HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:50:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu


HOLD THE PHONE!!!  I thought the arms sales to Iran was to help in getting
our people out of Lebanon.  Am I wrong?  And the money going to the
Contras, congress already appropriated money to them.  It sounds like all
they are guilty of is over giving to the contras.

If the crime was ment to be benificial and doesn't hurt people, why wory
about it to this degree.  I mean congress use this excuse all the time. 
They do a no no and say it was in the best intrest of the people and it is
okay.

I dream of the day when the petty crimes that congress does are persued to
the degree this was.  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:04:17 GMT

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>|>     If the forces of the free market are beneficial in "everything else" 
>|> then why are they so noticably absent from national defense? I submit to 
>|> you that free market forces would have the exact same effect on national 
>|> education that they would have on defense - in a word, "chaos".

>Hmm.  Last I checked, we had the best damn military in the world, and it was
>precisely because the competition between the many private defense contractors
>has resulted in a significant technological edge over our adversaries.  You're
>not such a racist that you think Americans are just naturally smarter and
>better fighters than anyone else, are you?

    No, but I think you've changed the subject on me. We were previously 
discussing (and IMHO agreeing) that it would be very unwise to use more 
than one "defense provider" to serve the needs of our country. I have no 
qualms about the prospect of competition between providers of materials 
for use in education, however I have a big problem with the idea of 
taking money that is currently earmarked for public education and giving 
it indirectly to a bunch of private schools.

>IMO, the ideal solution to the education problems would be to completely
>privatize the entire system.  Schools could be privately operated, and paid by
>local and state governments out of tax monies on a per-student basis.  Some
>regulation, such as standardized testing, would be necessary, as it is with any
>public utility.  This really isn't much different in principle from the voucher
>system that President Bush proposed.

    I agree. That's why I would oppose that solution as well.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:01:35 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.fan.rush-limbaugh: 8-Jan-93 Re: Colorado
Amendment 2 by koppenhoefer cramm@uxh.c 
> Actually, the more legal rights a group has the less tolerant the general 
> public tends to be.  Two examples:  (1)  America has much less restrictive
> abortion laws than in Europe; however, Europe is much more tolerant of unwed
> mothers.  (2)  The Americans with Disabilities act requires a large number
> of handicapped parking places at new facilities, and I have heard a large
> amount of grumbling from people about the excess spots ( also noticed more
> non-handicapped using handicapped spots ).  The general feeling is 'well,
> you have your rights and will get nothing more' when rights are legislated.
> The black community is just one example of 'rights' gone astray.

I am fascinated by Mr. Cramm's logic.  Perhaps, we should just make
everything illegal and the general public will become amazingly
tolerant, and we can all live together in peace and love until the state
security officials come.
From: dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush's Pardons
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:06:49 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University


So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?  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 guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.

-Scott

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: The Plunder of China
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:12:17 GMT

In article <nate.1027@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    I was listening to Rush's first hour today and in his multi-cultural 
>update when he was reeling off the list of the many places that have been 
>savaged by Evil White Europeans he came to China and paused, commenting 
>that China wasn't actually one of those places "because there was nothing 
>there to plunder".

Historical inaccurcies, of the right or the left, are equally distasteful.
And even when done in jest, (as Rush loves to do), the humor is long
forgetten and only his statement remains, "...there was nothing there to
blunder."

Rush's statement is so far off the mark, that such a joke amongst an
audience with even basic history should have brought no more than a yawn.

The Porteguese establish Macao, the British Hong Kong, and both militarily 
forced the Chinese to trade the silk, teas, and other items prized in the west.
And what China especially had that the west wanted, was china.  That is 
Chinese Porcelein, which was far superior in quality, and artistic value than 
anything in the west.  This why there are museums in the US, and probably the 
rest of the world, that are dedicated solely to the acquisition and display of 
fine china.

I don't see even a hint of entertainment value in such whole joke.  On TV,
he can wink, throw up his arms and what demonstrate the fasecetiouness of
his statement, and that is mildly funny.  But on the Radio?  Hmmmn.
  
>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:35:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1Vc1wB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>I really love it when I see a liberal gnashing his teeth about someone
>"getting off on a technicality!". Warms my heart, it does.

Did you resort to "arguementum ad hominem" because you couldn't debate the
point or because you enjoy insults more than debate?

>> Walsh discovered a lot.  It's just been effectively reversed, or pardoned.
>
>He's discovered a nearly endless source of cash, if nothing else.


PSee above... your comments do not  address the point.

>Hey, if lying were a crime, can you name one, *one* politician who
>wouldn't be guilty of at least 100 counts? "Lying to congress" falls in
>the same category of "robbing a mugger".
>
>I'm not saying lying is right - the average politician - left or right -
>is a contemptible jackal with the morals of a cockroach - but. Lying to
>congress? I can't even say it with a straight face....

Okay, let me ask you to your twisted face:  do you think that we should
ignore all laws about perjury, lying to congress, and such?  If
so, there goes any pretense of this being a country of law.   Besides
note that the law is "lying to congress", not "lying to congresscritters".
Shouldn't we have some respect for the institution, if not the individuals.
For example, I have respect for the office of the vice president, even
if a boob currently occupies the chair.   And even if I think that the
VP is a boob, I shouldn't be exempted from laws which pertain to his
office (if there are any).


>I have more admiration for a man who is willing to be scorned by the
>whiners of an entire country in order to right something that he
>actually believes in, than I have for someone who votes for things that
>he knows are wrong simply for political gain.


At last, we agree on something.  I too have admiration for Walsh, who
is willing to ignore the whining of the republican party while trying
to right the wrongs committed by reagan/bush/quayle.



Humor aside,  the main 'arguement' you advanced was "they are doing it too",
which doesn't make it right for the White House to engage in the that
behaviour which you so rightly condemn in the congress.   You used the term
"robbing a mugger".   Even if the victim (?) is a mugger, that doesn't
excuse the robbery.  It is still a crime, and most lower court judges would
LAUGH at a defense plea "But your honor, the defendant was doing it as
a civil service!".
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:13:07 PST

In article <1993Jan6.183827.10033@wam.umd.edu>, on 6 Jan 1993 18:38:27 GMT,
rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>
>In article <1993Jan6.170030.15194@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>
>>It's incorrect because all the scientific evidence points to homosexuality
>>arising either from a genetic trait or from early-childhood experiences.
>
>     Sigh.  The tired old genetics argument.
>
>     Let me propose a reason why gays should be hoping that it is *N   OT*
>     genetic:  If it's genetic, it can be detected prenatally.
>
>     You know what happens to fetuses that have unwanted genetic
>     traits, don't you?
>
>     Although, I suppose then they'll make it illegal to abort for
>     sexulity selection (didn't they already try to make it illegal
>     for male/female sex selection and fail?).  Abortion is a right
>     except when it might abort a future gay person.

I think it more likely that we'd see a mass conversion of anti-abortion
folks to the pro-choice side from the religious right-wing than we
would a conversion from pro-choice to anti-abortion side by lesbigay
folks.

    =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 23:08:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.120430.19244@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>3) IMHO you are confusing the free exercise of religion with the compulsory
>exercise of religoin.  IMHO, people should be able to *voluntarily* pray in
>school.  But voluntary means just that: voluntary, and not an officially
>sanctioned event with time set aside specifically for the purpose of 
>praying.  I do believe that the 1st amendment allows, and indeed even would
>endorse, things such as before-school prayer groups as they are voluntary
>and not coercive.  But time set aside during the day for organized prayer
>is coercive because it sends students the message that *one specific creed*
>is officially sanctioned.  People who are against condom distribution claim
>(perhaps correctly, perhaps not -- I haven't decided) that such
>distribution gives official sanction to sex.  Please apply the same reasoning
>to school prayer.  Organized prayer gives official sanction to a particular
>creed, in violation of the no-establishment clause of the 1st amendment
>which the Founding Fathers themselves wrote.
>
Think again.  I can name at least 1 personal friend of mine in a court case
right now where the principal of the school was forbidding students to form
their own Christian Club on their campus.  This is only 1 case.  I can name
several other cases that don't involve personal friends of mine.

Secondly, teachers have been fired for participating in these types of
groups (and by the way are in court as well).  I can name this case as well
since it involves the same friend mentioned previously.  The teachers can't
exercise "voluntary involvement" either, even if it is after school.  The sad
thing is that the primary reason is that there are so many principals and
school boards that are afraid of the ACLU that they attempt to enforce
rules beyond what even the courts require just to make sure they are
"politically correct".

I agree to you in many ways.  I don't think setting aside a time for prayer
is right either, but forbidding any kind of "religious" talk in the school
on a voluntary basis should (and MUST) never be condemned.
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:30:24 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan5.090649.4861@memstvx1.memst.edu> dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?  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 guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
>party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.
>
>-Scott
>


That was more of a snide comments than a question :)

I don't believe they were fairly tried IMHO using the info that I have (I
may be wrong).  They were tried by a Senate hearing group but not under
the laws of the US Constitution.  I heard that they depleated the Statute
of Limitations on most of the cases.  Also I think the jerk prosecutor was
taking us for a ride by spending plenty of money on lavish hotel rooms,
food, travel expenses.  Hmmmm...  I think I now know where my Grandpas' social
security check is :)

If the trials were fair and things were done lawfully I would have a
problem.  However, I am glad that they are off the hook, hate to see
people get hit by a kangaroo court.  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: Not now, people are watching.
	<1993Jan4.212431.29208@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:11:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.212431.29208@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

   > = (Stephen A "Dysfunctional Family" Chaney) writes:
   >> = (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   >>[the usual Chaney woman-bashing, anyone-left-of-Attila-the-Hun-bashing
   >>deleted -- you've only seen this a few hundred times, already...PLH]

   >Coming from the race-bashing, anything-right-of-Jane-Fonda-hating
   >Lying Klansman from Texas.. 

   Say, StevDen: have your parents apologized for throwing your brother out
   of the house yet?  Have you gotten therapy for the probable psyche
   erasee you experienced?

Kinda late for that, don't you think?  After all, it must have been in his
infancy, back in 1980 or so...

   [...]
   >And of course you know I do not threaten people, and that you 
   >you yourself asked me to come down to Klansville to ask you for your 
   >apology to a racist comment you made to me. 

Where the bloody hell is "Klansville", I wonder?  Unfortunately for his
sense of geography, I live in the Sharpstown section of Houston.  

   Well, you told Patrick in e-mail that you'd "take care of him once and
   for all."

   What do you call that, Worm Meat?

I call it the straw that broke the camel's back at CSUS -- notice how he
took an unscheduled vacation immediately after sending me that love note?

   >		|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      | 
   >		|      |see just how much of a  |      | 
   >		|      |boy you are.  March     |      | 
   >		|      |your fat black ass down |      | 
   >		|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      | 
   >		|      |liar, to my face.       |      | 
		   Patrick Humphrey

  Meester Balsa Glider Chaney/Hall:

  You could save a lot of bandwidth by simply admitting that Patrick's
  challenge scared the SHIT out of you, probably made you tremble and cry.
  You're understandably frightened to DEATH of saying to someone's face
  the twisted garbage you post in t.a., and instead, like a little tyke behind 
  his (strange) mother's skirt, stick your tongue out at that big bully
  Patrick.     

Yeah, and he can't even do *that* in anything but a cowardly fashion -- it
didn't show up here in any newgroups we carry, which leads me to assume he
posted it to alt.rush-limbaugh, knowing I couldn't see it.  What a guy.
(Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though -- the way things are going
tonight at work, I can use a laugh or three...)

--PLH, at least I didn't shoot the TV after the Oilers debacle yesterday...

--
From: dodeca!clyde@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's email address at Compu$erve
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:25:50 GMT
Organization: Ameritec Corporation
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA11669; Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:56:45 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12811; Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:56:43 -0800
X-Received:  by dodeca.UUCP (UUPC/extended 1.11v);
           Fri, 08 Jan 1993 09:25:52 PST
X-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.usenet
X-Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


This is probably a FAQ but what's Rush's email address at Compu$erve?
Reply to me direct at cvisser@ucrmath.ucr.edu as I do not have 
usenet access.  Thanks!

crv
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: WHY DOES RUSH MISPRONOUNCE NAMES?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:42:55 GMT

ndasmith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Noah Smith) writes:

>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!

Because Cuomo complained that Dan Quayle had called him "Mario" to accentuate
his Italian background.  (this occured after Mario called Dan some very
childish things like "Danny Boy", apparently Mario thinks it's ok for him
to say things like that about Dan Quayle but Dan can't call him by his first
name).  Rush now calls Cuomo "Coo moh" so that he can't be labeled a racist
for bringing attention to Cuomo's italian background because that isn't the
way Cuomo pronounces it.  He just does it to make a point that Mario Cuomo
seems to be ashamed of his background and that Cuomo's position is 
ridiculous.



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11407 alt.rush-limbaugh:12914 alt.politics.clinton:19545 alt.politics.bush:15452
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: "One Nation, Indivisible" Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 4 Jan 1993 09:51 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <ghartzog.32cl@terapin.com>, ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartzog) writes...

|you should also take a look at many of our legal documents. Especially the
|Declaration of Independance (written by none other than Thomas Jefferson) which
|mention God. Look at many of the state constitutions as well. Look at the
|pledge of alliegence. Look at our currency ("In God we Trust"). I'm sure you'll
|notice one thing that's mentioned repetedly, "God".

	This is not to detract fromt he notion that there were 
G-d-beleivers among the US founders, but the word "God" was added to the
pledge of alliegence perhaps a century and an half after the US's founding.

	It originally ran: "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
(blah...balh...blah)"

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc