunity 
to bury at least one of our hatchets and I think that we should jump at it. 
We have nothing to lose by being magnanimous and we might have a great deal 
to gain.

>  Over on
>your second favorite newsgroup, alt.fan.dan.quayle, they're pretty
>upset about it.  I don't think anyone is really surprised Bush did it,
>though.

    *I* was surprised. After all the insistence that those guys weren't 
guilty of anything it came as a surprise to me that Bush thought they 
needed pardons. I would have thought that it would have reflected better 
on Bush if they had faced charges and been vindicated, but maybe there was 
some substance there after all.

> I guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
>party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.

   Don't count on it. Remember Billy Carter?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12056 alt.rush-limbaugh:13463
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:10:54 -0600
Organization: Deep Thirteen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan8.205256.13847@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> (comments about obscene books used for sex-ed deleted)
> 
> Reading this made me wish that 'Farenheit 451' was real.

         I bet it does. I have a request for Mr. Kreuger: name one district
    that uses each of these textbooks, please. I want to make some phone
    calls.

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:57:37 GMT

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec29.191504.19413@rchland.ibm.com> 
>>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>>>> programs like WIC and foodstamps.  And the poor tend 
>>>> to be the strongest opponents of abortion.  

>>> Not according to many posts already in this group.

>>It's hard to tell your point here.  You're either claiming 
>>that you know the opinions of my pro-life friends better 
>>than I do, or you're making a generalization about 
>>millions of pro-lifers based upon a few posts in this
>>newsgroup.  Which is it?  

>It's C: He's saying that the poor do *not* tend to be the strongest opponents
>of abortion "according to many posts already in this group".  Wake up, Doug.
>(I have no idea whether he is right about that.)

Many polls have documented this.  Of course, polls are only slightly more
credible than Susan Garvin.  

>>>Jared Dahl

>>Doug Holtsinger

>-Rob

Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers - 


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:13:45 CST


In article <1993Jan5.192842.19836@dg-rtp.dg.com>, crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.183927.8268@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> >>>
> >>> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
> >>> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
> >>> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
> >>> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
> >>> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292
> >>
> >>Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
> >>own assertion.
> >>
> >>The deficit as a percentage of GNP was higher at the end of the 1980's than
> >>it was at the start of the 1980's.
> >>
> >
> >You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
> >399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The deficit for fiscal year 1992, which ended in September, was 290 billion.
> Evidently you don't have any figures at all.

The deficit for 1992 was ~$290B.  The $399B figure was from the mid-year
estimate.  Half of the difference was a ~$50B S&L bailout package that
congress refused to pass in an election year.  We'll pay for that (and more)
in the 1993 budget.

> >the year available, but I am sure that it does not reach the 14.8 trillion
> >dollars needed to mark an overall reduction in the deficit/GNP ratio in
> >the reagan/bush years

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:59:27 CST


In article <1993Jan5.232941.17860@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.151346.14536@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan5.192842.19836@dg-rtp.dg.com>, crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
> >> In article <1993Jan4.183927.8268@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

> >> >You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
> >> >399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
> >>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> The deficit for fiscal year 1992, which ended in September, was 290 billion.
> >> Evidently you don't have any figures at all.
> >
> >The deficit for 1992 was ~$290B.  The $399B figure was from the mid-year
> >estimate.  Half of the difference was a ~$50B S&L bailout package that
> >congress refused to pass in an election year.  We'll pay for that (and more)
> >in the 1993 budget.
> >
> Do you mean I made an error? wow. :)
> 
> It would seem though that someone insisting that the deficit was only
> 290 billion dollars is practicing the new math taught in schools these
> days.
> 
> Thank you for posting something a little more informative than "you're wrong,
> Nyah,Nyah!"
> 
> Anyone have any idea what the deficit really was for the past fiscal year?
> Not including various manipulations to make things look better in an
> election year, of course.

For FY 1992 (which ended Sept 30, 1992) the deficit was $290 Billion.
I think the estimate for 1993 is ~$340 Billion.
Bush just announced the budget projections for 1994 & 1995.  The
deficit will be over $300 Billion each year.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what they'll do later.
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:07:56 -0600
Organization: Deep Thirteen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <93008.54066.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> In short, Jack Kemp is *nothing* like the writer of the message to which I
> reply.  I hope you remember that in 1996.

         Well, I'll certainly rest better. I voted for Clinton, but if he
    doesn't get the job done, I may give Kemp a shot in '96. I've heard
    good things about him.

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
From: cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mistaken logic in Rush's book?
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:42:42 -0500
Distribution: alt,world
Organization: General Electric Co., Syracuse, NY

In article <DOEL.92Dec17162216@bbq.bae.bellcore.com>, doel@bae.bellcore.com 
(Michael Doel) writes:
> 
> I've been reading Rush's book the last few days.  In so doing, I think I've
> come across a pretty big logic flaw (yeah I know, there's probably lots of
> them depending on your perspective) that I'd like your comments on -
> especially if you've read the book.
> 
> He does a chapter on the animal rights movement.  His contention is that
> animals don't have any rights (which I agree with).  His reasoning is to
> appeal to the definition of a right and note that in all of the definitions,
> the person with the right must be able to assert that right.  Animals, says
> Limbaugh, are unable to assert anything without the intervention of humans
> and thus don't have any rights.
> 
> Hmm...  Methinks he didn't think very long on this one.  Clearly a
> profoundly retarted child is unable to assert their rights.  The same goes
> with a person in a coma and an unborn child.  Yet Rush clearly feels all
> these people have rights.  Like I said, I agree that animals don't have
> "rights" in the same way we do, I just think Rush made a major mistake here.
> 
> Did anyone else read this the same way?
> 

Mike raises a good point here, if you consider the issue from strictly an
individual's viewpoint.  However, we must consider the concept of a
society.  While the retarded or unborn human cannot assert their rights,
the human race can assert such rights.  We must remember that man is a
social (not socialist) creature.  No animal race has yet come forth to assert
their "rights", except for the possibility of protecting territory.

Either that, or Rush was dictating in his sleep.

Any other thoughts out there?
-- 


 "Natural laws have no pity."       |   C.J. Burke
        Lazarus Long                |   GE Aerospace 
                                    |    (soon to be Martin Marietta)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 07:52:23 PST

In <C073yL.IF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, Robert S. Parker writes:

>Something just doesn't sit right when people in poverty are having more
>children than people who are well off.  And people wonder how a country can
>end up with 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth.  It's sad.

No way.  I hate to bring up an ideological clash, but these numbers are *pure,
undiluted* 100% left-wing rhetoric.  They aren't even close.  Please cite your
source for the "1% owns 99%" figure.  And please make it a reputable (i.e.
without leftist agenda) source.

And don't nail me with right-wing stuff.  I'm not.  I'm a libertarian--not the
loony anarchist fringe that people associate with libertarianism, but just one
who feels we should all try to be a bit more responsible for ourselves before
turning to government, and that government should be a *last resort* (not
eliminated as the anarchists believe).

>Hold on.  In the case of rape, the attacker is adding a burden to society
>through hospital care and police investigation of a violent crime.  In the
>case of abortion, a burden is *removed* from society.  (or an individual,
>depending on whether you think society or the parents should be responsible)
>It is not the one doing or having the abortion, it is the child that results
>from *not* having the choice of abortion that we expect you to support.  Your
>rape analogy does not hold.

Although human life shouldn't be considered a mere burden (in my opinion), your
point is well taken.  Often staunch pro-lifers (disclaimer:  I'm a pro-lifer
*personally*, but I recognize that I have no right to stop anyone from obtain-
ing an abortion.  I married someone for whom abortion isn't an option.  That
way I can live with my conscience and not enforce my views on anyone) use the
argument that abortions encourage irresponsibility.  Well, I'd like to see one
of them look a rape victim in the eye after an abortion and tell her that she
is irresponsible.  Some of them were virgins hoping to save themselves for the
right man in marriage.  Irresponsible indeed.  Some people attack the "pro-life
except for rape and incest" crowd as hypocritical, but from the vantage point
of responsibility, it isn't.  Yes, the child is "innocent" in both cases, but
that's where the similarity ends.  Rape victims are innocent too.


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: The Way Things Ought to Be!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:36:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.103916.837@uoft02.utoledo.edu> cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu
writes:
>    Has anyone read "The Way Things Ought to Be" yet?  If so, what do you
>think about it?

     Don't give up hope early. It gets better as it goes along. I don't have 
the book in front of me, so I can't easily verify this, but I remember Chaps. 
18 thru 23 as vintage Rush at the top of his form. I thought what came before 
that section was extremely disappointing; all brag and bluster and innuendo. 
But if you can slog through it, you'll get a reward at the end.
     Happy reading!

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: WHY DOES RUSH MISPRONOUNCE NAMES?
Date: 9 Jan 1993 13:36:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ndasmith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Noah Smith) says:

>Regular listeners will notice that Rush likes to say the last names of
>Robert Reich and Mario Cuomo differently than most people are accustomed
>to.  If anybody knows why he's doing this, let me know at the above
>address.  Thanks!

      I know why he does it.  You may not have noticed this, but I have,
along with millions of *intelligent* people.  The reason Rush mispronounces
names is because he's a world-class asshole.  

      Have a nice day.  See you at the inauguration.

-- 
    "The biggest problem with reading [Usenet] is there is so much and it 
is all so interesting.  It is easy to be enamored with it.  Be selective
about which groups you read.  It could mean your job, your family, or your
college career."  --Ed Krol, _The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog_
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11946 talk.politics.misc:66737
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosely Braun
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:25:11 GMT
Keywords: Welfare, Vacation

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>	>I am from Illinois, and did not vote for Braun because she did
>	>not have the abilities to be a Senator.  She might have been a
>	>quailfied Representative, but not a Senator.  With that said, I
>	>would like to take exception to Rush's TV show last night.  He
>	>needs to tone down his attack on Braun, because it is
>	>counterproductive!  It looks like he is going after her because
>	>she is a black woman.  Don't get me wrong, she should be
>	>attacked for her actions, but he should think about how best to
>	>do so for a larger effect.  Conservatives already know she was
>	>a bad choice for the Senate, but know it is time to convince
>	>the middle ( liberals will never see their folly ).

>I agree that he hit her hard, but disagree that it's because she's
>either black or female.  CMB was just another Chicago Democratic
>political hack who saw the opportunity of a lifetime after Anita Hill
>did her comedy act in Washington.  


>No, he's not hitting her because she's black or female; he's hitting her
>because she deserves it.


I agree completely that she deserves it, and that is why attackes on Braun
need to be successful ones.  Rush's attack, although enjoyable from a 
conservative's viewpoint, was NOT productive.  She must be forced to resign,
as Packwood is facing, and this can only be done if the moderates take her 
actions to heart.  It appears that he is going after her because she is a black
woman ( to me, and I would like to get input from moderates on this ) !
I realize it is Rush's job to be an entertainer first and informer second, but
if something is going to get done he will have to tone down his attack.      

This attack is IMPORTANT, and it should not be derailed with alligations of
racism and sexism.  This weapons are too easily used in todays culture, and one
needs to be extremely careful.  I don't like the way it is, but we must work
within certain PC constraints to be effective.




Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu,  7 Jan 1993 13:39:36 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: I'm Famous!
	<22580012@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>

 tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) says:

-You fundamentalist Christian holier than thou hypocrites really make all
-other Christians sick..
 
-You are offensive to me..
 
-I have had experiences that I'm going to relate to everyone here reading 
-this to show what a facade you put up...

(story omitted)

-And now I caught you Ryan..you went for the bait. 
-You want to HIT someone...
 
-I wouldnt have even posted here until you came out from 
-behind that facade and let the rest of us see you for what 
-you really are.  A FAKE and a Hypocrite.
 
-Go save a whale you jerk.

********************
PREJUDICE:  1.a.  An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or
without knowledge or examination of facts.  b.  A preconceived
preference or idea: bias.  2.  The act or state of holding unreasonable
preconceived judgments or convictions.  3.  Irrational suspicion or
hatred of a particular group, race or religion.  4.  Detriment or injury
caused to a person by the preconceived and unfavorable conviction of
another or others.

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
From: unhealth@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kristian Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Abortion is poverty control, to some extent.
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:01:34 GMT

To whom it may concern:
	I consider myself a fiscally conservative and a 'better dead than red'
	Republican Anglo-Danish Male. But one of my only bones of content with
	Rush, is his inability to understand that abortion should be tolerated
	since it kills many more children that would likely live in ghettos,
	commit crime, and then become fourth generation welfare recipients!
	I believe the state should carry out abortions on a much larger scale
	and make the choice of life or death regardless of what the mother
	thinks. Just think about it, we could fashion the gene pool, via abort-
	ion or sterilization, to eliminate potential parasites of society.
	I think conservatives should drop the 'ban the abortion' stance, that 
	they have taken for so long, and turn it around to further the econom-
	ic well being of America. Hopefully sterilzation or abortion, will
	diminish the underclass that exists in America, by so much, that 
	this country will become great again. America really should encourage
	smart and productive members of society to reproduce in abundance, 
	while penalizing those who are nothing more than parasites! 
	I did read Rush's book cover to cover and enjoyed every chapter, except
	the abortion chapter. Rush made very good arguments about the innocence
	of the child, which is absolutely true, but isn't  a reduction in 
	crime, welfare, and countless other dollars of money spent to try and
	make these genetically disadvantaged people better, just a waste of 
	money, since it is in their genes and environment to become detrimental
	to society?
	I would appreciate to hear from my fellow 'dittoheads' out there, and
	try to make a case against economic betterment.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh