HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 20:09:57 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> In article <605TRB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Bar
> >Then  the guy that made this movie and a bunch more violence laden blood 
> >bath movies goes running around campaigning for some clowns who claim 
> >they are for family values and against the "elite" that is filling our 
> >moviehouses and TVs with violence.  Hmmmmmm.  Sumpin' a little wrong 
> >here?  Isn't Arnold one 'o' them "media elite" types that's part of the 
> >problem?
>  
>  "...the guy that made this movie...."
> 
>  You seem to know a lot about how movies are made. 
>   Asta la vista ,  baby.
> 
>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.


Well, Schwartzenwhatsisname seems to like appearing in violent movies.
Conan the Republican, exterminator, predator, a couple 'o' violent cop 
type movies.  Violence, blood 'n' gore.  His Stock in trade.  What better 
person to tout Bush and crew?  The guys that are worried about the 
Hollywood Mafia Media elite?  And now he's getting into the directing end 
of it too.  He is part of the MEDIA ELITE!  Good ol' Arnie.  He knows a 
good ol violent blood 'n' gore shoot 'em up is what America pays tickets 
for!  That's why he accepts those sort of parts!  And that's why he has 
made so many bucks off of blood 'n' gore.  You don't see the irony?
You don't see the hypocracy?  You don't see.  
  Ah well.  Back to Alt.fan.Jada-The-Rush with ya.


Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston     Save America, Dump Bush!


--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:27:35 GMT

That statement has no bearing--I'm trying to be serious about this.
The unborn child is clearly aware of its surroundings.


Simon


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5985 talk.abortion:38814
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:57:36 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Distribution: usa
 <tv9n!t-.bskendig@netcom.com>
 <1992Sep24.201833.26324@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
 <1992Sep28.022043.6011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

In article <1992Sep28.022043.6011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) says:

>>Certainly Brian, I look to the scientific experts and follow their
>>opinion on this subject.  While it is by no means a consensus, a
>>large majority of embryologists agree that human life begins at
>>conception.

>Human life began millions, possibly billions of years ago.  Please subscribe
>to the newsgroup talk.origins for more details.

I don't understand why that question always gets this answer.  I understand
the point, but why not answer the -intended- question?  Is this just another
semantics argument, or what?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:43:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep28.233047.21402@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <exuptr.709.717642845@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>
>>>Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
>>>debt from getting bigger.
>
>>   This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
>>   so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
>>   the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
>>   means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
>>   those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.
>
>I agree with you a lot, Peter, but you goofed on this one.  What we're
>paying now is only *interest*, not principal.  The debt doesn't go down
>until we have a budget *surplus.*


  You're overlooking the original premise, a few postings back:  I'm
  describing a situation where you've already got a balanced budget
  and you're not taking on any new debt.  As Treasuries are retired
  the national debt would gradually go down.


---peter

  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:08:47 GMT


Come on, no need for sarcasm-I ws trying to keep this civilized.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa,na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:32:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.173720.7038@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <BvAH1r.MwC.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>>
>>Oh, Please.  The clearly stated primary objective of Desert Storm
>>was to liberate Kuwait. 
>
>How refreshing.  Someone who actually believes what we say.   Of course,
>as far as we know,  we were probably seliling guns (and giving away bibles and 
>chocolate cakes) to Iraq during the war.  The Reagan/Bush administration
>seldom actually means what it says;

How boring.  Someone making posts filled with a bunch of allusions 
to marginally connected events (at best) yet utterly devoid of any 
factual content.  Yawn...NEXT!

-anwar



-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS)
Subject: What is a conservative
Originator: mhmulli@c00446-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:27:17 GMT


  Believe it or not I get tired of seeing Rush, Bush,
 and Buchanon all being called conservatives.
 Bush as we all know is not a conservative by any stretch of means
 and generally gives us a bad name.

 Rush is a Northern industrial conservative, while Buchanon is 
 a Southern agrarian conservative. They are not the same.
 An agrarian will have more enviornmental concern than an industrialist.
 An agrarian does not equate population increase as positive growth.
 An agrarian is more interested in increasing farm productivity than industry.
 A Southern conservative is much more against central government
  than a northern one.
 A southern conservative is more isolationist than a northern one.

  Please try not to lump these men into one category.

    Martin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:26:39 GMT

In article <1063@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>The same thinking applies to the Democrats who support abortion on demand

	But is abortion on command OK?

	Like they have in China.

	I've seen some opponents of abortion state that they would
gladly have fetuses with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality
aborted. So if you're gay, you don't have much right-to-life in their
book :-(

>and government funding of abortion.  On this issue the Democratic party is

	Why is government supposed to be a great evil? Are you an
anarchist or something?

>also a fringe group.

	Compared to what?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:46:31 CDT

In article <qojojm8@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) 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.

Though this is besides the point, Birch Bayh was vulnerable for more reasons
than money being pumped into a campaign.  Old Birch was responsible for
passing bills which were very unpopular throughout Indiana, and were thought
to have cost Indiana 1000's of jobs.  Of course, part of it was a sign of
the times too, as the whole midwest was in a bad recession.  But who better
to blame in a predominantly Republican state than a fairly liberal
democrat.

Bayh got elected the same way his son got elected governor.  He was a good
speaker with a good academic background, who said things which impressed
the average Hoosier.  Indiana had a fairly large union population, so that
certainly doesn't hurt a Democrat.  Unfortunately for him, Birch ticked off
everybody but the union members, so he got in trouble.  To blame it on
Republican money is ridiculous.  Of course more media exposure helps a
challenger against an incumbant.  Otherwise people wouldn't have reason to
make a change, so they'd say "He hasn't screwed up yet, so let's keep him".
Hell, I don't think it makes a rat's ass difference who gets elected in
most cases, because it really doesn't affect the average Joe's life.
-- 

Brian E. Saunders			saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:36:04 GMT


What is interesting is what happens when someone equates abortion
to child mureder-they say "It's not a child..."    It isn't??

Sometimes when someone makes absurd comments, someone else comes up
with an equally abusrd repsonse to the original absurdity.


Simon

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6112 alt.politics.bush:7048 alt.politics.clinton:7640 alt.politics.elections:14549 talk.politics.misc:48403 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4691
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:43:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.

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.

We fail to remember that if Bill Clinton stood up for his principles as
adamantly as the proponents of Gov. Clinton claim he does, then why did
he say that he would vote in favor of military conflict in the Persian
Gulf but that he agreed in principle with the minority (Democrats).
Do you remember "I guess I would have voted with the majority if
it was a close vote.  But I agree with the arguments the minority
made." He later changed "agree" to "understood" when asked about this
again.

Sorry, although everyone of the Clinton advocates agree that Clinton
would be less prone to pulling the trigger, I think that is what will
weaken this country when it comes to any future military confrontation.
You don't need a leader who will waffle if you want to put pressure on
an adversary. Agreed, you have to be sensible, but you also have to make
the opponent stand down and take your threats to resist the aggressor's
plans completely seriously.

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.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:28:00 GMT

In article <92275.221953KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>The Terminator was a robot whose only purpose in 'life' was to kill stuff
>and be a general a--hole.  Again, not presented as a role model for the kids,
>not presented as a positive character with positive attributes.

	Never saw Terminator II, huh.

	Check out rec.motorcycle.harley somethime, and count how many postings
start with "What kind of bike did arni ride in T-II, and how do I get one?".
I'm sure that they have no interest in dressing head to toe in black leather
and sunglasses, right?

Schwartzenegger, Steven Segal, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris - these guys
are heros because the can kick the shit out of the bad guys. It's about
macho violence, strong men defending their families and stomping evil
without the burden of a bunch of liberal political restrictions. Role
models? You bet.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:47:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <5729@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 	I think I must modify my comments slightly. It seems to me
@ that Rush Limbaugh is the sort of misogynist who objects to seriously
@ assertive women, though not to submissive or passive or servile or
@ objectified ones....

>Again, I think your conceptions aren't quite correct. (And I mean it
>politely.) I don't think he objects to "feminism" as he is to the
>"militant feminist leadership" whose agenda seems to be nothing more
>than creating tension (or a war) between the sexes.

	No worse that a lot of traditionalist stereotyping. Have you
ever heard of the "battle of the sexes"?

At least according
>to the images seen publicly, e.g., at the DNC, the feminists shown there
>were espousing lesbian rights, RU486, and abortion rights. I don't think
>this is the agenda for most American women out there for whom the NOW
>claims to be advocating.

	I don't think I've ever heard of the "abortion just for the
hell of it" position among the mainstream of feminists; but I think
that a lot of women feel that having abortion unavailable deprives
them of an important way of controlling their destiny.

	The pro-choice position on abortion is, in fact, an
individual-rights position, and I would have expected someone who
professes belief in individual rights to support it.

	I note that here in Calfornia, Bruce Herschensohn is
downplaying his opposition to abortion and John Seymour is professing
to be pro-choice. So rejection of abortion rights is not always a
political winner. Their opponents both profess to be pro-choice.

	I think that this discussion is best taken to talk.abortion.

	As to lesbian rights, that may or may not be a high priority
for many heterosexual women, but I think that homosexual people
certainly deserve the same privileges as heterosexual people; they
don't deserve the sort of abuse that they all-too-frequently suffer.
After all, we don't pick on Jews for not believing in Jesus Christ or
even stating in their Talmud that his father was a Roman soldier.

We even have a feminist "expert" claim that ALL
>sex is rape, including sex in marital context;...

	A position that other feminists disagree with. I've seen
serious feminist criticisms of the Dworkinite position on
heterosexuality. Read Betty Friedan or Susie Bright sometime.

>I think Rush points out the inconsistencies of this "leadership"...

	Has RL _ever_ stated what he considers OK about _anything_
that has _ever_ been labeled "feminism"? I'm not aware of him _ever_
doing any such thing, so your apologia is irrelevant.

/Loren
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5969 alt.politics.bush:6857 alt.politics.clinton:7409 alt.news-media:1424 alt.politics.elections:14383 talk.politics.misc:48116
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
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 19:30:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>StarOwl writes:

>Do you support abortion or the "right" to choose abortion? Are you one
>who wishes to promote abortion? Ironically, it seems that some people
>(like Slick Willie) seem to be saying that "I support the right of a
>woman to make a wrong choice!" 8)

Don't think you're so clever.  The point of the pro-choice stance is
not to decide which choice is right or wrong universally.  If I say that
I personally do not condone abortion, but I support the right to choose,
that does not mean that I support the right of others to make the "wrong"
choice.  It does not mean that I have decided that the choice is universally
wrong.  It means that I have decided that the choice of abortion is
wrong *FOR ME*, and I support a woman's right to decide what is right
and wrong for her, just as I was free to make that decision for myself.

>Minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, get more abortions than
>the general population, according to statistics. Therefore, one can
>(and I've heard one pro-life black activist -- they do exist -- make
>it) make the point that what exists is a government-condoned genocide
>of minority infants, to prevent them from increasing their role and
>power in society. I personally don't agree with this argument, but it
>strangely makes sense! Hmmm...

It makes no sense.  There is no governing body that dictates who has
abortions and who doesn't.  These women make this choice for themselves.
It may be a choice of preference or circumstance, but THEY make it. 
The government does not. The government allows them to make it.  To
say that the government is allowing minority women to abort in order
to keep them at bay is ridiculous.  We are not children.  We do not
do things simply because we are allowed to and refrain from doing things
simply because we are not allowed to.  

>And did you see the latest CNN-USA Today poll? 51% of Americans are for
>legalized abortion, 45% oppose legalized abortion. Despite what Kate
>Michaelman says, I see NO consensus here.

Which is why it should be a matter of personal choice, and the government
should stay out of it.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6148 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6041
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:56:46 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Sep29.195418.3368@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
|> 	I would be surprised to see anything else, after looking at the 
|> GOP list which had:
|> 
|> 	44) Raised the tax on beer (< 6%)
|> 	45) Raised the tax on beer (> 6%)
|> 	46) Raised the tax on wine
|> 	47) raised the tax on hard liquor
|> 	etc.
|> 
|> 	I hope the new list gets the same amount of publicity as the old one 
|> 
|> -- 
|>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services

I haven't read the article or seen the list, but using the methods for listing
the tariffs on the same product from different sources, I think we could
seriously extend Clinton's list, as follows:

	44) Raised the tax on beer from Budweiser
	45) Raised the tax on beer from Miller
	46) Raised the tax on beer from Michelob
	47) Raised the tax on beer from Coors
	48) Raised the tax on beer from Heineken
	49) Raised the tax on beer from Old Milwaukee
	50) Raised the tax on beer from Molson
	etc.
	etc.
	etc.

:) :) :) :) :)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:39:27 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio

In article <5822@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:

>Tom Selleck on Arsenio talked about the difference between liberals and
>conservatives (Selleck being one). I don't have the exact quote, but it
>went something like this:

Arsenio let a conservative make a political statement on his show?
Stop the presses! :-)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:49:57 GMT


In article <Bv66ys.DJG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>
>: Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
>
>Man with a conscience, maybe?
>

A "man with a conscience" who has, to date, stood by a letter in which
he claims he subjected himself to the lottery only to preserve his political
viability.  It seems that whenever you start talking about politics,
Clinton's principles head south.

-anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6235 alt.politics.bush:7229 alt.politics.clinton:7854 alt.politics.elections:14689 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6096 talk.politics.misc:48667