HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:58:47 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <C1AB5y.MMG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>Mr. Margolis, please answer this hypothetical question for me:

>Can I play?

>>Mr. Idiot and Ms. Irresponsible are walking through a park and see a
>>strange, big red button on a tree.  On a sign next to this button can be read
>>the following:

>>  "Attention: Pressing this button will result in brief, but exquisite,
>>   pleasure for a man and a woman together.
>>
>>   Warning: Pressing this button ALSO has a 1% chance of teleporting
>>   Bill Clinton into the woman's womb, where he will stay for 9 months.
>>   After 9 months, he will then leave her womb, with an additional
>>   .1% chance of causing her death in doing so."
>>
>>Mr. Idiot and Ms. Irresponsible were educated before the liberals took
>>over our education system, and can therefore read.  They READ this sign,
>>and choose to press the button.  Bill Clinton is knocked out (read: is
>>no longer sentient), shrunk down, and implanted in Ms. Irresponsible's
>>womb.  Has Bill Clinton violated anyone's rights?  

>Is Bill Clinton going to grow?  Is Bill Clinton going to use any of Ms.
>Irresponsible's functioning bodily systems?  Is Bill Clinton going to
>shut down any of Ms. Irresponsible's functioning bodily systems?

>The answer is yes.

>Adrienne Regard


You have GOT to be kidding me.  Ms. Irresponsible PUT Bill Clinton
there.  Now she can kill him?  If you really believe this you are
sick in the head.



E.S.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:46 GMT

From article <93022.001903KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>:
> 
> I think (as one of Rush's callers theorized) that Clinton -knew- that Baird
> would not get confirmed.  He wanted to make a pretense of wanting some
> conservatism in the cabinet, so people wouldn't think he was a liberal.  He
> never intended for someone like Zoe Baird to be attorney general.  He just
> wants you to think he did.  Ingenious little ploy of his.

	Hmmm, in a single paragraph, you went from a rush-droid's speculation
of a Clinton tactic to assuming it's fact.  This certainly adds credibility
to the anti-Clinton side.  Is it even remotely possible that Clinton truly
wanted Baird as AG?  Nah!  There's got to some conspiracy to fool the public
here.

terry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: control
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 22:28:19 GMT

In article <C1BKtH.Bw1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:


>>Lets see. Your facts are impossible, your statistical odds are bogus,
>>your premise is idiotic, and you completely ignore all the many other
>>adverse effects possible from pregnancy short of death.
>>And yes, in your little fantasy, she would still have the rigth to
>>abort.
>>Guess this is more of your claim that the life of the fetus is the
>>*only* concern you have, you woman hater you.
>
>At least you show consistancy.  I don't think that Slick Willie would
>agree with you, however.
>
Given that (unlike you) President Clinton lives in the real world, I
doubt he would be terribly concerned about the little fantasy you
dreamed up.

>Yes, the life of the unborn is my *primary* concern until abortions are
>no longer performed.  
>
And damn the consequences to all those evil women who did such a
criminally insane thing as have sex, eh 'vengeance'?
Have you always hated women, or is this just something that's come on
since you entered puberty, and started being told 'no' all the time?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re:  Rush Military Record
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:53:48 GMT

My brother was curious: just what *is* Rush's military record?  

Please post, as I do not read my e-mail often.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:40:17 GMT

Lulu of the lotus-eaters (quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu) wrote:
: >: We all know that heterosexual marriages are heavily subsidized on the
: >: federal level.  Would a married couple pay less taxes than if the two
: >: individuals were to file singly?  Almost always.  Is it possible for
: >
: >Sorry, but in the 5 years of our marriage, my wife and I have paid an averag
e
: >of $1000 per yr more than we would have if we were living together and filin
g
: >separatly.
:
: Tax details will differ from household to household, but I'm pretty
: sure that married couples always have the *option* of filing
: seperately.  They may not always pay *less* taxes than gay-couples,
: single people, etc., but they shouldn't *ever* have to pay *more*.
: This seems to be an overall subsidy of heterosexual monogomy (or at
: least of its pretense) by the government, even if not in every
: instance.  Perhaps you should consult your accountant about filing
: seperately this year, if what you say is true.

Regardless of whether we file separate or joint returns, we have to use one of 
the "Married" columns and the tax rate in this column is higher than the 
"Single" column (see any IRS 1040 book for confirmation).



: --
:     _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_
/
:    _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/

:   _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
:  _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
-- 
Mike McAngus                     | Parenthood is too important a responsibility
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org             | to force on anyone.
The Truth is still the Truth     |
Even if you choose to ignore it. |   Sarah Weddington (the above is from memory)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of Legal Personality
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:38:51 GMT

"david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com> writes:
] 
] TF>"Legal personality in the womb" is neither equivalent to nor does it
]   >inextricably lead to "abortion is always illegal."
] 
] So you agree that there is such a thing as legal personality in the 
] womb. If that is the case, that legal personality is protected by 
] whatever rights he or she would have outside the womb and so neither 
] you, nor the mother, nor anyone else has a right to deprive it of life 
] without due process of law.

Minor Point here: but corporations are legal persons,
does this mean that "Corporate Raiders" are actually
LIABLE FOR MURDER when they gut and run?

Just wanted to see how we are going to handle
the matter of dealing with 'legal person.'


ciao
drieux

ps: HUM... might be an improvement to kapitalism....



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13923 talk.abortion:58102
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:00:08 GMT

In <JOHNCH.93Jan21172136@test22.sun.com> johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.175019.6382@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>   In article <C0LvJr.KM7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

>   To us (if I may be so bold as to speak for such a large group) it
>   means supporting the idea that people do what is best for them.
>   Now I admit that it is hard to figure out what is best for people,
>   but LOVE does not mean supporting people doing whatever they want.

>It also doesn't mean trying to be everyone's parents.  I have all I
>need, thanks.  And you *can* support a person without agreeing that
>what they do is advisable.

Isn't that what parents do?

--
Yosha Bourgea                  "I think Rodney King said it best when he said,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     `Ow!  Ow!  Ow!'"
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?               --Denis Leary

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: amck@.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Theme Music FAQ
Originator: amck@rowdy.mcc.com
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:53:23 GMT


Why does Rush use The Pretenders (?) song "Ohio" as his theme music?

Just wondering.


-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grife@ils.unc.edu (Eric C. Griffith)
Subject: rush videos
Keywords: rush videos
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:25:01 GMT

As regular listeners to RL may know, Rush sells some videotapes of his 
"Rush to Excellence" concert performances.  I believe that three of
these tape exist so far.  Does anyone out there have these videos, and
if so, could you give any recommendations to someone interested in 
buying just one (i.e. the best one) of these tapes?

Many thanks,
Eric Griffith
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:55:38 GMT

In article <44036@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
>In article <C16JxL.Dvx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>> 
>>    Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
>> history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
>> (law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
>> to me.
>
>
>At least he knows what a bar-code reader at a grocery store is all about..

Ah, you must be referring to the famous encounter that Bush had with a 
bar-code scanner; sorry to shoot down your fantasy, bunky, but this
never happened, at least not as it was widely reported. The facts are
simple:

1) Bush was looking at a new type of scanner that was not only more 
accurate than current ones but which had a voice mode. The company
which made it was proud of their advance and Bush very politely 
expressed his amazement at their achievement. 

2) The NY Times, which originally reported the "Bush out of touch because
he doesn't know what a scanner is" story, used as their source a  White
House press pool report. They were the only ones who came up with this 
unique spin on things, and the rest of the media then used the Times
as their source. 

It looks as this story has already entered urban legend land and will
remain there forever. Can you say "media bias"? Personally, I'm still
waiting for someone to point out Clinton's gaffe in claiming that neither
Lincoln nor Reagan served in the military. 
-- 
John Switzer             | 1/21/93 - Clinton fails to follow through on promise
                         | to have economic legislation ready the day after the
Compuserve: 74076,1250   | Inauguration. Programmers rejoice because he gives 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com | them an excuse to further slip their schedules.
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Haiti -- Love this man's .sig file!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:25:09 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <8898@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> =++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> ="The Bush policy 'is another sad example of the administration's callous
|> =response to a terrible human tragedy...If I were president, I would -
|> =in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that they weren't 
|> =political refugees - give them temporary asylum until we restored 
|> =the elected government of Haiti"
|> =	------------Clinton's written policy statement, May 27, 1992
|> =
|> ="For Haitians who do seek to leave Haiti, boat departure is a terrible
|> =and dangerous choice...For this reason, the practice of returning
|> =those who fled Haiti by boat will continue, for the time being, after 
|> =I become president.  Those who do leave Haiti...by boat will be
|> =stopped and directly returned by the United States Coast Guard.
|> =        -------------Clinton's radio address to Haitian people 1/14/93
|> =++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Bill Clinton is so concerned for their safety, why doesn't he just charter
a couple of Coast Guard-approved cruise ships to stop over and bring them here?
Isn't it obvious that he doesn't want them here any more than Bush did?  How
much of this lying do we have to take?  How many people are going to die
because of his next lie?

-- 
// John Townsend             "Lies, lies, tell     Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          me sweet little         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      lies..."                 ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342        -- Fleetwood Mac                 (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Fresh Air (was Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:01:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.202034.13025@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>|> > = (John Townsend) writes:
>|>
>|> >The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
>|> >of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
>|> >nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
>|> >the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
>|> >and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"
>|>
>|> No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
>|> ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
>|> less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
>|> century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
>|> defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>|> will of the people and acted immediately.
>
>What are you, an alcohol-o-phobe?  Don't you know that alcoholism is a
>predisposition just like homosexuality?  John Tower couldn't help being a
>drunkard.  He was simply living an alternate lifestyle.  Shame, shame on you!
>Surely you wouldn't want someone to be passed over for a job because they were
>exhibiting the lifestyle that they were born with a predisposition toward.
>
>Texas is just too progressive of a state.  First a recovered alcoholic US
>Senator, and now a recovering alcoholic Governor: Ma Richards.  Looks like we
>need to add a clause covering the civil rights of alcoholics to Teddy's
>homosexual civil rights bill, since the rest of the nation isn't so progressive.

(since Doug has been so kind as to inject a bit of humor, I'll buy in.)
From one Texan's viewpoint, good idea!  Goferit!  We do seem to have a few
of those "predisposed" folk getting into office.  And I'll just bet Sen K would
go for it, too.  (hasn't he shown a proclivity for the bottle?  Or did he get
that complexion from spending too much time on the beach?)  (can you get a
sunburn at night?)
:)

David
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13671 talk.politics.misc:69505
From: michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: "The Media doesn't tell me what to think"
Date: 24 Jan 93 03:02:51 GMT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US


There seem to be at least two major threads in
The Media (was Who weakening the Constitution)

The first is that the Media does have its own agenda.  Some
people pride themselves, rightly or wrongly, on the ability to
see through this agenda.  If 80% of the News is lies, distortions,
and unfair attacks, then it only makes sense that the 20% which
is honestly reported and discussed are arguments and facts which
support my position.

Quick perspective test:  How many of you see other people in
that description and how many see yourself?

There is a problem with statements ike, "Clinton's popular
support is an illusion by the Media.  His 'real' support isn't
that high."  If you surround yourself with only people of
a particular philosophy you tend to be surprised that certain
view are _not_ universally shared.

I have seen liberal college enviromentalists, who've never
seen a nuclear power plant, a coal mine, a forest industry.
They couldn't understand people who didn't reflexively
support their position on these matters, they didn't
like having to share the world with them.

I've seen rather more social conservatives who never made
the mental effort to understand and accept that the US
is not a CHRISTIAN NATION, in the sense that all moral
values derive from the Bible and the Word of God.


The other main thread is, "What _is_ the power of the Media?"

This has to be split still further into, what is the power
of Individuals and Corporations in the Media, and what is the
power of the interaction.

The second category is similar to the question,  What are
the powers/advantages of Capitalism/Pluralistic Democracy/
and this new Management Philosophy of Communication and
Human Resources that Clinton seems to be influenced by.
The Media is a living organism, under significant stress,
evolving, healing, changing the world around it.

Here I do not refer to the Media as only the producers,
but also the consumers, the public.
-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"I resolve to make no non-tautological New Year's Resolutions!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Deficit
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:12:14 GMT

In article <C1ALA4.EpB@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: In article <C18sw2.A51@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>: >Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: >: Deficit as percent of GNP doesn't tell us enough -- I wouldn't mind
>: >: a high percentage, just so long as the economy is growing faster than
>: >: the debt.  I'm going to use debt/GNP rather than deficit/GNP.
>: >: 
>: >: As percent of GNP, debt (rather than deficit) was steadily declining
>: >: from Truman to Nixon, levelled under Nixon, stayed level until Reagan,
>: >: and has been skyrocketing ever since.
>: >
>: >Why not consider debt to income ratio?  
>
>No, income is tax (and other) revenues.  About $1.2 Trillion in 1992.

But "tax revenues" tells us too little.  If taxes are 2% of GNP, then
there's lots of room to expand "tax revenues."  If taxes are a huge
proportion of GNP, there isn't.  If we need to include GNP in the
equation to make the "tax revenue" ratio tell us anything, then
we might as well use GNP, and cut out the middleman.

>If you really take GNP into account, you need to consider public AND
>private sector debt...

Be my guest.  But that's a different topic than the one everyone else
was talking about.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: asparrow@cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:19:36 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1993Jan25.215040.1073@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>What I find interesting is that this appointment was supposed to be ground
>breaking in that Baird would have been the first woman in the AG role. She
>was a good example of a woman balancing her career and family life. So
>what do they "get" her on? Her means of procuring child care so that she
>could further her career. I don't consider this a coincidence. The so-called
>family values types have always looked askance at daycare as an enabler of
>"the breakup of the American family," i.e., it allows mothers to compete
>in the workplace. I attribute the flap about her daycare to the same cause
>as the railing about Clinton's "draft dodging," pot smoking, whatever: it's
>the death rattle of the old order as it's fading from power. The
>hippie/yuppie/whatever-diminutive-you-like generation is here: get used
>to it. :-)
>

But Joe,
It's a classist thing.  I'd have had more
sympathy if they weren't making half a million a year!
My husband makes less than $20,000 and I can afford to stay 
home.  I do work, as a freelance writer.     

Mrs. Baird's going off and leaving an 8 month old baby 
so that she can work is pure selfishness.  If you want
to work, you work.  If you want babies, you don't
work unless it's a matter of survival (outside the home that
is).  I see her insistance on a career as sexist.  it contributes
to a devaluation of women's jobs by emphasizing that outside
work is more stimulating than the processof loving, guiding
and nurturing a little life.  

Having said all that, I believe we need a daycare system implemented.
We are the only civilized country without one.  It's
like our medical system.  It should not cost me more to work
outside the home than I would make.  (On a minimum wage job, all
that is available in this town, I would be going in the hole on
child-care.  If I work in the evenings when my husband is home,
it could damage our marriage.)

Get a clue!  There's a difference between reform and socialism.
Or is everyone too mired in dreams of the good old days of
the Industrial Revolution to see that?

Angel, not supporting Baird, but knowing what she did and why.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:50:46 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes ...
>>>*sigh* But what if you put them there in the first place!
>
>>Barring a few examples of people who've paid to have an embryo
>>implanted, most babies are not put into the women's uterus.
>
>Cute. What if you caused them to be there in the first place?

Caused them to be there?  I thought babies were one of the results of
a few eons of evolutionary development, and not because somebody
decided to "cause" a baby.  After all, if people _really_ caused
babies, then they'd have better control over just when babies were and
were not caused.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion