HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Date: 25 Sep 92 05:26:19 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

> In article <74wkRB2w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Bar
> >Well the subject was the 8th amendment and whether mild torture at the 
> >hands of prison guards violates the 8th amendment.  
> 
> If that were the subject, I wouldn't have flamed you.  However, the
> subject was whether Clarence Thomas ruled that the action of the prison
> guards was OK or not.  You continue to assert that Thomas ruled that
> the beating was OK, even while you submit as evidence for your point of
> view a Time article quoting Thomas' opinion that the guards' actions
> were deplorable.  That makes you either a subliterate or a liar.
> 
> >Pope Charles   Houston Pope Of The Subgenius Church
> 
> Oh, that explains it.  Too much slack; no wonder your fan belt is
> slipping.  Aren't you were supposed to *ignore* those alien orders?
> -- 
> Mike Van Pelt            Paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde,
> mvp@netcom.com           Go soak your head in a good strong insecticide,
>                          Slosh it around and impregnate your brain
>                          With dichlordiphenyltrichloroethane.


Nope!  The arguement that I was involved in was on the 8th amendment.
Clarence was for rolling back the Supreme Court's understanding of this 
point established in 1976.  Obviously this point is not where your mind 
is focused.  This is now one of those arguments where it is from here on 
out pointless flaming.  Let others take this or leave it as they may.
I don't see any point in bothering with ya no more, Dood!
And a mighty Arf!, Arf!, to you!

Pope Charles, Subgenius Pope Of Houston

Argue without me, I'm off to the races.

--
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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6257 talk.abortion:39561
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:53:30 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep22.013320.25605@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) advises Bruce Varney:
> 
> You know, of course, that Big Brother changed the meaning of "child" to fit 
> the "new" meaning, so that they could be discriminated against. 
> 
> Which makes you and I adamant thought criminals. 

Not at all.  You'd need to have thoughts.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:06:58 GMT

> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>You don't like the civilized tone I keep in my postingss??

WHO are you talking to, Simon?  Personally, I merely dislike your
*position* in your postings. 

But please include lines from the person you're replying to, or at least
the subject.  Thanks.

>So people should have their fun, and throw responsibilty out the
>window??

They'd better, once in a while, or they'll turn into unhappy, crochety 
people who finally realize they've had no real life.  Specifically WRT
abortion, if technology can easily terminate a pregnancy that is
unwanted, just what is the problem?  If a couple hadn't of had the sex
that got the woman pregnant, there would be no fetus ANYway.

Any such "contract" of "responsibilities" imagined by pro-lifers to be
required of pregnant women sounds suspiciously like some "god" thing.
The arbitrary "sacred life from conception" is purely subjective, so let
the subjects decide.

>No wonder I get flamed.

Simon, if your stance sounds pedantic and callous toward the woman
involved, then good net.manners helps you not at all.

>I can get flamed like the shuttle on reentry, but I'm not backing off.

No, I - won't back down
Gonna - stand my ground
You can get your kicks by pushing me around
But I - won't back down.

Hey, baby!
There ain't no easy way out.
Hey, I.....
Won't.  Back.  Down.
   - T.P. (possibly mangled :)
  

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Family Leave
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 17:59:25 GMT

In article <CGYQBCT5@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
...
>> organization.  School choice would, in effect, open up competition and
>> result in better schools.  
>
>NO.  School choice fails to solve the basic problem facing many inner city
>schools today.  Bush's proposals in his America 2000 "strategy" do exactly
>this:  they reward the schools that least need it, and punish the schools
>that are suffering from poor facilities, teachers, and programs.  Such a
>meritocracy system would just push inner city schools further down and make
>public schools in rich white areas better.  You can argue that school
>choice gives schools "incentive," but what good is incentive without access
>to good teachers, decent facilities, funding, even basic physical safety? 
>Inner city schools don't *want* to be hellholes; they are hellholes because
>the economic and social environment under which they are forced to operate
>systematically denies them.  Raising the stakes on bad schools in a game
>which is already stacked against them won't do diddly to help education in
>America.

I think you have well argued the socialist side of this issue, that equality
is the just goal.  What this really means is that to be equal we need to 
bring the bottom up and, this is the important point, bring the top down.
There is no other way to acheive an average, and in the end your scheme
has produced just that - average schools.

Your argument is an important side issue but what about the point of this
approach by Bush?  That is, giving individuals the freedom to choose the
destiny of their children.  Is the Pro-Choice movement limiting it's 
definition of what choices are availabe?  Need I point out that the
Constitution is a document about individual liberties?  I think that
giving parents the choice is more honorable than your version of
government coercion.

The public schools would still receive the same amount of funding as long
as the student population was maintained.  In order to maintain that 
population it might be necessary to bus (yikes!) children to public 
schools - is bussing now immoral?  Seems to me that the liberals were
all for it when it fit their ends - what goes around comes around.

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6083 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4680
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:41:19 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Distribution: usa
 <92268.165829KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <j2_phpa.madhaus@netcom.com>

In article <j2_phpa.madhaus@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
says:

>This is a joke, right?  He's kidding, right?  He just left out
>the little smiley-face, right?  He's making an ironic observation
>about the popularity of T2 with young people, versus the more
>adult audience of Murphy Brown, right?  He's cleverly mocking
>the conservative know-nothing types by just pretending he's
>being thick, right?

Yep.  Me and Dan Quayle, we work in tandem.

>Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
>Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Whatever.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Real estate decline
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:47:03 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep13.011339.4077@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
]
]	Nice allegory, *but* what you're not taking into account are other
]feeders.
]	Speculation drove out most of the demand for real estate, except for
]the speculators.  When the props fell out, even the speculators could no longer
]count on tax breaks to offset operating losses.

But what caused the speculation? Well...
   ...high inflationary expectations left over from the Carter era made
      leveraged investment the only way to protects one's assets
   ...high tax rates causing people to look for "tax shelters"
   ...S&L's too willing to lend money due to a combination of deregulation
      and deposit insurance

]	Now if this had been done (removal of tax breaks) in an economy where
]demand was not being driven by speculation, but by real, actual demand, then
]the prop removal would only have had a slight negative effect.  As it was, a

No, it would still have had a major negative effect. As someone who invested
in a tax shelter (limited partnership) during that time, I did a lot of
analysis. The value of a property is ultimately determined by its
total after-tax cash flow. Removing the tax deductions substantially
changed the after-tax cash flow, which drastically dropped the values
of the properties overnight. This is not speculation, but simply normal
rental property investment strategy. [By the way, I lost every
penny I put into that "tax shelter" as a direct result of TEFRA]

Also, the removal of passive loss deductions made real estate one of the
few businesses where you are taxed on your profits, but cannot deduct
your losses... which is a true travesty! Another thing I learned from
my analyses was that real estate was NOT a tax "shelter" - it was
a normal investment... with risks. If you invested wisely, and
the bozos in washington didn't change the rules, you would probably
make a reasonable profit. If inflation took off, you might make an
obscene profit. If inflation dropped, you might take a loss.
Tax shelter is a much overused term, and the perjorative way in which
it has come to be seen led to the current absurd treatment of
real estate investments.
]
]	Just another reason for variable interest rates, based on the type of
]equity being used for collateral.

But these have always existed. It's just that the deposit insurance
caused the rates to be lower than realistic, but they were still variable.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
From: brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush words!
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:53:01 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

Is anyone compiling a list of Rush's Lexicon?

Brian Pleshek
Brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Miami University, Ohio
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: abortion, child, fetus
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:54:47 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.201558.6773@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov
>(Chris A Lyman) writes:
>|stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>Oh, for-crying-out-loud!  I did.  I checked three different dictionaries.
>I wouldn't have said that if I hadn't.  What more do you want?

>|These are silly assertions, based on a non-standard definition of 'child.'
>|
>|	child - a young person, esp. between infancy and adolescence
>|
>|That's a standard definition.  Anything else?

>Yes, all three dictionaries included as part of the second definition
>"unborn offspring".  Some also included "fetus".  Haven't you ever heard
>the phrase, "she is with-child"?

Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus, Concise Edition:

Child n  A very young person; a son or daughter; one connected with a 
person, place or state by resemblance (eg a child of the devil, of the
east, of shame), a youth of gentle birth, esp. in ballads, etc (arch.)
childe; - pl children, offspring, descendants.....

Let's see that 3 that say "unborn" and at least 2 that don't....gee,
I wonder if dictionaries are written by humans, and, consequently 
reflect some of the writers biases.....nayh....

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

>This point is not arguable.  

Sure looks like it is to me.... 

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: All right! My fingers are killing me!
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:22:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

    Trial lawyers' favorite piece of legislation.

>Drug users must face punishment, including
>fines and imprisonment, for contributing to the
>demand that makes the drug trade profitable.
    
    ....

>We believe the unborn child has a fundamental
>individual right to life that cannot be in-
>fringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a
>human life amendment to the Constitution, and
>we endorse legislation to make clear that the
>Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to un-
>born children.

    Why just the 14th? 


>....................................... We reaf-
>firm our support for appointment of judges who
>respect traditional family values and the sanctity
>of innocent human life.

    Republican litmus tests. ...


>The choice is clear between George Bush,
>who vetoes tax increases, and his opponent, who
>proposes a $I50 billion tax increase.

    ...

>Crippled by environmental rules and taxes
>independent producers have been devastated and
>major companies are moving operations overseas.
>We will reverse that situation by allowing access
>under environmental safeguards, to the coastal
>plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, pos-
>sibly one of the largest petroleum reserves in our
>country, and to selected areas of the outer conti-
>nental shelf (QC). We support incentives to en-
>courage domestic investment for onshore and
>QC oil and gas exploration and development, in-
>cluding relief from the alternative minimum tax
>credits for enhanced oil recovery and geological
>exploration under known geological oil fields and
>producing geological structures, and modified
>percentage depletion rules to benefit marginal
>production. We will ensure that royalty payments
>on federal lands remain consistent with changing
>economic conditions.

    Here's one special interest group worth protecting.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:57:04 GMT

mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>It shows that Bush raised taxes 178 times in 3-1/2 years, as opposed to
>
>Make that 189 for Bush. His 1993 budget contains 11 new tax increases 
>despite his I'll-never-raise-your-taxes-again-Ever-EVER! penitence.

But, as noted former-economist Sen. Phil Gramm points out, the Bush budget
was submitted BEFORE the president's "no more new taxes ever ever" pledge. 

Gotcha!

(He really said this in Dallas yesterday.)

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:32:40 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <13338@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Individual rights is one part of the liberal equation- the other part is
>the role of government to guarantee those rights.  The breakdown occurs
>when individual rights are divorced from individual responsibilities.
>
>Elected officials who are "personally opposed" to a controversial issue,
>and do not want to "impose their moral views on others" see no problem with
>imposing these moral views to increase taxes on individuals who do not want
>such an increase.
>
>In the real world, the liberal consensus is not merely the guarantee of
>individual rights, but the guarantee of those individual rights deemed
>proper... by liberals.  What is deemed proper, of course, is a value judgement, which may or may not be agreed upon by each individual affected.  Thus the fatal flaw of
>liberalism, a reductio ad absurdum.

If your substitute conservative for liberal in the above discourse, I
think you'll find that it is equally appropriate.

John (none of the above)
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6189 alt.politics.bush:7156 alt.politics.clinton:7766 alt.politics.elections:14636 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6066 talk.politics.misc:48580
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:22:06 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John Viveiros) writes:
|> For all you Rush lunatics out there:  Is Rush stupid, or is he 
|> just deceptive?
|> 
|> On today's show, he spouted off about how poor George is being 
|> unjustly hurt by this debate fiasco.  He asked "Who is on this
|> *bipartisan* (slimy sarcasm omitted) debate commission.  
|> [Irrational diatribe about overpaid, underworked commission 
|> members omitted]"  Do any of you think that Rush would fail to
|> check the names of the committee?  I guarantee he's looked into
|> it and found that it doesn't include Sen. Metzenbaum, Anita Hill
|> or Ted Kennedy, or he would have been quick to mention it.  
|> Discriminating Rush listeners have to realize that his reluctance
|> to state the names of this committee is because he can find no
|> fault with the membership.  Either that, or Rush is too stupid
|> to check up on the facts, something I don't believe.
|> 
|> Real conservatives -- great, need more of them.  Limbaugh's, Robertson's
|> and Buchanon's; go find somewhere to spend the next four years, because
|> I (and quite a few people I know) refuse to vote for any party that
|> embraces you.
|> 
The co-chairman of the bipartisan debate commission is Gerald Ford.
A real liberal out to unjustly hurt George Bush.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:21:12 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

mpf1@ra.msstate.edu (Morris P. Fields) writes:

> 	I need help finding a radio station that carries his show in the 
> Starkville, Mississippi area.

No, you only think you do.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle)
Subject: TV show + Miscellaneous Stuff
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:20:48 GMT

    I caught Rush's TV show last night and had a couple of comments to
toss out. I thought that the format had improved somewhat and Rush
seemed more at ease, but I still think he needs to get better at using
visual cues. 

    For instance, I would have said that it would have been better to
have the video shots of Hillary Clinton and Magic Johnson shown behind
his shoulder as more of a parody of evening news programs.

    As far as Hillary Clinton's statement about Rush playing fast and
loose with the facts, I thought he did a pretty good job of disputing
the one case in which he thought she was criticisng him. Unfortunately I
thought that he undermined his case when later in the broadcast he
referred to General Schwartzkopf as "the most important American general
of this century". I have no doubt that the heirs of McArthur or Patton 
would take exception to Rush's statement, as would the Democratic
leadership in reference to Rush's passing statement describing Ted
Turner as "a leader of the Democratic party". Prominent member yes,
leader no.

    I was a little disappointed to see that Compuserve didn't run a
commercial during last night's show. Presumably it was a temporary
lapse as I'm sure Rush would've mentioned losing as important a sponsor
as CIS.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6171 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6051 talk.politics.misc:48542 alt.flame:13119
From: mcgead@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Fan
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.090304.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> gardwt@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>I just want to say that I am very happy that there is someone out there that
>sticks up for the Republicans. The damn media is so BIASED!!!!
>Tom Brokaw is so damn unfair it make me SICK!!!!!
>And, that idiot from CBS is still bitter because Bush made him look
>like an idiot! They are all out to bash him....
>
>LONG LIVE RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!!!!

In the dictionary, the definition for dittohead is 'see above'.

-- 
Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!
Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: Bush wargames prove deadlier than Billy's Nerf football
Date: 28 Sep 92 04:20:21 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

Fascinating article...... one quibble though.

As another American male born south of the Mason-Dixon line (just barely)
it is an affront to even associate the words NERF and FOOTBALL in the
same sentence.  Football, even sand lot and backyard variety, is played
with inflatable pigskinsor suitable mega-polluting synthetic substitutes.

If Clinton used NERF, he deserves to lose the respect of all southerners,
nay, all americans.  NERF isn't football.

:-)  :-) :-) for the humor impaired.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame