HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:23:14 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.204843.20175@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>abortion the killing of that child.

Oh, dear. Cattle have brainwaves. Killing a cow is killing a child. Hinduism's
taboo against killing cattle finally makes sense...


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Keywords: A slight trend
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:23:26 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:
>Listening to Rush today, I noticed that he was taking a poll on who is 
>lining up for who for the election.

>Well, the count was still under way but, his poll showed a 91% run for Bush, a
>4% + for Willy, and a 4% + for the Parrot.

>Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yeah, I considered calling in for Clinton for a whole 30 or 40 
nanoseconds before it occurred to me that it would be a complete waste of 
money. As far as I'm concerned I'd that the more dittoheads who get the 
idea this race is going to be a shoe-in for Bush the better.

>Al Conte

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bdewey@grok116.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Bob Dewey)
Subject: Re: List of speeches
Organization: NCR Corp., Columbia SC
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:38:04 GMT

In article <5892@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>So far this is my "election 92 texts" directory listing:
>Saved from posts on the above newsgroups. Credit is given to submitters
>in appropriate speeches.
>
What abouut Ross Perot's speach to the NAACP?
>
>I probably have other "texts" in other directories. Requests should be
>sent by email, and additions are always welcome.
>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
>I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
>good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:16:47 GMT

In <1992Oct16.175818.22005@rchland.ibm.com>, Jared Dahl writes:

>In article <92290.28077.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.L
>[stuff deleted]
>|> That last sentence was the Reader's Digest condensed version of Karl Marx.
>|> Pick it up at bookstores in Havana, Beijing, and Berkeley.
>
>What's wrong with Berkeley.  I can get it here in Minnesota.
>Does that make Minnesota a communist hotbed?  I doubt it.
>It's called freedom of the press.  Get used to it.

Actually, that sentence I wrote should have had a smiley after it, but I'll
take the flames because I honestly forgot it.

>|>And *who* is defining what a PROBLEM is?  And *who* decides how it should be
>|> SOLVED?  I'm doing things which I consider solutions, but you wouldn't like
>|> them, since the recipient has to help him/herself to some degree.  What a
>|> horribly insensitive thought!

>I am all for people helping themselves, because I have seen
>what welfare can do to a person.  I also have seen what two
>years without a job can do to a person.  The point is is that
>you are DOING SOMETHING that might help people.  Rush isn't.
>He does nothing towards a solution, not even proposing ideas.
>Rush just criticizes anything that frightens him.

Rush does tend to criticize rather than propose solutions.  I think he tries
to leave policy to his favorite conservative politicians.  And you are right
about the welfare state.  It needs a major overhaul, but not eliminiation.
There are too many disincentives to get a job or save money in the current
welfare system.  The "safety net" has turned into a hammock for some.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
**************************************************************************
"The word 'politics' comes from the Greek root 'poly,' meaning many, and
'tics,' meaning blood-sucking parasites." -- Andre Marrou
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:20:24 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct15.170557.21166@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> 
> Ken <kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu> writes:
>>I will try for one last time!
> 
> And fail again!
> 
>>Draft--> Clinton said he never got a draft notice. When it was produced, 
>>he said he forgot. I would not call getting a draft notice a minor experience,
>>especially for one tryint to avoid getting one.
> 
> OK. So you find it hard to believe that he actually had forgotten it. I
> don't. I am only a couple of years younger than Clinton and was also sweating
> out the draft in 1969. I don't remember everything that happened to me then,
> including some important things.
> 
> And he wasn't trying to avoid getting one. How could he receive one if he
> wasn't eligible to receive one. What he did to avoid being drafted, also
> all perfectly legal, was done after he had received the induction notice.
> 
>>Marijuana--> I don't think this is a big deal. As I have said before, Gore
>>and also Thomas admitted to trying it and that was all. The problem with 
>>Clinton when he was asked, his first response was I never broke any US laws.
>>A slick way of avoiding the question. No he did not break any US laws, he
>>smoked in England.  He did not answer the question honestly the FIRST time
>>as you suggest, only after he was caught in a half truth.
> 
> The first time Clinton was asked the question, it was not posed direct
> enough to force him to tell his exact experiance with marijuana. He answered
> the question as any politician would. When asked a DIRECT question on
> the matter, he answered it DIRECT and TRUTHFULLY. He did not answer truthfully
> then because he had been "caught" in any "half truth". Sorry, I don't see it
> that way.
> 
> -- 
> Zack Sessions
> sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
> University of North Carolina at Wilmington
> "Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."



Believe what you want Zach, if it was all so legal, why did Bill dodge
the questions.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: phil@meaddata.com (Phillip Jacobs)
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:27:29 GMT

In article <2566.339.uupcb@eabbs.uucp>, neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
|> What will happen in four weeks when Clinton is elected?  Will Rush admit
|> that he's wrong and that Reagonomics were wrong?  Boy, wouldn't it be
|> great to see Rush go away and someone intelligent like Ray Taliaferro
|> take his place?  I'd like that....
WHY??????????????---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>         

-- 
Phil Jacobs                                                   (513) 865-7743
Mead Data Central       In a hundred years       System Evolution & Modeling
P.O. Box 933          This all won't matter!               phil@meaddata.com
Dayton, Ohio  45401      -jimmy buffett-             ...!uunet!meaddata!phil
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7044 talk.abortion:41837
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:51:01 GMT

Yay!  Simon finally figures out how to quote an article in his post!

Now, if we could only get him to trim down the article instead of
including ALL of it...

>So you see, there are better alternatives.   Pro-choice people don't
>like to hear about about it.

Alternatives like abstainance and using health care plans to toss
money at a woman who doesn't want to have a baby?

Um, yeah, better not suggest those too loudly, or else people will
just *flock* to your cause...

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:08:18 GMT

In article <98654@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:

>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.

Not.

>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really

Actually, it's a Time from many months ago.  Bush just violated the
copyright to use it in his campaign.

>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and

Of course, no one trusts Bush to be President, either.

>the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
>his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated

He did not look like an extremist.  And he didn't run away from his
book.  He corrected misstatements by both Stockdale and Quayle.

>with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?

Why is this bad?  And when did Gore exaggerate?

>This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

You're right.  While Dan didn't make himself look as stupid as he usually
does, he came off as immature and foolish.  He didn't say one
substantive thing in defense of Bush/Quayle.  He spent his entire time
lying about Clinton and Gore's records.

It was obvious that Gore was the only candidate prepared to be up there.
It was obvious that Gore was the only one of the three prepared to
assume the presidency if necessary.  That's what the vice presidency is
about, and by that standard, Gore won big.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7682 alt.politics.clinton:11103 alt.politics.bush:9581
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:37:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <lefty-131092175136@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.200611.15344@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>
>> In article <1992Oct13.084801.7428@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> >
>> >Is this some more of those "family values" the alleged pro-life
>> >Republicans are talking about?  "on the spot execution", "death penalty",
>> >and all for just standing around an abortion clinic.  Damn, Jesus would be
>> >proud.
>> >
>>>No, just a proposed work of "futuristic" fiction.  Not reality, although
>> I get the feeling that some people here think it is real.
>
>Hey, I get the distinct impression that some other people would like it to
>be.
>
>No fucking smiley, Simon.
>
You mean, like this-  :-)  :-)  :-) :-)   :-)

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:45:21 GMT

[Regarding the allegations and innuendos made by Rep. Dornan about Clinton's
activities in the Soviet Union during 1969, in response to the question:]

>>      Is this the individual the American people should send to
>> The White House?

John Deke replies:

>No, but unfortunately I don't think people seem to care.

I care. I care very much.

> After all, everyone
>is willing to vote for this guy despite the fact that he's a dope smoking

He admitted to trying marijuana once. That makes him "a dope smoker"? Clarence
Thomas admitted to trying marijuana in college also, and President Bush
dismissed the statement as unimportant.

>draft dodging

Accusing Clinton of "draft dodging" due to his activities to avoid being
drafted is a matter of opinion. He did nothing that most all draft age
men during the Vietnam war did. Only 10% of all draftable men during the
Vietnam draft were actually drafted. At least Clinton had the gonads to
express his discontent and disagreement with the US involvement in Vietnam
and do something about avoiding being a part of the madness. What bugs me
is someone like Dan-o who supported the war yet pulled strings to get into
a special National Guard unit which was guarenteed to never go to Vietnam.
(Less than 1% of all Guardsmen ever went to Vietnam, but I guess old Dan-o
wasn't taking any chances, eh?)

> tax raising

I assume you are referring to rasing taxes in Arkansas as its Governor. It
is pretty hard to balance a state budget with national inflation growing
every year without raising SOME taxes. And it has been shown how ludicrous
the claims of "raising 128 different taxes" claims were. Need I elaborate,
or have you been on this planet for the last few months?

> adulterer (sp?).

Claims of adultery were never proven. They remain the unsubstantiated,
uncorroborated claims of someone who was paid big bucks from a supermarket
tabloid for her story.

> Why should we expect them to be
>bothered by the fact that he was leading anti-American rallies all over 
>Europe

More unsubstianted claims. There is absolutely no proof of these claims
whatsoever.

> and talking to KGB agents?

More unsubstantiated claims. No proof whatsoever.

> Why should we expect them to be concerned
>about having a president who could not serve on intelligence committees 
>because he can't pass the security checks?

Why should we be listening to anything you have to say when it is all a
bunch of lies and political innuendo?

>     Sadly, I just don't see how we can reasonably expect the American public
>to show any intelligence and vote against this governor from Arkansas.

On the contrary, every vote for Clinton is an intelligent choice.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:22:15 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department

In article <1992Oct7.141705.3145@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>
>Since when did the President have the authority to make the laws of this
>country?  I guess that if an activistic Supreme Court can confer such authority
>on itself, an activist President might as well exhibit equal disregard for the
>Constitution and do the same.  Note that Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion;
>it merely struck down laws made by duly elected representatives of the states.
>
>-- 
>// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
>// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
>// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
>// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 


    On the contrary, Roe and subsequent decisions _mandated_ that abortion
on demand be legalized.  The understanding before those decisions was that
states could legalize or illegalize abortion as they saw fit, but the Court
instead _required_ the states to legalize abortion.  



John Rickert					There are two sides to
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		everything.  Then again,
						maybe not.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6901 alt.activism.d:3662 alt.politics.elections:15703 talk.politics.misc:50389 talk.abortion:41447
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:44:27 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

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

> Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
> pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
> instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
> did so, neither would I!

William, you must do very well with the ladies: "But if we don't have
sex tonight then our child will never exist."

John
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6800 alt.activism.d:3618 talk.abortion:41208
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: child, fetus, offspring
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:44:04 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1061@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>In article <1992Oct02.042824.158278@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1054@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>> Look up the word "child".  You will find nothing about a soul.  A fetus is
>>> by definition a child.
>>
>>Depends on the dictionary.

>No it doesn't.  You're perfectly correct that some dictionaries (especially
>abridged ones) don't explicitly include the words "unborn" or "fetus" in
>the definition of "child" (although most do).  However those that don't,
>like "American Heritage Dictionary", don't exclude the unborn in their
>definition, i.e. that don't say "born offspring", they just say
>"offspring".  Are you going to tell me that the fetus isn't an offspring
>too?  He most certainly is.

    Surely a fetus is offunspring? BTW, isn't it anazing how all the
feti in RTL scenarios are always male? That wouldn't be significant
would it?

   Naahhh.


                                                               MP
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7103 alt.activism.d:3769 alt.politics.elections:16115 alt.politics.bush:8640 alt.politics.clinton:9726 talk.politics.misc:50921 talk.abortion:41977
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:15:46 GMT
 <1992Oct11.152434.17046@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct11.152434.17046@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

> I believe every individual -- born or unborn -- has the potential to
> make a negative impact on society."  You never know if that clump
> of cells in a woman's body is going to become the world's next
> politician, lawyer, mass-murderer, or Klan leader.

Then this argument boils down to your basic view of human existence. Do
you believe that humans are inheritly good, or inheritly evil? I
believe the former.

I happen to respect the pro-choice argument, even if I rabidly disagree
with it... except when it is taken to an extreme!

Frankly, I also don't like it when Operation Rescue does what it does.
It only causes the media to label pro-lifers as being "like" these
activists, while most pro-life people I have met are not nearly as
rabid and offensive. Operation Rescue only hurts the pro-life cause,
IMO.

Pro-lifers, for the most part, aren't "hateful", as someone else said.
I don't hate anybody. (I dislike people, though. 8)

--------------------------------------------
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:39:38 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>And once it's done, all you'll have to do is get anyone to actually
>>_read_ it.  I, for one, am not likely to bother.
>>
>Oh,well, you'll miss some good literature :)  Int's just science fiction--
>one of the stories I was inspired by was written by Ray Bradbury.

Ah, so now some "novel" not even written yet, with a trite adolescent
fantasy for a story line, by some first-time unknown author, is suddenly 
"good literature" to be compared with the works of Ray Bradbury?

Either your ego is too much to be believed, or you're even stupider
than you sound.  I may have grown up in the suburbs, but even I'm
not dumb enough to buy into that one.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:06:45 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
?palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
?> I really wish I had the ability to note a fact and instantly deduce the
?> evidence without a shred of proof. Could it be that the attacks on Anita
?> Hill faded while her testimony did not? Could it be all the politicians
?> who were on the committee running for cover? Perhaps there has been a shift
?> in bias from for conservatives to against conservatives due to shifts in
?> the economy?
?
?Question for the conservorrhoids: Why has Clarence Thomas hidden from the
?public since his confirmation? Could it be that he finds it painful to
?keep telling the same lie? Could it be for the same reason he could not
?bring himself to call Hill a liar, even though he was prompted in that
?direction by the Senators many times?

Point one: wasn't that covered in some issue of _Newsweek_ a few weeks
ago?

Point two: why doesn't Teddy Kennedy address Chappaquidick?

Point three: would you have enough time to act beneath your position as
a judge or a Supreme Court Justice going around calling someone who
testified against you a liar? I don't know too many SCJs who do
interviews. That is until they retire. [Only Thurgood Marshall
interviewed, but he didn't go about it every single week on the talk
show circuit.]

Point four: If Justice Thomas goes on the attack against Anita Hill, how
would you respond? "Oh, he's trying to kick that poor, innocent soul
even more!" <<<Outpour of sympathy on the part of liberals and the news
media while the rest of the country wonders in amazement how trivial we
can all get about things now.>>>
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.